Avoiding Greenwash in Reporting Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Space Solar Power: Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Versus Process-Based Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the global energy landscape seeks sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels, the concept of space-based solar power (SBSP) is beginning to be considered on an international level. In the context of SBSP’s emergence as a viable and sustainable energy solution, accurate and transparent assessment of its environmental footprint is essential. This paper outlines challenges concerning some of the common narrative around SBSP and presents some guidance to the SBSP community on how to avoid falling victim to greenwash when discussing the technology. Through case studies and methodological considerations, it will then go on to explore the advantages and limitations of the two main modelling approaches in the reporting of its life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, emphasising their applicability to the unique characteristics of developing Solar Power Satellites (SPS). In this regard, the paper will present a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the Innovative Heliostat Swarm and the Mature Planar Array SPS
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".