Value chain · CLM-0851
In plain terms
NASA itself warns that its method assumes cost and emissions move together, which may not match what is actually measured, and that costs can fall without emissions falling; it describes the whole study as a first approximation and never states a carbon payback time.
The claim as recorded
NASA states of its own method that "EIO-LCA also has limitations... assumes a relationship between cost, efficiency, and emissions that may not always align with direct measurements of emissions by economic activity" and that "it is possible to reduce costs without mitigating GHG emissions of manufacturing", and repeatedly describes the study as a first-order assessment; the words "payback" and "net climate" do not occur anywhere in the report.
Scope and limits
This limitation is load-bearing for CLM-0850, because the favourable sensitivity case is built largely from cost reductions and steeper learning curves, and NASA's own caveat is that cost reductions need not carry emissions reductions with them. Any citation of the roughly 4 gCO2e/kWh best case must carry this caveat. The absence of a carbon payback statement rests on a word search of the whole report for "payback" and "net climate"; a statement worded differently would not be caught.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p.iii (PDF p.4): "EIO-LCA also has limitations. This methodology often uses spend-based metrics to estimate emissions, which assumes a relationship between cost, efficiency, and emissions that may not always align with direct measurements of emissions by economic activity." pp.12-13 (PDF pp.29-30): "though it is possible to reduce costs without mitigating GHG emissions of manufacturing." p.6 (PDF p.23): "This is a first-order assessment of notional systems: Cost and GHG emissions estimates are not exhaustive". p.21 (PDF p.38), on the hardware-cost sensitivity: emissions fall "because the EIO-LCA model assumes a relationship between cost, efficiency, and reduced emissions".
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0851
CLM-0851, Energy Aperture, as of 2024.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- 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.