From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

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.

Read the full study

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Mariane Angela

‘It’s The Beginning Of A Giant Negotiation’

“Shark Tank” co-star Kevin O’Leary said Monday on Fox Business that President Donald Trump’s looming tariff on steel and aluminum imports have broader implications for US-Canada relations.

During an appearance on “The Evening Edit,” O’Leary discussed the impact of tariffs as the start of significant negotiations. He said there is potential for broader economic integration between the U.S. and Canada. Trump plans to impose tariffs of 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada, along with an additional 10% tariff on Canadian oil, natural gas, and electricity. Despite these significant figures, Trump has imposed only a 10% tariff on oil, the cheapest U.S. imports. O’Leary said this is merely the opening move in what could be a transformative economic negotiation.

“So all of this to me, if you separate the signal from the noise, forget the noise. The signal is, let’s get an economic union together,” O’Leary said. O’Leary said there is a global uproar over the U.S.’s proposed 25% tariffs and the reciprocal tariffs from countries like India, which have set their tariffs on some U.S. products at up to 23%.

“Those are two different baskets. Obviously, the one that people are talking about quite a bit tonight is India. They’ve got certain product services in different sectors, up to 23%. Now we’re going to have reciprocal tariffs in the U.S. against them. [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi will immediately fly to Washington. The negotiations will begin,” O’Leary said.

O’Leary, however, said Canada’s situation differs from others.

“It’s the same everywhere. The Canadian situation is unique. Almost the entire 200 million deficit that the president’s talking about comes from one single source. That’s energy coming out of Irving Refineries on the east coast down to Boston, and all of that oil, 4.3 million barrels a day coming in at Alberta into the west,” O’Leary said. “And so that’s the most inexpensive oil [that] the U.S. imports. That’s why he only put a 10% tariff on it. But it’s the beginning of a giant negotiation. Aluminum, 70% of aluminum comes in the U.S. It’s made in Canada for one singular reason.”

While some skeptics doubt Canada’s willingness to merge economies, a growing number of Canadians, O’Leary said, are open to exploring such a possibility.

“What is on the table that now 43% of Canadians want to explore more of? Forget all these tariffs. Let’s join the two economies, become a behemoth, common currency perhaps, and then take on China,” O’Leary added. “I mean, that’s really what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the security of the north, not the 49th parallel.”

When asked about what the U.S. could gain from such tariffs beyond economic leverage, O’Leary said it’s about the broader geopolitical benefits:

“Let me assure you that 11 out of 10 Canadians would rather trade their Trudeau pesos for American dollars. They already have American dollar accounts. Trudeau has wiped out 41% of their net worth the last nine years. They want an economic union because it’s good for business. Everybody understands that. The two countries are so intertwined, and they both believe in democracy and free speech and freedom and all the rest,” O’Leary said.

O’Leary was asked what can Trump get for the American consumer and the American voter in return for these tariffs.

“Security on energy,” O’Leary said.

“Alberta has five times more oil and gas than the entire United States. Complete security on uranium, aluminum, all of the incredible resources Canada has with only 41 million people there and access to it in a free flow. No tariffs.”

Trump aggressively employed tariffs to coerce Canada and Mexico into making concessions aimed at resolving the crisis at the southern border. In response, Canada has committed to bolstering security along its northern border, while Mexico has agreed to station 10,000 National Guard troops at the border.

During former President Joe Biden’s tenure, approximately 8.5 million migrants were encountered at the U.S.-Mexico border, and this period also saw an increase in fentanyl seizures, primarily driven by Chinese chemical companies. Meanwhile, even though less frequent, illegal crossings at the northern border also surged during the Biden administration.