Ontario utility wants to double the asking price of nuclear, while US wants reactors on the moon

Giles Parkinson. Jan 14, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/ontario-utility-wants-to-double-the-asking-price-of-nuclear-while-us-wants-reactors-on-the-moon/

The main power utility in the Canadian province of Ontario has put in a request to nearly double the price of payments its receives for nuclear power, in order to cover the cost of maintenance, upgrades and new projects.

Ontario Power Generation has asked the local regulator – the Ontario Energy Board – to increase the payments for nuclear power to $C207 a megawatt hour ($A222/MWh) from January, 2027, nearly double what it received ($C111.61/MWh) in 2025.

Nuclear accounts for more than half of the generation in Ontario, which is often held up by nuclear advocates as a shining light for Australia to follow, but it faces massive expenses in coming years as it refurbishes its ageing nuclear fleet, and embarks on a program to build four small modular reactors.

The first of these SMRS are expected to be delivered in the early 2030s, and the total cost is currently put at more than $C21 billion. But more money, nearly $C27 billion, is to be spent on refurbishing four existing reactors at Pickering, and yet more on other nuclear upkeep costs.

The huge investment in nuclear is raising concerns among environmental groups and also major energy users, which include steel makers and car companies such as Ford and Toyota.

The Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, says its members are facing “skyrocketing” electricity prices, including a 165 per cent rise in the next three years.

AMPCO president Brad Duguid blames the rising cost of nuclear, and also the heavy price of gas generation which is being used to fill the gap caused by the refurbishment of the old nuclear plants, some of which are scheduled to be offline for three years.

“Over the next seven to 10 years, we’re seeing significant increases in the market energy rates to make up that difference,” he told the Globe and Mail.

“We’re talking about increases in the range of 165 per cent for the market rate over the next three years alone. That’s untenable. That’s an absolute threat to the competitiveness of our industrial sector and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports.”

Retail customers are also suffering. Residential power prices jumped 29 per cent in October, although they were partially offset by an increase in government rebates.

The cost of those rebates – which are used by the government in Ontario, as they are in nuclear dependent France, to hide the true cost of nuclear – have jumped to $C8.5 billion a year. Other costs are incorporated in general government debt, critics note.

“This application really confirms that these projects are among the most expensive ways to meet our need for electricity,” said the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, which supports renewables and opposes the nuclear expansion.

“We could expand solar, wind and storage at a fraction of the cost and avoid seeing our power bills go through the roof.

“The Premier’s buddies in the nuclear and gas industries may like his plan for an old school electricity system built around eye-wateringly expensive mega projects. But the people of Ontario are now in for some serious sticker shock.

“This is really the tip of a very big iceberg coming straight at your household budget.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration across the border has doubled down on its plan, first flagged in August last year, to build a series of nuclear power plants on the moon – by 2030 – and to get them ready for Mars, whenever they get there.

The US Department of Energy and NASA announced on Tuesday that they intended to deploy nuclear reactors on the Moon and in orbit, including the development of a lunar surface reactor by 2030.

Russia has also announced plans to deploy nuclear power on the moon, although it is aiming for 2035.

Newly appointed NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said the US is committed to returning to the Moon, and making “the next giant leap to Mars” and beyond.

“Achieving this future requires harnessing nuclear power. This agreement enables closer collaboration between NASA and the Department of Energy to deliver the capabilities necessary to usher in the Golden Age of space exploration and discovery,” he said in a statement.

January 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Ontario’s proposed nuclear waste repository poses millennia-long ethical questions

Maxime Polleri, Assistant Professor, Université Laval, January 16, 2026 , https://theconversation.com/ontarios-proposed-nuclear-waste-repository-poses-millennia-long-ethical-questions-273181

The heat produced by the radioactive waste strikes you when you enter the storage site of Ontario Power Generation at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, near the shore of Lake Huron in Ontario.

Massive white containers encase spent nuclear fuel, protecting me from the deadly radiation that emanates from them. The number of containers is impressive, and my guide explained this waste is stored on an interim basis, as they wait for a more permanent solution.

I visited the site in August 2023 as part of my research into the social acceptability of nuclear waste disposal and governance. The situation in Ontario is not unique, as radioactive waste from nuclear power plants poses management problems worldwide. It’s too dangerous to dispose of spent nuclear fuel in traditional landfills, as its radioactive emissions remain lethal for thousands of years.

To get rid of this waste, organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency believe that spent fuel could be buried in deep geological repositories. The Canadian government has plans for such a repository, and has delegated the task of building one to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) that’s funded by Canadian nuclear energy producers.

In 2024, NWMO selected an area in northwestern Ontario near the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as a potential site for a deep geological repository. Now, a federal review has begun bringing the project closer to potential reality.

Such repositories raise complex ethical questions around public safety, particularly given the millennia-long timescales of nuclear waste: How to address intergenerational issues for citizens who did not produce this waste but will inherit it? How to manage the potential dangers of these facilities amid short-term political cycles and changing public expectations?

While NWMO describes the deep geological repository as the safest way to protect the population and the environment, its current management plan does not extend beyond 160 years, a relatively short time frame in comparison with the lifespan of nuclear waste. This gap creates long-term public safety challenges, particularly regarding intergenerational ethics. There are specific issues that should be considered during the federal review.

NWMO argues that the deep geological repository will bring a wide range of benefits to Canadians through job creation and local investment. Based on this narrative, risk is assessed through a cost-benefit calculus that evaluates benefits over potential costs.

Academics working in nuclear contexts have, however, criticized the imbalance of this calculus, as it prioritizes semi-immediate economic benefits, like job creation, over the long-term potential impacts to future generations.

In many official documents, a disproportionate emphasis on short-term economic benefits is present over the potential dangers of long-term burial. When risks are discussed, they’re framed in optimistic language and argue that nuclear waste burial is safe, low risk, technically sound and consistent with best practices accepted around the world.

This doesn’t take into account the fact that the feasibility of a deep geological repository has not been proven empirically. For the federal review, discussions surrounding risks should receive an equal amount of independent coverage as those pertaining to benefits.

Intergenerational responsibilities and risks

After 160 years, the deep geological repository will be decommissioned and NWMO will submit an Abandonment License application, meaning the site will cease being looked after.

Yet nuclear waste can remain dangerous for thousands of years. The long lifespan of nuclear waste complicates social, economic and legal responsibility. While the communities of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation have accepted the potential risks associated with a repository, future generations will not be able to decide what constitutes an acceptable risk.

Social scientists argue that an “acceptable” risk is not something universally shared, but a political process that evolves over time. The reasons communities cite to decide what risks are acceptable will change dramatically as they face new challenges. The same goes for the legal or financial responsibility surrounding the project over the centuries.

In the space of a few decades, northwestern Ontario has undergone significant municipal mergers that altered its governance. Present municipal boundaries might not be guarantees of accountability when millennia-old nuclear waste is buried underground. The very meaning of “responsibility” may also undergo significant changes.

NWMO is highly confident about the technical isolation of nuclear waste, while also stating that there’s a low risk for human intrusion. Scientists that I’ve spoken with supported this point, stating that a deep geological repository should not be located in an area where people might want to dig.

The area proposed for the Ontario repository was considered suitable because it does not contain significant raw materials, such as diamonds or oil. Still, there are many uncertainties regarding the types of resources people will seek in the future. It’s difficult to make plausible assumptions about what people might do centuries from now.

Communicating long-term hazards

When the repository is completed, NWMO anticipates a prolonged monitoring phase and decades of surveillance. But in the post-operation phase, there is no plan for communicating risks to generations of people centuries into the future. The long time frame of nuclear materials complicates the challenges of communicating hazards. To date, several attempts have surrounded the semiotics of nuclear risk; that is, the use of symbols and modes of communication to inform future generations.

For example, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan in New Mexico tried to use various messages to communicate the risk of burying nuclear waste. However, the lifespan of nuclear waste vastly exceeds the typical lifespan of any known human languages.

Some scientists even proposed a “ray cat solution.” The project proposed genetically engineering cats that could change color near radiation sources, and creating a culture that taught people to move away from an area if their cat changed colour. Such projects may seem outlandish, but they demonstrate the difficulties of developing pragmatic long-term ways of communicating risk.

Current governing plans around nuclear waste disposal have limited time frames that don’t fully consider intergenerational public safety. As the Canadian federal review for a repository goes forward, we should seriously consider these shortcomings and their potential impacts on our society. It is crucial to foster thinking about the long-term issues posed by highly toxic waste and the way it is stored, be it nuclear or not.

January 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Is a deep geological repository (DGR) for IGNACE a good idea?

I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!

Frank Greening, 13 Jan 26

Questioning the wisdom of NWMO’s plan for a used fuel DGR to be constructed near Ignace in Northern Ontario, in view of the issues presented below:

From the Project description document AMP-REP-05000-0211-R000

11. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT

An estimated 5.9 million bundles of used fuel will be processed in the UFPP over its operational lifetime of approximately 50 years (about 120,000 used fuel bundles per year). On average, per the current conceptual reference design, 10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday, or approximately 2,500 UFCs each year.

To achieve this throughput, the UFPP is likely to incorporate multiple processing lines. Based on annual shipping (receipt) assumptions, the maximum number of certified transportation packages received at the UFPP in any given year is estimated to be approximately 885, holding between 120 and 192 used fuel bundles in each certified transportation package. The UFPP is designed to receive and process up to five certified transportation packages each day.

Closely related to the issue of shipping costs, is the additional problem of the high probability of inclement weather along Highway 17 from November to March each year. It appears that NWMO’s approach to dealing with this issue is simply to limit used fuel shipments to Ignace to just 9 months per year. However, this is barely adequate, given the common occurrence of snow storms along Highway 17 from as early as October to as late as April each year. Indeed, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment states in reference to winter driving on Highway 17: “Expect snowfall amounts of 10 –15 cm; reduced visibility due to snow and blowing snow; icy and slippery surfaces, and quickly changing and deteriorating travel conditions”.

This clearly shows the severity of the winter weather for the township of Ignace, with heavy snowfall dominating the months from November to March. Interestingly, NWMO has stated – See NWMO Report APM-REP-00440-0209-R001, issued September 2021 – that moving used nuclear fuel by truck to Ignace would mean “two to three shipments a day for approximately nine months of the year”. It is not clear why NWMO stipulates shipments being made for only 9 months per year, but this is presumably to allow for three months of inclement weather.

However, as previously noted, meteorological data for Ignace indicate that heavy snow is possible for this region from November to March, which is five months, not three! In addition, one is left wondering what happens at the DGR site for the three months when there are no used fuel shipments. Indeed, this lack of shipments is inconsistent with NWMO’s assertion, previously noted in this email, that “10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday. I would like someone to explain how this will happen over winter, when NWMO admits there will be no used fuel shipments for at least three months each year, (December, January and February?). What will workers at the used fuel packaging plant do when there are no UFC’s to process?

Highway 17 in Northern Ontario has earned a reputation for frequent accidents, particularly involving heavy trucks. In 2022, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) reported over 9,100 collisions involving large trucks across the province, with 71 fatalities — many occurring on routes like Highway 17. Addressing the issues plaguing Highway 17 requires more than incremental fixes—it demands a transformative overhaul. Experts and residents alike stress the need for substantial investments to bring this critical corridor up to modern standards. Proposals extend far beyond doubling lanes or adding passing areas, emphasizing winter-specific design improvements, enhanced lane visibility, and the permanent operation of weigh stations with robust enforcement to eliminate unsafe vehicles. Rest stops must be expanded and maintained year-round to provide safe havens for drivers, particularly during extreme weather. Furthermore, the integration of advanced monitoring systems, including traffic cameras and real-time condition updates, is essential for proactive safety management of this Highway. Only through a comprehensive and bold approach can Highway 17 meet the safety, accessibility, and efficiency needs of the communities and industries it serves. Without such improvements to Highway 17, NWMO’s plan to build a DGR near Ignace is both reckless and potentially very dangerous!

NWMO’s nonchalant approach to the selection of a site for a used fuel DGR is deeply concerning. Just because the residents of a small northern Ontario town are willing to host a DGR does NOT make it the best possible option for Canada. And let’s remember that, once the site selection is made, it’s not just for a while, but in perpetuity!

January 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Ontario Power Generation seeks rate increase for electricity from nuclear plants

Matthew McClearn, 13 Jan, 26 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-ontario-power-generation-rate-increase-application-electricity-nuclear

The Pickering Nuclear Generation Station in January, 2020. In November the Ontario government approved the $26.8-billion refurbishment of four aging reactors at the station.

Ontario Power Generation is seeking a near-doubling of payments it receives for electricity produced by its nuclear power plants, a request that could lead to surging power bills.

In a rate application submitted to the Ontario Energy Board in December, OPG requested payments of nearly $207 dollars per megawatt hour produced by its nuclear power stations beginning Jan. 1, 2027, roughly double what it received as recently as last year. It seeks similar amounts for each year through 2031.

OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly said the sought rates would cause a typical residential customer’s payments to rise by roughly 2.4 per cent annually in each of the next five years.

Ontario has generated roughly half of its power in recent years from its Darlington, Pickering and Bruce nuclear stations. (The latter is operated by private power producer Bruce Power and is not part of OPG’s application.) Energy Minister Stephen Lecce is pursuing an aggressive expansion of the reactor fleet to meet an expected surge in demand for electricity between now and mid-century, which includes plans to build large new multi-reactor stations.

Chelsea McGee, a spokesperson for Mr. Lecce, referred an interview request from The Globe and Mail to the OEB and OPG.

The requested payment increases require the board’s approval. OEB spokesperson Tom Miller said it would be inappropriate to comment on OPG’s application because it is before a panel of commissioners. Mr. Miller said it will be adjudicated later this year.

Made in Canada: Inside an urban Toronto facility making uranium fuel for CANDU reactors

OPG is entering a period of intense capital spending. Last year, it began constructing the first of four new small modular reactors at its Darlington station, with an estimated cost of $20.9-billion. OPG said that project accounts for about one-quarter of the sought payment increases.

Far more consequential, at 60 per cent of the payment increase, is the $26.8-billion refurbishment of four aging reactors at Pickering station. The government approved that overhaul in November; it’s expected to wrap up in the mid-2030s.

OPG is also spending to refurbish many of its hydroelectric stations.

“Every investment in the application has been carefully evaluated, planned prudently and designed to provide long-term value to Ontarians,” Mr. Kelly wrote in a statement.

Mark Winfield, a professor at York University’s environmental faculty, said that because OPG’s projects have been approved by the government, the OEB has little room to disallow the payment increases sought by the utility.

“They can’t really say no to OPG,” he said.

“The system runs by political fiat, and all the agencies are basically mandated to fulfill the minister’s will.”

Ontario to spend $1.5-billion on underwater electricity cable from nuclear plant to Toronto

Ontario’s residential electricity rates previously increased 29 per cent on Nov. 1. The OEB attributed those hikes to “higher-than-expected generation costs” as well as increased spending on conservation programs, but it provided few additional details. Those rate hikes were largely offset by a 23.5-per-cent increase in the Ontario Electricity Rebate, a taxpayer-funded instrument the government uses to provide relief on residential power bills.

The Globe twice requested interviews with OEB officials in December to explore the role rising nuclear costs played in the Nov. 1 rate increases. Mr. Miller denied those requests but agreed to answer questions by e-mail. The Globe sent questions to the OEB on Jan. 5, but had not received responses by late Monday.

A report by Power Advisory LLC, a consultancy that performed work for the OEB related to the Nov. 1 rate increases, attributed them partly to “higher-than-expected nuclear generation.” That report noted payments for OPG’s nuclear generation rose to $123.76 per megawatt hour in 2026, as compared with $111.61 per megawatt hour last year.

The current trajectory for power rates has attracted concern from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, which represents industrial power users including automakers Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp., and steel producers Stelco and ArcelorMittal Dofasco.

AMPCO president Brad Duguid said the province has no choice but to overhaul and expand its nuclear fleet – a decision he argued will preserve the provincial grid’s reliability. But he’s concerned that industrial power rates are already “skyrocketing” for AMPCO’s members – increases he mainly attributed to rising natural gas generation as reactors are taken offline for refurbishment.

“Over the next seven to 10 years, we’re seeing significant increases in the market energy rates to make up that difference,” he said.

Ottawa, Ontario pledge combined $3-billion for new nuclear reactors

Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, attributed the hikes directly to the government’s nuclear expansion and predicted the situation will only worsen.

“It’s just absurd to be investing in high-cost nuclear,” he said.

“It’s going to push up rates, make life less affordable for hard-working families and make Ontario’s businesses less competitive.”

York University’s Mr. Winfield said the government has four options to address the upward pressure on electricity rates. First, it can allow them to rise, but that would undermine affordability and could stall electrification of Ontario’s economy.

The government could also further increase subsidies such as the Ontario Energy Rebate. But at a total annual cost “of $8.5-billion per year, this has to be already at or near the limits of fiscal feasibility,” Mr. Winfield wrote in an e-mail.

Another option is to reconsider the province’s electricity plans to focus on lower-cost options. Finally, the government could conceal the additional costs as debt, a choice previous governments pursued.

Electricity rates are also rising sharply in many other jurisdictions across North America, including ones with little or no nuclear generation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average residential rates across the United States increased 5 per cent for the year ended Oct. 31, reaching nearly 18 US cents per kilowatt hour.

January 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

HOW ONTARIO KEEPS THE TRUE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER OFF YOUR HYDRO BILL

Toronto Star, MARCO CHOWN OVED CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTER, 11 Jan 2026, https://www.pressreader.com/article/282007563777540

Electricity prices in Ontario have long proven to be politically toxic.

Rapid increases between 2009 and 2016 contributed to the downfall of the Liberal governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne.

Doug Ford and his Progressive Conservatives were elected on a pledge to bring hydro bills down, and the rapid increases have since ended — though it’s not because power is cheaper. The true costs are now invisible to the consumer.

For 15 years, Ontarians saw the cost of nuclear power on their hydro bills each month. Between 2002 and 2017, there was a line item called the “debt retirement charge” that enlisted every ratepayer to chip away at more than $20 billion in debt left over from the splitup of Ontario Hydro — debt largely run up by construction overruns at the Darlington nuclear plant, which was completed in 1993. The nuclear debt was removed from bills in 2018 — but it didn’t disappear. Instead, it was added onto the provincial books, where it is now considered part of the general public debt. As of last year, more than 30 years after Darlington went online, there was still $11.9 billion in debt remaining.

The province also brought in the Ontario Electricity Rebate, which subsidizes power bills with taxpayer dollars. While the rebate was introduced under McGuinty, Ford recently nearly doubled it — with an estimated price tag of $8.5 billion annually — to absorb an almost 30 per cent hike to the price of electricity.

The Ford government has blamed rate increases on the previous Liberal government’s Green Energy Act, which paid a premium for renewable energy in an effort to kickstart a domestic wind and solar industry. The domestic renewables manufacturing sector failed to take off in the face of competition from China, but more than 33,000 renewable projects remain on the grid at inflated prices on 20year contracts. Today, these legacy contracts have pushed the cost of solar power up to the point that it’s the highest among all types of generation in Ontario, when measured by kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity produced. Wind isn’t far behind.

But what the per kWh figures hide is that renewables make up such a small proportion of the energy production mix that they cannot be responsible for overall rate increases, according to a Star analysis of Ontario Energy Board and Independent Electricity System Operator data. Even though solar costs threeandahalf times more than nuclear per kWh, it only accounted for two per cent of the total cost of electricity in 2024 — too little to drive overall cost increases. Nuclear, by contrast, accounted for 56 per cent of Ontario’s total cost of electricity last year. And while the costs of legacy renewables are inflated, they’re fixed or even going down as their contracts expire and have been renewed at 30 per cent less than they were paid previously.

In contrast, nuclear costs keep going up. The refurbishment of the Pickering plant will cost three times more per kWh than the refurbishments of Darlington and four times more than Bruce. The costs of these refurbishments will start to be added to hydro bills when they return to service.

Because nuclear makes up such a large part of the electricity mix, even a little increase to the cost of nuclear will affect the price Ontarians pay for electricity — either via monthly bills or taxpayer funds.

January 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

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 Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

New owners of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories have extensive nuclear weapons connections.

By hendricksonjones on January 10, 2026, https://concernedcitizens.net/2026/01/10/new-owners-of-canadian-nuclear-laboratories-have-extensive-nuclear-weapons-connections/

Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to life on Earth and need to be abolished.

Concerned Citizens and other civil society groups are concerned about the nuclear weapons connections of US-based multinational corporations contracted to operate Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. Some new facilities being built or proposed at Chalk River Laboratories are aimed at handling tritium and plutonium, both of which are key ingredients in nuclear warheads.

The current owner/operator of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, “Nuclear Laboratory Partners of Canada,” assumed ownership in December 2025 under a 6-year, multibillion dollar contract with the Government of Canada. It consists of three US-based corporations: BWXT, Amentum, and Battelle. A fourth corporation, Kinectrics, was recently acquired by BWXT.

Here is what Perplexity Pro told us about nuclear weapons connections of BWXT, Amentum and Batelle.

BWXT

BWXT has significant connections to U.S. nuclear weapons programs through its work with government agencies and defense contracts.bwxt+1

Key Contracts

BWXT manages high-consequence nuclear operations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. In 2025, it secured a $1.5 billion contract from NNSA to build a uranium enrichment facility for defense applications, including tritium production—a key component in nuclear weapons.reuters+2

Naval and Defense Roles

The company manufactures nuclear reactor components for U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers, including Virginia-class and Columbia-class vessels, under multi-billion-dollar contracts like a $2.6 billion award in 2025. BWXT holds licenses for depleted uranium fabrication for defense and has handled highly enriched uranium from down-blended nuclear weapon cores.reddit+3

Historical Context

BWXT was previously involved in tritium production for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Subsidiaries like Nuclear Fuel Services support these government programs.dontbankonthebomb+1

Amentum

Amentum has substantial nuclear weapons connections through U.S. and UK defense contracts for weapons facilities, plutonium processing, tritium operations, and national security sites.amentum+2

U.S. Weapons Complex

Amentum manages the Pantex Plant (nuclear weapons assembly/disassembly) and Y-12 National Security Complex (uranium components for weapons) under a $28 billion NNSA contract via NPOne JV. It supports Los Alamos plutonium facilities, Savannah River pit production, and naval nuclear propulsion for ballistic missile submarines.amentum+3

Plutonium and Remediation

The company decommissions plutonium-contaminated facilities at U.S. sites like Hanford’s Plutonium Finishing Plant and UK’s Low Level Waste Repository, plus Portsmouth uranium enrichment for weapons.amentum+2

UK AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment)Involvement

Amentum serves as Delivery Partner for AWE’s Enriched Uranium Components Programme at Aldermaston, handling enriched uranium for UK nuclear warheads, decommissioning gloveboxes, and program management.amentum+2

Battelle

Battelle Memorial Institute has deep historical and ongoing connections to nuclear weapons programs, including direct contributions to the Manhattan Project and management of key NNSA national laboratories involved in weapons research.battelle+2

Manhattan Project Role

During World War II, 400 Battelle researchers fabricated plutonium from uranium for atomic bomb cores. This work positioned Battelle as a leader in nuclear research, including extruding uranium fuel for early reactors at Oak Ridge.wikipedia+2

National Labs Management

Battelle manages or co-manages eight DOE national labs central to nuclear security, such as Los Alamos National Laboratory (plutonium pits for weapons via Triad National Security, LLC), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National Laboratory (nuclear materials management). These labs support stockpile stewardship, pit production, and nuclear deterrence under NNSA.battelle+4

Additional Ties

Battelle developed nuclear fuel rods for naval reactors like the USS Nautilus and provided Environment, Health and Safety support at Pantex Plant, the primary site for weapons assembly/disassembly. It oversees chemical weapons demilitarization and biodefense tied to nuclear security missions.battelle+3

References:

January 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Canada’s double standard on tritium emissions

Frank Greening, 24 Dec 25

Here is an example of how Canada allows all kinds of tritium emissions while other nations are criticized for almost trivial releases.

Thus, it was reported today that the Japanese reactor at Fugen had a leak that spilled tritiated water. The amount released? A staggering 20 ml:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/radioactive-leak-at-nuclear-plant-in-japan/ar-AA1STz9p?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=694b0a7c4e6f4035800f6658f238a437&ei=131

By comparison a CANDU reactor at Bruce NGS suffered a steam generator release back in 2007. Steam generator tube leaks involve the escape of primary heat transport heavy water contaminated with tritium. In the case of Bruce Unit 8, a steam generator leak was detected in June 2007 but was allowed to continue until the first week of November. The monthly heavy water losses associated with this leak were as follows:

June 2007: 484 kg

July 2007: 2157 kg

Aug 2007: 2832 kg

Sept 2007: 4339 kg

Oct 2007: 5036 kg

Nov 2007: 1115 kg

Thus, in total, 15,963 kg of tritiated heavy water was lost to Lake Huron over a six-month period in 2007. This leak created a giant plume of tritiated water that was carried northwards by the prevailing currents towards the townships of Saugeen Shores, Port Elgin and Southampton. By September 2007, the concentration of tritium in the water intake of the Port Elgin Water Treatment Plant, 17 km north of the Bruce site, had increased by more than a factor of three compared to the normal levels of tritium in lake water at this location.

But remarkably this increase in the tritium concentration in the drinking water supply to residents to the north of the Bruce site was not the reason that the Unit 8 steam generator leak was finally fixed. On the contrary, the leak was plugged to prevent further loss of a valuable commodity – heavy water – which at $300/kg had already cost Bruce Power almost $5 million. And besides, thanks to the CNSC’s lax tritium emission standards, Bruce B’s waterborne emission action level for tritium is a staggering 130,000 Ci per month; thus the station was well below its regulatory limit in this regard. Nevertheless, one has to wonder how such a liberal action level is permitted when it allows a station to discharge tritiated water that is 5000 times higher than the Ontario Drinking Water Objective.

December 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, radiation | Leave a comment

Studsvik Calls Extraordinary Meeting to Add UK Nuclear Executive Julia Pyke to Board

Tipranks – Tue Dec 23, 2025

Studsvik AB ( (SE:SVIK) ) has issued an announcement.

Studsvik AB has called an extraordinary general meeting for January 23, 2026, in Stockholm, inviting shareholders to resolve on changes to the board of directors, including registration, proxy and attendance procedures in line with Swedish corporate governance rules. The nomination committee proposes expanding the board to seven members and appointing UK nuclear executive Julia Pyke, noted for her leadership of the Sizewell C and involvement in Hinkley Point C projects, with her remuneration aligned pro rata to the levels set at the 2025 annual general meeting, underscoring Studsvik’s strategic ambition to strengthen its board with international nuclear infrastructure expertise……… https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Tipranks/36764331/studsvik-calls-extraordinary-meeting-to-add-uk-nuclear-executive-julia-pyke-to-board/

December 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Exposure to protracted low-dose ionizing radiation and incident dementia in a cohort of Ontario nuclear power plant workers.

Brianna Frangione 1, Ian Colman, Franco Momoli, Estelle Davesne, Robert Talarico, Chengchun Yu, Paul J Villeneuve

Scand J Work Environ Health

Abstract

Objectives: Emerging evidence suggests that low-dose ionizing radiation increases the risk of neurodegenerative diseases. Past studies have relied on death data to identify dementia, and these are prone to under-ascertainment and complicate the estimation of health risks as individuals tend to live with dementia for many years following onset. We present findings from the first occupational cohort to investigate dementia risk from low-dose radiation using incident outcomes.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort of 60 874 Ontario Nuclear Power Plant workers from the Canadian National Dose Registry. Personal identifiers were linked to Ontario population-based administrative health data. Incident dementias between 1996 and 2022 were identified using a validated algorithm based on physician, hospital, and prescription drug data. Individual-level annual estimates of whole-body external ionizing radiation were derived from personal workplace monitoring. The incidence of dementia among these workers was compared to a random sample of Ontario residents matched by sex, age, and residential area. Internal cohort analysis using Poisson and linear excess relative risk (ERR) models, adjusted for sex, attained age, calendar period, and neighborhood income quintile, were used to characterize the shape of the exposure-response curve between low-dose cumulative radiation (lagged 10 years) and incident dementia.

Results: There were 476 incident dementias and 867 028 person-years of follow-up. The mean whole-body lifetime accumulated exposure at the end of follow-up was 11.7 millisieverts (mSv). Workers with cumulative exposure between 50-100 mSv had an increased risk of dementia [RR 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-2.28] compared to those unexposed. Spline analysis suggested that the dose-response relationship was non-linear. The linear ERR per 100 mSv increase in exposure was 0.704 (95% CI 0.018-1.390).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation increases the risk of incident dementia.

December 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, radiation | Leave a comment

73 Organizations Send Joint Letter Calling on the Federal Government to Improve Nuclear Waste Oversight

https://wawa-news.com/index.php/2025/12/17/73-organizations-send-joint-letter-calling-on-the-federal-government-to-improve-nuclear-waste-oversight/

73 organizations representing a broad segment of Canadian society have sent a joint letter to the federal government urging more oversight of the nuclear industry and of nuclear waste projects.

In the letter, the groups urged the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and of Energy and Natural Resources to exercise oversight of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s “Adaptive Phased Management Project” to transport, process, bury and eventually abandon all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste at the NWMO’s selected site in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory in northwestern Ontario and its upcoming impact assessment process.

The groups expressed an overarching concern about the lack of federal oversight of this project since its inception in 2002.

More recently, the NWMO has made it known that they are seeking to have transportation of the radioactive wastes excluded from the project’s impact assessment process. But for 20 years the NWMO has been describing transportation as part of their project, and the Impact Assessment Act requires activities that are integral to – or, in the language of the Act “incidental” to – the project be included in the assessment.

The joint letter requests that the federal government provide immediate oversight and direction in four areas:

73 organizations representing a broad segment of Canadian society have sent a joint letter to the federal government urging more oversight of the nuclear industry and of nuclear waste projects.

The groups expressed an overarching concern about the lack of federal oversight of this project since its inception in 2002.

The joint letter requests that the federal government provide immediate oversight and direction in four areas:

December 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Radioactive fertilizer and the nuclear industry

Gordon Edwards. 14 Dec 25

CORRECTION

I wrote that

“…selling raffinate as fertilizer goes on all the time from the world’s largest uranium refinery owned by Cameco, situated at Blind River on the north shore of Georgian Bay.”

This sentence is incorrect. Raffinate from Blind River is not used as fertilizer. I apologize for the error.

Radioactive fertilizer from the Canadian uranium industry does not come from the Cameco Blind River refinery but from two other sources – the Cameco Key Lake uranium mill in Northern Saskatchewan, and the Cameo uranium dioxide conversion facility at Port Hope Ontario.

Moreover, the material that is being used in radioactive fertilizer is not raffinate (i.e. refinery waste). It is ammonium sulphate that is recovered from the Key Lake uranium processing circuits and sold as fertilizer, together with a liquid by-product of Cameco’s Port Hope uranium dioxide conversion plant – an ammonium nitrate solution – that is sold to a local agricultural supply company for use in fertilizer production.

The use of similar waste solutions from nuclear fuel facilities as fertilizer has been a concern in other jurisdictions as well. So at the present time, it is not raffinate but ammonium compounds that have been used in uranium processing that ends up in fertilizer. I apologize for not checking the facts much more carefully..

About radioactive fertilizer and the nuclear industry.

A lot of the phosphate used for fertilizer comes from Florida where the phosphate ore is mined. That ore is contaminated with uranium and its decay products, especially radium. Radium disintegrates to produce radon gas Radon-222) and this builds up in an enclosed space, without adequate ventiliation, reaching an “equilibrium” in about one month.

That’s why Florida was the first “hot spot” that alerted the US government to the major public health hazard posed by radon, which is estimated to kill about 20-30 thousand Americans every year. Every atom of radon comes from the disintegration of a radium atom, and in turn, every atom of radium started out as an atom of uranium.

Radioactive quilibrium means #becquerels of radium = #becquerels of radon. One becquerel being one disintegration per second. In a simiar way, if pure radon gas is in an enclosed container, it will reach equilibrium with its four short-lived decay products in a couple of hours – so the radioactivity in the container is about five times greater than it was originally, as all the short-lived decay products have attained roughly the same level of radioactivity as the radon.

When this radioactive fertilizer is used on tobacco crops, the radon from the soil and the fertilizer builds up under the thick canopy of tobacco leaves and hangs there for a time (radon being 7-8 times heavier than air). The radon atoms disintegrate to produce four airborne solid short lived decay products – polonium-218, bismuth-214, lead-214, polonium-214, all of which decay into lead-210 and polonium-210. [Note: the last two nuclides never reach equilibrium, unlike the first four.]

These radon decay products stick to the resinous (sticky) hairs on the undersides of the tobacco leaves and when the tobacco is harvested these radioactive materials are harvested along with the tobacco. By the time the tobacco is cured, rolled, and packaged, small quantities of lead-210 (22-year half-life) and its immediate successor polonium-210 are left in the tobacco/cigarettes for the unwitting smoker (or second-hand-smoke inhaler) to encounter.

When the cigarette is lit and the smoker draws on it, the temperature at the tip increases dramatically and it vaporizes the lead-210 and polonium-210 which is inhaled deep into the lungs, where polonium-210 sticks to and attacks the sensitive lung tissue with its very energetic alpha particles.

Polonium-210 is a very damaging radionuclide which Los Alamos Labs reckons is about 250 billion time more toxic than hydrogen cyanide. (It’s what was used to murder Alexander Litvenenko in London at the “request” of Putin who was openly criticized by Litvenenko).

Polonium-210 adds greatly to the cancer-causing characteristic of the tobacco residues lodged in the lung, making cigarettes smoke significantly more carcinogenic than it would otherwise be. (When the smoker is not inhaling, the lead-210/polonium-210 is wafted into the second-hand cigarette smoke as a respirable aerosol to endanger the health of those within sniffing distance,)

Inside the lung, some of the inhaled polonium-210 crosses the blood-air barrier end enters the bloodstream. Being solid, it attaches to pre-existing plaque build-up in the arteries of the smoker, usually near the arterial valves, where the alpha particle bombardment causes fibrosis of the arterial wall and valve, thus exacerbating the plaque build-up and increasing the restriction of blood flow, thereby contributing substantially to the incidence of heart attacks and strokes among smokers because of the alpha emitting polonium-210 in the plaque.

What you may not have heard is that voluminous sand-like radioactive waste from the uranium industry, called “raffinate” (leftovers from uranium refining), is also sold as fertilizer on the open market without any warnings about the radioactive content. The justification for this nefarious practice seems to be, that since “natural” phosphate from Florids is used to make fertilizer, and it is clearly radioactive (due to the radium-radon chain), and since raffinate from a uranium refinery is not much higher in radioactive content, then what the heck, we (the uranium industry) may as well turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse by selling the radioactive raffinate waste as fertilizer.

Extensive radioactive contamination – involving uranium raffinate – of the homes, schools, roadways, ravines, and the public beach in the town of Port Hope (prior to 1985) – has led to a $2.6 billion radioactive environmental cleanup of the town (by the federal government) resulting in over a million cubic metres (about a million tonnes) of radioactibve waste to be stored for 500 years in a gigantic earthen mound just north of the town. The subsequent fate of the still-radioactive waste will be decided at that time.

This practice of selling raddinate as fertilizer goes on all the time from the world’s largest uranium refinery owned by Cameco, situated at Blind River on the north shore of Georgian Bay. The Blind RIver plant turns uranium mill concentrates from Saskatchewan, Australia and South Africa, called “yellowcake” (mostly U3O8), into a product called “uranium trioxide” UO3. At that point the raffinate is the waste product, contaminated with radium. That’s what’s sold for fertilizer.

The trioxide then goes to Port Hope Ontario, where it is chemically converted into UO2 (uranium dioxide) for domestic use, about 15% of the total, and into UF6 (uranium hexafluoride or “hex”) for export to enrichment plants outside of Canada where the concentration of U-235 is increased to the level required by the customer.

At the enrichment plant, the “hex” is turned into a gas at a fairly low temperature so that the heavier U-238 atoms can be separated from the lighter U-235 atoms, resulting in an enriched uranium product that goes out the front door while the voluminous discarded U-238 (called depleted uranium or “DU”) goes out the back door.

For low enrichment in light water nuclear power plants, about 85% of the refined uranium is discarded as depleted uranium. The DU has important military uses, and a few civilian uses, but for the most part DU is part of the radioactive legacy of the nuclear age wth a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

Besides using DU in conventional bullets, shells, missiles, tanks, et cetera, used in the former Yugoslavia and in other conflicts, resulting in a battlefield litters with radioactive waste, the military also uses DU as “target rods” in plutonium production reactors to breed plutonium for nuclear warheads. In addition, the military uses DU metal in almost all nuclear warheads as a way of significantly multiplying the explosive power of the warhead by a sizable factor. These weapons are called “fission-fusion-fission” weapons,

The first fission is from a small ball of plutonium (usually with a tritium “spark-plug” inside) whose sole purpose is to ignite the fusion reaction by raising it to a temperature of about 100 million degrees. When fusion occurs, extremely energetic neutrons are goven off which fission the U-238 that has been used for that exact purpose in the construction of the warhead. That third stage, the fission of U-238, provides the bulk of the explosive power and the lion’s share of the radioactive fallout.

It is a sad story from beginning to end.

And, to add to this tale of woe, Canada currently has about 220 million tonnes of radioactive waste (tailings) stored at or near the surface from uranium milling (the operation that produces yellowcake) along with about 167 million tonnes of radioactive “waste rock”. Yet the Canadian authorities and others routinely and unabashedly declare that nuclear power is a “clean” source of energy and for the most part, Canadian academic scientists and sientific bodies say not a peep to the contrary.

December 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Ottawa medical manufacturer giving up nuclear licence after defying regulator

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ordered Best Theratronics to comply over a year ago.

COMMENT.There are questions about lack of financial guarantee in the case where the plant in Kanata is decommissioned, i.e. cost of cleaning up the radioactive materials at the site. Next step is the CNSC is waiting for the decommissioning preliminary plan. The owner is moving the business to the U.S. and India, he says.

Campbell MacDiarmid · CBC News · Dec 14, 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-medical-manufacturer-giving-up-nuclear-licence-after-defying-regulator-9.7014006

A storied Kanata medical manufacturer is in the process of relinquishing its nuclear licence, more than a year after Canada’s nuclear regulator placed it under orders for violating the terms of that certificate.

On Friday, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) confirmed that Best Theratronics is in the process of offloading the nuclear material it used to manufacture cancer treatment devices.

“Best Theratronics Limited has obtained an export licence to ship its Cobalt 60 sealed sources, as well as an export licence to ship its Cesium 137 sealed sources,” said Andrew McAllister, director of the CNSC’s nuclear processing facilities division, during a public meeting.

Best Theratronics was once a Crown agency that created the world’s first cancer treatment machine, but it has struggled in recent years under the private ownership of overseas businessman Krishnan Suthanthiran.

Suthanthiran says he has lost millions of dollars since buying the company from MDS Nordion in 2007. More recently, the company faced a protracted labour dispute that saw workers strike for nearly 10 months to demand better pay.

Last November, the CNSC issued orders against Best Theratronics after noticing that its financial guarantee had lapsed. The industry regulator ordered the company to make $1.8 million available to cover any cleanup costs in the event that its site was decommissioned.

But Suthanthiran never complied, telling CBC in October that the CNSC was in the wrong and that he lacked the funds to restore the guarantee.

Instead, Suthanthiran said he would give up his nuclear licence and shift the company toward activities that don’t involve nuclear materials.

CBC asked Suthanthiran whether staff at Best Theratronics would would be out of work as a result of the company surrendering its nuclear licence.

In an email, he wrote that he was being forced “to relocate to the USA and India” and that would result in “the loss of 200 high-tech jobs.” He also cited the high yearly cost of having the nuclear licence.

The CNSC has required Best Theratronics to submit monthly reports relating to its progress in offloading its nuclear material. But the company missed its December deadline, submitting its report several days later, McAllister said.

Manny Subramanian, a representative of Best Theratronics, told the CNSC the delay was due to Suthanthiran’s absence.

“One particular report, you know, we ended up sending about a day late or two days late because Krish, the president of the company, was travelling. We couldn’t get ahold of him,” Subramanian said.

The next deadline facing Best Theratronics comes Tuesday when it’s due to submit a preliminary plan for decommissioning its plant in Kanata.

December 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

American-owned consortium assumes control of Canada’s premier nuclear research facility.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL, Matthew McClearn, 12 Dec 25

An American-owned consortium has assumed responsibility for managing Canada’s premier nuclear research facility, Chalk River Laboratories, along with cleaning up the federal government’s sizable inventory of radioactive waste spread across the country.

After a three-month delay, Nuclear Laboratory Partners of Canada Inc. formally took control on Thursday of the organization that runs Chalk River, known as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

CNL manages the assets and liabilities of a federal Crown corporation called Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. under an arrangement Ottawa describes as a “government-owned, contractor-operated” model………………………………………………….

Earlier this year, AECL said the consortium’s contract is worth about $1.2-billion annually. It has been called the federal government’s largest contract at the moment, although key federal authorities – including the Treasury Board Secretariat, Auditor-General and AECL – have been unwilling or unable to confirm that. The term of the contract will be six years but it can be extended for up to another 14 years.

The consortium’s American ownership has provoked controversy. Since assuming office, Prime Minister Mark Carney has espoused a Buy Canadian policy – a key part of his government’s response to mounting conflict with its dominant trading partner, the United States.

Corey Tochor, a Conservative member of Parliament for Saskatoon-University, accused AECL of “selling out our nuclear secrets” to American interests, during the first of three scheduled hearings held before the House of Commons standing committee on natural resources to examine the consortium’s American ownership.

“What we have real deep concerns [about] is that we’re letting a foreign country manage our medical isotopes,” Mr. Tochor said.

Earlier this month, Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke characterized the awarded contract as an “elbows-down” approach that left Americans in control of Canadian intellectual property…………………………………………………………….

The American-owned consortium is led by a large nuclear specialty manufacturer focused on military equipment and nuclear fuel called BWX Technologies Inc…………………………………..

The U.S.-led consortium takes over from another partnership known as Canadian National Energy Alliance, which held the contract for a decade. Its members recently included Montreal-based AtkinsRéalis Group Inc. and two American companies, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and Fluor Corp………………………….

The American consortium was declared the winner of a competitive procurement process in June and had originally been scheduled to take over in September. The transfer was delayed pending a review by the Competition Bureau, which is responsible for enforcing federal antitrust rules. Late last month the Competition Bureau issued a “no-action letter” confirming it will not oppose the contract, which allowed the transfer to proceed. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-nuclear-laboratory-partners-chalk-river-laboratories-cnl-atomic-energy/

December 15, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

On the road with radioactive waste: Canada’s roads are not safe.

Transporting nuclear waste is inherently dangerous because it involves moving materials that remain hazardous to human health and the environment for centuries to millennia. Even under ideal conditions, risks cannot be fully eliminated — accidents, mechanical failures, weather events, security threats, or human error can all result in the release or exposure of radioactive materials.

Unlike other hazardous goods, radioactive waste cannot simply be cleaned up with standard emergency response measures; contamination can render land unusable, water unsafe, and ecosystems damaged for generations. Every shipment is a high-stakes event, and the impacts of even a single failure could be irreversible for the communities and lands along the transport route.

by Mayara Gonçalves e Lima, December 11, 2025

Canada is decommissioning a nuclear power plant for the first time, marking a new chapter in the country’s nuclear history. The decommissioning of Gentilly-1 in Bécancour, Quebec — on the St. Lawrence River in Wabanaki territory — is a milestone in the country’s reckoning with its radioactive legacy, setting a precedent that will influence how future projects are approached across Canada.

The implications extend far beyond Quebec. How Gentilly-1 is dismantled, how its waste is transported, and how oversight is conducted will set precedents for future decommissioning projects across the country.

For New Brunswick, these decisions will shape the expectations, policies, and protections in place when it comes time to decommission Point Lepreau — a process that will carry even higher stakes for this province.

The threat of radioactive waste on the move

Gentilly-1 recently entered its active dismantling phase, with the removal of remaining radioactive and structural components, including equipment, piping, cabling, and control panels from the service and turbine buildings.

Under the current dismantling plan, the resulting radioactive waste is expected to be transferred to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories at Chalk River, Ontario, for interim storage.

This planned transfer follows an earlier shipment of Gentilly-1 used fuel to Chalk River that occurred without publicity or demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements.

These risks are compounded by the fact that current storage solutions for Gentilly-1 nuclear waste are only temporary. Neither Canada nor any country in the world has a permanent solution for radioactive waste — meaning the waste will eventually need to be moved again, effectively doubling both the risks and costs associated with its handling and transportation.

Bloc Québécois urges halt to radioactive waste shipments to Chalk River

On October 17, 2025, amid growing national debate over nuclear waste transport, the Bloc Québécois formally called on Federal Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson to immediately halt the transfer of radioactive materials from Gentilly-1 to the Chalk River Laboratories.

To reinforce their position, the Bloc Québécois has launched a petition allowing the public to voice their opposition to the project. It underscores the environmental risks of transporting radioactive waste and storing it so close to a major drinking water source, as well as the lack of meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities.

The Bloc’s petition also highlights a separate proposal for the Chalk River site: the construction of a nuclear waste landfill known as the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF). This project also has become a major source of controversy. The Kebaowek First Nation, along with more than 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario, has voiced strong opposition to placing large volumes of radioactive waste near the Kichi Sibi (Ottawa River) and its tributaries.

Whistleblowers raise alarm over secretive transport practices

More than 60 groups, with the Passamaquoddy Nation among them, have endorsed a letter sent to the Prime Minister and key members of Cabinet on December 2, 2025, sounding the alarm about the federal government’s management of radioactive waste transport in Canada.

The signatories state that they are “blowing the whistle” on a practice that has remained largely hidden from public view: the movement of radioactive waste along public roads, bridges, and through First Nations territories without consultation, notification, or parliamentary oversight.

The letter focuses on Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ decision to consolidate federally-owned radioactive waste at the Chalk River Laboratories site. The signatories emphasize that Chalk River is an unsuitable and inherently vulnerable location due to its proximity to the Ottawa River and its exposure to seismic activity.

In response to these escalating concerns, the signatories call for three concrete actions: an immediate cessation on shipments of radioactive waste to Chalk River; a full ban on the import of radioactive waste; and a strategic assessment under section 95 of the Impact Assessment Act to evaluate the cumulative and long-term risks of transporting radioactive waste on public highways.

Such an assessment, they argue, is essential to ensuring informed, democratic decision-making and to guiding future reviews of nuclear facilities, reactor decommissioning projects, and federal waste policies.

Canada’s radioactive waste crisis demands action

Canada urgently needs to halt the practice of transporting radioactive waste over public roads, through municipalities, across public bridges, and over Indigenous territories without meaningful consultation, public notification, or clear regulatory justification.

These shipments — often occurring quietly and without community awareness — pose risks that are collectively borne by the public while decisions are made by a small number of government and industry actors.

The lack of transparency erodes trust and fails to meet even the basic standards of democratic governance, environmental protection, or respect for Indigenous rights. Communities have the right to know when hazardous materials are moving through their homelands, and they deserve a real voice in determining whether and how such shipments occur.

The Age of Nuclear Waste is only beginning, and Canada is unprepared to manage the growing challenges of transporting, importing, and exporting radioactive materials.

As reactors age, decommissioning accelerates, and new nuclear projects emerge, waste shipments will only increase — but federal oversight remains fragmented, inconsistent, and insufficiently accountable to the public.

Without a coherent national policy grounded in precaution, transparency, and genuine consultation — especially with First Nations whose territories are routinely crossed — Canada risks locking in a legacy of poorly governed radioactive waste movements.

Canada must act now to establish responsible oversight and build a safer, more accountable framework before today’s shortcomings become tomorrow’s crises.

At times like these, we’re reminded that every chapter of Canada’s nuclear history carries lasting responsibilities: our nuclear past has left behind a trail of toxic legacy that no technology, no policy, and no promise can safely contain for the timescales required.

Mayara Gonçalves e Lima works with the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc., focusing on nuclear energy. Their work combines environmental advocacy with efforts to ensure that the voice of the Passamaquoddy Nation is heard and respected in decisions that impact their land, waters, and future.

December 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »