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.

Read the full study

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #KennethGreen #NetZero2050 canadianenergy ElectricityDemand feature RapidDecarbonization

Up Next

Canada: It’s Time to Stop Holding Ourselves Back – Lynn Exner

Don't Miss

Musk Quietly Inserts DOGE Across Federal Agencies In Move That Could Uproot $162,000,000,000 Govt Industry

Todayville

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

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 6 hours ago

Canada Needs a Mandatory National Service

Alberta / 6 hours ago

B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way

Economy

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From Michael Shellenberger

Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid-19th Century, and thus none showing human-created emissions caused an acceleration in recent decades.

This does not mean that climate change isn’t happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human-caused climate change.

Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public.

In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world’s leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me.

For years, the world’s top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into how the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers, and the wider public for so long.

You might think this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real-world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention-grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has, since the 1990s, been the main justification for apocalyptic climate claims, and past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show that scientists were deliberately misleading.

The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

Not only can I prove that the real-world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration, I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented their research, and how they did it, thanks to my on-the-record email conversation with Kopp of Rutgers….

Please subscribe now to support Public’s award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video!

Full version: x.com/shellenberger/

Scientists for years said they had proof that climate change was accelerating sea level rise. But that's not what the evidence shows. They knew the truth and misled the public. And now I have a long email exchange with a top scientist that shows how they did it. Massive scandal. pic.twitter.com/MNIX1025Fe

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 24, 2025

Alberta

B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.”

In case you haven’t heard, the Alberta government plans to submit a proposal to the federal government to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast.

But B.C. Premier Eby dismissed the idea, calling it a project imported from U.S. politics and pursued “at the expense of British Columbia and Canada’s economy.” He’s simply wrong. A new pipeline wouldn’t come at the expense of B.C. or Canada’s economy—it would strengthen both. In fact, particularly during the age of Trump, provinces should seek greater cooperation and avoid erecting policy barriers that discourage private investment and restrict trade and market access.

The United States remains the main destination for Canada’s leading exports, oil and natural gas. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. In light of President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy and other goods, it’s long past time to diversify our trade and find new export markets.

Given that most of Canada’s oil and gas is landlocked in the Prairies, pipelines to coastal terminals are the only realistic way to reach overseas markets. After the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project in May 2024, which transports crude oil from Alberta to B.C. and opened access to Asian markets, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent. This new global reach strengthens Canada’s leverage in trade negotiations with Washington, as it enables Canada to sell its energy to markets beyond the U.S.

Yet trade is just one piece of the broader economic impact. In its first year of operation, the TMX expansion generated $13.6 billion in additional revenue for the economy, including $2.0 billion in extra tax revenues for the federal government. By 2043, TMX operations will contribute a projected $9.2 billion to Canada’s economic output, $3.7 billion in wages, and support the equivalent of more than 36,000 fulltime jobs. And B.C. stands to gain the most, with $4.3 billion added to its economic output, nearly $1 billion in wages, and close to 9,000 new jobs. With all due respect to Premier Eby, this is good news for B.C. workers and the provincial economy.

In contrast, cancelling pipelines has come at a real cost to B.C. and Canada’s economy. When the Trudeau government scrapped the already-approved Northern Gateway project, Canada lost an opportunity to increase the volume of oil transported from Alberta to B.C. and diversify its trading partners. Meanwhile, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, B.C. lost out on nearly 8,000 jobs a year (or 224,344 jobs in 29 years) and more than $11 billion in provincial revenues from 2019 to 2048 (inflation-adjusted).

Now, with the TMX set to reach full capacity by 2027/28, and Premier Eby opposing Alberta’s pipeline proposal, Canada may miss its chance to export more to global markets amid rising oil demand. And Canadians recognize this opportunity—a recent poll shows that a majority of Canadians (including 56 per cent of British Columbians) support a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.

But, as others have asked, if the economic case is so strong, why has no private company stepped up to build or finance a new pipeline?

Two words—bad policy.

At the federal level, Bill C-48 effectively bans large oil tankers from loading or unloading at ports along B.C.’s northern coast, undermining the case for any new private-sector pipeline. Meanwhile, Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” And the federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector will inevitably force a reduction in oil and gas production, again making energy projects including pipelines less attractive to investors.

Clearly, policymakers in Canada should help diversify trade, boost economic growth and promote widespread prosperity in B.C., Alberta and beyond. To achieve this goal, they should put politics aside, focus of the benefits to their constituents, and craft regulations that more thoughtfully balance environmental concerns with the need for investment and economic growth.