Right, you've got a viable argument. /s
I'm calling bullshit on your entire premise. Your best guess is a terrible one, and one reason is stranded assets.
The concept of the privately owned or shareholder owned regulated utility with a guaranteed annual rate of return was a horrible idea. Publicly owned municipal utilities are a better idea. Lazard is a financial advisory and asset management firm. They're providing information for investors -- basically their report is telling you which technologies might be worth investing in, and which ones are total losers (from an investment perspective) because they can't compete on price. The Lazard report doesn't include any of the nuclear cleanup costs. There's a decommissioning reserve fund, but they are ALWAYS too small. Much much much too small. Doesn't include waste or spent fuel disposal. Insurance is only for really small accidents, the federal government absolves them of liability for Chernobyl-scale stuff. Nuclear is massively subsidized and they still can't compete economically. Nukes are total losers. Coal is a total loser. So you're saying your feelings are more intuitive than Lazard, who have $186 billion of assets under management? What a joke.
Coal is energy dense. The cost of a kWh of electricity from a new coal plant is > 10 cents/kWh. Add in the external health costs paid by taxpayers and the price rises to about 20c/kWh.
Wind is not energy dense. The cost of a kWh of electricity from a new wind farm is now under 4c/kWh. Unsubsidized.
Sunshine is not energy dense. The cost of a kWh of electricity from a new solar farm is now about 6c/kWh. Unsubsidized.
Oil is energy dense. The cost of driving a mile in a 30 MPG vehicle burning $3/gallon gas is 10c/mile.
Drive that mile with electricity from wind and solar and the cost is less than 4c/mile.
What's left out of those comparisons are the costs of health damage caused by burning fossil fuels and the extreme cost of climate change. Fossil fuels are unaffordable.