A Clean Future for Canada? Exploring the Major Projects Inventory
Canada has invested in over 500 major natural resources industry projects that are presently under construction, or planned to commence between 2024 and 2034.
These projects are classified as belonging to the energy, mining, or forest sector. In Ontario, the three largest (i.e., most expensive) planned projects surround nuclear energy development. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization's Deep Geological Repository, sits at the top (~$26B), and is intended for the long-term management of nuclear fuel. Two nuclear refurbishment projects at the Bruce and Darlington plants are runners up at an expected ~13B and ~12.8B respectively. Nuclear refurbishment refers to replacing core reactor components to extend plant longevity by 30 years. While Bruce's major component replacement is expected to continue until 2033, Darlington's was completed earlier this month "ahead of schedule and under budget".
It is clear, looking at Canada's current major industry projects, that the government is placing an emphasis on its investment into "clean technology". As of 2024, 215 projects valued at a total of $194.2B were active. While, in theory, this sounds high, it's worth noting that from 2023-24, more clean technology projects were canceled or removed (30) than completed (28), and nearly as many were suspended or placed on hold (27). That is… not a promising ratio.
The easiest way to discuss clean technology in Canada is to define it. Not so surprisingly, the world at large does not have a single, all-encompassing definition for what constitutes clean technology. Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "technology that makes it possible to reduce or avoid harm to the environment".
Circling back to Ontario's major investments; some consider nuclear energy to be clean and sustainable. Specifically, nuclear energy is said to protect air quality, not require a lot of land, and produce "minimal waste". Contestors of this view argue that, as it is not renewable or pollution free, it should not be considered clean. Alongside this, there is controversy surrounding the safety and efficiency of nuclear energy, with the major Fukushima power plant disaster often cited as a recent example of what can go wrong. Whether nuclear energy is safer and more efficient than other alternative (i.e., not fossil fuel-based) energy sources is a contentious debate, with a variety of researchers advocating for opposing sides.
One thing that was not immediately clear to me is what the Canadian government actually defines clean technology to be. After what seemed like a bit more deep diving than should have been required to answer to my seemingly simple question, I found that at a federal level, clean technologies are defined as:
Any good or service designed with the primary purpose of contributing to remediating or preventing any type of environmental damage
Any good or service that is less polluting or more resource-efficient than equivalent normal products which furnish a similar utility. Their primary use, however, is not one of environmental protection.
It can be argued that this rather ambiguous definition provides innovators with the freedom to explore unique ideas while still meeting the eligibility criteria for a variety of funding opportunities. However, it could also be said that it encourages federal investment into a multitude of projects labeled as clean technology, that may not meet stricter definitions. The term "less polluting" alone implies that the bar to receive funding for your "clean project" is quite low. Unfortunately, industrial initiatives are not exempt from greenwashing.
The major projects inventory refers to clean technology projects as "largely renewable electricity" or "non-emitting energy projects", citing "hydro, wind, solar, biomass, tidal, and geothermal" as examples of the former, and "nuclear, biofuels, and carbon capture and storage" for the latter.
One specific example of a large (~$16B) project listed as clean technology is the Site C hydroelectric dam in northeastern British Columbia. Site C began generating power in 2024, after several years of setbacks and controversy, largely related to its impacts on the surrounding environment and geotechnical issues.
It seems as though perhaps "contributing to remediating or preventing any type of environmental damage" may be interpreted as picking any odd type of environmental damage you'd like to remediate or prevent from a long list of options, rather than striving to prevent any and all environmental damage from occurring. The joys of vague wording.
Other highlighted large clean technology projects on that list include Alberta's (~16.5B) Pathways Alliance Carbon Capture Storage Network (which has generated concerns around potential impacts on the province's farmland and water), the above discussed nuclear refurbishment projects, and another Alberta project; Dow Chemical's (~11.5B) Net-Zero Polyethylene Facility. The latter was delayed as of last spring due to economic instability, largely attributed to our southern neighbour's current approach to trade.
From 2021-2024, the second most funded category of clean energy project (after hydro and before solar) is bioenergy. What does this refer to? What specific projects has the government invested in, and how do these compare to other "clean" initiatives? In what ways will Canada support a shifting workforce to become skilled for employment in this new area of development?
Stay tuned until next week, when we'll dive into Canada's up-and-coming bioenergy sector.