That’s over $170/MWh CAD. Perhaps, by UK electricity price standards that’s competitive but it’s not competitive here in Canada.

If Nova Scotia offshore wind comes in at those costs, we’d be wiser to first maximize other less costly low-carbon options and see whether costs decline.

That graph is a bit misleading. If the multimodal models (i.e., where a model is sold as a BEV, PHEV and/or ICE) are treated as individual models, then there would be BEVs in the top 5.

Good on you for not allowing yourself to be force fed the koolaid.

But politically motivated developments will occur. And just as we look back today on the $25+ billion wasted on big hydro over the past 15 years, in 2040 when we’re ruing the billions needlessly spent on interprovincial transmission, we’ll be asking ourselves - how did we get fooled again?

Proponents, now looking desperate, have turned to supposed reliability benefits as the main driver. Yet none of the recent studies model below the transmission network, failing to characterize the effects of widespread storage, solar and demand-response across distribution networks.

Interprovincial transmission expansion is a solution looking for a problem. Proponents have recently (and finally) abandoned the primary argument - that it will lower decarbonization costs - acknowledging the reality that storage and demand response are cheaper, easier, more flexible and modular.

A decade ago, net zero electricity models claimed we’d need 70-100 GW of hydropower for low-carbon electrification. We’re unlikely to ever build an additional 7 GW, including the 4 GW (Site C, Muskrat Fall, Keeyask, Romaine) commissioned since 2015, much of it wildly overpriced.

A good example of battery displacement is conventional pumped storage hydroelectric. Other than very unique circumstances consisting of existing reservoirs and very long-term (> week) storage, it’s tough to see how North America builds more pumped storage hydropower.

Hopefully, AI won’t do us in before then!!

Agree. To be clear wind will still get developed, but mostly repowering with larger turbines and expansion of existing sites, similar to capacity expansion at hydro sites.
And we’ll need one more winner in generation (geothermal? SMRs? Other?) and storage (solid state? other?) and industrial gains.

Anecdotally, my own home+transport transition from 5 t/y to 0.1 t/y CO2 will take 25 years, with 10 years still to go. Nothing fancy and no solar power. Yet, my electricity consumption will be less than when I started. Go figure that!

Persist, persist, persist and accept it’s going to take time.

What I’m much less confident in is technology stock turnover. Vehicles last 10-15 years, and built environment improvements occur over decades. Industrial transition takes time, too. I’m not well-versed in these transitions.

3. Demand response. We’re getting much better at demand response software, program design, market structures, etc. DR also still has a long run ahead. Models are getting better at DR.

Of course, AI and data demands could yet make your predictions correct, if we can electrify this sector.

2. Energy efficiencies. Even BC Hydro’s “moderated” DSM spending saw no net demand the last 10 years. Imagine if utilities tried! Canadian residential and commercial buildings remain incredibly inefficient. Efficient electrification has a long run still to come, and models don’t capture this well.

1. Storage and solar will soon be everywhere. Right now, storage is only on the back side of a few transmission substations, but it will soon be in large quantities in distribution systems along with much more solar. The net demand for transmission-connected resources will be lower than projected.

On demand, I generally think the low-carbon electricity projections are misleading. Most modelling is done at the transmission and economy-wide level and does not do bottom-up technology, distribution or economy very well. Three thoughts on that.

Less wind and more solar + storage mean less need for interregional transmission. I view the “OMG 😮 we need 20 GW of interprovincial transmission” similarly to last decade’s “OMG 😮 we need 70 GW of hydro”. By the time it’s built at >50% over budget, storage will cost a fraction of its current cost.

By 2010, hydro was passed its 90th percentile for build out. The industry completely missed it. I’m predicting that onshore wind’s 90th percentile arrives in Canada by 2035 maybe sooner. I know, the models won’t like that!! The analyses are almost all wind dominant (and not solar + storage).

Wind, solar, storage, gas peakers (until affordable long-term storage) are all modular. We need to techs with Wright’s law potential (e.g., why is Eavor in Germany and not here?!) and not be fooled by “modular”. The Democratic Republic of the Congo isn’t democratic.
But beware of surprises…