4 ms·

This is the source they are using: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspe

by 99_00 6y ago

This is the source they are using: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Does lazard include subsidies in their numbers or not? I can't figure it out. I'm having trouble making sense of the lazard report, but to me it seems that it does, and ourworldindata.org is using their numbers while claiming they are without subsidies.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bryanlarsen 6y ago
It doesn't matter. The subsidy is 22% and the gap is more than 22%.
reitzensteinm 6y ago
I don't have time to check that report in particular, but past Lazard studies have included both subsidized and unsubsidized figures side by side. And as Bryan says in the sibling comment, there's not a large gap between the prices. Residential solar was heavily subsidized in many countries but wind and utility scale solar aren't as much, and they're also the cheap ones. If they're not clearly marked, you may need to hunt down another with more detail.
- 99_00 6y ago
  What does this mean? >Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 14.0) shows that as the cost of renewable energy continues to decline, certain technologies (e.g., onshore wind and utility-scale solar), which became cost-competitive with conventional generation several years ago on a new-build basis, continue to maintain competitiveness with the marginal cost of selected existing conventional generation technologies. I assume new-build is building a wind for or nat gas plant. What is marginal cost? Is that adding capacity to a wind farm or nat gas plant, or just having an existing nat gas plant generate more power per day. Are they basically saying that renewables are competitive when capital costs are included and also when capital costs are excluded?
  - reitzensteinm 6y ago
    Yeah, they're saying that it's cheaper to build renewables than continuing to run fossil fuel plants. The marginal costs are for additional power once you own the plant. I believe around 80% of the lifetime cost of a fossil fuel plant is the fuel itself, so even if you're gifted a plant for free it may not be economical to run. The fly in the soup is intermittency, but grids are generally able to absorb more renewables (wholesale price dropping below 0 is the indicator saturation has happened). And electric cars are going to mean a bunch more dispatchable demand and eventually V2G.
epistasis 6y ago
Every slide will say unsubsidized or subsidized; generally Larard reports focus only on the unsubsidized cost.

by 99_00 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bryanlarsen 6y ago

It doesn't matter. The subsidy is 22% and the gap is more than 22%.

reitzensteinm 6y ago

I don't have time to check that report in particular, but past Lazard studies have included both subsidized and unsubsidized figures side by side. And as Bryan says in the sibling comment, there's not a large gap between the prices. Residential solar was heavily subsidized in many countries but wind and utility scale solar aren't as much, and they're also the cheap ones. If they're not clearly marked, you may need to hunt down another with more detail.

99_00 6y ago
What does this mean? >Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 14.0) shows that as the cost of renewable energy continues to decline, certain technologies (e.g., onshore wind and utility-scale solar), which became cost-competitive with conventional generation several years ago on a new-build basis, continue to maintain competitiveness with the marginal cost of selected existing conventional generation technologies. I assume new-build is building a wind for or nat gas plant. What is marginal cost? Is that adding capacity to a wind farm or nat gas plant, or just having an existing nat gas plant generate more power per day. Are they basically saying that renewables are competitive when capital costs are included and also when capital costs are excluded?
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  Yeah, they're saying that it's cheaper to build renewables than continuing to run fossil fuel plants. The marginal costs are for additional power once you own the plant. I believe around 80% of the lifetime cost of a fossil fuel plant is the fuel itself, so even if you're gifted a plant for free it may not be economical to run. The fly in the soup is intermittency, but grids are generally able to absorb more renewables (wholesale price dropping below 0 is the indicator saturation has happened). And electric cars are going to mean a bunch more dispatchable demand and eventually V2G.

epistasis 6y ago

Every slide will say unsubsidized or subsidized; generally Larard reports focus only on the unsubsidized cost.