The Paris agreement to stay…

The Paris agreement to stay below 1.5 C rise is only possible by rapidly lowering methane emissions. Natural gas use must be curtailed for avoid upstream fugitive methane. Space heating dominates and, if replaced by heat pumps, would require  3 times the current peak with most of the load over a 3 month period. Adding base-load nuclear is of no value. Solar and wind would require enormous energy storage capacity but conceptually feasible, e.g. pumped hydraulic at the Welland Canal with large off-shore wind in Lake Erie (avoid the law suit). But a much smarter strategy is to retrofit first to reduce loads by 90% (already demonstrated feasible and economic) then heated either with geo-source heat pumps or, in favourable locations, district heating using bio-fuel cogeneration.

IESO has not produced viable supply mix and DSM options for analysis. The least cost will be aggressive conservation, demand response, distributed and embedded generation, energy storage both thermal and electrical, small and large, and 100% renewables. This will replace the nuclear refurbishment strategy which directly conflicts with the much cheaper wind and solar base-load supply. Existing CCGT`s will serve as reserve capacity and some ramping capacity fueled by biogas and be integrated with district heating supply.

Current GHG accounting methods are entirely wrong for ascribing demand-side reductions. IESO must provide quantitative evaluations for each scenario based on legitimate protocols and factors. It has proven impossible to get anyone at the MOECC to respond to or discuss this most urgent matter. Without credible measurement, the LTEP cannot address climate change policy.

[Original Comment ID: 207104]