It’s almost universal for energy analysts to start by citing Lazard LCOE as proof that wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuels. All sorts of policy conclusions then flow from this starting point. Yet, the fine print on Lazard’s website states, “Analysis excludes integration (e.g., grid and conventional generation investment to overcome system intermittency) costs for intermittent technologies.” Citing Lazard LCOE is often a marker of biased analysis to follow.
1. LCOE are a fraudulent measure. It's literally meaningless in the process of delivering real energy to real consumers. Wind and solar advocates use LCOE because the real world measures (the things that help inform rational decisions about energy policy) show that, outside of niche needs, wind and solar are not a reasonable solution for providing energy to populations of people.
2. Your analogy about the bus vs. the car is welcome. Now, apply that concept to not just your individual desire to go somewhere at a particular time. Apply the concept to the hospital that needs power to ensure that emergency surgery can be done; the manufacturing plant that needs to be able to operate in a stable and predictable manner; the food distribution center that needs to ensure that it will have power for it's refrigeration needs; etc.
In a rational world, one would see that wind and solar are not additive to energy infrastructure. They are parasitic. They add needless complexity and costs to existing, stable, baseload energy needs that increase the risk of outage while adding nothing of value to the job of providing energy to customers in a rational manner.
It’s almost universal for energy analysts to start by citing Lazard LCOE as proof that wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuels. All sorts of policy conclusions then flow from this starting point. Yet, the fine print on Lazard’s website states, “Analysis excludes integration (e.g., grid and conventional generation investment to overcome system intermittency) costs for intermittent technologies.” Citing Lazard LCOE is often a marker of biased analysis to follow.
1. LCOE are a fraudulent measure. It's literally meaningless in the process of delivering real energy to real consumers. Wind and solar advocates use LCOE because the real world measures (the things that help inform rational decisions about energy policy) show that, outside of niche needs, wind and solar are not a reasonable solution for providing energy to populations of people.
2. Your analogy about the bus vs. the car is welcome. Now, apply that concept to not just your individual desire to go somewhere at a particular time. Apply the concept to the hospital that needs power to ensure that emergency surgery can be done; the manufacturing plant that needs to be able to operate in a stable and predictable manner; the food distribution center that needs to ensure that it will have power for it's refrigeration needs; etc.
In a rational world, one would see that wind and solar are not additive to energy infrastructure. They are parasitic. They add needless complexity and costs to existing, stable, baseload energy needs that increase the risk of outage while adding nothing of value to the job of providing energy to customers in a rational manner.