Energy
Canada must build 840 solar-power stations or 16 nuclear power plants to meet Ottawa’s 2050 emission-reduction target

From the Fraser Institute
The federal government’s plan to eliminate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity generation by 2050 is impossible in practical terms, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
Due to population growth, economic growth and the transition to electrified transportation, electricity demand in Canada will increase substantially in coming years. “To meet existing and future electricity demand with low-emitting or zero-emitting sources within the government’s timeline, Canada would need to rapidly build infrastructure on a scale never before seen in the country’s history,” said Kenneth P.
Green, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of Rapid Decarbonization of Electricity and Future Supply Constraints.
For example, to generate the electricity needed through 2050 solely with solar power, we’d need to build 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a construction time of two years per project, this would take 1,680 construction years to accomplish.
If we relied solely on wind power, Canada would need to build 574 wind-power installations the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupre wind-power station. At a construction time of two years per project, this would take 1,150 construction years to accomplish.
If we relied solely on hydropower, we’d need to build 134 hydro-power facilities the size of the Site C power station in British Columbia. At a construction time of seven years per project, this would take 938 construction years to accomplish.
If we relied solely on nuclear power, we’d need to construct 16 new nuclear plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. At a construction time of seven years per project, this would take 112 construction years to accomplish.
Currently, the process of planning and constructing electricity-generation facilities in Canada is often marked by delays and significant cost overruns. For B.C.’s Site C project, it took approximately 43 years from the initial planning studies in 1971 to environmental certification in 2014, with project completion expected in 2025 at a cost of $16 billion.
“When Canadians assess the viability of the federal government’s emission-reduction timelines, they should understand the practical reality of electricity generation in Canada,” Green said.
Decarbonizing Canada’s Electricity Generation: Rapid Decarbonization of Electricity and Future Supply Constraints
- Canada’s Clean Electricity Regulations (Canada, 2024a) require all provinces to fully “decarbonize” their electricity generation as part of the federal government’s broader “Net-Zero 2050” greenhouse gas emissions mitigation plan.
- Canada’s electricity demands are expected to grow in line with the country’s population, economic growth, and the transition to electrified transportation. Projections from the Canada Energy Regulator, Canadian Climate Institute, and Department of Finance estimate the need for an additional 684 TWh of generation capacity by 2050.
- If Canada were to meet this demand solely with wind power, it would require the construction of approximately 575 wind-power installations, each the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupré Wind Farm, over 25 years. However, with a construction timeline of two years per project, this would equate to 1,150 construction years. Meeting future Canadian electricity demand using only wind power would also require over one million hectares of land—an area nearly 14.5 times the size of the municipality of Calgary.
- If Canada were to rely entirely on hydropower, it would need to construct 134 facilities similar in size to the Site C power station in British Columbia. Meeting all future demand with hydropower would occupy approximately 54,988 hectares of land—roughly 1.5 times the area of the municipality of Montreal.
- If Canada were to meet its future demand exclusively with nuclear power, it would need to construct 16 additional nuclear plants, each equivalent to Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.
- Meeting the predicted future electricity demand with these low/no CO2 sources will be a daunting challenge and is likely impossible within the 2050 timeframe.
Energy
If Canada won’t build new pipelines now, will it ever?

Canada must not allow ideological dogma and indecision to squander a rare chance to lock in our energy sovereignty for good
Canada teeters on the edge, battered by a trade war and Trump’s tariff threats from its once-steady southern ally, yet held back by its own indecision. Trump’s 25 percent tariffs have exposed a brutal truth: Canada’s economy, especially its oil exports, is nearly 100 percent dependent on the U.S.
Voices are crying out to lament the regulatory chaos, ideological zeal, and whispers of “peak oil” that stall progress. If Canada won’t build pipelines when its sovereignty and prosperity are at stake, will it ever? The economics are clear, peak oil is a myth, and the only barriers are self-imposed: dogma, tangled rules, and bad thinking.
The infrastructure Canada can command is immense. Four million barrels of crude flow to the U.S. daily, and Trump’s threats have made that number look even bigger.
The Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) is proof—linking Alberta to Asia’s markets, with royalties already filling public coffers.
But it’s a lone success. Energy East and Northern Gateway are buried, killed by delays and poor decisions. Private capital is gun-shy, scarred by TMX’s $34 billion price tag, ballooned by a broken system. Why risk billions when the path is a minefield?
The stakes are higher than ever. Forget the claim that oil demand peaks this year at 102 million barrels daily. Experts see a different horizon: Goldman Sachs predicts growth to 2034, OPEC to 2050, BP to 2035—some forecasts topping 80 million barrels.
Enbridge’s Greg Ebel sees “well north” of 100 million by mid-century, driven by Asia’s demand and the developing world’s hunger for energy. Peak oil is a ghost story, not a reality. Canada sits on the third-largest reserves in the world and could dominate the global market, not just feed one neighbour. Pipelines to every coast—east, west, and north—would unlock that future and secure riches for decades.
So what’s holding us back? Ideology, for starters.
Environmental lobbying and influence wrap resource projects in suffocating red tape—emissions caps and endless assessments that kill progress. Years of environmental studies and “net zero” hurdles that no pipeline can clear are choking off bold ideas.
Quebec’s stance has softened under Trump’s pressure, but problematic ideals still linger that blind leaders to reality. The regulatory mess makes it worse.
Today’s system demands a $1 billion bet upfront—engineering, consultations—before a shovel hits the dirt. Companies like TC Energy have been burned before, and others won’t play unless there’s reform. TMX worked because it was a government rescue, but its cost is a deterrent to others.
Then there’s the mess of bad ideas. Government officials will talk about pipelines one day and then express doubts about them the next, leaving a void of leadership. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien very strongly backed a West-East pipeline at the Liberal Party leadership convention.
New leader Mark Carney supports energy links but will not name pipelines, even though public support for them has surged. Four out of five Canadians back coast-to-coast pipelines—but leaders continue to waver.
If not now—when we’re in a trade war and facing annexation—when? Canada’s future is about the infrastructure it controls, not the excuses it clings to. The wealth is waiting, the demand is there, and the barriers are ours to break. Ditch the dogma, fix the rules, and build. Or remain a nation forever poised to rise but never brave enough to do it.
Energy
Why the EPA is right to challenge the ruinous “endangerment finding”

Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
The EPA just announced it’s challenging the single most destructive regulatory action in US history: the “endangerment finding.”
This bogus “finding” allowed Obama and Biden to ban gas cars, shut down power plants, slow US oil growth, and lock up our limitless natural gas.
- Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natural gas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA’s bogus “endangerment finding.”¹
- In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a “finding” that GHGs “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.²
- Since human beings began harnessing uniquely cost-effective energy from fossil fuels, human health and welfare have increased dramatically everywhere.
Why? Because the benefits of cheap, reliable energy for billions far outweigh any negative side-effects of fossil fuels.³
- Before and since the “endangerment finding,” which is supposedly about reducing climate danger, fossil fuels have on net made us far safer from climate danger by creating incredible climate resilience.
That’s why climate disaster deaths have declined 98% over 100 years!⁴
- In considering whether fossil fuels’ GHGs “endanger” us and thus should be restricted, EPA should have considered
1. Overall benefits of fossil fuels
2. Climate resilience benefits of fossil fuels
3. Both positive and negative climate impacts of GHGsEPA failed on all 3 counts.
- The “endangerment finding” was particularly inane because it concluded that the US restricting US GHG emissions would accomplish anything globally—when in fact all it accomplished was harming us and offshoring industry to China, which now has 300+ new coal plants in the pipeline!⁵
- By falsely claiming that fossil fuels “endanger” human health, welfare, and climate safety when they were—and have continued to be—a net benefit, EPA has justified giving itself totalitarian powers that, if not stopped, will crater the US economy.
- Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed GHG rules that effectively ban all coal plants and new natural gas plants—by requiring them to capture at least 90% of GHGs, which no plant has ever done at all, let alone cost-effectively.
How EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid
·May 22, 20244 reasons EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid:
Read full story - Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed “fuel economy standards” that would prevent more than 50% of Americans from buying a gasoline-powered vehicle after 2032—a complete violation of American freedom.⁶
- Drawing on the bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA and administration as a whole waged a “whole of government” war on fossil fuels that, if not reversed, will crater our entire economy—which has no near-term replacement for fossil fuels.⁷
- The Trump administration, especially EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, will be attacked relentlessly for challenging the bogus “endangerment finding”—but they should be praised for being willing to take on the most destructive regulatory action in American history.
Questions about this article? Ask AlexAI, my chatbot for energy and climate answers:
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Reality Finally Returns To Energy Industry
-
espionage1 day ago
Why has President Trump not released the JFK, Jeffrey Epstein files?
-
Business1 day ago
Ontario Premier Doug Ford Apologizes To Americans After Threatening Energy Price Hike For Millions
-
Health1 day ago
Flu Vaccine Exposed: The Shocking NIH Discovery They Don’t Want You to Know
-
Alberta1 day ago
New gas reserves take Canada into global top 10
-
Business1 day ago
USAID reportedly burning, shredding classified documents
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Amazon Rainforest Razed To Build Highway For UN Climate Summit
-
Crime1 day ago
BC Fentanyl Ring ‘Negotiated’ With Sinaloa Chief ‘El Mayo,’ Court Filings Allege