The FT is reporting some new research by investment bank Lazard, which claims that in some parts of the US wind and solar are now cost-competitive with gas fired power.
Costs have fallen and efficiency has risen for solar panels and wind turbines, the investment bank found, to the point that in areas of strong wind or sunshine they can provide electricity more cheaply than fossil fuel plants.
I asked Ed Crooks, the author of the article, whether this wasn't just levelised costs rearing their ugly head again. He confirmed that it is, but argues that the impact of intermittency is low.
There are many imponderables in the calculations here - intermittency affects revenues as well as costs, so the focus on costs is only half of the equation. Moreover, are we talking about gas peaking plant (OCGT) or about CCGT? And how are the externalities imposed on gas fired plant by intermittent renewables factored in?
Crooks is going to a meeting with Lazard later today. I've suggested he ask them if subsidies, feed-in tariffs and so on can be done away with.
That should throw some light on the matter.