It’s an utterly predictable chain reaction. Any proposal to expand nuclear-generated electricity as part of the effort to reduce carbon emissions is met with instant condemnation from environmentalists who can’t see past their historical antipathy to atomic power.
So it was last week in Ontario, when the Progressive Conservative government sensibly proposed further expansion of its nuclear-generation capacity, which already supplies about half of the province’s electricity.
Ontario is looking at two options: three (relatively) small modular nuclear reactors for its Darlington facility 40 kilometres east of Toronto; and a new, full-scale plant at the Bruce Power nuclear generation site on the shore of Lake Huron, which would be the first such reactor built in the province in the last 30 years.
After years of flatlining, electricity demand in Ontario is projected to increase steadily over the next two decades, rising by 40 per cent between 2024 and 2043. Nearly half of that increased demand is forecast to come from the transportation sector, as the number of electric vehicles soars.
Greenpeace Canada couched most of its criticism in financial terms: nuclear plants are expensive and prone to cost overruns, while renewable energy is now cost-competitive. The organization’s website (and several decades of history) makes it clear, however, that the organization is fretting about fission, not fiscal issues.
Nuclear power has “no place in a clean energy future,” Greenpeace intones on its website. That is hardly surprising, given that Greenpeace was born as an anti-nuclear movement. The organization is just being true to its roots.
Still, when last we heard, the world was in the midst of a climate crisis and embarking on a concerted push toward a net-zero future by 2050 (and ideally, a decade or so earlier than that). At the same time, the shift away from internal-combustion engines will further boost demand for power, as Ontario’s forecasts portend.
Surely, governments should be reaching for every available tool to decarbonize electricity generation?
There are, of course, hurdles for nuclear power to clear, including capital costs. Safe storage of radioactive waste, and a continuation of Ontario’s enviable safety record are two more. But there is most definitely a place for nuclear energy in a low-carbon world; indeed, a key place.
Greenpeace and other environmental groups counter that the all-in cost of renewable power is falling rapidly and is now competitive, if not outright cheaper, than nuclear generation. In their view, that makes nuclear reactors an outdated, not to mention dangerous, option.
The costs of wind, solar and geothermal power have all dropped significantly. But with the exception of geothermal, renewables cannot supply the steady stream of baseload power that electrical systems need.
Simply put, without sun, there is no solar power. Without wind, there is no wind power. Solar and wind power will account for an increasing proportion of Canada’s electricity supply, but their intermittent nature means that they will be built on top of baseload power, not in place of it.
Hydro power, of course, is an ideal solution: relatively cheap and low-carbon (if one ignores emissions from flooded land). Capital cost overruns are a perennial challenge – witness British Columbia’s Site C or Newfoundland’s Muskrat Falls – but the bigger constraint is the natural limit of feasible sites.
Saskatchewan, where coal-fired plants generate more than two-fifths of the province’s power, is opting for modular nuclear reactors. Hydroelectricity, meanwhile, provides less than a fifth of its electricity supply.
More interprovincial transmission lines, better battery technology, more market-attuned pricing and smarter management of demand can all help to reduce the need for new supply. Perhaps, as green groups assert, that could mean some day that the need for baseload power would diminish to such a point that renewables could displace nuclear power.
Perhaps, some day. But Canadians need a dependable electrical system at a reasonable cost. Hopes and aspirations of technological breakthroughs aren’t enough.
The downsides of nuclear power should not be ignored. But any hypothetical risks need to be rationally weighed against the clear, current and accelerating dangers posed by climate change.