Connect with us

Energy

Federal government’s ’carbon-free’ electricity target far-fetched

Published

16 hours ago

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jock Finlayson and Tegan Hill

A recent report by the Canada West Foundation, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, found that all 25 were still stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process.

Did you know that the Trudeau government wants to “decarbonize” Canada’s electricity generation by 2035? That is, make carbon-free sources (e.g. wind, hydro and solar) the sole power source for electricity generation in Canada.

Is this possible? No.

As of 2023 (the latest year of available data), nearly 81 per cent of Canada’s electricity came from carbon-free sources. To replace the remaining 19 per cent that relies on fossil fuels over the next 10 years, Canada would need to add a massive amount of generation capacity.

Specifically, we would need approximately 23 new large hydroelectric dams similar in size to British Columbia’s Site C project. Of course, due to regulatory hurdles and approval processes, it takes a long time to plan and construct major electricity generation facilities in Canada. The Site C project took approximately 43 years (from initial feasibility and planning studies in 1971) to secure environmental certification in 2014. Construction finally began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015 with completion expected in 2025—at a cost of at least $16 billion.

Alternatively, we would need more than two large scale nuclear power plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Power, which took nearly two decades to complete with billions of dollars in cost overruns.

Or we’d need approximately 11,000 new large wind turbines, which would require clearing approximately 7,302 square kilometres of land (that’s larger than Prince Edward Island and nearly nine times larger than Calgary). The new turbines would also require substantial investments in backup power systems due to the wind’s intermittency, which of course would further drive-up costs across the electricity system.

And remember, as Canada’s population grows, electricity demand will increase significantly. The infrastructure mentioned above would only decarbonize Canada’s current electricity needs, without accounting for the additional capacity required to meet future demand.

And yet, despite its aggressive plan to decarbonize, the Trudeau government in 2019 introduced the Impact Assessment Act (IAA)—also known as Bill C-69—which added layers of uncertainty and complexity to project reviews. A recent report by the Canada West Foundation, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, found that all 25 were still stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process.

In other words, while Ottawa’s electricity decarbonization plan requires an unprecedented wave of new energy projects, the government’s own regulatory regime will make it harder for new projects to get off the ground.

The total costs of the federal government’s plan are incalculable. But we do know who will get hurt the most. Three provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—depend most heavily on fossil fuels to generate electricity. In Alberta, approximately 85 per cent of electricity comes from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas, while carbon-free sources generate only 15 per cent. Clearly, Alberta and these other provinces will face the greatest challenges—and heaviest burdens—in decarbonizing their grids.

In light of the basic realities of project construction timelines, regulatory hurdles and the massive financial investment required, the Trudeau government’s target to achieve 100 per cent fossil fuel-free electricity by 2035 is far-fetched. But the costs of pursuing that target will be very real and felt by all Canadians, with the size of the costs depending largely on where you live.

Authors:

Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Jock Finlayson
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 2 hours ago

Kennedy Exposes the Swamp – Vivek and Musk Appointed to DOGE

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

‘A Tremendous Boon’: Trump’s Sec Def Pick Will Give Pentagon Its First Real Wake Up Call In Decades

Business / 7 hours ago

Canadians should expect even more spending in federal fall economic statement

Energy

COP 29 is immoral

Published on November 13, 2024

By

Energy Talking Points

By Alex Epstein

COP 29 seeks net-zero, which would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives

COP 29 seeks net-zero—rapidly eliminating fossil fuels—in the name of protecting us from climate danger.

In reality, net-zero would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives.

People should condemn COP and embrace energy freedom.

  • The COP 29 climate conference has a consistent theme: previous COPs have done an okay job of restricting fossil fuels in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but this one needs to eliminate fossil fuel use far faster so as to reach net-zero by 2050.This is 180° wrong.
  • COP 29’s goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to reach net-zero is deadly because:1. Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate along with improving every other aspect of life
    2. Even barely implementing COP’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.

Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate.

  • The justification of COP 29’s net-zero agenda is that fossil fuel use is causing an escalating “climate crisis.”But if we look at the full effects of fossil fuels on climate danger, we find that overall fossil fuels have dramatically reduced climate danger.
  • Myth: Climate danger is higher than ever because of fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions.Truth: We have a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths due to our enormous fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities: heating and cooling, infrastructure-building, irrigation, crop transport.¹
  • Myth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 is an “existential threat” that will soon cause global catastrophe and then apocalypse.Truth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 levels will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.
  • For the full story on how fossil fuels overall make us far safer from climate and will continue to do so, read this:

Even barely implementing COP 29’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.

  • While COP 28 leaders bemoan how slow their restriction of fossil fuels in pursuit of net-zero has been, even “slow” restriction has caused a global energy crisis.
  • Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn’t warn us of.
  • Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:US: frequent power shortages after shutting down fossil fuel power plants.

    EU: deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting their domestic fossil fuel industry.

    Poor nations: can’t afford fuel due to global restrictions.²
  • If just restricting the growth of fossil fuels in a world that needs far more energy is catastrophic, what would it mean to reduce CO2 emissions by the 50% many “climate emergency” advocates want by 2030 and the 100% they want by 2050?Global misery and premature death.
    Every "net zero by 2050" myth, refuted

    Every “net zero by 2050” myth, refuted
    ·
    September 21, 2023
    Read full story

COP 29’s net-zero agenda harms poor nations most of all.

 

  • The net-zero movement led by COP is particularly dangerous to Africa and other poor regions.Consider: 1/3 of the world uses wood and animal dung for heating and cooking. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.

    Only fossil fuels can provide the energy they need to develop.³
  • Every prosperous country has developed using fossil fuels.No poor country has been able to develop to the point of prosperity without massive fossil fuel use.

    Development requires energy, and fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective and scalable source of energy.⁴

  • Fossil fuels are so uniquely good at providing low-cost, reliable energy for developing nations that even nations with little or no fossil fuel resources have used fossil fuels to develop and prosper. E.g. South Korea (83% fossil fuels), Japan (85% fossil fuels), Singapore (99% fossil fuels).⁵
  • The obvious path for African development and prosperity is to use fossil fuel whenever it’s the most cost-effective option, which is most of the time, and certainly to responsibly produce the significant fossil fuel resources that exist in Africa.Yet COP tells Africa to forgo fossil fuels.
  • COP 29 is fundamentally immoral because its goal of “net zero by 2050” would deprive billions of the energy they need to prosper.Good people who care about energy and human flourishing should condemn COP and net-zero can champion energy freedom instead.

The path forward: reject net-zero and embrace energy freedom.

  • The path to global prosperity and increasing climate safety is energy freedom: allowing us to use all forms of energy so we are prosperous, resilient to climate danger, and in the long-term innovate new, truly cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels.
  • Rejecting net-zero and embracing energy freedom means scrapping the Paris Agreement, whose pursuit of net-zero is committing virtually all nations, including the world’s poorest, to rejecting the fossil fuels they need to prosper.
  • While many at COP are saying that a US withdrawal from Paris by the next administration would be irresponsible, it is the only responsible action to take given that Paris commits us to banning most of the fossil fuels that we and our allies need.
  • Rejecting net-zero, including the Paris Agreement, and embracing energy freedom requires collaboration among pro-freedom countries like the US, developing nations such as African nations, and any reasonable energy companies.
  • Developing nations, above all African nations, need to reject net-zero and embrace energy freedom: the freedom to produce and use all cost-effective sources of energy—including, essentially, fossil fuels—which means rejecting all net-zero targets. Here’s a blueprint for doing it.
  • The energy industry and obviously the fossil fuel industry should condemn COP and its net-zero goal. Appalling, ExxonMobil and others are actually calling for the US to stay in the net-zero Paris Agreement!Here’s why this is both immoral and impractical.
  • Any attendee of COP 29 should thoroughly reject the conference’s “net zero by 2050” goal and instead proudly advocate for energy freedom and climate safety through climate mastery.If they do that, they have a real chance at stopping the conference from ruining the world.

Share

Popular links

“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.

Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein

 

1

UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.

Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

Continue Reading

Canadian Energy Centre

Ignoring the global picture and making Canadians poorer: Energy and economic leaders on Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap

Published on November 13, 2024

By

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

The federal government’s draft rules to cap emissions – and by credible analysis, production – from Canada’s oil and gas sector will make Canadians poorer, won’t reduce world emissions, and are a “slap in the face” to Indigenous communities.

That’s the view of several leaders in energy and the economy calling out the negative consequences of Ottawa’s new regulations, which were announced on November 4.

Here’s a selection of what they have to say.

Goldy Hyder, CEO, Business Council of Canada

“At a time when Canada’s economy is stalling, imposing an oil and gas emissions cap will only make Canadians poorer. Strong climate action requires a strong economy. This cap will leave us with neither.”

Deborah Yedlin, CEO, Calgary Chamber of Commerce

“Canada would stand as the only country in the world to move forward with a self-imposed emissions cap.

“Given that our economic growth numbers have been underwhelming–and our per-person productivity lags that of the United States by $20,000, one would expect the government to be more focused on supporting sectors that are critical to economic growth rather than passing legislation that will compromise investment and hamper our growth prospects.

“…If the Canadian government wants to reduce emissions, it should follow the private sector’s lead – and strong track record – and withdraw the emissions cap.”

Stephen Buffalo, CEO, Indian Resources Council of Canada

“Over the past four decades, Canadian governments urged and promoted Indigenous peoples to engage in the natural resource economy. We were anxious to break our dependence on government and, even more, to exercise our treaty and Indigenous rights to build our own economies. We jumped in with far more enthusiasm and commitment than most Canadians appreciate.

“And now, in a bid to make Canada look ecologically virtuous on the world stage, the Liberal government imposed further restrictions on the oil and gas sector. This is happening as Indigenous engagement, employment and equity investment are growing and at a time when our communities have had their first taste of real and sustainable prosperity since the newcomers killed off all the buffalo. Thanks for nothing.”

Trevor Tombe, professor of economics, University of Calgary School of Public Policy

“[The emissions cap] is a wedge issue that’s going to be especially popular in Quebec. And I don’t think the [federal government’s] thinking goes much further than that.”

Kendall Dilling, president, Pathways Alliance

“A decrease in Canadian production has no impact on global demand – meaning another country’s oil will simply fill the void and the intended impact of the emissions cap is negated at a global level.

“An emissions cap gives industry less – not more – of the certainty needed to make long-term investments that create jobs, economic growth and tax revenues for all levels of government. It simply makes Canada less competitive.”

Michael Belenkie, CEO, Advantage Energy

“Canada’s emissions profile is not unusual. What’s unusual about Canada and our emissions is we seem to be the only exporting nation of the world that is willing to self-immolate. All we’re doing is we’re shutting ourselves down at our own expense and watching global emissions increase.”

Kevin Krausert, CEO and co-founder, Avatar Innovations

“The emissions cap risks delaying – if not derailing – a whole suite of emissions-reduction technology projects. The reason is simple: it has added yet another layer of uncertainty and complexity on already skinny investment decisions by weakening the most effective mechanism Canada has in place.

“…After nearly 15 years of experimenting in a complicated regulatory system, we’ve finally landed on one of the most globally effective and fungible carbon markets in the world in Alberta, called TIER.

“What the federal emissions cap has done is introduce uncertainty about the future of TIER. That’s because the cap has its own newly created cap-and-trade system. It takes TIER’s 15 years of experience and market knowledge and either duplicates functioning markets or creates a whole new market that may take another 15 years to get right.”

Dennis Darby, CEO, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters

“The federal government’s announcement of a cap and trade on oil and gas emissions threatens Canada’s energy trade, economic interests, and national unity.”

Adam Legge, president, Business Council of Alberta

“The oil and gas emissions cap is a discriminatory and divisive policy proposal—the epitome of bad public policy. It will likely cap Canadian prosperity—billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs lost for no benefit, and the burden will be borne largely in one region and one sector.”

Lisa Baiton, CEO, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

“The result would be lower production, lower exports, fewer jobs, lower GDP and lower revenues to governments to fund critical infrastructure and social programs on which Canadians rely.”

Statement, Canadian Association of Energy Contractors

“The Trudeau government does not care about Canadian blue-collar, middle-class energy workers who rely on the industry to support their families. It does not care about small, medium and Indigenous energy service businesses that operate in rural and remote communities across Western Canada. And it certainly does not care about supporting our allies who are desperate for oil and gas from sources other than regimes such as Russia or Iran.”

Peter Tertzakian, executive director, ARC Energy Research Institute

“Focusing on a single sector while ignoring others is problematic because each tonne of emissions has the same impact on climate change, regardless of its source. It makes little sense to impose potentially higher economic burdens on one economic sector when you could reduce emissions elsewhere at a lower cost.”

Shannon Joseph, chair, Energy for a Secure Future

“Canada continues to pursue its climate policy in a vacuum, ignoring the big picture of global emissions. This places at risk our international interests, tens of thousands of good paying jobs and important progress on reconciliation.”

Adam Sweet, director for Western Canada, Clean Prosperity

“Layering on a new cap-and-trade system for oil and gas producers adds uncertainty and regulatory complexity that risks undermining investment in emissions reductions just as we’re getting close to landing significant new decarbonization projects here in Alberta.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X