Why would dx costs be substantially lower today?

I can see NWA lowering some costs, but also have to weigh those savings against the need for major upgrades

I'd argue a 30% increase by 2035 is more than a little higher - especially if sustained through 2050.

Expo growth might be over, but this is still linear growth most industries would envy

That said, it does imply big problems for the excess capacity that's been developed

To be fair, most of these countries are either net energy importers *or* had a much higher baseline of coal in their power mix, which is one of the least-cost mitigation pathways.

Important markets to follow!

Even small changes in these markets provide a forward looking signal on emerging tech with global possibilities

Some of the assumptions are quite surprising.

CPS assumes stagnant solar deployment despite falling costs, and no more improvement in vehicle efficiency.

Looking forward to digging into the full range of assumptions.

Lots more to unpack.

But understanding the solar assumptions are vital to interpreting the rest of the results - especially as 80% of global energy growth shifts to areas with high quality solar resources.

It's an especially puzzling finding as the IEA's WEO projects solar costs to fall dramatically - even in the CPS.

It's one thing to assume that solar deployments slow.

Even if you disagree, it's reasonable to expect solar to hit the end stage of the standard S-curve at some point.

But anyone who's seen this chart from @nathanielbullard.com is asking themselves - do we really think we're there already?

I think a lot of people are sleeping in the CDR that will needed to buy down the carbon overshoot - on top of what's needed to hit net zero.

And that'll take a lot of electricity - on top of what might be needed for the transition and AI

Everyone wants to run government like a business - except for when it comes to attracting and retaining talent!

That's helpful - makes sense OPG would be involved in SK.

Even still, surprised there aren't cost targets beyond unit 4. 30% lower is good, but at an initial cost of $20,000 / kW - that's still fairly high

Thanks Scott! Interesting point on mandate.

Have you seen estimates for where costs might go on subsequent projects? It's encouraging to see lower costs for unit 4 - but agree these may be too high for an ultimate goal.

I haven't seen any long run cost targets

Thanks for sharing this.

Interesting to see that capacity in the pipeline is well in excess of the 1.5 GW the IEA just forecast for 2030.

Of course it won't all come online by then, but shows there's a lot more coming down the pipe!