The life-cycle cost of energy systems is far more sensitive to quality of implementation then the specific technology you use, within reason of course.  So much implementation in the world is so incredibly poorly done, that you can rise above the crowd and be competitive just by doing what you do well, whatever it is you do.

Many people focus on the technology implemented to calculate cost.  They show you a table that says coal energy costs $X/kWh, hydro energy costs $Y/kWh, wind energy costs $Z/kWh... but what they don't show you is the 10 pages of assumptions that go into the calculation.

A professor of mine at Berkeley once told me of cost models - "remember Mathias, crap in, crap out".  It's important to create cost models, but it's also important to remember that they are just models, not crystal balls.  They are tools used to create policy, rather than a reflection of necessary truth.

Within those 10 pages of unread assumptions lies the key one - that the project is conceived of and executed well.  You take that assumption out and the whole house of cards come crumbling down.  Everyone has to play the "cost game" and brag that their solution is the cheapest option, but remember to take it all with a grain of salt as these cost models are a rather precarious breed.