Value chain · CLM-0837
In plain terms
Although the study's headline number is about carbon, its own results show ozone damage is the far bigger relative problem, at about 32 per cent of a safe planetary limit against under 5 per cent for carbon, and almost all of it comes from exhaust released during the rocket launches.
The claim as recorded
SRC-016 finds ozone depletion potential, on a steady-state CML 2001 basis in kg CFC-11 equivalent, to be one of only two impact categories exceeding 5 per cent of the European Commission's planetary-boundary reference value, reaching 32.16 per cent of that boundary against 4.74 per cent for global warming potential, and states the ozone-depletion impact "stemmed almost entirely from exhaust emissions producing during the launch events which was responsible for 99.99% of the result", attributed to ClOx, HOx and NOx radical releases from cryogenic propellant combustion.
Scope and limits
The 99.99 per cent is a share of this model's own ozone-depletion result only. It is NOT a share of the model's global-warming result and not an absolute safety threshold, and the two impact categories must never be merged. The percentages against a "planetary boundary" reference are a normalisation choice made by the authors following Sala et al. 2016 and Rockstrom et al. 2009; they are not a regulatory or legal limit and carry no compliance meaning.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p.14: "it was found that all but two impact categories were within 5% of the planetary boundary value provided by the European Commission... These were ozone depletion potential (32.16%) and freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (11.76%)... the ozone depletion impact stemmed almost entirely from exhaust emissions producing during the launch events which was responsible for 99.99% of the result. This came from ClOx, HOx and NOx radical compound releases from the combustion of cryogenic propellant." Also p.14: "global warming potential represented just 4.74% of the planetary boundary for climate change." Table 4 p.13, Ozone Depletion Potential (Steady State) row: A+B 6.07E-01, C+D 1.67E+04, E1 1.73E+08, E2 3.77E+00, F 4.01E+02, TOTAL 1.73E+08 kg CFC-11 eq.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0837
CLM-0837, Energy Aperture, as of 2022.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-016
- CLM-0184This study's headline carbon-per-kWh figure for a UK space solar power programme leaves out the possible climate effect of soot and...CLM-0185In a 2022 life-cycle study commissioned by the UK Space Energy Initiative, the lightweight CASSIOPeiA design it used as an example for the...CLM-0832A UK-commissioned study modelled the whole planned 2022-2080 fleet of space solar power satellites and found that, spread across all the...CLM-0833This 2022 life-cycle study spells out exactly what it counted: the UK Space Energy Initiative's whole 2022-2080 roadmap, from early...CLM-0834The authors say their model does not count the soot and aluminium oxide that rockets release into the upper atmosphere, because the science...CLM-0835In a 2022 study, the research team compared its estimated carbon footprint per unit of electricity for a planned UK Space Energy Initiative...CLM-0836A 2022 life-cycle study set its estimate of 23.6 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour for the UK Space Energy Initiative's...CLM-0838The authors of a 2022 life-cycle study of the UK Space Energy Initiative's planned space solar power programme said that, if the whole...More on the source page.