Energy
Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0cfd1/0cfd1dc00be61ddfae5238b487d01ad651f0a46c" alt=""
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
Energy
Trump’s tariffs made Ottawa suddenly start talking about new east-to-west pipelines, but how long will it last?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a7c5f/a7c5f66528d90d97d644ea74b7c823345420be20" alt=""
For years, oil pipelines have been a political fault line in Canada, with battles over environmental policies, economic development and national energy security. The Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has sent mixed signals – championing climate goals while approving some energy projects like the Trans Mountain Expansion. But now, with a trade war looming over Canada, a surprising shift has occurred: a consensus across the political spectrum in favour of building new pipelines.
And it’s all due to one man: United States President Donald Trump.
Trump’s threat to impose a 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy and 25 percent on other Canadian exports has woken up Ottawa. Previously, Trudeau’s government made decisions that killed off big pipeline projects like Energy East. Bill C-69 was blamed for creating an uncertain regulatory environment that discouraged investment in pipelines.
But now, Liberal ministers are talking about revisiting those projects.
On February 6, Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, a long-time climate crusader, surprised many when he said Canada is too dependent on the U.S. as an oil buyer and suggested Ottawa should consider a pipeline to Eastern Canada to diversify energy exports. He’d made similar comments in September and October 2024 when he said oil demand had peaked and pipelines were unnecessary.
The next day, it was reported that Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne followed Wilkinson’s lead, saying Canada must reassess its energy infrastructure given Trump’s threat. He even suggested Quebec, which has long opposed pipelines, might be open to reconsidering Energy East.
Shortly after, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seized the moment, urging Ottawa to restart talks on national energy infrastructure.
And then on February 9, Champagne again said Quebecers might have a different view on pipelines now that their economic security is at stake.
This is a stunning reversal. Just months ago Wilkinson and other Liberal officials were saying oil demand was declining and Canada should focus on renewables and electrification.
However, is this a real policy shift?
While some senior Liberals are suddenly in favour of pipelines, one key figure has been silent: Mark Carney, the front runner in the Liberal leadership race.
Carney has made climate action a central plank of his campaign, but says he supports the “concept” of an east-west pipeline.
His silence raises a big question: Are the Liberals really in favour of oil pipelines or is this just a reaction to Trump?
Despite Carney, Wilkinson and Champagne’s comments, big industry players remain skeptical. Pipeline projects take years of regulatory approval, billions of investment and political will at both the federal and provincial level. The Trudeau government’s track record has been one of obstacles, not encouragement, for big energy projects.
And some experts say pipeline companies may not be keen to jump back into the fray. TC Energy, the former proponent of Energy East, divested its oil pipeline business in 2023. Would a new pipeline proponent be willing to navigate the regulatory and political minefield that Ottawa itself created?
The political fallout could be immense.
If the Liberals go for pipelines, it will be one of the biggest policy reversals in Canadian energy history. It will also expose deep divisions within the party. Environmental groups and Liberal voters in urban centres will likely rage against such a shift while oil-producing provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan will remain skeptical of Ottawa’s new enthusiasm.
Meanwhile the Conservative Party, the only federal party that has always been in favour of pipelines, will find itself in an unusual position—watching the Liberals adopt its policies as their own.
In the next few weeks all eyes will be on Carney and the Liberal leadership race. If Carney keeps hedging on pipelines, it will be unclear if this new consensus is real or just political expediency in the face of Trump’s tariffs.
For now Canada’s pipeline debate is no longer about energy or the environment—it’s about sovereignty, trade and survival in an uncertain global economy. Will this consensus last beyond the immediate crisis?
Alberta
Can Trump Revive The Keystone Pipeline?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/abedb/abedb585d4c7b77181faa707d06b369be1e4abe1" alt=""
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By David Blackmon
In a post on his Truth Social media platform Monday night, President Donald Trump said he still wants to see the Keystone XL pipeline through to completion. Here is the full text of the president’s post:
“Our Country’s doing really well, and today, I was just thinking, that the company building the Keystone XL Pipeline that was viciously jettisoned by the incompetent Biden administration should come back to America, and get it built — NOW! I know they were treated very badly by Sleepy Joe Biden, but the Trump Administration is very different — Easy approvals, almost immediate start! If not them, perhaps another Pipeline Company. We want the Keystone XL Pipeline built!”
For those unaware, the company that spent a decade attempting to finance, obtain permits, and build the Keystone XL pipeline project is TC Energy (formerly Trans Canada), which is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!
Fraught with controversy from the beginning, Keystone XL became a true political football during the Barack Obama presidency as the anti-oil and gas lobby in the U.S. mounted a disinformation campaign to kill public support for it. The mounting of the costly disinformation campaign made the process of obtaining permits at all levels of government – state, local, and federal – far more difficult and time-consuming, needlessly running up the project’s cost in the process.
After the Obama State Department led by Secretary John Kerry refused to issue the international cross-border permit required to complete the line, Trump quickly acted to ensure its approval early in his first term in office. By the time Joe Biden assumed office in January 2021, TC Energy had invested billions of dollars – creating thousands of high-paying jobs in the process – and well over half the line was already in the ground. Still, despite the huge sunk cost and lacking an ability to cite any instance in which TC Energy stood in violation of any U.S. law or regulation, Biden took the extraordinary, indefensible step of cancelling the project with the stroke of a pen.
But can the project really be revived now? It’s an important question given that Keystone XL was designed to bring as many as 830,000 barrels of Canadian oil per day into the United States for refining and delivery to markets.
Here, it is key to note that – as I pointed out last November when then-President-elect Trump raised this topic – TC Energy is no longer the owner of the moribund project. The remnants of Keystone XL were included in a group of assets TC Energy spun off last year when it formed a new company named South Bow Energy.
Complicating matters further is the fact that, after it decided the pipeline was a lost cause back in 2021, TC Energy pulled the installed pipe out of the ground so it could be repurposed for other projects in its portfolio. Then, there’s the fact that many of the permits the company spent years trying to obtain from various levels of governments are no longer valid and would have to go through the application and approval processes again were the project to be revived.
At the federal level, the Department of Interior and FERC would govern most of the necessary permitting processes. President Trump ordered all of his departments and commissions in January to research ways the executive branch can streamline the federal processes and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum included that goal as one of his 6 top priorities in a memo to staff dated February 3.
But even if those projects are successful in speeding up permitting at the federal level, they would have no impact on such challenges at the state and local levels. Activist groups who organized the opposition to the project saw great success in holding up permitting issuances at these lower levels of government, and would no doubt revive that strategy to attack any effort to restart the pipeline.
There can be no doubt that Trump’s desire to get the pipeline built is a laudable goal from a commercial, environmental and national security standpoint. Whether it is a practical goal is another question with many factors arrayed in opposition to it.
But one thing I’ve learned long ago is to never underestimate Donald Trump’s ability to get a deal done, so no one should give up hope just yet.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
-
National2 days ago
Mark Carney’s Shocking Debate Meltdown
-
Business1 day ago
Liberal leadership debate sees candidates bash Trump, promise to fight ‘climate change’
-
Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath2 days ago
Where’s the data on miscarriages linked to COVID Injections?
-
Business2 days ago
The NSA’s Secret Sex Chats
-
Opinion1 day ago
Liberal leadership race guarantees Canadian voters will be guided by a clown show for a while yet
-
Business1 day ago
COVID lockdowns in Canada cost small businesses $60 billion in first year alone
-
Bjorn Lomborg1 day ago
We need to get smart about climate
-
Business2 days ago
Trump to Counter Foreign Social Media Censorship Demands and Defend Free Speech Online