4 ms·
For the record, the (widely shared) Lazard LCOE graph has been _heavily_ criticised in energy circles. LCOE not being a reliable or useful information in itself
by steeve 3y ago
For the record, the (widely shared) Lazard LCOE graph has been _heavily_ criticised in energy circles. LCOE not being a reliable or useful information in itself.
Indeed, it compares apples to oranges, that is intermittent vs non intermittent sources.
- snake_doc 3y agoFor the record, it’s usually criticized dependent on the individual’s views on intermittent vs. non-intermittent… Just as green hydrogen is heavily criticized by skeptics vs advocates… It’s not criticized broadly by the entire energy industry…
- paganel 3y agoHaving Roland Berger as co-authors of this study is not very confidence-inducing, either.
- bjourne 3y agoCan you please link to some of that criticism? Lazard's numbers have been criticized because they make nuclear power look noncompetitive, but that doesn't mean that the numbers are wrong.
- Schroedingersat 3y agoYou see that's the thing though. From the nuclear stan's point of view nuclear is cheapest and best, and anything that contradicts that is wrong by definition.
- steeve 3y agoThinking tap water and rain water don't have the same value makes one a nuclear stan?
- Schroedingersat 3y agoTelling the same lies over and over again does.
- steeve 3y agoThey are not wrong, they are incomplete. For intermittent sources, you need to factor in not only storage, but also grid upgrades and interconnects. Somethings LCOE overlooks. It's the same thing as saying rain water is cheaper than tap water.