John Gorman believes in a nuclear future — which, given his background, might come as a surprise. Before becoming president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, Gorman worked in positions where he championed solar, wind and hydro, renewable energy sources with a lot less baggage.

But make no mistake, Gorman views the ongoing development of nuclear power as vital to battling the climate crisis and lowering Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Many other environmentalists reject nuclear over concerns about the disposal of nuclear waste, radioactive fallout and the length of time it might take to develop the technology. Not Gorman.

“Canada is the poster child for approaching nuclear the right way as we approach a net-zero future,” he recently told Canada’s National Observer.

Canada’s existing nuclear power is produced by 19 CANDU reactors, which supply 15 per cent of the country’s total electricity. Ontario hosts 18 of the reactors, while New Brunswick has one at Point Lepreau. Two of the Ontario plants, Darlington and Bruce, are being refurbished. The industry as a whole employs 76,000 people and contributes $17.6 billion to the economy annually, Gorman says.

However, Gorman, along with the rest of the nuclear industry, pins the country’s future decarbonization efforts on a new breed of nuclear power known as small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are portable reactors capable of generating up to 300 megawatts of electricity. They can be deployed in a variety of ways, potentially replacing large-scale diesel generators in remote mining operations, for example, or helping power off-grid communities in Canada’s North.

A feasibility study on SMRs released by four Canadian power companies in March says with growing interest in SMRs an exciting opportunity exists for Canada to export the technology to address global issues such as climate change and energy security.

To date, not a single SMR has been built in Canada, but no matter, the technology is the current darling of nuclear power circles, and not just at home, either; other countries, from China to the U.S., are pursuing the development of SMRs. Currently, 12 proposals for SMR development are winding their way through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC) pre-licensing vendor review process, which enables CNSC staff to provide feedback on proposed designs at a company’s request. But not a single project has yet been approved.

That hasn’t stopped the Canadian federal government from actively promoting a shift to SMRs. Seamus O’Regan, the minister of natural resources (whose department has nuclear power under its purview), said in a speech delivered to the Canadian Nuclear Association in 2020: “Our government understands the importance of nuclear energy to meeting our climate change goals… We are placing nuclear energy front and centre.”

In case he didn’t make it clear enough, O’Regan added: “This is nuclear’s moment. This is your moment. To shape the next wave of nuclear technology. And move to the front lines in the battle against climate change and the plan to get Canada to net zero by 2050.”

To date, not a single small modular reactor has been built in Canada, but no matter, the technology is the current darling of nuclear power circles. #SMRs #NuclearEnergy

For the time being, any vision of SMRs is largely aspirational. A Conference Board of Canada report in March on SMRs outlined that from concept to commercialization, the technology will require about a billion dollars of development expenditure. The same report noted that as an emerging technology, costs are still uncertain, and the “risky pre-commercial phase needs capital investment, but governments will be reluctant without major private capital commitment.”

It’s early days for financing the technology. For instance, one infusion of federal funds, the $50 million granted to New Brunswick’s Moltex Energy in mid-April, only supports research and development, employee recruitment and the expansion of academic, research and supply chain partnerships, not the physical construction of that firm’s SMR.

Beyond financial considerations, the Liberal government will have a tough time convincing environmentalists to embrace the merits of SMRs, or any nuclear power, as a clean energy source. More than 100 groups have signed a letter issued by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) condemning the government’s push to pursue nuclear power and SMRs. Among their concerns are that SMRs are more expensive to develop than renewable energy and that the reactors are “dirty and dangerous,” creating new forms of radioactive waste that are especially dangerous to manage.

As the SMR developments move forward, the environmental groups will have a chance to make their views heard during the public consultations that will have to take place as part of the environmental review phase of licensing each SMR.

For now, however, nothing is slowing the momentum. In mid-April, the Canadian Nuclear Association triumphantly announced Alberta was joining Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan in the development of SMRs.

Those aren’t the only recent developments in the burgeoning SMR industry. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is teaming up with SMR developer Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation to develop a micro modular reactor at Chalk River. OPG is also carrying out engineering and design work on SMRs with GE Hitachi, Terrestrial Energy and X-energy.

On its website, the CNSC also reports that 17 companies globally have requested regulatory information on SMRs. These include Westinghouse in the United States, China’s CNCC and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Canada, though, remains one of the SMR innovators and could even surpass the European Union with its new nuclear program. To be sure, Everett Redmond, a senior technical adviser with the U.S.-based Nuclear Energy Institute, said: “I’d say Canada is running right on par with the U.S in terms of looking at deployments.”

When it comes to decarbonization using nuclear as an energy source, the European Union previously led the way. France and the EU have placed more reliance than North America on nuclear power to help meet stringent renewable energy targets. France, for example, pulls 70 per cent of its energy from nuclear power.

However, there are signs Europe is now shifting away from nuclear power. In 2019, solar installed capacity exceeded nuclear for the first time in the EU, with 130 gigawatts versus 116 gigawatts, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status annual report, which provides independent assessments of global nuclear developments. And a technical expert group convened in the EU chose not to recommend nuclear energy when asked to advise on screening criteria that would substantially contribute to climate change mitigation or adaptation while “avoiding significant harm” to other environmental objectives.

Gorman views nuclear as favourable to the environment. When Ontario replaced coal-fired electricity with nuclear by 2014, it became the single largest carbon-reduction initiative in the world. “Canada is definitely a world leader in this regard,” Gorman maintains.

The elimination of coal stands as the single largest greenhouse gas emissions-reduction action on the continent and was primarily responsible for Ontario achieving its 2014 emissions-reduction target of six per cent below 1990 levels, according to the Ontario government.

Gorman compares SMRs and conventional reactors to the personal computer versus mainframe computers. The SMRs can power as little as one megawatt or as much as 300. They can be mass-produced in a manufacturing facility and scaled to different sizes. The first anticipated SMR in Canada is under development by Westinghouse and has been dubbed the eVinci Micro Reactor. The company wants to have it up and running by 2026. Westinghouse has not disclosed how much it will cost to develop the eVinci.

Westinghouse is working with Bruce Power to find applications for the micro reactor, which is described as a “next-generation small battery” that could be sold to and used in remote communities and industrial mines, among other things. It is that industrial application that particularly excites Gorman, who says according to a study the Canadian Nuclear Association commissioned, SMRs could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 216 megatonnes in the heavy industrial sector — the equivalent of removing all current emissions from the oil and gas sector for a one-year period.

The eVinci is only one of a spate of projects. Oakville, Ont.-based Terrestrial Energy received $20 million in federal funding in 2020 to begin development on its SMR, which it anticipates launching in the late 2020s.

Other projects in development include a 300-megawatt SMR at the Darlington Nuclear Plant in Ontario, in conjunction with Bruce Power and Saskatchewan Power, for 2028. Four more SMRs, described as a “fleet,” would then be deployed in Saskatchewan to replace coal plants, with the first unit starting up in 2032. A five-megawatt, gas-cooled SMR is being built at Chalk River in Ontario, with service anticipated for 2026, while the Moltex project in New Brunswick is expected to come on stream in early 2030.

An aerial view of Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario, one of the locations for a proposed small modular reactor project. File photo

“We’re a world leader in terms of having advanced these technologies through the regulatory and licensing system, so Canada really is positioned to be a first mover here and it’s very exciting,” Gorman said.

The development of SMRs in Canada isn’t just a matter of happy coincidence; the federal government has been lobbying hard on behalf of the industry since at least 2019. The Department of Natural Resources, for instance, is a member of the international initiative Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future, or as it’s better known, NICE. Besides Canada, members include Japan, the U.S. and a number of nuclear associations. The goal “is to ensure that nuclear energy receives appropriate representation in high-level discussions about clean energy.”

Freelance researcher Ken Rubin turned up a number of documents using freedom-of-information requests that showed the federal government is collaborating with NICE and others to promote nuclear power and SMRs. The federal government, for example, offered $150,000 for the development of a “Top 20 book of short stories” on “exciting near-term nuclear innovations” designed to showcase nuclear power as an environmental force for good. The book includes stories on the safe storage of nuclear waste as well as on the emerging SMR market.

According to the book, uses for the latter technology include “energy parks” providing heat for industrial processes, steam for heating and electricity for cooling homes, offices and shops, all without emissions. The story breathlessly declares: “This isn’t science fiction.”

No matter how hard the government lobbies the public for a NICE future, though, it’s going to remain a tough sell to Canadian environmentalists. While the environmentalists have nothing specific to fight yet, given that a viable SMR has yet to be built, they’ll be ready when the technology reaches development. Already, a who’s who of groups has signed a letter protesting the next thing in nuclear.

Theresa McClenaghan, CELA’s executive director and counsel, told Canada’s National Observer: “It’s not a climate answer for many reasons, including the fact it’s not realistic and it’s way too far down the road for us to meet any serious climate targets. We’ve characterized it as a dirty, dangerous distraction.”

Susan O’Donnell, a researcher and adjunct professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick and a nuclear activist, says SMRs are too slow and costly as a climate crisis solution. “It’s important to remember that these technologies basically don’t exist yet,” she said. “They’re at a very early stage in development. They are speculative technologies. It will take at least a decade to get them off the drawing board and then it will take much longer than that to find out if they work.”

Faced with such criticisms, Gorman expresses frustration. He says when he first began working in the solar industry, the main criticism was solar was an expensive science experiment that would never result in low-cost electricity, and that it was a waste of money to try and develop the technology. “And lo and behold, that’s exactly what the detractors of small modular reactors are saying.”

Gorman doesn’t dismiss renewables, calling wind and solar extremely important, but he says the challenge is to produce two to three times as much electricity generation globally compared to what’s currently available, and we only have 30 years in which to do it. He maintains that every source of clean energy will be necessary to meet the demand, including such developing technologies as SMRs, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and new forms of electricity storage.

“We desperately need to be developing those at the same time we’re deploying wind and solar and existing technologies so that we can bring everything to bear by 2030 as we lead into 2050.

“That’s the challenge.”

Keep reading

The truth is that the nuclear industry has LIED about the true costs and the inherent unavoidable dangers of nuclear reactors from their beginning, and they are still doing it.

Charles forgot to mention something very important. The UK Moltex company hoping to build their 1st prototype in New Brunswick can burn spent Candu fuel rods, and those of other reactors too. So far theirs is the only design that can do that. Also, SMRs cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium. Don't let Westinghouse into the mix or the Americans will take over the whole sheebang like they've taken over everything in Canada. 2ndly, Solar in Canada will never supply enough for much, and neither will wind turbine towers plus their blades and turbines are piling up all over the world worn out long before alleged predictions, and cannot be recycled. Other countries have already decided to not continue funding wind power projects. They are a huge stupid idea. 3rdly, only SMRs will be able to supply all the electricity needed to power the E-vehicle future. Or, learn to live in the dark and ride horses again, and don't forget to scoop their copious poop.
steve hartwell
st catharines, ontario, canada

Don't agree with all of that, but many thanks for mentioning the nuclear-bomb issue.

The whole industry was badly screwed over in its infancy by being all tangled up in military goals to pick reactors that would fit in with also producing huge amounts of bomb-grade material. The military connection also promoted secrecy, and government tolerance for malfeasance.

see my reply to Brian, its reply to you as well.

Yes, I'm quite aware back in the day a lot of research was done on what type of reactor to use for public power that would also act as cover for producing weapons grade products, while those that couldn't were suppressed. In fact, Brian, you're wrong, prototypes of SMRs, Molten Salt, and Thorium 'burners' were all tested and discarded even though they were proven to be extremely safer to use for producing electricity. Canada in fact built an SMR called a Slowpoke which ran safely for decades for research, and producing radioactive cobalt isotopes for medical uses.

They are not the totally untried technology Brian claims.

I know it was Americans who screwed Canada over to instead build Candu reactors for electricity that were used as cover for their bomb industry, but also buggered the plants so they leak and require costly tube replacements, et cetera, that they were/are very happy to get paid to do, again and again, and signed Ontario to a 99 year contract for fuel rods at 4 to 10 times the global market value, and that American Bechtel of California then built Candu reactors in other countries, Pakistan, India, even China, all of whom then used the technology to build their own nukes.

AND, I also know it was leftie green people who pushed and pushed for wind power, then ever since the towers went up, have been screaming ever since that they produce low frequency noise that affects their brains and farm animals to produce less milk, eggs, and crops too, and want them pulled down.

I know an expert on the inside of the Ontario electricity industry who knows wind and solar are a total waste of taxpayer funding, but nobody's about to say so and lose all that taxpayer money.

so there - pfff ......

Key word in this statement about Moltex and the use of the nuclear marketing efforts is "hoping" .. spending BILLIONS of dollars and wasting time in the "hope" of some miracle is something people and the earth really need now instead of real climate action. Moltex's PROPOSED design is very risky and unproven. Versions of it have been tried over the years without success. Moltex is probably the biggest scam ever and the Canadian gov't gave them over $50 Million to keep their scam going .. the CEO stated that it will cost over $2 Billion to get their proposals working sometime into the 2030's MAYBE. Their reprocessing PROPOSAL does extract plutonium for fuel. Even the low-grade fuel proposing to be produced by Moltex can easily be used as a dirty bomb. Do your research before simply spreading the expensive marketing agents' lies ..

Whenever the topic of nuclear power comes up, it seems to me we always limit this discussion to those reactors using Uranium as a fuel. Yes, Uranium produces long lived radioactive waste and many find this a serious problem. But Uranium is not the only potential fuel for nuclear reactors - but we hear very little about this research. Thorium reactors do not produce such amounts of waste, and have many other positive attributes. Not to say they do not also have problems but at least let us include a discussion of reactors such as LFTRs in the discussion. The whole issue of nuclear generation of electricity needs to be more broad, looking at all possible alternatives, rather than just focusing so narrowly on Uranium.

Whenever the topic of nuclear power comes up, it seems to me we always limit this discussion to those reactors using Uranium as a fuel. Yes, Uranium produces long lived radioactive waste and many find this a serious problem. But Uranium is not the only potential fuel for nuclear reactors - but we hear very little about this research. Thorium reactors do not produce such amounts of waste, and have many other positive attributes. Not to say they do not also have problems but at least let us include a discussion of reactors such as LFTRs in the discussion. The whole issue of nuclear generation of electricity needs to be more broad, looking at all possible alternatives, rather than just focusing so narrowly on Uranium.