Canada « nuclear-news

Little Support for New Nuclear at Port Hope.

Angela Bischoff, Director, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Oct 8, 2026,

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is proposing to build what would be the world’s largest nuclear station at its Wesleyville site in Port Hope.

The massive project would cost approximately $230 billion and drive up electricity bills across Ontario.

That is why Protect Northumberland, a coalition of BlueDot Northumberland, Seniors for Climate Action NOW, and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, asked municipal election candidates across Northumberland County:

Do you think that building a massive nuclear station that will drive up electricity rates is a good use of the Wesleyville site?

Most Candidates Are Opposed or Undecided

We have received responses from 39 candidates:

Only 5 candidates support OPG’s proposal

9 candidates oppose the proposal

25 candidates remain undecided

If you live in Northumberland County, see how your municipal election candidates responded here.

Local voters deserve to know where every candidate stands on a project that will affect electricity bills, public safety and the future of their community for generations.

And be sure to bring up the issue with candidates at the door, at all-candidates forums, and in letters to the editor.

October 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Plans advance for floating nuclear plant in New Brunswick, a first among G7 countries

Prodigy has not disclosed a price for the Belledune facility. Mycle Schneider Consulting has concluded that a market for reactors in remote mines and communities is “unlikely to materialize” because the electricity they would generate would be far too expensive.

Prodigy says they seek a mix of private and federal funding

Matthew McClearn, Toronto october 9, 2026, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-new-brunswick-floating-nuclear-plant-prodigy-clean-energy/#vf-comments

Plans for a floating nuclear power plant advanced this week with its backers’ selection of a small reactor to power it.

The demonstration facility, dubbed a Transportable Nuclear Power Plant, would mark many firsts. Set for near a small port in Belledune, N.B., it would be the first floating nuclear plant in a G7 country, as well as the developer’s first commercial deployment.

It would also be the first nuclear project majority-owned by First Nations. Belledune is situated in the traditional territories of Pabineau First Nation and Eel River Bar First Nation, which support the project.

And it would be a prototype for the barge’s developer, Prodigy Clean Energy Ltd., which hopes Belledune will serve as a “commercial blueprint” for remote communities and coastal industrial operations in Canada and globally.

The facility would feature two 22-megawatt microreactors known as the BWXT Advanced Nuclear Reactor (BANR). It’s currently being designed by BWX Technologies Inc.

BWXT-N +0.26%increase, a U.S.-based manufacturer of nuclear components with operations in Ontario.

Unlike many upstart reactor developers, BWXT has actual experience: Its core focus is building naval components and reactors, often in more challenging settings than a moored barge.

“They’re the quickest and most ready,” said Terry Richardson, Chief of Pabineau First Nation, who helped select the BANR. “They have the proven technology with what they’ve been doing in the States, with aircraft carriers and submarines.”

Floating nuclear plants are rare. One, the Akademik Lomonosov, operates in the Russian Arctic. This year, nuclear giant Rosatom said it had manufactured two reactors (variants of the RITM-200 reactors used in Russian icebreakers) to be incorporated in floating plants that will power a remote copper mine.

“Information regarding this project has been erratic, and construction has apparently started on one barge only,” reported Mycle Schneider Consulting in an assessment of the global nuclear industry’s progress, published last month.

The partners’ challenge is to find investors who disagree – a task that has defeated most reactor developers. Prodigy says they seek a mix of private and federal funding; Prodigy’s chief executive officer, Mathias Trojer, said Ottawa spends more than $2-billion annually subsidizing electricity costs in the North, so it is motivated to fund alternatives to the region’s aging diesel plants.

The Belledune proposal ticks some of the boxes in a federal nuclear strategy unveiled earlier this year, which sought to “demonstrate a Canadian-controlled Generation IV microreactor by 2035 to support defence facilities and operations and, in the longer term, remote and northern communities.”

The BANR is not Canadian-controlled, however. It’s been under development for several years already as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. John MacQuarrie, BWXT’s president of commercial operations, said Belledune’s BANR would be a variant of that reactor, containing a mixture of American and Canadian intellectual property.

BWXT has not pursued commercial certification for the BANR in either country, but Mr. MacQuarrie said it plans to engage with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission shortly.

Mr. Trojer, said the design should be completed in the next two years or so, and a final investment decision would be made around that time; the facility could be built in roughly 18 months and be operational in the early 2030s.

Politicians regard the Prodigy/BWXT barge as a potential boon for industry. René Legacy, New Brunswick’s Deputy Premier and Energy Minister, said his province wants to build the barge, an undertaking “directly in line with our strengths, which is lots of machinists, lots of welding, lots of industrial might.” But New Brunswick can’t build reactors: his Ontario counterpart, Energy Minister Stephen Lecce, said his province’s supply chain stands ready to assist.

New Brunswick has signed an agreement signaling its intent to buy power produced by the barge, and announced plans to bring it before the federal Major Projects Office for designation as a project of national importance.

The BANR would be powered by what’s known as tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel. BWXT, which makes nuclear fuel for clients including the U.S. government, says it can already produce TRISO in non-commercial quantities. But its crucial ingredient is high-assay low-enriched uranium, which is enriched to contain nearly 20 per cent of the fissile isotope of uranium – much higher than fuel for existing commercial reactors.

Only Russia and China produce HALEU in appreciable quantities, according to the World Nuclear Association. The U.S. is investing heavily to grow its own minuscule domestic capacity, but other reactor vendors have reworked HALEU-fueled designs due to their inability to obtain the fuel.

Mr. MacQuarrie said the BANR’s TRISO would likely be produced in the U.S. Mr. Trojer added that the Belledune project would require only modest amounts.

“It’s a long lead item, but if anyone can deliver it, then it’s BWXT or some combination of their business relationships.”

October 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Big Reactors in Saskatchewan: What could go wrong?

The implication of these experiences and proposals is that a new 1,000-MW reactor could carry a price tag of $15 to $26 billion. That would put the total cost for a two-reactor project, like Saskatchewan is proposing, in the $30-$50 billion range. Estimates of the costs of electricity needed to cover the capital costs of new nuclear plants, if they’re financed through electricity rates, range from the mid-20¢ to more than 40¢ per kilowatt-hour.

October 3, 2026, By Mark Winfield and Susan O’Donnell, https://energi.media/opinion/big-reactors-saskatchewan-what-could-go-wrong/

The Saskatchewan government’s recent announcement of its intention to build two large nuclear reactors has again raised questions of the role of large nuclear energy projects in relatively small provincial economies.

The last new full-scale nuclear reactor project in Canada, the Darlington nuclear power plant east of Toronto, was completed more than 30 years ago. The enormous cost overruns on that project contributed significantly to the effective bankruptcy of the province’s utility, Ontario Hydro, leading to its eventual break-up.

As the memories of these previous experiences with large nuclear construction projects have faded, new projects are now being proposed. These projects, and experiences with the handful of new-build nuclear projects initiated in Europe and the United States in the last two decades, give us some indication of the large reactor options, and their potential costs.

New Brunswick’s experience with its long- troubled Point Lepreau reactor, should give Saskatchewan further cause for reflection on the wisdom of such a pathway. The Lepreau plant is Canada’s lone experience with a large nuclear power plant in a relatively small provincial electricity system and economy, New Brunswick Power is still carrying a C$3.6 billion nuclear debt from the reactor’s original 1975-1983 construction, and the costs of a 2008-2012 refurbishment that was a billion dollars over budget. Since the refurbishment, the poor performance of the Lepreau reactor has been the primary reason New Brunswick Power loses money almost every year.

In Ontario and Alberta, two reactor designs, the CANDU MONARK and the Westinghouse Electric AP1000, have been considered for the expansion of the Bruce Nuclear power plant on Lake Huron, a proposed 10,000-MW Ontario Power Generation plant at Wesleyville on Lake Ontario, and the proposed 4,800-MW Peace River Nuclear Project in Alberta.

The 1,000-MW CANDU MONARK is intended as a successor to the existing CANDU reactors in Ontario and New Brunswick. Although it’s being aggressively promoted to potential international customers, the MONARK design remains incomplete. The situation has already led the Alberta project’s proponents to switch their proposal to favour the AP1000 design by Westinghouse Electric.

Cost information is available on the AP1000 reactor, as two units were completed in 2024 at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. The total estimated cost of those two 1,100-MW reactors was US$36 billion, or about $26 billion per reactor in 2026 Canadian dollars. The plant has been described as “the most expensive power plant ever built on Earth.” When it went into service, Vogtle resulted in a nearly 24% increase in Georgia Power’s electricity rates, the largest jump in the utility’s history.

AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC Lavalin) is currently pitching the CANDU MONARK to Poland, with a reported estimated cost of $45 to $50 billion for a three-reactor plant, or about $15 billion per unit.

In the case of New Brunswick, another smaller province considering a large new reactor project, it has been estimated that the project would nearly double to even triple current consumer electricity costs. Such increases would undermine energy affordability, economic competitiveness, and any plans for decarbonization through electrification.

A province could also try to finance the costs through its general tax base. That is the approach that Ontario been taking, at an estimated cost to the provincial treasury of $7 to $8.5 billion per year. Electricity subsidies now account for more than half of Ontario’s deficit, exceeding annual capital expenditures on education and health care by wide margins.

In the case of New Brunswick, the annual costs of that approach, even spread over the decade or more of construction, could exceed the province’s current, record $1.39 billion deficit, and match or exceed its entire annual capital spending plans in all other areas. Although the Saskatchewan economy is almost double the size of New Brunswick, the scale fiscal impacts of trying to finance two reactors out of general provincial tax revenues would be comparable.

Saskatchewan, for its part, has had another idea – asking the federal government to pay three-quarters of the cost of the province’s first nuclear reactor, a contribution of between $11 to $20 billion from federal taxpayers.

In addition to the financial risks a single large reactor in a relatively small electricity system would repeat and magnify a key problem associated with the original Point Lepreau project in New Brunswick —putting very higher portion of a province’s electricity supply eggs in a single, very expensive and high-risk basket.

All of this should suggest a high degree of caution among provinces considering adding large nuclear components for their electricity systems, and a need to think about other ways of decarbonizing their electricity systems while ensuring their affordability and sustainability.

Mark Winfield is a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University in Toronto, and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and lead researcher on the CEDAR project in Sustainability and Environmental Studies at St. Thomas University.

October 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Designating Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s Deep Geological Repository as a “Project of National Interest”, Bill C-39 would eliminate independent impact assessments for nuclear projects.

Designation of NWMO’s Nuclear Waste Transportation and Burial Project as a “Project of National Interest”

Nuclear Waste Watch, 1 Oct 26

The federal government announced its next step to short-circuit the review of a contentious nuclear waste project on Friday, September 18th. Notice was posted in the Canada Gazette that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO’s) Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project for all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste is proposed for designation as a “Project of National Interest” under the Building Canada Act . The deadline to comment is October 26.This designation would guarantee project approval and would circumvent the Impact Assessment process . The Notice also indicates a reduced scope of any project review, eliminating long-distance transportation and long-term safety from whatever evaluation the federal government might employ in developing their conditions for the approval.

This follows from the June 24th announcment that it had referred three projects to the Major Project Office to consider the potential “listing” of under the Build Canada Act (aka Bill C-5).

One of those three projects was the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s extremely controversial plan to transport, process, bury and abandon all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste at the Revell site in northwestern Ontario. The project is the subject of broad opposition and is in the early stage of an impact assessment. It’s unprecedented – there are no other operating deep geological repositories for nuclear fuel waste anywhere in the world – and the plan is still largely conceptual, with many parts of the operation not yet designed.

Key links:

Government of Canada News Release : Canada takes next step in potential listing of Deep Geological Repository project under Building Canada Act
Gazette I Notice of October 26 Comment Deadline

C-39, The Build Canada Strong Act , launched the day Parliament resumed on September 21st, is designed to steamroll over environmental protections and project review processes to accelerate construction of road, rail, ports and nuclear projects.

The bill delivers the May 8th discussion paper ‘s threat of transferring impact assessment of nuclear project’s from the independent Impact Assessment Agency to the nuclear industry led Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The first 44 pages concern themselves with deregulating the nuclear sector.

Given PM Carney’s penchant for speed nothing is certain, but we should expect parliamentary committee hearings this fall. There’s no summary from the Legislative library yet, but you can follow Bill C-39 HERE .

Key Links:

Government of Canada News Release : “Government of Canada introduces legislation to transform how Canada builds”
Government of Canada: Bill C-39 Introduction
Government of Canada: Bill C-39

October 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Feds publish notice to list nuclear waste project under Building Canada Act

Public feedback on the proposal to designate the scheme a project of national interest will be accepted until Oct. 26, 2026

Gary Rinne, NORTHERN ONTARIO BUSINESS, Sep 22, 2026

OTTAWA — The federal government has taken the first step toward designating a proposed underground used nuclear fuel storage site in Northwestern Ontario a project of national interest.

It announced the publication Sept. 18 of a notice in the Canada Gazette formally advising the public it is considering whether to list the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) deep geological repository project (DGR) under the Building Canada Act.

The government first disclosed its intention to do this in June.

The Building Canada Act is legislation aimed at ensuring major projects move forward efficiently.

Listing the DGR would put all federal permitting for the project under a coordinated framework, simplifying the regulatory process. It would virtually guarantee approval as the question would shift from whether to how the project should move proceed, according to an email from a federal spokesperson.

However, the government noted in its announcement that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission retains responsibility for issuing licences, and is independently responsible for ensuring the facility is built safely and in accordance with international treaties.

The NWMO plans to construct a network of tunnels and storage rooms 650 to 800 metres below the surface in the Canadian Shield between Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation.

It would store used nuclear fuel from the country’s existing and future nuclear reactors, beginning in the 2040s…………………..

Comments on the federal proposal may be submitted by email until Oct. 26, 2026.

The government said it will consider this feedback alongside the input it receives from stakeholders including Indigenous communities. https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/industry-news/design-build/feds-publish-notice-to-list-nuclear-waste-project-under-building-canada-act-12806778?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sep%2022,%202026%2003:00%20pm&utm_content=mc_nob#google_vignette

September 29, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

RIP SMRs: Is It the End of the Line for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?

the companies promoting the 10 SMR designs in Canada had either left the country, lost their proponents, filed for bankruptcy protection, or failed to secure private sector backing for their projects.

Despite the public spending largesse, and after heroic promotional efforts by Ontario Power Generation and the federal and Ontario governments, there are no reports of private investment in the Darlington SMR—not even after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s high-profile Canada Investment Summit last week—and none have been ordered in Canada or elsewhere.

The Energy Mix, Susan O’Donnell, September 22, 2026, https://www.theenergymix.com/rip-smrs-is-it-the-end-of-the-line-for-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/?

In early September, the organization behind Canada’s push for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) quietly signalled their demise.

In 2016, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories President Mark Leskinski proclaimed that “SMRs can live among the annals of great Canadian innovations.” Ten years later, the organization announced the termination of its two programs to support SMR development.

During the intervening decade [pdf], the companies promoting the 10 SMR designs in Canada had either left the country, lost their proponents, filed for bankruptcy protection, or failed to secure private sector backing for their projects.

An SMR is a nuclear reactor designed to generate 300 megawatts of electricity or less, compared to Canada’s existing CANDU reactors which generate 500 megawatts or more.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) manages Chalk River, the federal research campus where Canada’s top nuclear researchers conceived and designed the CANDU reactor. All the power reactors operating in Canada are a similar CANDU design, and CANDUs also operate in six other countries. But the last unit to connect to an electric grid in Canada was in 1993, and CANDU exports dried up decades ago.

CNL’s idea for a transition from large CANDU reactors to smaller reactors was an attempt to reenergize a moribund domestic nuclear industry. The concept was to lower the cost of nuclear reactors by making them smaller and building multiple modular units in factories.

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories president made his bold claim in 2016 about a stellar future for SMRs during a pitch to the federal government for multiple millions of public dollars to transform Chalk River to focus on SMR research.

Since that public money began flowing, Chalk River’s upgrades included the Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre for SMR research, still under construction and projected to open in 2028. The cost for the new facility ballooned from $370 million in 2018 to an estimated $1.025 billionin 2025, about half the cost of the overall SMR transformation of the Chalk River site.

The new research centre’s focus is on “advanced” nuclear fuels for SMRs, including plutonium. One of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ first research collaborations for SMR fuel was with Moltex, a UK start-up company that had set up in Saint John in 2018. Moltex proposed to use plutonium to fuel an experimental “advanced” SMR it wanted to build at the Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy.

Moltex lost its proponent in 2025 when New Brunswick Minister of Energy René Legacy told CBC the province was no longer willing to take on the risk of supporting first-of-a-kind experimental SMRs. A second “advanced” SMR slated for the Point Lepreau site also lost government support. At that point, the provincial and federal governments combined had spent nearly $130 million on SMR activities in New Brunswick—funds that could have gone into heat pumps and energy efficiency upgrades to combat energy poverty and cut climate pollution—without attracting private sector interest.

The New Brunswick SMR projects were two of the 10 SMR designs in Canada reviewed in a recent research report by the Fredericton-based Contesting Energy Discourses through Action Research (CEDAR) project. Of the remaining eight, most have decamped to their U.S. home base after attracting no proponent in Canada.

A CNL spokesperson told The Energy Mix the lab “is playing an important role in advancing microreactor technologies for off-grid and remote applications, with multiple, targeted, initiatives under way for federal partners.”

“CNL continues to support SMR development as part of Atomic Energy of Canada’s Federal Nuclear Science & Technology Work Plan,” Senior Communications Officer Lauren Kutchaw wrote in an email. “These research projects span the nuclear fuel cycle, reactor safety and security, materials and chemistry and energy systems analysis. They build the scientific knowledge to support decision-making, and develop the cutting-edge expertise and capabilities that can be leveraged to advance the deployment of both SMRs and Advanced Reactors in Canada and internationally.”

So far, however, only one SMR is under construction here: an American design at Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington nuclear site on Lake Ontario.

By March, 2026, the “Darlington New Build” project was still in pre-construction phase yet, had already received the lion’s share of the $4.5 billion in SMR subsidies by federal and provincial governments. In June, the federal and Ontario governments gave $715 million more via a “loan guarantee” to seven First Nations that flowed the funds through to the project. In return, the First Nations have an “equity guarantee” in a future SMR at Darlington, should one ever be built.

The high price tag per unit, $6.1 billion plus $1.6 billion in associated infrastructure that could be shared with future SMRs on the site, makes Darlington considerably more expensive than alternative sources of electricity generation, and about the same price per megawatt as the most expensive large reactors ever built in the U.S. No doubt the exorbitant cost explains the investor reticence and lack of orders.

In addition to the Darlington SMR’s financing challenges and empty order book, and the abandonment of the “advanced” SMR projects in New Brunswick, the most spectacular SMR failure is a project designed and championed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

In the “Roadmap” that launched Canada’s SMR strategy, CNL was mandated to develop the country’s first SMR, a “micro modular reactor” to be in operation by 2026. The reactor was meant to serve mining and remote communities. CNL put together a consortium of companies to build the SMR at Chalk River and develop “advanced” fuel to keep it running.

However, in February, 2024, the lead company in the consortium, Seattle-based Ultra Safe Nuclear, announced it was scaling back operations, complaining in a media release that “only a subset” of potential customers “have shown the resolve to incorporate advanced reactors in the near term.” Several months later, the company filed for bankruptcy protection [pdf] in the U.S., owing more than US$600,000 to Canada’s nuclear regulator and lesser amounts to many Canadian small businesses.

The same year the SMR project at Chalk River flopped, Alberta oil and gas giant Cenovus Energy abandoned a market study [pdf] of the potential of SMRs for oil sands extraction, finding that: “from a business perspective… SMRs are not economic or commercially feasible at present or in the near future. The capital costs are high, the timelines are long and uncertain, and technology and supply chains lack maturity.”

The Cenovus market research outcome was foreshadowed by academic research published in 2020 which found that the market for SMRs in mining and remote communities was “too small to be viable.”

Despite the failure of its flagship SMR venture, and the death knell for SMRs in Canada overall, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is persisting in its quest to find a market for SMRs. After all, the organization should need at least to attempt to justify the billions in public funding it has spent so far upgrading Chalk River for SMR research.

According to its September media release announcing the demise of its two SMR support programs, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories “is playing an important role in advancing microreactor technologies for off-grid and remote applications, with multiple, targeted, initiatives under way for federal partners.”

Apparently, old SMR ideas never really die. They will only, eventually, fade away.

Susan O’Donnell is lead researcher of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University and co-author with M.V. Ramana of a March 2026 report on SMRs in Canada that has been downloaded more than 9,000 times. The report will be published in French later this month.

This story is part of The Energy Mix’s partnership with Small Change Fund.

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

High levels of radioactive isotope led to discovery of Lepreau leak

N.B. Power says 200 litres of heavy water recovered inside reactor building

Erica Butler· CBC News · Sep 22, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/high-levels-radioactive-isotopes-disovery-lepreau-leak-9.7354212

N.B. Power said it has collected about 200 litres of heavy water from a leak at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station earlier this month, which the utility initially characterized as “small.”

In emails this week, the utility has shared more details about the leak, which CBC News first reported on Sept. 15.

The utility first became aware of a problem inside its reactor building on Sept. 10, when its monitoring system identified elevated levels of tritium.

Tritium is a radioactive isotope that occurs in the heavy water used to transfer heat from nuclear reactors.

The higher than normal readings “triggered an investigation to determine the cause,” said N.B. Power spokesperson Tracey Stephenson on Tuesday afternoon.

Lepreau was shut down on Sept. 11, and a heavy water leak from a 3/8ths-inch instrumentation line was confirmed on Sept. 14, said Stephenson.

The utility reiterated this week that the leak caused “no impact or safety risk to the public, staff or the environment.”

When the elevated tritium levels were detected, there were “no employees in the immediate vicinity,” said Stephenson because “that specific area is not accessible when the Station is online.”

That means there were no “unplanned or unexpected employee exposures associated with the leak,” said Stephenson.

The staff who investigated the problem did so following radiation safety procedures, including using specialized monitoring and personal protective equipment, she said.

Most of the heavy water leaked as vapour, said Stephenson, and was “recovered and collected” through station processes.

“The material remained contained within the reactor building at all times and there was no risk to workers, the public or the environment,” she said.

Timing of information release

It’s taken over a week for N.B. Power to release details about the heavy water leak.

A Sept. 14 press release announcing the Lepreau shutdown made no mention of a leak. It said the station was taken offline to “repair a small instrumentation line inside the reactor building.”

In an interview with CBC News the next day, deputy site vice-president Joel Armstrong acknowledged there had been a heavy water leak but said it was too early to comment on how much was spilled.

Kathleen Duguay, N.B. Power’s head of community affairs and nuclear regulatory protocol, spoke to Radio-Canada on Sept. 16 and characterized the leak as small. She said, speaking French, “It’s just a few drops coming out of the instrumentation line.”

Stephenson said Tuesday that the vapour state of most of the leak might account for the difference in “what might be expected from a liquid leak alone.”

‘Lack of information’

Energy researcher Susan O’Donnell said she is concerned about the “lack of information” initially disclosed by N.B. Power about the leak, starting with a Sept. 14 news release that did not share any details about radioactive heavy water.

“Why did they not just say this was radioactive material that leaked, this is how much material was leaked, this is the volume of radioactivity in the material?” asked O’Donnell.

“’X number of workers were cleaning it up, or were exposed … but hey, everyone’s OK. They’ve all been checked. There’s no problem. We’re looking into it.’

“Instead, it’s just this sort of vague information that doesn’t give anyone who’s interested in it all the facts that they need,” she said.

O’Donnell said N.B. Power should be “super transparent” about any release of radioactive material or risk a “lack of trust” with the public.

“People just get really suspicious. Like, what’s going on there? What are they not telling us?”

Too early to say what caused leak

O’Donnell said she has other concerns regarding the leak, including the potential risk to workers and the cause of the leak itself.

O’Donnell said she’s concerned about the age and tritium levels of the heavy water being used in the closed circulation system at Lepreau and whether it may have been a contributing factor to the leak.

Armstrong said on Sept. 16 that N.B. Power had started the process to determine the cause of the leak, but any conclusions would be “premature.”

“Our focus right now is making sure that we facilitate the repair … in a safe manner,” said Armstrong.

N.B. Power did not release the number of workers involved, but the utility said that staff in the area of the leak were working under strict protocols.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said via email that it has site inspectors stationed at Point Lepreau, and it was made aware of the leak on Sept. 10.

“We are engaged with N.B. Power as it conducts a thorough assessment of the incident and undertakes the necessary repair activities,” said the commission.

It also noted that “no workers have been reported to have received radiation doses above regulatory limits.”

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, incidents | Leave a comment

Simon Daigle lists the public concerns that must be addressed in planned development of BWRX-300 small nuclear reactors – Submission to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Submission Concerning the Proposed Development of BWRX-300 – multiple reactors at the Darlington Site (Ontario)

Submitted November 19,2023 by Simon J Daigle, Simon J Daigle, B.Sc., M.Sc., M.Sc(A) Montreal, Quebec Canada

Response to the proposed development of OPGs BWRX-300 reactors at the Darlington CANDU reactors site and the items below are all real public concerns and must all be addressed independently and individually, as per the following categories:

CNSC licensing of the BWRX-300 reactors & Multiple Reactors nearby a NPP is inadequate [References: 1, 2, 4, 5]

BWRX-300 stands for Boiling Water Reactor eXperimental 300 and developed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) and will not aim to address any key challenges faced by traditional nuclear power plants. In fact, they will be costly, and generate extremely toxic nuclear wastes more than what would be expected by traditional NPP plants. [Ref. 4].
This experimental compact design will not reduce construction costs, will not simplify operation nearby one NPP, or will ever enhanced safety measures. In fact, it will do the exact opposite as per IAEA [Ref. 1 and 5].
It is questionable to say the least that by utilizing natural circulation and passive safety systems you will eliminate the need for external pumps and active cooling mechanisms because during a meltdown, fire or catastrophic event (lightening, flooding, extreme air temperatures over decades because of climate change), who will shut it off? A worker? I’m more reassured when a Pilot on commercial flight is present when he or she is using the auto-pilot function [Ref. 1].

CNSC license to built an experimental reactor based on the CNSC’s decision that OPG has met the recommendations of the 2011 Environmental Assessment Report by the JRP is not objectively verifiable or can be validated based on the 2023 Update report [Ref. 2].
No objective evidence is available to validate what specific recommendations of the JRP have been adopted, analysed and/or implemented by OPG or CNSC. [Ref. 2].
No BWRX-300 reactors are operating anywhere in the world and is a real public concern for the citizens living nearby as well as the potential impacts of a catastrophic environmental event that could be transboundary across many municipalities.

Engineering Design Risks: Experimental, Natural water cooling & neutron leakage [4,5].

Water cannot be used to cool a reactor as it is experimental design reactor that will use use low pressure water to remove heat from the core. A distinct feature of this reactor design is that water is circulated within the core by natural circulation and yet no data is measured or validated by any laboratory confirmed analysis or modelling study.
Neutron leakage will be problematic for any SMR design as well as for the BRMX-300 reactor as no proof of any safe SMR reactor system can be validated or compared too to this very day.

This is no experimental data to elude or conclude that this experimental reactor will work in terms of an internal cooling system of the core.
BWRX-300 is by all means not small as it covers a full football field.
No BWRX-300 reactors are operating anywhere in the world.
The proposed design and operation of a BWRX-300 is entirely different from the CANDU design and involves a structure and a method of operating which is, in large part, below ground level.
No data on any potential meltdown of the core of any modular nuclear including BWRX-300 including catastrophic events cascading located nearby a Nuclear Power Plant.
Neutron leakage is a huge problem with SMRs and will be as well with the BWRX-300.

SMR Neutronics and Design: [Ref. 4].
- “A nuclear reactor is designed to sustain criticality, a chain reaction of fission events that generates energy (∼200 MeV per fission event) and extra neutrons that can cause fission in nearby fissile nuclides.
- The neutron “economy” of a reactor depends on the efficiency of the chain reaction process; the fate of neutrons absorbed by abundant nuclides, such as 238U or 232Th; the fission of newly generated fissile nuclides, such as 239Pu and 233U; and the loss of neutrons across the fuel boundary.
- These “lost” neutrons can activate structural materials that surround the fuel assemblies. Each of these physical processes generates radioactive waste.
- Thus, the final composition of the SNF and associated wastes depend on the initial composition of the fuel, the physical design of the fuel, burnup, and the types of structural materials of the reactor.
- The probability of neutron leakage is a function of the reactor dimensions and the neutron diffusion length, the latter of which is determined by the neutron scattering properties of the fuel, coolant, moderator, and structural materials in the reactor core.
- The neutron diffusion length will be the same in reactors that use similar fuel cycles and fuel–coolant–moderator combinations; thus, the neutron leakage probability will be larger for an SMR than for a larger reactor of a similar type.”
Public Consultation, indigenous peoples and social acceptability: [Ref. 2].
No objective evidence has been elucidated or clearly documented with transparency.
EIA Impact statement: page 84 of [Ref. 2].
EIA impact statement, nor final PPE parameters, did not follow IAEA Multi-Unit Probabilistic Safety Assessment required for 1 or 4 experimental reactors nearby a Nuclear Power Plant despite the fact that EIA significance analysis had assessed all the residual adverse effects [Ref. 1, 5]. Please refer to the list of EIA and PPE selected quotes below as the reference to compare with the IAEA Multi-Unit Probabilistic Safety Assessment that is lacking [Ref. 1, 5].

EIA and PPE selected quotes:

“EIS significance analysis had assessed all the residual adverse effects to be “Not Significant”. Of the likely residual adverse effects that were forwarded for assessment of significance in the EIS:

• Seven (7) were also determined to result in minor residual adverse effects from the BWRX-300 but less than that described in the EIS,

• Four (4) were not applicable to the BWRX-300 reactor,

• Five (5) were determined to have residual adverse effects not significant after completion of additional studies to assess the likely effects to retained terrestrial features not considered in the EIS.

The PPE Of the 198 PPE parameters, 60 PPE parameters were not applicable to the BWRX-300. Of the 138 applicable PPE parameters evaluated, eight (8) BWRX-300 parameters are currently not within their respective PPE parameters. These are largely due to characteristics inherent to the design of the GEH reactor technology. These eight parameters are related to the following topics:
- The rate of fire protection water withdrawal and the quantity of water in storage,
- Deeper foundations (38 m below grade) than the reactors previously assessed in the EIS (13.5 m),
- Airborne releases of radioactive contaminants and normal operation minimum release height above finished grade,
- The different proportions of radionuclides in solid wastes generated by the operation of the BWRX-300,
- The weight of the cask used to transport the BWRX-300 spent fuel on site, and
- The multiplication factors applied to basic wind speed to develop the plant design.
A full environmental impact assessment is required to fulfill provincial and federal jurisdiction best practices for air, water and soil & biosphere impacts during a catastrophic event or meltdown of this experimental reactor as well as maritime and lake biosphere impacts.

Nuclear accidents, incidents, multiple explosion risks or 1 or 4 BMRX-300 reactors nearby a NPP, Soil Stability, hydrogeology, lithospheric & seismic Risks: [Ref. 1,2, 5].

No objective risk assessment has been completed by OPG or CNSC as per the required IAEA Multi-Unit Probabilistic Safety Assessment required for 1 or 4 experimental reactors nearby a Nuclear Power Plant. [Ref. 1,5].
The appropriateness of building 1 or 4 untested reactors next to the 4 existing CANDUs at Darlington as well as the current and potential stored nuclear waste is questionable given the fact that the probabilistic safety assessment was not completed according to the IAEA methodology [Ref. 1].
JRP recommendations concerning the physical conditions of the Darlington site need to be applied with transparency by OPG and the CNSC. [Ref. 2].

Other public and safety concerns: these issues need to be addressed

Climate change impacts have not been included in the EIS report.
Unknown: reliability data to reduce the risk of potential accidents.
Unknown: demonstrating that the BMRX-300 is a clean and reliable source of electricity, capable of generating vast amounts of energy without producing greenhouse gas emissions as it is only an experimental design.
Concerns surrounding safety, waste disposal, and cost have hindered its widespread adoption globally. A handful of countries have adopted this design but no data on the true financial costs to governments or to that taxpayer. [Ref. 4].

Unknown: BWRX-300 did not address safety concerns, efficiency, efficacy as a cost-effective alternative compared to renewables such as hydro, solar or wind energy generation.

Unknown: sustainability and reliability compared to wind and solar energies to meet the growing demand for electricity.
BWRX-300 represents a significant step backwards in power technology. It is not compact, it does not meet nuclear wastes (as per the IAEA ALARA principle) that will last for thousands of years, and most certainly, it is not cost effective over time to store and monitor SMR or BWRX-300 nuclear wastes based on the probability of any heat instability of the nuclear core over time and the generation of highly toxic nuclear waste. You cannot turn off radioactivity like an electrical light bulb as there are no fuse switch off for ionizing radiation.

September 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics, Reference, Reference archives, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Designation of Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s Deep Geological Repository as Project of National Recklessness

Ottawa – An announcement on Friday that the federal government has taken the next step to short-circuit the review of a contentious nuclear waste project is receiving pushback from critics and Indigenous leaders who are demanding a comprehensive and independent review before any federal approvals can be granted.

We the Nuclear Free North, 20 Sept 26
Notice was posted in the Canada Gazette that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO’s) Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project for all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste is proposed for designation as a “Project of National Interest” under the Building Canada Act. This designation would guarantee project approval and would circumvent the Impact Assessment process. The Notice also proposes a reduced scope of the project, eliminating long-distance transportation and long-term safety from whatever evaluation the federal government might employ in developing their conditions for the approval.

Opposition to the project’s designation as a Project of National Interest centres around the recognition that if so designated, the project will not receive a comprehensive impact assessment and key areas of concern – namely transportation and long-term safety – will escape scrutiny.

“If the NWMO’s project was sound and they could make the safety case for their nuclear waste transportation and burial project there would be no hesitation on the part of the nuclear industry or the federal government to have it subject to a comprehensive and independent assessment”, commented Brennain Lloyd, project coordinator with Northwatch.

“This move to shield the deep geological repository scheme from scrutiny says it all – the NWMO’s concept can’t stand up to technical or public review. But limiting its review will not limit its impact.”

The proposal to designate the NWMO’s DGR as a project of national interest has been put forward by the federal government despite strong opposition expressed by Indigenous and non-Indigenous organizations, and evidenced by public protests, lawn signs, letters to newspapers and public agencies, and most especially by the more than 1,000 comments submitted by Canadians during the planning phase of the federal impact assessment’s, expressing either opposition to the project or significant concerns about how it would be carried out. The first phase of the federal review began in January and on July 3 the federal government announced the commencement of the impact assessment process.

Canadians fought hard to ensure that the project would receive a full impact assessment including a comprehensive examination of long-distance waste transportation,” said Wendy O’Connor, volunteer with Nuclear Free Thunder Bay.

“The Impact Assessment Agency agreed. That the federal government could now ignore Canadians’ wishes and sidestep the full assessment process Canadians were promised is shocking, unjust and unwise.”

“Considering the project’s novelty, scale, duration and potential for long-lived and irreversible effects from transporting and burying such an unprecedented volume of highly radioactive nuclear waste, it would be absolutely reckless for the government to fast track the approval of this project. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is the sole body with the mandate and expertise to evaluate the environmental, health, social, economic, cumulative, and rights-related impacts of major federal industrial projects. It must remain the lead authority for nuclear-related impact assessments,” said Mary Veltri of Environment North.

In May the federal government proposed in its ‘Getting Major Projects Built in Canada’ discussion paper that nuclear projects be vetted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) rather than the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. Canadians’ response was noted their resulting report, “What We Heard”. The report specifically mentions nuclear projects as one where opponents argued that having the assessment carried out by the sector regulator alone would weaken the scrutiny of cumulative effects, species at risk, and Indigenous rights, and diminish public participation.

The Notice in the Canada Gazette invites the public to comment on the proposal that NWMO’s DGR project be designated as a Project of National Interest. We the Nuclear Free North strongly urges Canadians to do so, and will be providing analysis and more information to support public engagement.

Comments may be emailed to DGRComment-CommentaireDSCGP@mpo-bgp.gc.ca, with a deadline of October 26.

September 24, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Memories of Greenpeace and its anti-nuclear campaign

By Sarah Millington, 16 Sept 26, https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/26552830.memories-greenpeace-anti-nuclear-campaign/

GREENPEACE Day is observed every year on September 15, marking the 1971 voyage that launched the global environmental organisation.

A group of activists sailed from Vancouver, Canada, to protest against US nuclear weapons testing at Amchitka Island in Alaska.

Although they did not stop the test itself, their dramatic action attracted international attention and marked the birth of what would become one of the world’s most influential environmental organisations.

Greenpeace has a long association with Cumbria through its anti-nuclear campaigning around Sellafield. For decades, the organisation has raised concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear fuel reprocessing and the environmental impact of operations at the site.

In April 1995, around 250 Greenpeace activists entered and occupied parts of the Sellafield reprocessing plant in a protest timed to coincide with international nuclear non-proliferation talks.

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Events | Leave a comment

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories cancels SMR programs

Ole Hendrickson, Sep 17, 2026,

CNL’s call for SMR demonstration projects, and CNL’s “Advanced Reactor” research initiative, are now officially terminated:

Chalk River, ON – September 10, 2026 – Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), Canada’s premier nuclear science and technology organization, is announcing adjustments to its clean energy research programs. As of July 2026, CNL will close its Invitation for Clean Energy Projects program and the Canadian Nuclear Research Initiative (CNRI). Both programs were aimed at leveraging the facilities and capabilities at CNL-managed sites to advance clean energy projects.

Canadian Nuclear Research Initiative (CNRI) – it was a program to support collaborative Advanced Reactor (AR) research projects with third-party proponents in Canada.
Invitation for Clean Energy Projects program (originally titled as Invitation for SMR Demonstration Projects) – CNL had been working with its client, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (“AECL”), to develop a process by which CNL could recommend the establishment of one or more clean energy demonstration projects on one or more sites owned by AECL (including Chalk River Laboratories and Whiteshell Laboratories).

CNL will continue “to explore the potential of micro-reactors,” using $40 million of DND funding:

On April 29, 2026, Minister Hodgson, on behalf of the Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, announced that the Government of Canada, through the Department of National Defence (DND), is making an initial $40-million investment for 2026–2027 to assess the potential of a Canadian‑controlled microreactor that could provide heat and electricity to remote and northern DND and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) facilities and operations.

September 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

The Race to Solve Nuclear Energy’s Biggest Problem

By Felicity Bradstock – Sep 12, 2026,
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Race-to-Solve-Nuclear-Energys-Biggest-Problem.html
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Race-to-Solve-Nuclear-Energys-Biggest-Problem.html

Nuclear expansion is increasing pressure on governments to establish permanent disposal facilities for spent fuel.
Canada is advancing a deep geological repository near Ignace, Ontario, using copper-coated containers, bentonite clay, and hundreds of metres of rock.
The United States still lacks an operating permanent repository and is exploring new nuclear-waste arrangements beyond the stalled Yucca Mountain project.

Nuclear power is growing in popularity once again as governments worldwide look to diversify their energy mix and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Several countries are now looking to develop or expand their nuclear energy capacity over the coming decades. However, one challenge remains – nuclear waste. Disposing of waste materials from nuclear energy operations remains a complex task with no perfect solution.

As countries worldwide have grown their nuclear power capacity, many governments are still struggling to decide on the best solution for disposing of nuclear waste. There are three types of nuclear waste: low-, intermediate-, and high-level radioactive waste. Most of the waste produced by nuclear plants consists of lightly contaminated items, such as tools and work clothing, with radioactivity levels of around 1 per cent. High-level waste consists of spent fuel, which accounts for around 3 per cent of the total volume of waste from nuclear energy production, yet contains 95 per cent of the radioactivity.

Nuclear facility operators are responsible for the safe disposal of any radioactive waste they produce. Nuclear power plants generate relatively little waste compared to many other energy sources; however, it is some of the most difficult to manage. Nuclear fuel is very energy-dense, meaning little is required to generate large quantities of electricity and just 5 grammes of high-level waste is produced to provide for an individual’s annual energy needs. A conventional 1 GW nuclear plant, which can supply over one million people with electricity, produces around three cubic meters of vitrified high-level waste per year.

In Oakville, Canada, the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO) has developed a test site for nuclear waste storage. The site is situated in a warehouse, where a driverless forklift stacks 8,000 kg of bentonite clay blocks into a narrow rock tunnel, and another autonomous machine fills the gaps around the blocks with crumbled clay. Each one encases a copper-coated steel container created to hold spent nuclear fuel. These blocks are then sealed behind additional clay and concrete in tunnels deep underground, so that the radioactive material can slowly decay over thousands of years with no risk to the public.

The metal fuel containers are designed to withstand the pressure of being buried beneath a 3-kilometre-thick glacier, should the next ice age arrive before the radiation has fully decayed. They have also been successfully tested for resistance to crushing under an extremely strong force, equivalent to being over 6 km underwater. The NWMO team aims to build the final site 1,600 km northwest of the test facility, in the town of Ignace. It will be buried at a depth of around 750 metres in the hard rock of the Canadian Shield. Once complete, around 2040, it is expected to be capable of storing nearly 6 million bundles of spent fuel produced by Canada’s four nuclear power plants over their operational lives.

Similar sites are also being developed in other countries, such as Finland, Sweden, and Japan. Scientists have overcome several technical challenges associated with developing deep geological repositories over the years, making them a viable site for nuclear waste storage. However, securing political and public support for these facilities remains a challenge due to fears of contamination.

The United States government began exploring potential deep geological repository sites in the 1980s but has now fallen behind other countries in development due to widespread local opposition. The government chose Yucca Mountain in northern Nevada as the location for the development of its first geological repository, becoming the first in the world to submit a licence application for such a site.

There are several concerns about developing a facility at this location, including the nearby volcano, which geologists still consider active. The proposed location is in an active earthquake zone and lies above the water table, posing a risk of radioactive particles, known as radionuclides, being released into the environment. However, the biggest challenge has been political opposition. When Nevada Senator Harry Reid became the U.S. Senate’s majority leader in 2007, he put the project on permanent hold.

In the age of the nuclear renaissance in the United States, the lack of progress in Nevada has led the Department of Energy (DoE) to return to the drawing board. The DoE selected sites in Utah, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee as possible locations, but Yucca Mountain remains the only legal option for permanent storage at present. The Trump administration would need to pass legislation to remove Yucca Mountain from its designation as a federal site to develop a repository elsewhere. Meanwhile, the U.S. has built up around 95,000 metric tonnes of nuclear waste over the years, which needs to be suitably managed.

Several deep geological repositories are expected to commence operations in various countries over the coming decades. Meanwhile, scientists are continuing to explore alternative waste management solutions. However, as multiple governments are now exploring the potential to develop their nuclear power capacity, they must also address the waste problem and construct safe disposal facilities alongside new nuclear power projects.

September 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Three of four reactors at Ontario’s refurbished Darlington nuclear power plant face frequent outages.

MATTHEW MCCLEARN, The Globe and Mail, Aug 28, 2026, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-ontario-darlington-nuclear-power-plant-three-reactors-out-of/

Three of four reactors at Ontario’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station are experiencing prolonged outages, data from the Independent Electricity System Operator show, even as the province faces a further large drop in nuclear power generation in just a few weeks’ time.

Ontario Power Generation completed a $12.8-billion, decade-long refurbishment of its station in Clarington, Ont., in March. Although provincial officials have portrayed that overhaul as an unqualified success, Darlington’s units have meandered in and out of service ever since.

The most recently refurbished unit, Unit 4, suddenly stopped generating power on Aug. 1 – its third outage since returning to service. Two days later, Unit 2 abruptly stopped supplying power to the grid. Unit 3 had already been out of service for several months because of long-planned work, leaving Unit 1 as the lone operational unit.

Officials have disclosed little about the causes and implications of the outages at Units 2 and 4, nor when they might return to service. In response to questions from The Globe seeking details of the outages, OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly wrote in a statement that the two units were taken offline “to complete required maintenance.” He added that Unit 2 is expected to restart in September, and Unit 4 will follow in October.

Braeson Holland, a spokesperson for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, wrote in a statement that OPG reported the forced outages of Units 2 and 4 to its staff.

“CNSC inspectors maintain regulatory oversight of the outage work to verify that the appropriate actions are being taken. CNSC staff are satisfied that these events do not present a risk to the health and safety of persons or to the environment,” he wrote.

Representing nearly 900 megawatts of generating capacity each, Darlington’s units are the largest in Ontario. The station boasts a total generating capacity of roughly 3,500 megawatts, making it the province’s second largest, eclipsed only by the eight-reactor Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Tiverton, Ont., operated by Bruce Power.

Ontario’s third nuclear power plant, OPG’s Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, is just weeks away from shutting down. Its four operational reactors, representing 2,100 megawatts of generating capacity, are scheduled to come offline next month for their own $26.8-billion refurbishment, expected to wrap up in the mid-2030s.

Will soaring electricity rates kill Ontario’s nuclear expansion?

Michael Dodsworth, a spokesperson for the Independent Electricity System Operator, said his organization had no concerns that the outages would affect Ontario’s ability to meet electricity demand in the coming months.

“Ontario’s electricity system has remained reliable this summer thanks to our diverse supply mix, bolstered by recent investments in new generation and energy storage,” he wrote.

In a July filing to the Ontario Energy Board, OPG forecast that there would be 286 outage days at Darlington in 2026 – the most taken in any year since at least 2008. Nonetheless, the forced outages of Units 2 and 4 seem likely to push the actual total higher still.

OPG forecast planned outages totaling 512 days in 2027, including a major outage for work on Unit 2’s steam generators. The entire Darlington station will be out of service next year for nearly 46 days to allow work on its vacuum building, which is designed to suck out and condense steam from a reactor during a major accident.

Since outages of a single reactor can cost a utility $1-million or more a day in lost revenue – and because large, unexpected fluctuations in power generation can stress power grids, utilities invest considerable manpower and resources to avoiding unplanned outages, according to David Novog, a professor of engineering at McMaster University who specializes in nuclear safety and maintenance.

“Of course there’ll be unplanned outages,” he said. “But because of the value that the reactor represents on the grid and the amount of revenue it provides, it is probably one of the most looked-after assets that the government has.”

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds

However, several of this year’s outages at Darlington have been entirely unexpected. Unit 4 was officially returned to service on March 13 following a refurbishment lasting nearly three years. Since then, it has been taken offline three times with little explanation; OPG has disclosed only that the first outage was taken “to assess an operational matter unrelated to the refurbishment” and that it had completed repairs.

“When you stop and start and stop and start, that’s atypical of how we would typically choose to run the reactors,” Prof. Novog observed.

The Bruce and Darlington plants suffered many unplanned outages in their early years of operation, he added. During the years leading up to refurbishment, however, Darlington’s units were “exceptionally well-run.”

Prof. Novog said OPG should pro-actively publish more information about outages.

“When you’re not upfront with the information, it can lead to speculation and a lack of confidence,” he said.

“Without knowing the details, it’s hard to even tell whether it’s teething pain [at Darlington] or whether it is something else.”

The provincial government has said that Ontario’s nuclear projects were completed ahead of schedule and under budget, which Energy Minister Stephen Lecce repeated Tuesday at a press conference in St. Clair Township.

As the output of Ontario’s nuclear fleet has fallen because of refurbishments and outages, the province has increasingly relied on natural gas-fired plants to supply electricity. On Thursday afternoon, the 11 operational reactors provided 38.5 per cent of the province’s electricity, as compared to 31.5 per cent from gas plants, according to the Gridwatch monitoring web site.

For 2024 and 2025, the nuclear plants provided roughly half of Ontario’s power; gas plants provided less than 20 per cent.

September 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, technology | Leave a comment

Port Hope’s past fuels pushback on nuclear reactor

The Canadian Press, 21 Aug 2026

The Ontario government announced earlier this year that it will build one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants in Port Hope, Ontario. Though the news was welcomed by some, it shocked a generation of Port Hope residents old enough to have lived through or learned of the community’s fraught history with the nuclear industry.

August 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Port Hope’s radioactive past fuels pushback against proposed nuclear reactor

August 21, 2026, The Canadian Press

When the Ontario government announced plans earlier this year to build what could become one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants in a picturesque community of roughly 18,000 people, the news came wrapped in a series of celebratory speeches.

The province’s energy minister, Stephen Lecce, hailed the project as “another positive step” toward a secure energy future, while the local mayor said it would help usher in a “stronger and more resilient future” not only for the community about 100 kilometres east of Toronto, but for the entire province and country.

Though the news was welcomed by some, it shocked a generation of Port Hope residents old enough to have lived through the community’s fraught history with the nuclear industry, a legacy that permeates backyards and public properties to this day.

“I personally was outraged when I heard this announcement, and elected officials of every level were lined up here making this announcement as if this was good news,” said Faye More, a 75-year-old resident rallying opposition to the project in the community.

The community has felt “invisible for about 80 years in the matter of the operation of these plants,” and is feeling the same once again as the province forges ahead with the new project, More said in an interview.

It has been almost a century since the Eldorado mining company, which later became a Crown corporation, opened a radium refinery plant in Port Hope in the 1930s. When uranium suddenly became a prized commodity about a decade later, ore that was once considered a waste product was in demand. The plant began refining uranium instead, supplying the material to the United States military during the Second World War where its uses included the Manhattan Project, the U.S. government program that produced the first atomic bombs.

Over several decades, the plant dumped contaminated soil, rocks and building materials across Port Hope. The materials were used mainly as backfill, but also in the construction of parks, roads, schools and homes — including the home where More grew up and the one where she later raised a family of her own.

In 2001, the federal government signed an agreement with Port Hope and nearby Clarington, committing to cleaning up, isolating and managing the historic, low-level radioactive waste that contaminated the region.

The project, known as Port Hope Area Initiative, in being implemented by the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, which manages historic waste sites on behalf of the Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

The provincially owned company in charge of the new nuclear power project is assuring residents that the sector operates much differently than when it was in its infancy………………………………………………..

Those assurances haven’t swayed critics.

The municipality is already home to two nuclear operations on top of the decades-long remediation project, More said. Another nuclear plant is not welcome, she said.

The community is being “treated like (it’s) expendable” as the government seeks to expand nuclear power generation, More said. “But the people here have been exploited and they have borne the price of this and we say no more.”

To many, the new power plant may seem like a done deal, but More and several other residents who oppose the project said they are optimistic their efforts will bear fruit.

More, who heads a local committee focused on health concerns, said the group will keep raising awareness of the proposal as well as lobbying the government to reverse its decision.

In June, she sent a petition to Canada’s auditor general, seeking protection under the upcoming National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice. The strategy, according to the federal government, aims to promote efforts to recognize and address the “existing inequalities faced by Indigenous, racialized or otherwise marginalized communities” when decisions are made about the environment.

Consultations on the draft strategy closed this week and the final version is expected to be tabled this fall.

Turning to the courts could also be an option, More said……..

Port Hope is one of the most contaminated towns in Canada when it comes to low-level radioactive waste; the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says the bulk of historic waste is there and in nearby Clarington.

The $2.6-billion remediation plan currently underway is “pretty much the largest environmental cleanup that’s ever been undertaken in the country,” said Bill Daly, the director of communications for the Port Hope Area Initiative, the organization behind the cleanup and long-term monitoring project.

Daly said some 5,000 sites in the municipality have been tested and about 1,200 were found to have some level of contamination…………………………

Like several others in the municipality, Erland said he can’t fathom why Port Hope was chosen to house a nuclear reactor.

“The irony couldn’t be lost that just while this remediation is being undertaken on our property, we’re learning that the government now wants to build the largest nuclear power plant in the world in this area,” the 66-year-old said…….

Autumn Woolsey said she and her family have gone through a long and painful cycle of testing, remediation and restoration on their property.

“This summer has been the first summer in eight years that we have not had anything going on,” she said.

No health monitoring was conducted in that time, even after Woolsey repeatedly asked for it, she added.

Woolsey, who fiercely opposes the new reactor, said she’s fighting for future generations.

“I can’t change what has happened and what we’ve been exposed to, but if I can advocate and fight for my children, their children … that is what my goal, my mission is in life,” she said.

“Do not come in here to a community that has suffered for decades and think that we’re going to be happy to hear about this.”…

Few might be affected as directly as Sarah Sculthorpe and her family if the new plant goes ahead. The farm property where Sculthorpe moved nearly 50 years ago after marrying an eighth-generation Port Hope resident shoulders the site chosen for the project.

Over the last several months, Sculthorpe has been knocking on neighbours’ doors, talking to politicians and nuclear experts, doing online research and taking copious notes — all aimed at preventing what seems to be the inevitable.

“The only way to win a battle is to raise the knowledge and the voices of people,” she said. “And if we cannot educate people and let them know why we don’t want this, it will happen, because (for) most people, it’s out of sight, out of mind.”

The land earmarked for the plant spans 1,300 acres, with 700 acres deemed environmentally sensitive, she said.

Sculthorpe’s biggest concern, she said, is that building one of the country’s largest reactor sites on a plot of that size might mean there’s no space for a buffer zone between the plant and her property.

She argues Ontario Power Generation has not been transparent with the plant’s potential neighbours — an accusation denied by the corporation, which said it has “engaged extensively” with residents near the site and throughout the municipality.

Sculthorpe said her husband remembers seeing yellowcake, a powdery form of uranium oxide, in the ditches when he walked to school as a child, and later became of a member Citizens for Responsible Nuclear Waste Disposal. The grassroots group successfully lobbied for the environmental cleanup of Port Hope in 1980s.

She said she doesn’t want her grandchildren to be raised next door to a nuclear reactor.

“For me it’s a very emotional battle,” she said. https://www.cp24.com/local/2026/08/21/port-hopes-radioactive-past-fuels-pushback-against-proposed-nuclear-reactor/

August 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries