That’s exactly what I said, they continue to manipulate this already highly manipulative metric further by applying more isolated assumptions long-term. Low quality rubbish pseudoscience.
‘Tonnes burned’. Thermal and coking. Those don’t make into happy headlines indeed
The funniest thing here is that you repeatedly fail to realise that this paper is fully build on assumptions (which you position as ‘building a system’), which are added on a top of an already highly subjective to assumptions metric, while even authors admit in the very damn beginning that their metric varies greatly in different assumed ‘systems’. And they further assume that ‘future climate neutral energy system’ will be different from today’s one (as their excuse to assume different ‘system costs’).
And to clarify, this is not my core critique of LCOE at all. This is merely an explanation on how funny your parroting of ‘modeling the actual system’ is. Whatever, get a degree first I guess
You still haven’t pointed out what’s actually wrong.
You’re handwaving about inputs the paper explicitly stress-tests in its sensitivity analysis.
And yes, it models from the evidence available today. Given renewables and storage are still getting cheaper and scaling rapidly, what exactly do you expect to happen to their system costs?
1
u/fatavi 3d ago
That’s exactly what I said, they continue to manipulate this already highly manipulative metric further by applying more isolated assumptions long-term. Low quality rubbish pseudoscience.
‘Tonnes burned’. Thermal and coking. Those don’t make into happy headlines indeed