A new province-wide poll shows 80 per cent of Ontarians want the Ford government to cancel a major US nuclear deal in favour of Canadian renewable energy alternatives.
Ford signed contracts in 2021 with US-based GE Hitachi for small modular reactors (SMRs) at the Darlington site and for enriched uranium imports — as the province moves ahead with its $20.9 billion plan to build four of the first SMRs in Canada.
The first reactor is scheduled to be completed by 2029 and connected to the grid by 2030, supplying power to approximately 300,000 homes. The province says the project, once complete, will deliver 1,200 megawatts — enough electricity for 1.2 million homes.
Despite the scale of the investment, it remains unclear how much of the $20.9 billion will go to GE Hitachi or other US-based suppliers.
According to Ontario Power Generation (OPG), GE Hitachi is the technology developer for the Darlington SMRs — responsible for the design, procurement of major components, and engineering support for the project.
Earlier this year, in response to new US tariffs, Ontario barred American firms from its electricity procurement process, urging utilities to “buy Canadian” and seek domestic alternatives.
The poll of 1,200 Ontarians, conducted by Oraclepoll Research for the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, found overwhelming support for clean energy alternatives: 88 per cent support expanding the grid to import water, wind, and solar from Quebec, Manitoba and the Maritimes; 70 per cent prefer wind and solar over US nuclear technology; 66 per cent back offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes; and 72 per cent support zero-interest utility programs for heat pumps to reduce gas use.
Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce defended the SMR project, calling it a “nation-building” initiative. It will create 18,000 Canadian jobs, inject $500 million annually into the economy, and 80 per cent of project spending will remain in Ontario, he added.
The construction “will be led by Canadian workers using Canadian steel, concrete and materials to help deliver the extraordinary amount of reliable and clean power we will need to deliver on our ambitious plan to protect Ontario and unleash our economy,” Lecce said in a news release.
But Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, says the project increases Ontario’s dependence on foreign suppliers at a time when trade tensions with the US are escalating. According to the alliance, the new reactors will rely on enriched uranium Canada cannot produce due to international non-proliferation agreements — meaning the fuel must be imported from the United States.
“It just doesn't make sense to build new, high-cost US nuclear reactors that will drive up our electricity bills, increase our dependence on the United States, and jeopardize our national security,” Gibbons said. “We have safer and much cheaper alternatives: wind and solar combined with storage and stronger east-west energy cooperation.”
Gibbons told Canada’s National Observer the timing of this nuclear investment is particularly concerning, as Ontario is urging utilities to cut reliance on American suppliers.
“This is exactly the time for Ontario to look for alternative, clean-energy sources within Canada,” he said.
In an emailed response to concerns raised by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, OPG said building wind, solar, and battery storage to match the Darlington new nuclear project’s power output would be more expensive.
OPG also said the renewable alternative would require far more land, new transmission lines and face supply chain risks, according to an analysis by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). In contrast, the power company says the Darlington plan uses existing infrastructure, carries fewer risks, and is in a strategic location. Based on these findings, the IESO recommended going ahead with the project.
The agency said the project is overwhelmingly Ontario-made. While the reactor design originates in the US, OPG says 80 per cent of the project's sourcing is from Ontario, with only five per cent coming from US suppliers. On the issue of fuel supply, the utility says it has established a diversified supply chain to minimize risks.
Gibbons called on Premier Ford to collaborate with Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has pledged to make Canada a global clean-energy leader.
According to the IESO, demand in Ontario is expected to rise 75 per cent by 2050.
A recent report by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates that electricity from new nuclear power would cost 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and 1.7 times more than offshore wind.
The alliance report also highlights Ontario’s untapped renewable potential — especially wind energy from the Great Lakes, which could supply more than enough clean electricity to meet future demand.
Abdul Matin Sarfraz / Canada’s National Observer / Local Journalism Initiative
Comments
Whenever does Doug Ford ever listen to Ontarians? It seems Doug Ford's only ear is for his corrupt donor's needs.
Sigh, it will probably go through, but also be the death knell, since it's clear now that "Small Modular Reactors" are no price-saving at all. Costs will rise during construction (of course) and they're going to clock in at over $20/watt.
With wind being a $1-$2/Watt, and solar <$1/Watt, it won't take a whole lot of storage to just solve the intermittency problem with extreme overbuilding. Wind is only 30% capacity, solar barely over 20% in Canada, but you could build 10GW of solar AND 6GW of wind, AND two *days* of battery backup for 1.2GW for less than $20B.
And by the time the SMRs have been built, somebody will have done that with renewables and batteries, and investors will take notice.
Exactly. On top of that, nobody has ever built an SMR, as far as I know there aren't even any finalized designs, and even normal nuclear reactors typically take years more than planned and cost multiples of the claimed amount. So in real life, there's little chance these SMRs will end up being ready before 2035 or costing less than $40 billion. $60 billion is probably more likely. And then they might not even work worth a damn because new, untested design.
So Doug Ford wants Ontarians to be less reliant on American electricity generators. But now he’s charging ahead with a $21 billion dollar experiment in “small” nuclear energy. Does this mean Doug Ford, his government ministers and the Independent Electricity System Operator are all captured by the nuclear-power lobby? I take it as given that Ontario Power Generation (either an industry association or lobby group, perhaps both) was captured by Big Business long ago.
Doug Ford and Ontario citizens are about to re-learn an old lesson. Cheops’ Law says, “Everything always takes longer and costs more.” Remember the first time Ontario tried to encourage renewable energy? Everybody blamed Kathleen Wynne, when power-purchase agreements turned out way too generous—and therefore costly—for Ontarians to stomach.
What reason, what possible EXCUSE, could Ford have to believe his nuclear electricity project won’t go over-deadline and waayyy over budget? Gigaprojects always do. Where are the penalty clauses in Ford’s deal to guard Ontarians against “It’s gonna cost you more than we expected, because (excuse #1, excuse #2, excuse #3….).”
As for OPG’s objections to wind and solar plus storage, as presented above…well, they sound like old talking points from the Alberta oilpatch. More land, more transmission lines, supply chain risks.
“More land”: yeah, wind turbines are big, and have to be placed far apart. So what? The land under them is still usable. Tractors and combines both have steering wheels, after all. Likewise solar panels. Heck, there’s even honest-to-God research that demonstrates solar panels can HELP crops grow better. And no, neither turbines nor solar panels have to be built on prime agricultural land.
Transmission lines: it’s true more will be needed—but not necessarily MANY more. Grid interties will be needed with ANY new generating station. More power means bigger wires, right? Not necessarily. Upgrading existing transmission lines to carry more power is possible now. Lighter cables that don’t sag as much when they’re carrying high current are available. So are control systems that can share load among adjacent transmission lines. Some (not all) American states are installing these now. I doubt that any Canadian province has the political will (aka “guts”) to try. Anyway, this can and SHOULD be part of the “energy corridor” project to upgrade Canada’s entire transmission grid. Somebody suggest it to Prime Minister Carney.
Supply chain issues: granted that wind-power projects have been delayed again and again. That’s because of political factors, aka “I H8 wind turbines!” Corporate BS and political cowardice both allow NIMBYism to spread. The biggest wind turbines are now, it seems, made in China. (Are you surprised? No, I’m not, either.) Again, so what? European companies make ‘em, too.
And, speaking of supply chains—where’s the enriched uranium for the reactors going to come from? Will these GE Hitachi reactors actually use highly-enriched uranium—which Canada cannot produce? If we’re forbidden by international non-proliferation treaties to build enrichment plants, that means importing a critical-mineral resource—maybe that was mined in Canada!—for power generation. Wanna bet we won’t be held captive by some future US president?
Then there’s the alleged benefits of the business case. First of four reactors “completed by 2029”? Not bloody likely. Complicated, multi-year projects always take longer than first forecast to complete. The second through fourth reactors will probably(!) get built faster, and therefore cost less to build. Probably.
“Stephen Lecce defended the SMR project, calling it a “nation-building” initiative.” No, it isn’t. It’s debt-capitalism. It’s “pay today for miracles tomorrow” unicorn worship. The four small reactors won’t create “18,000 jobs,” they won’t inject $500 million into the economy, and if the money spend mostly stays in Ontario, it’ll be because the Ontario guv’mint is subsidizing the whole thing. These talking points sound like classic over-optimistic statements by a project booster. They’re part of the “megaproject curse” described by Bent Flyvbjerg in 2014 download the PDF from the link under the PMI logo):
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/what-you-should-know-megaprojects-…
This paper is, hopefully, out of date by now. That’s the point of research of this kind. But it sure doesn’t seem outdated, in Ontario or my province of Oilberduh, either.
SO—be prepared for delays, cost overruns, broken promises—and very large utility bills. Good luck, Ontarians. You’re gonna need it.