Richard Hendriks
@mar-hendriks.bsky.social
Calm, critical, compassionate.
Earth, energy, electricity, economy… and the occasional political musings.
Canadian hydropower consultant.
Earth, energy, electricity, economy… and the occasional political musings.
Canadian hydropower consultant.
Hopefully, AI won’t do us in before then!!
December 18, 2025 at 11:55 PM
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.
And we’ll need one more winner in generation (geothermal? SMRs? Other?) and storage (solid state? other?) and industrial gains.
December 18, 2025 at 11:55 PM
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.
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.
Persist, persist, persist and accept it’s going to take time.
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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.
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.
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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.
Of course, AI and data demands could yet make your predictions correct, if we can electrify this sector.
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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.
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.
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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.
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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.
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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.
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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).
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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…
But beware of surprises…
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
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…
But beware of surprises…
Wright’s law. Hydro probably followed a bit Wright’s law here in the 1950s, and in China recently with mass pumped storage development. But risky one offs at the expense of technologies still in cost decline is shortsighted. The BC wind industry got starved, probably worse than Alberta’s moratorium.
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
Wright’s law. Hydro probably followed a bit Wright’s law here in the 1950s, and in China recently with mass pumped storage development. But risky one offs at the expense of technologies still in cost decline is shortsighted. The BC wind industry got starved, probably worse than Alberta’s moratorium.
I opened the hood on some of these models (though am far from an expert) and found lots of issues around data, design, assumptions and interpretations. Whether LP or MILP, optimization inherently funnels out near-cost-optimal but more implementable solutions. Some reflections on your question:
December 18, 2025 at 8:32 PM
I opened the hood on some of these models (though am far from an expert) and found lots of issues around data, design, assumptions and interpretations. Whether LP or MILP, optimization inherently funnels out near-cost-optimal but more implementable solutions. Some reflections on your question:
For a 150 TWh/y demand to result in BC in 2050, more than 90 TWh/year of supply would need to come on-line in just 25 years. It might be more if BC Hydro continues to moderate DSM spending to make way for Site C (look at all that demand growth since 2005 justifying the $16B supply buildout!! 😆😆)
December 18, 2025 at 12:08 PM
For a 150 TWh/y demand to result in BC in 2050, more than 90 TWh/year of supply would need to come on-line in just 25 years. It might be more if BC Hydro continues to moderate DSM spending to make way for Site C (look at all that demand growth since 2005 justifying the $16B supply buildout!! 😆😆)
There’s no provincial breakdown, but let’s assume that B.C. represents 10% of national demand (which it did in 2010), this would mean 150 TWh/y of BC demand in 2050.
So, how’s that going?
This from BC Hydro’s latest IRP. After DSM is about 75 TWh/y in 2050.
So, how’s that going?
This from BC Hydro’s latest IRP. After DSM is about 75 TWh/y in 2050.
December 18, 2025 at 12:01 PM
There’s no provincial breakdown, but let’s assume that B.C. represents 10% of national demand (which it did in 2010), this would mean 150 TWh/y of BC demand in 2050.
So, how’s that going?
This from BC Hydro’s latest IRP. After DSM is about 75 TWh/y in 2050.
So, how’s that going?
This from BC Hydro’s latest IRP. After DSM is about 75 TWh/y in 2050.
Okay, let’s go there. Since it’s ultimately the demand projections that lead to the supply absurdities.
Based on the graph, it appears the DDPP IS saying that supply will need to meet a national transmission-level demand of 1,500 TWh/y by 2050. I just want to confirm before I take this bet.
Based on the graph, it appears the DDPP IS saying that supply will need to meet a national transmission-level demand of 1,500 TWh/y by 2050. I just want to confirm before I take this bet.
December 18, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Okay, let’s go there. Since it’s ultimately the demand projections that lead to the supply absurdities.
Based on the graph, it appears the DDPP IS saying that supply will need to meet a national transmission-level demand of 1,500 TWh/y by 2050. I just want to confirm before I take this bet.
Based on the graph, it appears the DDPP IS saying that supply will need to meet a national transmission-level demand of 1,500 TWh/y by 2050. I just want to confirm before I take this bet.
The BCUC review of Site C in 2017 saw considerable appeal to the DDPP and the DSF study of a similar nature drawing similar conclusions about a large hydro buildout. Even Suzuki himself disowned these conclusions once he understood what “clean energy at all costs” meant.
December 18, 2025 at 2:31 AM
The BCUC review of Site C in 2017 saw considerable appeal to the DDPP and the DSF study of a similar nature drawing similar conclusions about a large hydro buildout. Even Suzuki himself disowned these conclusions once he understood what “clean energy at all costs” meant.
I wasn’t taking issue with your demand projections… but of course they’re behind the supply projections. Based on the graph, it appears the DDPP is saying that supply will need to meet a national transmission-level demand of 1,500 TWh/y by 2050. I just want to confirm before I take this bet.
December 18, 2025 at 2:11 AM
I wasn’t taking issue with your demand projections… but of course they’re behind the supply projections. Based on the graph, it appears the DDPP is saying that supply will need to meet a national transmission-level demand of 1,500 TWh/y by 2050. I just want to confirm before I take this bet.
It matters not only that generation is “clean”. The 70 GW hydro buildout proposed in the DDPP provided momentum for projects like Site C, an economic and ecological boondoggle, also unlikely to result in lower emissions than BC Hydro’s next best (and cheaper) alternative 2013 IRP portfolios.
December 18, 2025 at 2:10 AM
It matters not only that generation is “clean”. The 70 GW hydro buildout proposed in the DDPP provided momentum for projects like Site C, an economic and ecological boondoggle, also unlikely to result in lower emissions than BC Hydro’s next best (and cheaper) alternative 2013 IRP portfolios.
I think we both want that. Where we differ is on the preferable pathways and the competing values to be kept in mind on the way there.
December 17, 2025 at 1:09 AM
I think we both want that. Where we differ is on the preferable pathways and the competing values to be kept in mind on the way there.
I’m pretty confident to stand behind what we said in that piece a decade ago, and that I attached in my initial comment. Indeed, it’s a shame that people smarter and more influential than me didn’t realize the many counterproductive results of zero carbon electricity at any cost.
December 17, 2025 at 1:07 AM
I’m pretty confident to stand behind what we said in that piece a decade ago, and that I attached in my initial comment. Indeed, it’s a shame that people smarter and more influential than me didn’t realize the many counterproductive results of zero carbon electricity at any cost.
Perhaps, it may be surprising that those DDPP portfolios had considerable sway in circles positioned to leverage them. So, what was the interest in proposing an impossibly large hydro portfolio? To show that there was a theoretical (though entirely unachievable) “pathway” to decarbonization?
December 17, 2025 at 12:58 AM
Perhaps, it may be surprising that those DDPP portfolios had considerable sway in circles positioned to leverage them. So, what was the interest in proposing an impossibly large hydro portfolio? To show that there was a theoretical (though entirely unachievable) “pathway” to decarbonization?
Yep. A decade earlier and Canada could have saved billions. But a decade sooner will still save billions!
December 16, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Yep. A decade earlier and Canada could have saved billions. But a decade sooner will still save billions!