https://www.thestar.com/business/2009/07/14/26b_cost_killed_...
Going forward, Canada will likely go with some combination of wind and hydro. There is enormous hydro capacity in Canada, and it pairs very naturally with wind. There are good wind resources in many places east of the Rockies in Canada, especially Quebec (near large hydro resources) and around Hudson Bay.
https://aws-dewi.ul.com/assets/Wind-Resource-Map-CANADA-11x1...
Most of the US south has enough wind and solar potential to avoid needing such a solution. Texas could be a net exporter to other US grids and Mexico if ERCOT gets its act together and upgrades the interconnectors between other grids, not to mention the vast solar potential of the US Southwest.
Hydro probably more from Quebec, but Ontario exports as well. (Source: I live in Ontario.)
* https://www.ieso.ca/power-data
Nuclear chugs along with the base load at 9000 to 9500 MW, next biggest is hydro with between 3000 and 5000MW (with some deep troughs at 2500). Wind is the third-biggest, but is very variable: it tends to peak where hydro troughs (2500). Natgas comes along every so often
Ontario retired all of its coal plants several years ago.
If I had a magic want in Ontario I'd say we should build another 2000-2500 nuclear plant, which would take care of some of the base load that hydro is handling. Then hydro would be more free to handle the variable load, and we could reduce/remove natgas.
Various CSV and XML files available with historical data:
* https://www.ieso.ca/en/Power-Data/Data-Directory
†Site run by the Independent Electricity System Operator (Ontario's grid).
The cost overruns always come from demanding we have to come up with a novel way to do it.