Value chain · CLM-0849
In plain terms
The range of 13 to 43 grams that NASA compares its satellites against comes from one US laboratory's dataset, and the two ends are the middle values for two different technologies, wind and solar, not the spread of possible values for either.
The claim as recorded
The 13 to 43 gCO2e/kWh terrestrial renewable range against which NASA places its own 26 and 40 gCO2e/kWh results derives from a single source, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Lifecycle Assessment Harmonization effort, and represents the spread of that dataset's MEDIAN values across the five renewable technologies plotted, from wind at 13 to solar photovoltaics at 43, rather than the uncertainty band of any one technology.
Evidence behind this: RE-GRADED T3 to T5 on 2026-09-11, under the weakest-source rule: SRC-009 is graded T5. The claim's verbatim quote is confirmed at PDF p.9 (printed p.8), and Figure 6's full label set was recovered from the text layer - twelve technologies from tidal at 8 to utility-scale solar PV at 43 gCO2eq/kWh - which supports both the provenance statement and this record's own flag that tidal sits BELOW the quoted lower bound of 13. One distinction to keep straight: the 26 and 40 gCO2e/kWh attributed to NASA are NOT SRC-009's own results. SRC-009's SBSP figures are 40 and 36 for the mature planar array and 27 and 22 for the innovative heliostat swarm. It corroborates the comparator set's PROVENANCE and is a different study with its own numbers, and a reader who conflates the two will attribute this paper's results to NASA.
Scope and limits
A comparator drawn from one dataset cannot be checked against that same dataset, which is why the independent comparator at CLM-0854 matters. The same NREL-derived set includes tidal at a median of 8, below the quoted lower bound of 13, so the "13 to 43" framing is a selection from the underlying data rather than its full extent; that is flagged, not asserted as an error, because the selection may be a deliberate restriction to the technologies NASA chose to plot. NASA's Figure 2 (PDF p.11, printed x) plots six: five renewable technologies plus nuclear fission, which is not renewable but which NASA files with them under its renewable label (PDF p.9; PDF p.22, printed 5). The five renewables alone run from wind at 13 to solar photovoltaics at 43; nuclear's median, 13, ties wind's (Table 25, PDF p.89, printed 72), so the 13 to 43 range is the same with or without nuclear. Comparing a modelled first-of-a-kind figure against harmonised medians for mature deployed technologies is not like for like on maturity.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
printed p.8 states independently: "The values used in Figure 6 were taken from the NASA report [23], which is based on data provided through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's LCA Harmonisation project [37]." SRC-009's Figure 6 renders the same comparator set as TIDAL 8, NUCLEAR 13, OFFSHORE WIND 13, ONSHORE WIND 13, HYDROPOWER 21, CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER 28, GEOTHERMAL 37, UTILITY-SCALE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAICS 43 gCO2eq/kWh.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0849
CLM-0849, Energy Aperture, as of 2024.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-009
- CLM-0182When two different research teams assessed the exact same 1978 space solar power design, the older accounting method (which spreads...CLM-0825The authors argue that the cost-based way of estimating carbon is too coarse for a custom-built industry like spacecraft, and they conclude...CLM-0826When the authors redid NASA's own 2024 figures for two satellite designs using their materials-based method instead of NASA's cost-based...CLM-0827The authors say NASA's 2024 carbon figures for two satellite designs came out of a model built on NASA's own cost estimates, and that NASA...CLM-0828The authors say ESA's own space life-cycle guidance advises against the cost-based method because it tends to overstate environmental...CLM-0829The authors leave alumina, black carbon and water vapour from rocket exhaust out of their own carbon study because the atmospheric effects...CLM-0830The authors say an environmental claim about a space technology counts for nothing unless a proper standardised life-cycle study backs it...CLM-0831This is a conference paper from October 2024 that does not claim to have been independently peer reviewed, states that it calculated no...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-012
- CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0123NASA's own 2024 study puts space solar power at 12 to 80 times the cost it expects in 2050 from power stations on the ground, a set it...CLM-0124NASA also found that if several things improve at once, rather than just one, space solar power does become cost competitive.CLM-0125On carbon, NASA found space solar power within the range of five renewable ways of making power on the ground (wind, solar, solar thermal...CLM-0144A NASA study found that launching everything into space is by far the biggest cost of a space solar power system, and that most of those...CLM-0192The full list of assumptions behind the headline result of NASA's 2024 study, that space solar power would cost far more than ground...CLM-0193To get to a competitive cost, NASA's own 2024 analysis needs launch costs to halve, solar cells to get much more efficient, satellites to...CLM-0240A from-scratch cost model of the "Innovative Heliostat Swarm" design gets almost the same electricity cost as NASA's own study: about 62...More on the source page.