That is the strangest analysis of energy costs I've ever seen. Things that are not accounted for in that analysis are (from pg. 1): - capacity value vs. energy

That is the strangest analysis of energy costs I've ever seen. Things that are not accounted for in that analysis are (from pg. 1): - capacity value vs. energy value (i.e. they're just assuming peak utilisation at all times, which is nuts) - costs related to distributed generation, congestion costs (? land?) - waste disposal (this includes nuclear) - intermittency and back-up generation costs (e.g. costs of energy storage, costs of intermittent gas peaker usage) - transmission costs (which get substantially larger in distributed and intermittent scenarios) - environmental externalities (e.g. air pollution, resource mining etc.) - system balancing costs (i.e. not having constant random brownouts) - PV generation assumed to all be in US Southwest And so on.... It's hard to draw any sensible conclusions from that analysis, given the assumptions made. They're even assuming piston engines will be used for gas and diesel plants that are sized to produce ~5000 GWh/yr. For reference, ~80% of the world's electricity is produced by steam turbines (not piston engines). EDIT: Putting all of that aside, if they're anywhere close to the mark with these numbers then wind looks like the clear and unambiguous winner. Also very surprising that solar PV on residential rooftops is claimed to be significantly more expensive than any option... I wonder what's driving the cost?