Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams

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:

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

More from this study

Read the Full Report

Up Next

Alberta calling for federal election! Premier Smith demands feds scrap dangerous oil and gas production caps

Don't Miss

“Axe the Tax” is just the beginning

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

‘There Will Be Very Serious Retaliation’: Two American Servicemen, Interpreter Killed In Syrian Attack

Health / 2 hours ago

The Data That Doesn’t Exist

Business / 2 hours ago

Fuelled by federalism—America’s economically freest states come out on top

Automotive

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Published on December 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”

And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.

So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.

But is that true?

Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.

Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.

Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.

However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.

Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.

So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Energy

Canada’s future prosperity runs through the northwest coast

Published on December 13, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

By Deborah Jaremko

A strategic gateway to the world

Tucked into the north coast of B.C. is the deepest natural harbour in North America and the port with the shortest travel times to Asia.

With growing capacity for exports including agricultural products, lumber, plastic pellets, propane and butane, it’s no wonder the Port of Prince Rupert often comes up as a potential new global gateway for oil from Alberta, said CEO Shaun Stevenson.

Thanks to its location and natural advantages, the port can efficiently move a wide range of commodities, he said.

That could include oil, if not for the federal tanker ban in northern B.C.’s coastal waters.

*The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority*

“Notwithstanding the moratorium that was put in place, when you look at the attributes of the Port of Prince Rupert, there’s arguably no safer place in Canada to do it,” Stevenson said.

“I think that speaks to the need to build trust and confidence that it can be done safely, with protection of environmental risks. You can’t talk about the economic opportunity before you address safety and environmental protection.”

Safe transit at Prince Rupert

About a 16-hour drive from Vancouver, the Port of Prince Rupert’s terminals are one to two sailing days closer to Asia than other West Coast ports.

The entrance to the inner harbour is wider than the length of three Canadian football fields.

The water is 35 metres deep — about the height of a 10-storey building — compared to 22 metres at Los Angeles and 16 metres at Seattle.

Shipmasters spend two hours navigating into the port with local pilot guides, compared to four hours at Vancouver and eight at Seattle.

“We’ve got wide open, very simple shipping lanes. It’s not moving through complex navigational channels into the site,” Stevenson said.

A port on the rise

The Prince Rupert Port Authority says it has entered a new era of expansion, strengthening Canada’s economic security.

The port estimates it anchors about $60 billion of Canada’s annual global trade today. Even without adding oil exports, Stevenson said that figure could grow to $100 billion.

“We need better access to the huge and growing Asian market,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“Prince Rupert seems purpose-built for that.”

Roughly $3 billion in new infrastructure is already taking shape, including the $750 million rail-to-container CANXPORT transloading complex for bulk commodities like specialty agricultural products, lumber and plastic pellets.

*The Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, Canada’s first marine propane export terminal, started shipping in May 2019. Photo courtesy AltaGas Ltd.*

Canadian propane goes global

A centrepiece of new development is the $1.35-billion Ridley Energy Export Facility — the port’s third propane terminal since 2019.

“Prince Rupert is already emerging as a globally significant gateway for propane exports to Asia,” Exner-Pirot said.

Thanks to shipments from Prince Rupert, Canadian propane – primarily from Alberta – has gone global, no longer confined to U.S. markets.

More than 45 per cent of Canada’s propane exports now reach destinations outside the United States, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.

“Twenty-five per cent of Japan’s propane imports come through Prince Rupert, and just shy of 15 per cent of Korea’s imports. It’s created a lift on every barrel produced in Western Canada,” Stevenson said.

“When we look at natural gas liquids, propane and butane, we think there’s an opportunity for Canada via Prince Rupert becoming the trading benchmark for the Asia-Pacific region.”

That would give Canadian production an enduring competitive advantage when serving key markets in Asia, he said.

Deep connection to Alberta

The Port of Prince Rupert has been a key export hub for Alberta commodities for more than four decades.

Through the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, the province invested $134 million — roughly half the total cost — to build the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal, which opened in 1985.

The largest grain terminal on the West Coast, it primarily handles wheat, barley, and canola from the prairies.

*The Prince Rupert Grain Terminal. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority*

Today, the connection to Alberta remains strong.

In 2022, $3.8 billion worth of Alberta exports — mainly propane, agricultural products and wood pulp — were shipped through the Port of Prince Rupert, according to the province’s Ministry of Transportation and Economic Corridors.

In 2024, Alberta awarded a $250,000 grant to the Prince Rupert Port Authority to lead discussions on expanding transportation links with the province’s Industrial Heartland region near Edmonton.

Handling some of the world’s biggest vessels

The Port of Prince Rupert could safely handle oil tankers, including Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs), Stevenson said.

“We would have the capacity both in water depth and access and egress to the port that could handle Aframax, Suezmax and even VLCCs,” he said.

“We don’t have terminal capacity to handle oil at this point, but there’s certainly terminal capacities within the port complex that could be either expanded or diversified in their capability.”

Market access lessons from TMX

Like propane, Canada’s oil exports have gained traction in Asia, thanks to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline and the Westridge Marine Terminal near Vancouver — about 1,600 kilometres south of Prince Rupert, where there is no oil tanker ban.

The Trans Mountain expansion project included the largest expansion of ocean oil spill response in Canadian history, doubling capacity of the West Coast Marine Response Corporation.

*The K.J. Gardner is the largest-ever spill response vessel in Canada. Photo courtesy Western Canada Marine Response Corporation*

The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) reports that Canadian oil exports to Asia more than tripled after the expanded pipeline and terminal went into service in May 2024.

As a result, the price for Canadian oil has gone up.

The gap between Western Canadian Select (WCS) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) has narrowed to about $12 per barrel this year, compared to $19 per barrel in 2023, according to GLJ Petroleum Consultants.

Each additional dollar earned per barrel adds about $280 million in annual government royalties and tax revenues, according to economist Peter Tertzakian.