A coalition of First Nations, physicians and environmental organizations is ramping up pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney to drop nuclear energy from his “energy superpower” strategy, warning it comes with high costs, long delays and long-term risks.
In an open letter, dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage. The letter warns that new nuclear projects are likely to increase electricity costs while delaying meaningful climate action.
“We are concerned that you may be unduly influenced by the nuclear and fossil industry lobbies,” reads the letter.
During the federal election campaign, Carney pledged to make Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower,” focusing on clean and conventional energy. His platform promised faster project approvals and a national clean electricity grid, among other energy promises. The coalition sent their letter in an effort to ensure Carney does not invest more significantly in nuclear energy, as he prepares to set his government’s agenda and ministers' mandates.
While Carney’s plan doesn’t mention nuclear energy, he praised it during the first leaders’ debate and referenced two companies in the sector he previously worked with at Brookfield Asset Management.
Nuclear energy is frequently cited as a clean, reliable alternative to fossil fuels. Agencies from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the International Energy Agency expect nuclear power to have a role in the energy transition.
Nuclear power has been part of Canada’s electricity mix since the 1960s, with 22 reactors at five plants across three provinces now supplying about 15 per cent of the country’s electricity.
The federal government — through the Canada Infrastructure Bank — has committed $970 million in low-cost financing to Ontario’s Darlington New Nuclear Project, which aims to build Canada’s first grid-scale small modular reactor.
The federal government also invested millions in Moltex Clean Energy, a New Brunswick-based company developing a technology called Waste to Stable Salt, which aims to recycle nuclear waste into new energy.
Jean-Pierre Finet, spokesperson for le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie, one of the organizations that signed the open letter, said he worries about the long-term future of any nuclear plants built today without a plan for their waste.
“We object to our federal taxpayer dollars being spent on developing more nuclear reactors that could be abandoned in place, ultimately transforming communities into radioactively contaminated sites and nuclear waste dumps that will require more federal dollars to clean up,” Finet said.
Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and a longtime nuclear critic, says the federal government is backing the slowest and most expensive energy option on the table.
“In a climate emergency, you have to invest in things that are faster and cheaper,” Edwards said. “Canada hasn’t built new reactors in decades. There’s no practical experience left, and what’s being proposed now is largely speculative.”
“We're very concerned about a misappropriation of public money and investment in what we see as a losing strategy,” Edwards said, stressing that the coalition is not asking private companies to stop building plants — but rather asking the federal government to stop subsidizing them.
In response to the coalition’s letter, Natural Resources Canada said in a statement to Canada's National Observer that Prime Minister Carney remains committed to making Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower” by leveraging “the full suite of energy resources and expertise.”
Canada’s electricity demand is expected to double — or even triple — by 2050, driven by population growth, electrified transportation and industrial decarbonization. In Ontario, the Independent Electricity System Operator projects a 75 per cent increase in demand by mid-century.
To meet this demand, the Ford government is heavily investing in nuclear power to meet Ontario’s growing electricity demand, banking on small modular reactors and nuclear refurbishments as key pillars of its long-term energy strategy. But Edwards points to the Ford government's cancellation of over 750 renewable energy contracts in 2018, and argues that those lost projects could have already been delivering clean, reliable power today, instead of relying on increasing nuclear energy.
International concerns echo at home
Much of the current controversy focuses on Ontario’s Darlington New Nuclear Project, as growing skepticism around the cost of small modular reactors mirrors global concerns.
In the US, two nuclear reactors in South Carolina were abandoned after $12.5 billion (CAD) had already been spent, triggering the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Nuclear — now owned by Canadian firms Brookfield and Cameco. Meanwhile, two completed Vogtle reactors in Georgia came in at $48 billion, more than double the original $19-billion estimate, making them among the most expensive infrastructure projects in US history.
In the UK and Europe, new nuclear power project efforts are facing delays, budget overruns, or outright cancellations.
Meanwhile, a report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates that electricity from new nuclear power will cost up to 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and nearly twice as much as offshore wind. It argues that Ontario could meet its energy needs more cheaply and quickly by expanding renewable generation and grid connections with neighbouring provinces.
Ontario Power Generation has pushed back against this criticism, saying the Darlington small modular reactor will reuse existing infrastructure, avoid land-use issues common to wind and solar, and help maintain grid stability with 24/7 baseload power. The company argues that renewables require large land areas and new transmission lines, and may face more complex supply chain risks.
Still, some energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.”
Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production.
Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.
“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,” Winfield added in an email.
Abdul Matin Sarfraz / Canada’s National Observer / Local Journalism Initiative
The story has been updated to include a response from Natural Resources Canada.
Comments
Absolutely nuclear energy should be dropped from the PM's plan. It's not only the most expensive way to generate electricity but in terms of industrial development, subsidies would be propping up a dying industry. Even the International Energy Agency says nuclear's share of electricity generation by 2050 will drop to 8%. Hardly superpower stuff!
Article: "Nuclear power has been part of Canada’s electricity mix since the 1960s, with 22 reactors at five plants across three provinces now supplying about 15 per cent of the country’s electricity."
With the shut-down of Québec's Gentilly-2 Nuclear Facility in 2012, nuclear plants now operate in two provinces.
Point Lepreau Generating Station in New Brunswick has a history of reliability issues and high costs.
"Critics say Point Lepreau power loss shows unreliability and antiquity of nuclear" (National Observer, Dec 15 2022)
Governments have long had their thumb on the scales in favor of nuclear.
In Canada, all nuclear stations are designed, built, owned, and all but one still operated by government.
Nuclear power does not exist without huge subsidies.
Every nuclear station in Canada was built by government. Not a single one built by private industry.
Subsidized from start to finish: R&D, financing, project construction, refurbishment, decommissioning, waste disposal.
Without huge subsidies, no one would touch it.
Good Lord. Anyone capable of doing half an hour research can find out how much nuclear power has cost taxpayers to build in the past....how big the over runs always are.....and how long it takes to get the water guzzlers up (goddess help us all if a drought makes that perpetual cooling public water provides hard to find)...or how much it costs to decommission them at their end of life.
Costs so much old power plants often run past their best before date....not wanting to lose the electricity or pay for the decommissioning. Some bright lights think small modular reactors will be better. Nothing like having toxic machines every darn where....but the cost of building them still doesn't justify the relatively small output they provide....
Renewals are safer, cheaper and absolutely less polluting. But you can't monopolize the sun and the wind........and until the poverty creators figure out how to do that........they're spending fortunes convincing us green energy just won't cut it.
They're wrong........and as the evidence mounts against them, they're also often liars. Watch Trump and the whoppers he thinks his power will sell. He too is an old fossil....to set in his ways to imagine a better future....watch him clean up financially as the USA poor pay the price and then.........if that's the world we want, if that's the best we can do for our children's economy...by all means:
Continue with Big Extinction Technologies.
"There’s no practical experience left, and what’s being proposed now is largely speculative.”"
this couldn't be a more abhorrently wrong statement in this article.
When you have N299 certification you keep it relevant through work only.
All i see in this article is people who want to offshore pollution and environmental destruction.
The amount of power AI alone requires means we will be out of power with current capacities very soon. Renewable won't keep up with that demand and will result in offshored pollution.
Renewables are not the solution as they are too small in out put.
Nuclear and Fusion are the only two ways forward.
The amount of power AI requires means that we shouldn't be building all those data centres to begin with. The future can't afford algorithms selling us the absurd proposition that they can think....everywhere. Besides, we have many perfectly good human brains......some of them having genius....that we are wasting everywhere and everyday.
By investing in extinction technologies...like nuclear and AI...instead of in universal affordable and high quality education.
Globally, the accelerating annual growth in wind, solar and storage has outpaced nuclear for years. According to the IEA, wind will generate more power than nuclear by 2030. Same for solar power. Why? They are cheap and fast to build. Ontario will not even have one nuclear SMR built by then. The cost of multiple SMRs is likely to push the current Ontario power utility into bankruptcy, just like the cost of nuclear power did to Ontario Hydro. No thanks.
Nuclear power is so expensive because those who oppose nuclear power have made it difficult, but not quite impossible to build nuclear plants. Legal challenges and obstruction have been the cause of expensive delays ever since nuclear power became an option.
Similar factors have prevented the development of safe, permanent nuclear storage. There have been numerous studies to determine the safest methods for storing nuclear waste over the past 70 years, and there are excellent options available, but by opposing any solution, the opponents of nuclear power have stymied safe, cost-effective storage, leaving the least safe option, storage on the sites where the waste is created, to be, de facto, the only option. In doing so, these opponents seem to be admitting that even on-site storage is not that dangerous, and experience has, so far, shown that to be the case.
Preventing the development of safe, cost-effective nuclear energy makes life less affordable and less safe. What is required to make nuclear power work are good engineering and high safety standards. That's where the focus should be.