The dangers of gambling on nuclear power

Dismissing climate science, setting Canada apart from most nations and planting us firmly in the United States’ camp, the Carney government is betting the farm on a “nuclear renaissance.”

There have been numerous indications this was coming. But Energy Minister Tim Hodgson’s April 29 statement to the Canadian Nuclear Association, following immediately on the launch of the “Canada Strong Fund” left no doubt that our investment banker prime minister is determined to pursue his nuclear energy superpower dreams.

As the UN Climate Envoy, Mark Carney famously said there is “no path to net zero without nuclear.” This has been a mantra of successive Liberal governments even as Canada’s last nuclear build was in the 1980s, and nuclear’s share of global electricity production has been steadily declining. It’s also been the rallying cry of nuclear advocates spending big to persuade anxious populations experiencing floods, droughts and wildfires that nuclear power will solve our climate disaster in the making. That claim is false.

Eight years ago, the Liberals rolled out their “SMR roadmap,” predicting the first (slightly) smaller new reactors would be operational in 2026. It isn’t happening. A new report by M.V. Ramana and Susan O’Donnell — Assessing Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Canada — details the $4.5 billion spent by Canadian governments on SMRs with zero kilowatts of electricity generated to date. Most of that money went to the potential first SMR in Canada, the BWRX 300, an American design by GE Hitachi that uses enriched uranium fuel, not available in Canada.

A hole has been dug. The proponent, Ontario Power Generation, has applied for an operating licence, but the design remains incomplete and the remaining necessary financing — a whopping $3 billion more to build just the first of four units — has not materialized.

Hodgson didn’t mention climate change as a reason for doubling down on nuclear. Maybe because, despite the hype, it’s not a reason.

No matter how much Canada “streamlines” (or even abandons) our regulatory processes (think safety and care), building enough nuclear reactors to displace fossil-fuel electricity will simply take too long to avert the climate tipping points that are upon us. The billions should instead be invested in a massive program of the truly renewable, truly cleaner energy options that are taking off in much of the world and that will make a real difference in emissions.

Why nuclear, then?

According to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), it’s now all about energy security and sovereignty. In the words of Defence Minister David McGuinty: “strengthen(ing) our domestic capability to defend our interests” by powering northern military sites with (so far non-existent) small reactors. And investing $2.2 billion in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd’s Chalk River Labs (now run by a U.S.-led consortium) to, among other things, conduct research on tritium — used for fusion research, but also critical for nuclear weapons.

The U.S. General Accounting Office says tritium is in short supply as the U.S. multiplies its weapons stockpile, and CANDU reactors are major producers. NRCan also highlights export potential: Canada as a world supplier of nuclear materials including uranium and fuel — already kick-started by a huge deal with nuclear-armed India, which is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Export is great if we want to contribute to the new (also U.S.-led) nuclear arms race which has the head of the UN’s atomic energy agency deeply worried. Probably we should all be worried about a dozen new countries acquiring technology and materials needed for nuclear weapons. These moves portend neither security nor sovereignty for Canada, but sure, there’s money to be made for some in the war economy.

If a nuclear future is so lucrative, why the almost total lack of private investment in Canada’s SMR development? Maybe, because as Cenovus Energy concluded after looking at SMRs — “they are not viable under current market conditions.”

Enter the Canada Strong Fund: a vehicle for offshore and wealthy investors, along with development companies, to make some quick cash by supporting “nation building” projects like pipelines presumably, but also nuclear plants according to Hodgson.

He says we must “de-risk” nuclear investments. That is shorthand for investors getting their payback and Canadians assuming the risks — of which there’s no shortage. From cost overruns and construction delays (typical in the global nuclear industry) to radioactive emissions, waste management and potential accidents, we are being led into a huge gamble.

Finally, while Hodgson and Carney use “affordability” rhetoric in their nuclear promotion, it is the most expensive way to generate electricity and that will push up rates and taxes, which is already happening in Ontario. Investors might gain, but regular people won’t.

We need fast, affordable, proven and sustainable solutions that are currently available to meet the new energy crisis, not dangerous capitalist fantasies of nuclear domination.

Anne Lindsey has been monitoring the nuclear industry since the 1980s.