Alberta government announces new rules aimed at lowering utility bills

[shtferbrains]

Lazards is not a credible scientific organization.
Actually they are an investment bank.
They sell investments in renewables and healthcare mostly.
Their levelized cost was never expected to be a general reference.
It is based on enthusiastic pumpenomics for products they sell.
No attempt has been made to check accuracy as demonstrated by recent canceling of offshore wind projects that were off the charts on cost.

Must say I am a bit surprised to see you pumping for a large investment bank.
They might be a big corp that restricts supply to increase prices?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Lazards is not a credible scientific organization.
Actually they are an investment bank.
They sell investments in renewables and healthcare mostly.
Their levelized cost was never expected to be a general reference.
It is based on enthusiastic pumpenomics for products they sell.
No attempt has been made to check accuracy as demonstrated by recent canceling of offshore wind projects that were off the charts on cost.

Must say I am a bit surprised to see you pumping for a large investment bank.
They might be a big corp that restricts supply to increase prices?

Actually, many attempts have been made to check the accuracy of their sales pitch/ fabrications. But the people doing the checking are actual economists and engineers who have not been part of the cabal that chuck includes in his credible scientific organizations, therefore they don't count.

[chuckChuck]

If Lazard is wrong show us the evidence from any other LCOE analysis.

Prove Lazard wrong

I bet all we are going to get is more flimsy excuses.

As usual the usual suspects don't agree with any independent analysis that doesn't support their opinions.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If Lazard is wrong show us the evidence from any other LCOE analysis.

Prove Lazard wrong

I bet all we are going to get is more flimsy excuses.

As usual the usual suspects don't agree with any independent analysis that doesn't support their opinions.

This can be settled even easier.
If Lazard is right, you will be able to provide even a single example of wind and or solar resulting in cheaper electricity to the consumer.

[chuckChuck]

Thats not the same as LCOE and new capacity. There are many factors why prices are rising and generation is only one part of electricity pricing

And you have never proved that renewables are the only cause of high pries in Alberta. The main cause is deregulation and with holding supply. Overcharging in other words.

[furrowtickler]

Here’s a report for you chuck
look it up , 131 pages

[furrowtickler]

Conclusions are much different than what you have been proclaiming , but not surprising to most .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thats not the same as LCOE and new capacity. There are many factors why prices are rising and generation is only one part of electricity pricing

And you have never proved that renewables are the only cause of high pries in Alberta. The main cause is deregulation and with holding supply. Overcharging in other words.

Do I understand your argument correctly that you are justifying the fact that you are unable to find even a single real world example of cheaper electricity from wind and solar, because there are "many factors"?
So every jurisdiction in the world who installs wind and solar results in higher prices, contrary to Lazard's conclusions, and you conclude that the common factor is "many factors", not the single common factor?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Another way to look at this is to pretend you know of a hypothetical poster on a hypothetical agricultural forum who has difficulty getting along with other posters.
If this poster was only having difficulties getting along with one or two equally difficult posters, but plays well with everyone else, one might conclude that the other posters are the problem.

But if virtually everyone on the hypothetical forum, left, right, centrist or indifferent, has the same problem communicating with this hypothetical poster, perhaps rational conclusion is that the poster himself may be the problem, not every other member of the forum.
With apologies to agstar and forage, in case they mistakenly conclude that this hypothetical example bears any semblance to any real world forum, and feel left out.

[chuckChuck]

What are you going on about there A5?

You seem to be losing your way.

“For every dollar invested in fossil fuels, about 1.7 dollars are now going into clean energy" . Five years ago, this ratio was one-to-one. IEA

You keep ignoring the LCOE analysis on new capacity.

[url]https://energyinnovation.org/publication/coal-cost-crossover-3-0-local-renewables-plus-storage-create-new-opportunities-for-customer-savings-and-community-reinvestment/[/url]

"This report finds 99 percent of the existing U.S. coal fleet is more expensive to run compared to replacement by new solar or wind. Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity, and generate $589 billion in new investment across the U.S. Our report provides policy recommendations to facilitate a just transition through the Coal Cost Crossover."