“You can’t power a full-time economy on part-time power,” says Stephen Lecce in searing response to anti-nuclear, so-called “environmental” groups. “Reliability and system costs matter.”

January 25, 2026

With this weekend marking the coldest winter weather in years, and wind power not showing up in its characteristic avoidance of high-demand periods (summer and winter), it was a tough time for the pro-wind power crowd.

All the usual, “clean” “green” and especially “cheap” arguments for intermittent, unreliable, low-density power seemed not to matter as Ontario power demand went over 20,000 megawatts but wind power could contribute only 3 percent yesterday.

On Wind Concerns Ontario’s Facebook page, things were obviously so bad that some commenters accused WCO of making up the numbers—ahem, the stats came from the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO. So if things looked bad, they really were that bad. No emphasis needed.

But still, the pro-wind, anti-nuclear faction continued, and Friday and Yesterday, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce had had enough with the winter fairy tales. Posting on both X and Facebook, he laid bare the nonsense that wind power is the lowest cost option. Today, he hit on the reliability of wind power (it doesn’t have any), and aimed in particular at the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) which is rabidly anti-nuclear.

Last week, the OCAA pitched its no nuclear, no natural gas power to Port Hope municipal council, and urged council to reject the Ontario government plans for new nuclear at Wesleyville. (OCAA leader Jack Gibbons also once again pitched his idea of covering the Great Lakes with wind turbines.)

That was too much for Stephen Lecce.

On Friday he posted this:

“Every critic claims renewables are “cheaper.” The facts say otherwise:

* Renewables last ~20 years; nuclear delivers ~80 years of clean power (including refurbishment)

* Renewables are intermittent (~30% capacity); nuclear provides 24/7 baseload reliability

* ~60% of solar and ~80% of wind tech is made in China; ~90–95% of nuclear supply is Canadian

Take Pickering B: 2,200 MW of always-on, clean power.

The IESO – Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator found that to match its reliability and output, Ontario would need 10× more wind, solar, and batteries — plus ~2,400 km² of land, nearly 4× the size of Toronto.

For SMRs, the story is the same.

To match 1,200 MW from SMRs, IESO estimates Ontario would need 4–8× more renewables — and up to 1,300 km² of land, 260× more than the SMR footprint at Darlington.

As Bruce Power advances ‘Bruce C’, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce report confirmed it will ADD $238 billion to the national economy and create 10K permanent jobs.

How many jobs will be created with the always romanticized alternative resource? Jobs in China, perhaps, but few here at home.

And the economics? The Ontario Energy Board consistently finds nuclear among the lowest-cost options per MWh.

We have to face the reality that Ontario needs at least 65% more power to grow our economy. The question is, what is the most reliable and affordable long-term resource to keep our economy strong?

Those who stand against this Canadian industrial success story are blinded by ideology. This can be one of Canada’s most consequential investments in our economic and industrial sovereignty, leveraging a mature nuclear supply chain that employs 80K Ontarians.

Under FordNation, Ontario is doubling down on made-in-Canada nuclear to keep the lights on — and bills down. We won’t repeat others’ mistakes.”

And today:

“You can’t power a full-time economy on part-time power.

On one of the coldest days of the year, Ontario families stayed warm because our system worked exactly as designed.

Nuclear operated 24/7, hydro delivered steady baseload, and natural gas stepped in to meet peak demand — the reliability backbone of a northern, industrial economy.

At the same time, wind delivered less than 3% of its installed capacity. That’s not ideology — that’s system data.

Ontario is technology agnostic. But reliability and system costs still matter. The Opposition and groups like the so-called “Clean Air Alliance” keep pushing the false claim that intermittent renewables alone can power a modern economy. They can’t.

Replacing firm nuclear and gas capacity with wind alone would require hundreds of thousands of MW of installed capacity, tens of thousands of turbines, massive transmission expansion, and system costs measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars — while still requiring backup for winter days like yesterday.

This approach would drive up hydro bills, decrease system reliability, forcing us to become more dependent on imports, and ultimately destroy Canada’s great industrial nuclear success story and the 80,000 jobs that come with it.

This type of dogma, embraced by the Wynne and Trudeau governments, was firmly rejected by the people who pay the bills.

There is a reason industrial economies and democracies are turning back to 24/7 nuclear power: Germany, Italy, Belgium, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the list goes on and on.

Energy policy must be rooted in reliability, affordability, and economic sovereignty — not ideological delusion.”

Mr Lecce referred to the work of economist Edgardo Sepulveda in that post, who earlier today posted an analysis of yesterday’s dismal numbers for wind power on his own Facebook page.

All we can say is “Wow.” And, “finally.”

Vindication for Ontario rural communities that in 2025 stood up against new wind power proposals and said, Why? Wind isn’t worth the sacrifice we would have to make. Which is why, perhaps, only two out of 20 proposals made ton the IESO LT2-RFP in 2025 are going forward to consideration, and why 159 Ontario municipalities are Unwilling Hosts to new wind power projects.

Bravo to the Minister!

Note that Ottawa’s $57B Energy Evolution plan, which is still city policy to this day, calls for 3,200 megawatts of intermittent, expensive, unreliable, land-gobbling wind turbines.

You may contact Minister Lecce at MinisterEnergy@ontario.ca

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

#ottcity #EnergyEvolution