GOLDSTEIN: Carney’s green energy plan built on nuclear power and natural gas

This policy should have been obvious from the beginning

Published Jun 24, 2026  •  Last updated 11 minutes ago  •  3 minute read

Federal Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Tim Hodgson. Photo by Gavin Young /Postmedia Network

See more Toronto Sun on Google — save as a Preferred Source

Article content

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s plan to use nuclear power and natural gas to cement Canada’s status as a global clean energy superpower should have started a decade ago under Justin Trudeau.

Article content

Recommended Videos

Article content

The question now is whether Canada can make that plan a reality at “speeds not seen in generations,” given the 10-year delay in starting it.

Based on the lack of action up to now on a policy that should have been obvious from the beginning, the jury is out.

Coal-fired electricity is the world’s No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Nuclear power and natural gas can be used to replace it, ensuring both a safe and reliable source of electricity while dramatically reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions, because nuclear power is emissions-free while natural gas burns at half the carbon dioxide intensity of coal.

Canada is already a global leader in clean electricity — 80% of our generation comes from clean energy sources such as hydro and nuclear power and only 6% from coal — compared to countries such as China, where coal accounts for more than 50% of electricity generation, and 75% in India.

Article content

Article content

Domestically, we already have had a real-world demonstration of how replacing coal-fired electricity with nuclear power and natural gas is feasible.

In 2003, coal-fired electricity was responsible for 25% of all power generation in Ontario.

The then Liberal provincial government eliminated its use in 11 years — one of the largest and fastest reductions in emissions anywhere in the world — mainly through the use of nuclear power and natural gas.

Nuclear power provides base load power to the electricity grid on demand, while natural gas, which can be fired up or shut down quickly, is used to manage the peaks and troughs in daily demand.

Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power are part of Ontario’s energy mix, but because they are intermittent — only producing energy when the wind blows and the sun shines — they need to be backed up by natural gas in any event.

Given Canada’s vast reserves of uranium, natural gas and safe CANDU nuclear technology, it always has made sense for Canada to export all three globally.

Article content

CANDU technology has been exported internationally, but one of the big problems, until recently, was that we lacked the ability to ship liquified natural gas to markets other than the U.S., meaning we have had to sell it at a huge discount as a captive market of the U.S.

A major issue is how quickly the Liberal government can pivot on that issue after years of delay.

The other is whether Carney’s plan to build 10 new large-scale nuclear reactors in Canada by 2040 at a cost of more than $100 billion is feasible.

That raises the question of who’s going to pay for them, as well as the inevitable opposition from environmental and Indigenous groups who oppose nuclear energy because of the radioactive waste it generates, as well as the use of natural gas to generate electricity.

On Wednesday, the Carney government announced a process to potentially designate a repository for all of Canada’s existing and future nuclear waste, now stored at various sites across the country, as a nation-building project.

It would be buried up to 800 metres underground in Ontario within the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation reserve and the Township of Ignace.

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson says there is no credible plan to create a low-carbon economy by 2050 without nuclear energy.

Read More

1. 

   GOLDSTEIN: No accountability for record federal spending on Indigenous issues

2. 

   GOLDSTEIN: Prime Minister Mark Carney's accounting tricks won't save taxpayers

Article content