Thread by @MB_MJones

If you want my reading of: davidsuzuki.org/wp-content/upl… on deep decarbonization, my questions/comments on the report follow. a 🧵#energytwitter #energytransition #cdnenergy #cdnpoli #mbpoli @DavidSuzukiFDN 1/n

1) omission of SMRs in my mind is unwise as its non-emitting source able to produce winter capacity and especially in remote areas
2) i do think having CCUS removed is wise. until we can actually see a economic example CCUS is still largely speculative
2/

3) having no off-shore wind in the model is a problem. not only for coastal provinces but big resources inland (great lakes, Lake winnipeg etc)
4) not having DR in model is unforgiveable. you simply cant properly model a future energy state without DR.

5) holding US import/exports to a set year (2018) is also weird. it fails to capture hydro flow variability along with the CO2 emissions from US grid. If imports are from US wind overproduction, those shouldn't be discounted. cross border flows are very important to grid

6) no green hydrogen? you are losing what is likely to be a large seasonal storage mechanism for winter peaking issues.
7) i agree with no inclusion for DAC. again, until we have a viable large scale technology no point. also it shouldnt be used as a crutch

8) saying "preferences" for acceptable for wind then saying transmission is less acceptable are incongruent. you can't large scale build out wind and not have accompanying transmission.

9) in "zero" future in 2035, 110GW of new wind and 25GW of inter-regional transmission? so there is thing called "congestion" you might need to put it in your model. $193B and $21B for TX? dream on. also where is the distribution?

10) same future in 2050. increased wind by another 58GW and increased tx by 1.4 GW? dreaming in technicolor. then again, 81x of storage? thats.. not cheap.

11) i want to see the capacity factors for the wind assumptions. without offshore wind, i dont see how there are that many high quality wind sites to possibly feed this result:

12) i'll leave it to the various experts to pooh-pooh the silly wind assumptions for Ontario. i can see the wind forecast for AB/SK being plausable. but somehow i dont foresee 55,000MW of installed wind for Ontario onshore being a) efficient b)having any kind of capacity value

13) i take back plausable word for AB. you can't say "oh we'll massively increase AB wind exports to Sask. that would require massive DC/AC interconnects which you definately didn't include in cost assumptions for inter-provincial Tx

14) huh included "by 2050 that load shedding occurs roughly 3.45 hours per year"
15) "the development of in-province transmission and distribution upgrades is not in the scope of this study and their attributes are held steady based on the 2018 base model year."

16) still trying to process 15). zero integration cost or balancing cost? thats like the box in a flow chart with "magic happens here" and saying "job done"
17) the section on home heating is interesting, model selection of ASHP/resistance clearly linked to 15) & capacity

18) on transport, i'm far more bullish on medium and heavy duty transport then Suzuki report

19) i will purposely ignore the financial results given the lack of any reasonable attempts at TX, distribution, intra provincial requirements etc. that number should just say "we pulled a random figure out of our ass"

The rest is about "green jobs", not my expertise and probably HIGHLY speculative. In summary I give this report a 2/10. nice ideas, but modelling handicapped the results in every sense. Ignoring key assumptions may make it easier, but it doesnt make it valid. /end

@threadreaderapp unroll