OPINION | What’s Happening With Nuclear Energy?

Photo Credit: Lukáš Lehotsky/Unsplash

Nuclear energy has long been a point of discussion when it comes to powering the future. Nuclear has garnered a rather negative public perception, due to the several notable global nuclear power plant meltdowns. However, there have been large improvements year over year in nuclear safety, according to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

So with nuclear fears at an all-time low, and initiatives to remove fossil fuels still growing, why has nuclear energy not seen stronger pushes towards mainstream implementation, and more importantly, is nuclear energy really the answer?

Financial concerns are often the most common reason for differing perspectives on nuclear energy. Critics of nuclear energy, and other clean energy sources, generally point to the loss of jobs in the fossil fuels sector. Currently, Canada is sixth in terms of total crude oil production, and fifth in natural gas production globally, according to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER). For some provinces, the energy sector, and by extension, natural gas and oil, make up a significant percentage of the total GDP. In Alberta, the energy sector makes up 21.61 per cent, which is far larger than other provinces such as BC, where the energy sector makes up only 5.37 per cent of the GDP, according to CER. 

Opponents of nuclear energy do have some justification in that without the refining, fracking, and transportation of fossil fuels, a significant part of Canada’s workforce would disappear. However, nuclear energy does provide employment opportunities, which would scale up as the industry grows. Already, the nuclear power industry provides a large amount of jobs, recorded in 2019 to have provided over 76,000 jobs, according to a study by MZConsulting.

Another side of the financial question revolves around how nuclear projects and research will be funded. While the federal government has provided financial backing into some research for  the sector, the majority of funding has been directed by the provincial governments. While the Premier of Alberta has stated previously that private investors would ideally lead the development of nuclear projects, realistically, provinces would need to take the initiative. This is due to the high upfront costs and risk associated with nuclear projects, according to Duane Bratt, a political science professor at Mount Royal University. There still are private companies that are in the nuclear space, like Capital Power and Ontario Power Generation (OPG), and Alberta has already partnered with the two power companies to begin research into the development of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). 

The final question is if nuclear energy is cost-effective in the first place. CER lists current costs per kilowatt for SMR construction at $9,262, which is far above the estimates for other clean power sources, with CER stating that wind power is currently estimated around $1,800 per kilowatt, and solar being roughly the same.

Ultimately, the lack of research and policy support may be the most crippling issue nuclear adoption faces in Canada. The most recent serious study on nuclear energy from the Albertan government, titled the “Nuclear Power and Alberta: Background Report”, was done in 2009. However, the report was limited in scope to outlining the potential of nuclear only, and the possible challenges that could be faced. Given that the report never delved into the feasibility or logistics of power plant construction, more research would have still been necessary even if the government had decided to move forward with nuclear power in 2009. 

However, it has been 15 years since the report, and critics have reinforced the need for a new set of studies into nuclear feasibility. With much of the interest in nuclear energy currently being driven to SMRs, in January 2024, Alberta created a contract with OPG and Capital Power to investigate the feasibility of SMRs for Alberta. The contract is a result of the growing efforts from provinces to accelerate nuclear power in Canada, specifically from a joint plan authored by Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Alberta, titled “A strategic plan for the deployment of small modular reactors''. 

The strategic plan for the deployment of small modular reactors is arguably the single largest effort being made by Canada to move into the nuclear industry. The plan focuses on the implementation of SMRs, demonstrating that the provinces believe SMRs will have an important role in the future. SMRs, for example, could be an energy alternative for more isolated communities, or mines, who use diesel generators, which would not only be more reliable and carbon neutral. 

Another obstacle to nuclear energy’s integration is construction. For traditional power plants, the construction time is at a minimum five years, with the possibility of almost a decade. This is in sharp contrast to coal power plants, with an average construction period around two years, according to the World Nuclear Association. Wind turbines take only six months to construct, and can run with minimum maintenance for up to two decades according to EDF Energy. Smaller SMR construction timelines hover around the low end of traditional plant construction times, with overall times varying from 2-5 years. While nuclear power plants can run for upwards of six decades, the slow initial construction time severely hampers the path towards nuclear acceptance in Canada.

Nuclear energy clearly has some major flaws, being the large upfront costs, and long term planning required, will dissuade more fiscally sensitive governments, and the private sector. With that understanding, nuclear energy will only be part of Canada’s future energy grid if provinces and the federal government decide to make a definitive  decision. Despite Alberta’s wishes for private investors to take the lead, it is extremely unlikely to occur. 

However, underneath everything, nuclear energy still presents itself as a very convincing candidate for Canada’s energy future. Net-zero carbon, something Canada is striving for, will only be possible with the replacement of current fossil fuel power plants. While it is a nice idea to hope that solar and wind power can replace the bulk of these plants, it simply is not realistic. While they may be cheaper, other green alternatives outside of nuclear energy have issues of their own. Solar and wind are extremely context dependent, with solar only effective for roughly ⅓ of the year in some parts of Canada, and severely hampered in the snowy and dark parts of the country. Wind faces similar problems, as it needs large areas of land, and constant wind flow in order to provide power consistently. 

However, nuclear plants last for many decades, and provide consistent, year round power. SMRs provide flexibility for smaller communities, or even larger ones,  and can supplement other green power choices. Costs are projected to decrease over time, as the industry becomes better researched and developed. It is impossible to determine the best energy option for all of Canada, given how varied the country is. That being said, nuclear energy most definitely has a place in the future of Canada’s energy sector, with deployment of the first SMRs coming over the next decade. Canada’s energy sector will be better off with nuclear energy as a staple within it.