nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Spend­ing big on nuc­lear

Ontario is invest­ing bil­lions into react­ors — even as the rest of the world turns to solar and wind. Is this the wrong bet?

Toronto Star, MARCO CHOWN OVED, 11 Jan 2026, https://www.pressreader.com/article/281865829856772

In the race to pre­pare for an elec­tri­fied future of AI, data centres, EVs and heat pumps, Ontario has placed a big bet on nuc­lear.

With more than $73 bil­lion com­mit­ted to build­ing new and refur­bish­ing old react­ors — and two more plants in the pipeline that could add tens of bil­lions more — Ontario tax­pay­ers are count­ing on nuc­lear energy to pay off for dec­ades to come.

Widely hailed for its abil­ity to provide massive amounts of stable, emis­sions­free power that the province will need to elec­trify the eco­nomy, nuc­lear has emerged as a solu­tion advoc­ates say is cru­cial to avoid the worst effects of cli­mate change — all while sup­port­ing a well­estab­lished local industry. A single nuc­lear plant can provide the same amount of power as tens of thou­sands of solar pan­els and wind tur­bines — even when the wind isn’t blow­ing, and the sun isn’t shin­ing.

“Nuc­lear brings a set of attrib­utes and char­ac­ter­ist­ics that you really can’t find with any other gen­er­at­ing source,” said Brendan Frank, Dir­ector of Policy and Strategy at Clean Prosper­ity, a cli­mate policy think tank. It’s large scale, [?] clean and reli­able with a small land foot­print, he says. “There’s a lot to like about nuc­lear.”

But the prom­ise of nuc­lear power is tempered by the poten­tial for peril.

Crit­ics say nuc­lear pro­ponents have never been able to address exist­ing react­ors’ sig­ni­fic­ant short­com­ings, includ­ing dec­ade­long con­struc­tion timelines, con­sist­ently large cost over­runs, and the tiny but nonzero risk of cata­strophic acci­dents. The cost con­sid­er­a­tions alone risk under­min­ing the fight against cli­mate change by mak­ing clean power more expens­ive than burn­ing fossil fuels.

“Baked right into the nuc­lear option is cent­ral­iz­a­tion, a reli­ance on tech­nical elites, the need for long­term stew­ard­ship and para­mil­it­ary secur­ity, a low tol­er­ance for fail­ure, and the accept­ance of unin­sur­able risks,” said Ralph Tor­rie, the head of research with Cor­por­ate Knights and a vet­eran energy ana­lyst.

And unlike nuc­lear oppon­ents of the 1980s, today’s crit­ics have a ready altern­at­ive in renew­able energy, which is being built at an unpre­ced­en­ted speed and scale all over the world. Last year, more than 90 per cent of new power brought online glob­ally has been wind and solar. Mean­while, the nuc­lear industry has been mired in a 25­year decline with more react­ors decom­mis­sioned than built, accord­ing to the Inter­na­tional Atomic Energy Agency.

Nuc­lear power is yes­ter­day’s tech­no­logy, the crit­ics say.


“Every dol­lar we spend on new nuc­lear plants or recon­di­tion­ing 20th­cen­tury nuc­lear steam gen­er­at­ors drives up the cost of build­ing a sus­tain­able energy sys­tem in Ontario and puts us fur­ther behind in the energy trans­ition that is a defin­ing fea­ture of suc­cess­ful 21st­cen­tury eco­nom­ies,” Tor­rie said.

In the search for cli­mate solu­tions, the debate over nuc­lear power is par­tic­u­larly acute. For pro­ponents, global warm­ing can­not be addressed without a nuc­lear renais­sance. For oppon­ents, nuc­lear is a trap that diverts resources from bet­ter solu­tions while com­mit­ting us for dec­ades to a tech­no­logy that has never lived up to its prom­ises.

And Ontario has already picked its side.

“We’re doub­ling down on nuc­lear,” Energy Min­is­ter Stephen Lecce told the Star in an inter­view.

“If you care about jobs for Cana­dians, if you care about an eth­ical sup­ply chain using a clean grid, not a coal­fired grid, if you care about human rights, the rule of law, fun­da­mental Cana­dian val­ues, and the eco­nomic advant­ages for the work­ers, for the women and men who work in this province, then you will unapo­lo­get­ic­ally defend and pro­mote Ontario’s nuc­lear advant­age, which is now an envy of the world.”

Why nuc­lear is con­sidered a `very expens­ive’ option

This June, the province laid out a 25­year road map for the elec­tri­city sys­tem that relies over­whelm­ingly on nuc­lear. It projects a massive 75 per cent increase in demand for power, the equi­val­ent of adding four­and­a­half Toron­tos to the grid. While there have been some invest­ments in bat­tery stor­age and hydro, most of this energy will come from refur­bish­ing the exist­ing fleet of react­ors and build­ing new ones, includ­ing one in Wes­leyville — on the shore of Lake Ontario to the east of the exist­ing Pick­er­ing and Dar­ling­ton plants — that would be the world’s biggest nuc­lear plant. In doing so, the province would triple its nuc­lear gen­er­a­tion, exceed­ing the entire elec­tri­city sys­tem’s out­put today.

“Ontario is put­ting a lot of eggs in a very expens­ive bas­ket,” said David Pickup, an energy ana­lyst at the Pem­bina Insti­tute and the author of a report high­light­ing the risks of the province’s nuc­lear build out……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.pressreader.com/article/281865829856772

January 14, 2026 - Posted by | Canada, politics

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.