Energy
Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
From the Fraser Institute
By Elmira Aliakbari and Jock Finlayson
The federal government’s plan to make all electricity generation in Canada carbon-free by 2035 is impractical and highly unlikely, given physical, infrastructure, financial, and regulatory realities. So says a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Canada’s federal government has set an ambitious, and, frankly, unrealistic target of achieving complete carbon-free electricity in ten years,” said Jock Finlayson, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-author of Implications of Decarbonizing Canada’s Electricity Grid.
The study finds that in 2023, nearly 81 per cent of Canada’s electricity came from carbon-free energy sources, including hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. But to replace the remaining 19 per cent which uses fossil fuels, in the next 10 years, would require constructing the equivalent of:
• Approximately 23 large hydroelectric dams, similar in size to BC’s Site C, or 24 comparable to Newfoundland and Labrador’s Muskrat Falls, or;
• More than four nuclear power plants similar in size to Ontario’s Darlington power station, or 2.3 large scale nuclear power plants equivalent to Ontario’s Bruce Power, or;
• Around 11,000 large wind turbines, which would not only require substantial investments in back-up power systems (since wind is intermittent) but would also require clearing 7,302 square kilometers of land—larger than the size of Prince Edward Island—excluding the additional land required for transmission infrastructure.
Currently, the process of planning and constructing major electricity generation facilities in Canada is complicated and time-consuming, often marked by delays, regulatory challenges, and significant cost overruns.
For example, BC’s Site C project took approximately 43 years from the initial planning studies in 1971 to receive environmental certification in 2014, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of $16 billion.
What’s more, the significant energy infrastructure listed above would only meet Canada’s current electricity needs. As Canada’s population grows, the demand for electricity will increase significantly.
“It is not at all realistic that this scale of energy infrastructure can be planned, approved, financed and built in just 10 years, which is what would be required merely to decarbonize Canada’s existing electricity needs,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director natural resource studies at the Fraser Institute and study co-author.
“This doesn’t even account for the additional infrastructure needed to meet future electricity demand. Decarbonizing Canada’s electricity generation by 2035 is another case where the government has set completely unrealistic timelines without any meaningful plan to achieve it.”
- This essay examines the implications of decarbonizing Canada’s electricity grid by replacing existing fossil fuel-based generation with clean energy sources.
- In 2023, clean energy sources—including hydro, nuclear, and wind—produced 497.6 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, accounting for nearly 81% of Canada’s total supply, while fossil fuels contributed 117.7 TWh (19.1%). To replace this fossil fuel generation with hydro power alone would require about 23 large projects similar to BC’s Site C or 24 like Newfoundland & Labrador’s Muskrat Falls. Using nuclear power would necessitate building 2.3 facilities equivalent to Ontario’s Bruce Power or 4.3 similar to Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
- The process of planning and constructing electricity generation facilities in Canada is complex and time-consuming, often marked by delays, regulatory hurdles, and significant cost overruns. For example, the BC Site C project took approximately 43 years from the initial feasibility and planning studies in 1971 to receive environmental certification in 2014, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of $16 billion.
- Land requirements for new electricity generation facilities are also significant; replacing 117.7 TWh of fossil fuel-based electricity with hydro power, for instance, would need approximately 26,345 square kilometers, nearly half the size of Nova Scotia.
- The slow pace of regulatory approvals, high and rising costs of major energy projects, substantial land requirements, and public opposition to project siting all cast doubt on the feasibility of achieving the necessary clean electricity infrastructure in the coming decade to fully replace fossil fuels in Canada.
Authors:
More from this study
Business
Taxpayers Federation urging Ontario to join Alberta’s carbon tax court fight
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Jay Goldberg
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Ontario Premier Doug Ford to join the Alberta government and constitutionally challenge against the federal carbon tax.
“Ford has rightly opposed the federal carbon tax for years, but now he has a new chance to beat it in court,” said Jay Goldberg, CTF Ontario Director. “Last time the carbon tax fight went to the Supreme Court, the federal government argued it needed a national carbon tax to deal with a national problem. But then it undercut its own argument for a national carbon tax by making an exception for furnace oil, which clearly favours Atlantic Canada.
“Trudeau torpedoed his own constitutional argument for imposing a carbon tax so it’s time to challenge it in court again.”
Today, the Alberta government announced it has filed an application at the federal court challenging the constitutionality of the carbon tax in the wake of the federal government’s heating oil carbon tax exemption.
Last year, the federal government announced it is removing the carbon tax from heating oil for three years, but did not exempt other forms of home heating energy.
The carve-out disproportionately helps Atlantic Canadians. Only two per cent of Ontario households use furnace oil to heat their homes.
The average Ontario home uses 2,497 cubic metres of natural gas per year. That means removing the current federal carbon tax would save the average home about $381 this year.
“When Trudeau announced his heating oil carve out, he admitted the carbon tax makes life more expensive, he admitted the carbon tax is all about politics and he left the vast majority of Canadians out in the cold,” Goldberg said. “Ford needs to take this new opportunity to join other provinces and fight the carbon tax in court.”
A recent Leger poll commissioned by the CTF shows 60 per cent of Ontarians want the federal government to remove the carbon tax from all heating fuels.
Smith right to fight carbon tax in court
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation applauds Alberta Premier Danielle Smith for launching a renewed constitutional challenge against the federal carbon tax.
“The carbon tax is making the necessities of life in Alberta more expensive and that’s why Smith is right to take Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax back to court,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Last time the carbon tax fight went to the Supreme Court, the federal government argued it needed a national carbon tax to deal with a national problem. But then it undercut its own argument for a national carbon tax by making an exception for furnace oil, which clearly favours Atlantic Canada.
“Trudeau torpedoed his own constitutional argument for imposing a carbon tax so it’s time to challenge it in court again.”
Today, the Alberta government announced it has filed an application at the federal court challenging the constitutionality of the carbon tax in the wake of the federal government’s home heating oil exemption.
Writing in the National Post, the CTF called on all premiers to launch a new legal challenge against the federal carbon tax.
Last year, the federal government announced it is removing the carbon tax from furnace oil for three years, but did not exempt other forms of home heating energy. Less than one per cent of Alberta households use heating oil.
The average Alberta home uses about 2,935 cubic metres of natural gas per year, according to Statistics Canada. That means scrapping the current federal carbon tax would save the average Alberta home about $440 this year.
“Taxpayers are taking it on the chin every time we pay our heating bills and Trudeau is torpedoing constitutional accountability with his unequal application of the carbon tax,” Terrazzano said. “When Trudeau announced his heating oil carve out, he admitted the carbon tax makes life more expensive, he admitted the carbon tax is all about politics and he left the vast majority of Canadians out in the cold.”
A recent Leger poll commissioned by the CTF shows 70 per cent of Albertans want the federal government to remove the carbon tax from all heating fuels.
Dan McTeague
“Axe the Tax” is just the beginning
From Canadians for Affordable Energy
All across Canada preemptive obituaries are being written for the Carbon Tax. (I’ve written one myself.) And for good reason. The closer we get to the full implementation of Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax, the harder regular people are being hit in the wallet. The tax has helped make it more expensive to feed and clothe our families, to heat our homes, and to gas up our cars. It has been a direct assault on the Canadian standard of living.
The fact that the Trudeau Liberals are behind the Carbon Tax is central to their collapsing poll numbers. And Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has capitalized on its unpopularity by pledging to “Axe the Tax” every chance he gets. Chances are that pledge will carry his party into the majority, whenever we get around to having an election.
That said, we must be careful because the Carbon Tax is just one part of Trudeau’s Net-Zero program. It would be a catastrophic blunder for the Conservatives, upon entering government, to repeal only the Carbon Tax and leave the rest of the Liberals’ green agenda in place. Doing so would jeopardize Poilievre’s ability to make life in Canada more affordable.
There are a whole raft of policies on this file which a Poilievre government should quickly repeal. Here are a few which ought to be at the top of the list:
Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR)
Trudeau’s Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), which I’ve nicknamed the Second Carbon Tax, are designed to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels like gasoline and diesel by blending increased amounts of ethanol into those fuels, making them less efficient while potentially contributing to engine corrosion and other problems. Plus, it’s estimated that the CFR will raise gasoline prices between six and seventeen cents a litre by 2030. Which is to say, we’ll be paying more for fuel and getting less out of it.
And, like the original Carbon Tax, the cost of the CFR is felt beyond the pumps, with estimates suggesting it will increase household energy costs by between 2.2 and 6.5 percent a year, while also significantly constricting the growth of our economy. These regulations ought to be scrapped entirely.
Emissions Caps
As I’ve written elsewhere, the Trudeau government’s proposed Emissions Cap, which targets our nation’s oil and gas sector, “would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream.” Oil and gas is our “golden goose,” according to a study by Jack Mintz and Philip Cross, but the Trudeau government is proposing a cap on that sector’s carbon emissions, which a recent Deloitte report found “would lead to a 10% decrease in Alberta’s oil production and a 16% decrease in conventional natural gas production.” That translates to an estimated decline of real GDP in Alberta of $191 billion, and of $91 billion in the rest of Canada.
This is madness, and that’s before we even touch on the fact that it will have no discernable impact on global carbon emissions. It merely ensures that the world’s energy needs will be met by less environmentally responsible nations like Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Electric Vehicle Mandates and Subsidies
Among the most reckless policies enacted by this government is Trudeau’s Electric Vehicle (EV) mandate, which bans the sale of new gas-and-diesel driven cars and trucks by 2035. I’ll say that again – in just under a decade, every new car and truck sold in Canada will have to be electric! This despite the fact that electric vehicles are notoriously bad at holding their charge in cold weather, one of our country’s trademarks.
And that’s assuming you can find a place to charge them. Natural Resources Canada estimates that we will need roughly 450,000 public charging stations by 2035 to make this EV transition at all realistic. At the moment we have about 28,000.
Plus, the wholesale adoption of EVs across Canada would put a tremendous strain on our electrical grid, especially at a time when the environmentalists have been pushing for a nationwide transition to less reliable methods of generating electricity, like wind and solar.
And then there’s the billions in subsidies which support the mandate. Federal and provincial taxpayer dollars are being thrown at automotive companies to underwrite their producing a product which taxpayers will then be forced to buy. It’s an outrageous example of double dipping.
Poilievre seems to understand this. He has called the EV mandate “a tax on the poor,” because of the elevated cost of an EV, compared to traditional vehicles, and he’s slammed the subsidies as bad deals for Canada.
Even so, when Trudeau has accused Poilievre of wanting to cancel the subsidies, Poilievre has tended to pivot to discussing the “generational” opportunity Canada has to start producing the minerals necessary for EV batteries, if only the Liberals would speed up the approval process for new mines.
That’s all well and good, except that the entire EV industry is built on subsidies and mandates. And even with those, countries around the world are finding that demand for EVs is much softer than anticipated. Some “generational” opportunity for Canada, to become a key link in the supply chain for a product that no one wants! Much better to change course, scrap the mandates and subsidies, and see if the industry can stand on its own two feet. Once consumers have shown that they’re willing to buy EVs, then we can talk.
And Many More…
Of course, repealing these policies is just scratching the surface. I could easily have written about the problems with Bill C-69, the so-called “no new pipelines bill;” Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act which significantly reduces Canada’s ability to export our natural resources; or Bill C-59, which bans businesses from touting the environmental positives of their work if it doesn’t meet a government-approved standard.
The fact of the matter is, Canadians need a government that will not just pull down the low-hanging fruit of the Carbon Tax, but to “axe” the numerous Net-Zero policies, enacted by Trudeau’s and his environmentalist allies over the past nine years, which are making all of our lives more expensive.
Pierre Poilievre has his work cut out for him. Let’s all hope that he turns out to be the man we need him to be. We can’t afford anything less.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
-
COVID-192 days ago
Bill Gates to stand trial in Netherlands COVID vaccine injury lawsuit
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Bill of Rights amendments will allow individuals like Jordan Peterson to speak freely
-
International2 days ago
Switzerland is No Longer Neutral
-
Immigration2 days ago
ISIS and its violent Central Asian chapter are threatening Canada and the West with jihad. Hussain Ehsani for Inside Policy
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
They Have the Money, We Have the Numbers
-
Business2 days ago
Elon Musk declares ‘war’ over plot to ‘kill’ X by NGO linked to Kamala Harris, Keir Starmer
-
Business2 days ago
Kamala’s Secret Weapon: The British Operatives Determined to “Kill” Elon Musk’s Free Speech Platform X
-
Opinion2 days ago
Female UN expert calls for ban on men in women’s sports, gets accused of ‘demeaning language’