3 ms·

Lazards's cost figures are backward-looking, so not representative. As I already pointed out. Yet, generation + even those figures is still cheaper than buildin

• DennisP 5y ago
  Lazard is the one widely cited by renewables advocates attempting to make their case. You're the first person I've seen claim that it overestimates renewable costs. Can you point out where in the Lazard report it describes its methodology in a way that makes clear it doesn't reflect the cost of new renewable projects today? And reference a thorough study that shows lower-than-Lazard average costs for solar+storage today, not in some estimated future, and not with cherry-picked projects in ideal locations? And if that cost includes sufficient collection and storage to get through a windless night, like nuclear can do, that would be nice too.