Value chain · CLM-1349
In plain terms
NASA's report does print how much electricity each design is credited with, in its cost tables, and its carbon figures follow from those amounts exactly. An earlier reading that it had left out one design's part-time operation was wrong.
The claim as recorded
NASA OTPS prints a per-design lifetime energy denominator in its cost appendix (Table 11: "Lifetime kWh" 533,166,365,206.45 for RD1 and 531,368,057,222.62 for RD2, with capacity factors of 0.997 and 0.6 on the rows above), and its printed greenhouse gas intensities reproduce from it exactly: 14,168,937,583.09 kg / 533,166,365,206.45 kWh = 26.58 gCO2eq/kWh and 21,455,562,918.45 kg / 531,368,057,222.62 kWh = 40.38. The capacity factor is therefore inside the carbon denominator. The near-equal denominators follow from Table 4's power delivered, which already includes the capacity factor (2,028.79 and 2,021.95 MW); RD2's pre-capacity-factor chain is about 3,370 MW against 2,035 MW for RD1 (our arithmetic).
Evidence behind this: T0-analysis: a consistency check of one report's printed tables; it derives no new value.
Scope and limits
A consistency check, not a check of NASA's inputs. Table 23's generic "~2,000,000 kWh * 30 * 8760" row multiplies kWh by hours as printed and is an illustration, not either design's denominator. 'Lifetime kWh' occurs once in the text layer, at PDF p.68 in the cost appendix, so a search of the greenhouse gas appendix missed it.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.68: "Hours in a year 8760 8760 Lifetime kWh 533,166,365,206.45 531,368,057,222.62"; PDF p.88 Table 24: totals 14,168,937,583.09 and 21,455,562,918.45 kgCO2eq, intensities 26.58 and 40.38; PDF p.53 Table 4: "Capacity factor (% of year generating power)" 0.997 / 0.6 and "Power delivered (MW)" 2028.791344 / 2021.948467 (via VER-960). Arithmetic: 26.5751 and 40.3780; power delivered x 8,760 x 30 reproduces 533.17e9 and 531.37e9 kWh (ours).
Basis: kWh over a 30-year life; gCO2eq per kWh
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
- Supersedes
- CLM-0848 not published in this releaseCLM-0859 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1349
CLM-1349, Energy Aperture, as of 2024-01.
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.
- Cited in articles