Imagine a big bank with billions slathered all over the world in renewable energy boondoggles making a mistake. No waay. Why their work is impeccable! How dare you two Energy Bad Boys check their work! They want you two around them like they want a case of a nasty social disease. Couple of items to note, gas turbine order backlogs from the three major turbine OEM’s are between and 3 and 5 years out. With natural gas hovering around $2-4MMBTU it is likely that when the real costs of LOCE+ are recognized and the PTC’s and ITC’s have gone the way of quail (at least for a while) that wind and solar will no longer be the darlings of the dreamers in the development world. ISO New England’s CEO says he needs more dispatchable power, way to go Gordo! Have fun in the semi’s, as the main character in the movie Sling Blade identifies the problem, “ain’t got no gas in it..” so we to here in New England ain’t got no gas in it. Whatever will we do. Well we could call Rich Kinder and apologize, not likely and or get someone at Lazard to fudge some more wind and solar numbers for us so we can continue to drink renewable non dispatchable power hemlock, or we can just wait for winter and euthanize a broad swath of the population, (who needs kids and old people?) and reduce load further, there is no industrial load of any merit to speak of, so let’s just get rid of people. The outward migration plan to warmer climes of the population isn’t working fast enough for 5 of the 6 governors of the 6 New England states. One does wonder, now that Bill Gates has decided “climate change” isn’t quite the existential threat he has been saying it was, that maybe some adults will be found somewhere and a hyper drive to local SMR units is started. It has always amazed this writer living and working close by to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in seacoast New Hampshire, how we can have 2-4 hot small reactors aboard US Navy Attack Submarines at any given time, but Seabrook Station is an existential threat to our civilization. Oh well, one of life’s mysteries, we will just have to wait and see how it all resolves. As that great reporter at large and pundit Dan Rather used to sign off the nightly news cast in his short lived gig as Walter Cronkite Jr, “Courage!” Yep, courage will keep the lights on and the gas flowing into residential homes and small businesses. Keep after it guys, you have Lazard on the run!
after Three Mile Island, when I was at MIT, every weekend a group of students would bus up to Seabrook to protest the nuclear reactor there all the while ignoring the operating nuclear reactor on campus in the middle of the Nuclear Engineering building. and when I asked, all I got was blank stares
Thank you EBBs. I'd appreciate a reality check. It's my understanding that by far the most practical means of making up for the variability and unreliability of wind and solar (with the possible exception of pumped hydro if it exists) is gas-fired generation, but that such plant becomes less efficient the more sporadically it is run. If so, do Lazard account for this?
Pumped hydro isn't working out to good in Australia with their 2.2GW, 350GWh Snowy River 2.0 job. Initial cost estimates of $2B, completion in 2021 is now $12B with completion in 2029 plus an additional $9B for the long distance transmission needed. Plus the 2.2GW of generation (~6.6GW of wind) to supply it.
A lot cheaper to just build a NPP and have the 2.2GW of generation included free of charge with unlimited energy storage, in the form of the most energy density battery tech ever built, it's called uranium. And can be built close to the largest demand centers, no need for difficult long distance transmission and ample cooling water is easily obtainable from the ocean.
And serious questions about how they are going to get the water needed to keep it operating:
"Hydropower comes from flowing water and for that you need the key ingredient — water. While Snowy 2 will pump water up and then generate electricy by letting it flow down, its' water needs are much more than just re-using the same water.
Snowy 2's profitability depends on keeping water in storage to provide immediate baseload power when the unreliables in the grid go down from inclement weather. What we do know is there's definitely no water in the high mountains as an insurance policy essential for underwriting the unreliable solar and wind power generation.
All the water in Tantangarra is needed for environmental flows into the upper Murrumbidgee. Water taken from the lower dam, Talbingo, is water owned by other users.
I would have thought a $12 billion scheme that uses water for electricity generation would have already sorted out where that water is coming from, but apparently not! I put questions to the department around water availability, water licences, and agreements. I also asked whether Snowy Hydro has sufficient water allocated to meet its agreed insurance policy against the shortfalls of wind and solar.
The responses suggest the disaster movie that is Snowy 2.0 is still playing Act 1.0."
Thank you for that - most interesting. My only contact with pumped hydro is in Scotland, where there's generally plenty of water! As you note on the Snowy 2.0 project, it's odd that the key ingredient hasn't been thought out properly.
On a historical note, on every single table of LCOE from the US EIA, which included wind and solar, there was a note right next to the table clearly stating that costs of firming and long distance transmission were not included in the LCOE numbers.
The fact that a "professional" organization like Lazard omitted any such notation on their LCOE numbers for more than a decade (two?) demonstrates that they are either incompetent (incapable of reading side notes) or liars (purposefully omitted the devastating caveat).
Yep, thanks to you EBBs for the excellent work. Just think if Dubya would have done this in the face of the fake Gaia-worshippers; real nature protectors are we hunter-fisherman.
There is nothing unhealthy from a 3" tube coming out of the ground spilling oil or natural gas wealth into proper combustible machinery.
I really appreciate you hammering on this Lazard LCOE nonsense and that even Lazard admitted their error to you. I have to say, I don't know why anyone even bothers with Lazard LCOE reports. Keep it simple, just look at all the factors they openly acknowledge at the bottom of page 7 that they do not include in their analysis. https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf#page=7 . I think we should make everyone who quotes Lazard to read the bottom of page 7. We need to keep putting the pressure on and ensure we use the Clean Air Task Force report "Beyond LCOE: A systems-oriented perspective for evaluating electricity decarbonization pathways" https://www.catf.us/2025/06/policymakers-industry-need-move-beyond-lcoe/
Outstanding reporting and well done. But what nobody is talking about is the End of Life of wind and solar projects, and as it is cheaper to toss a solar panel in the dump for $4 than to recycle it for $104, a problem looms on the horizon. Don't even get started on wind. I figured we have an $89 billion liability for wind farm land reclamation that is not funded. So, as the Inflation Reduction Act money starts drying up, we will see less shell gaming going on - "Name Plate" upgrades to turbines in the name of more power on the subsidies dime. - Again - GREAT job.
A good example of honest science and math work - kudos to you! And how rare it is to find such honesty.
I forget - Does LCOE count the need and cost for backup batteries for ensuring against the occasional prolonged periods of bad weather? It would be nice to be prepared for 10 bad days instead of just a few hours. With coal or nuclear, we didn't have to worry about prolonged bad weather.
And what about the need to overbuild to make up for such inefficient, low density energy? I think in simple, easy math terms - if average annual capacity factor is 25%, for example, maybe it would help to build 4 times as many units? Or maybe 5 times as many, to make up for the even lower efficiency if too many turbines, for example, are too close to each other, hogging each others' wind.
No, how silly of me - what difference would it make how many turbines or solar panels there were in a wind drought or when it's dark and rainy with hardly any sun?
Imagine a big bank with billions slathered all over the world in renewable energy boondoggles making a mistake. No waay. Why their work is impeccable! How dare you two Energy Bad Boys check their work! They want you two around them like they want a case of a nasty social disease. Couple of items to note, gas turbine order backlogs from the three major turbine OEM’s are between and 3 and 5 years out. With natural gas hovering around $2-4MMBTU it is likely that when the real costs of LOCE+ are recognized and the PTC’s and ITC’s have gone the way of quail (at least for a while) that wind and solar will no longer be the darlings of the dreamers in the development world. ISO New England’s CEO says he needs more dispatchable power, way to go Gordo! Have fun in the semi’s, as the main character in the movie Sling Blade identifies the problem, “ain’t got no gas in it..” so we to here in New England ain’t got no gas in it. Whatever will we do. Well we could call Rich Kinder and apologize, not likely and or get someone at Lazard to fudge some more wind and solar numbers for us so we can continue to drink renewable non dispatchable power hemlock, or we can just wait for winter and euthanize a broad swath of the population, (who needs kids and old people?) and reduce load further, there is no industrial load of any merit to speak of, so let’s just get rid of people. The outward migration plan to warmer climes of the population isn’t working fast enough for 5 of the 6 governors of the 6 New England states. One does wonder, now that Bill Gates has decided “climate change” isn’t quite the existential threat he has been saying it was, that maybe some adults will be found somewhere and a hyper drive to local SMR units is started. It has always amazed this writer living and working close by to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in seacoast New Hampshire, how we can have 2-4 hot small reactors aboard US Navy Attack Submarines at any given time, but Seabrook Station is an existential threat to our civilization. Oh well, one of life’s mysteries, we will just have to wait and see how it all resolves. As that great reporter at large and pundit Dan Rather used to sign off the nightly news cast in his short lived gig as Walter Cronkite Jr, “Courage!” Yep, courage will keep the lights on and the gas flowing into residential homes and small businesses. Keep after it guys, you have Lazard on the run!
after Three Mile Island, when I was at MIT, every weekend a group of students would bus up to Seabrook to protest the nuclear reactor there all the while ignoring the operating nuclear reactor on campus in the middle of the Nuclear Engineering building. and when I asked, all I got was blank stares
Still waiting for them to update their nuclear price from just using Vogtle 😅
good point
Thank you EBBs. I'd appreciate a reality check. It's my understanding that by far the most practical means of making up for the variability and unreliability of wind and solar (with the possible exception of pumped hydro if it exists) is gas-fired generation, but that such plant becomes less efficient the more sporadically it is run. If so, do Lazard account for this?
I do not think Lazard accounts for this.
Pumped hydro isn't working out to good in Australia with their 2.2GW, 350GWh Snowy River 2.0 job. Initial cost estimates of $2B, completion in 2021 is now $12B with completion in 2029 plus an additional $9B for the long distance transmission needed. Plus the 2.2GW of generation (~6.6GW of wind) to supply it.
A lot cheaper to just build a NPP and have the 2.2GW of generation included free of charge with unlimited energy storage, in the form of the most energy density battery tech ever built, it's called uranium. And can be built close to the largest demand centers, no need for difficult long distance transmission and ample cooling water is easily obtainable from the ocean.
And serious questions about how they are going to get the water needed to keep it operating:
Water is Crucial for Snowy 2.0, Malcolm Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aB0k_EoScM
"Hydropower comes from flowing water and for that you need the key ingredient — water. While Snowy 2 will pump water up and then generate electricy by letting it flow down, its' water needs are much more than just re-using the same water.
Snowy 2's profitability depends on keeping water in storage to provide immediate baseload power when the unreliables in the grid go down from inclement weather. What we do know is there's definitely no water in the high mountains as an insurance policy essential for underwriting the unreliable solar and wind power generation.
All the water in Tantangarra is needed for environmental flows into the upper Murrumbidgee. Water taken from the lower dam, Talbingo, is water owned by other users.
I would have thought a $12 billion scheme that uses water for electricity generation would have already sorted out where that water is coming from, but apparently not! I put questions to the department around water availability, water licences, and agreements. I also asked whether Snowy Hydro has sufficient water allocated to meet its agreed insurance policy against the shortfalls of wind and solar.
The responses suggest the disaster movie that is Snowy 2.0 is still playing Act 1.0."
Thank you for that - most interesting. My only contact with pumped hydro is in Scotland, where there's generally plenty of water! As you note on the Snowy 2.0 project, it's odd that the key ingredient hasn't been thought out properly.
Yes - Less efficient and less economical
The ideal is to run 24/7
Thank you.
I truly love that you check the work of ideologues masquerading as impartial observers.
On a historical note, on every single table of LCOE from the US EIA, which included wind and solar, there was a note right next to the table clearly stating that costs of firming and long distance transmission were not included in the LCOE numbers.
The fact that a "professional" organization like Lazard omitted any such notation on their LCOE numbers for more than a decade (two?) demonstrates that they are either incompetent (incapable of reading side notes) or liars (purposefully omitted the devastating caveat).
Yep, thanks to you EBBs for the excellent work. Just think if Dubya would have done this in the face of the fake Gaia-worshippers; real nature protectors are we hunter-fisherman.
There is nothing unhealthy from a 3" tube coming out of the ground spilling oil or natural gas wealth into proper combustible machinery.
I really appreciate you hammering on this Lazard LCOE nonsense and that even Lazard admitted their error to you. I have to say, I don't know why anyone even bothers with Lazard LCOE reports. Keep it simple, just look at all the factors they openly acknowledge at the bottom of page 7 that they do not include in their analysis. https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf#page=7 . I think we should make everyone who quotes Lazard to read the bottom of page 7. We need to keep putting the pressure on and ensure we use the Clean Air Task Force report "Beyond LCOE: A systems-oriented perspective for evaluating electricity decarbonization pathways" https://www.catf.us/2025/06/policymakers-industry-need-move-beyond-lcoe/
All I have to say to the clean air task force is WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL ;)
Thanks. I've never taken the time to read one of lazard's reports, but you've given me a shortcut to the bottom line.
Great work Isaac!
Outstanding reporting and well done. But what nobody is talking about is the End of Life of wind and solar projects, and as it is cheaper to toss a solar panel in the dump for $4 than to recycle it for $104, a problem looms on the horizon. Don't even get started on wind. I figured we have an $89 billion liability for wind farm land reclamation that is not funded. So, as the Inflation Reduction Act money starts drying up, we will see less shell gaming going on - "Name Plate" upgrades to turbines in the name of more power on the subsidies dime. - Again - GREAT job.
Lazards BTFO
You may find the calculations here are a clear costs refutation
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/refuting-the-idea-that-weather-dependent-renewables-are-much-cheaper-than-conventional-power-generation/
Great work gents.
A good example of honest science and math work - kudos to you! And how rare it is to find such honesty.
I forget - Does LCOE count the need and cost for backup batteries for ensuring against the occasional prolonged periods of bad weather? It would be nice to be prepared for 10 bad days instead of just a few hours. With coal or nuclear, we didn't have to worry about prolonged bad weather.
And what about the need to overbuild to make up for such inefficient, low density energy? I think in simple, easy math terms - if average annual capacity factor is 25%, for example, maybe it would help to build 4 times as many units? Or maybe 5 times as many, to make up for the even lower efficiency if too many turbines, for example, are too close to each other, hogging each others' wind.
No, how silly of me - what difference would it make how many turbines or solar panels there were in a wind drought or when it's dark and rainy with hardly any sun?
LCOE is the price someone needs to be paid to build the generator. Period.
Any use beyond that is getting into systems cost questions.
Good Bad Boys!