Nuclear power vital to future of clean energy
By Lethbridge Herald on August 28, 2025.
Hossam Kishawy & Salam Ali
Quoi Media
The latest report from the World Meteorological Association paints a grim picture of the unrelenting pace of climate change.
Continually rising greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to record-setting temperatures, warming oceans and rising sea levels – threatening ecosystems, lives and economic prosperity.
The future of our country and the planet depends on clean, reliable and sustainable energy – including nuclear power. By investing in nuclear technology and the engineers behind it, Canada can meet both its energy needs and its emission-reduction targets.
As Canada moves towards net-zero emissions by 2050, nuclear energy will play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions while providing stable baseload electricity – ensuring a steady supply of electrical energy regardless of weather conditions – unlike other renewables like wind and solar.
In Ontario, Natural Resources Canada reports that continued nuclear energy use will cut 30 million tons of carbon dioxide annually or 3.8 per cent of projected 2030 emissions.
While hydroelectric power is the biggest source of renewable energy in Canada, it cannot meet all of our energy needs. Wind and solar power are growing sources of clean energy, but they provide only a small portion of Canada’s electricity supply.
Nuclear energy, however, is already the third most important source of electricity in the country, making up 15 per cent of Canada’s supply – with nuclear reactors operating in Ontario and New Brunswick.
Nuclear energy provides 52 per cent of Ontario’s power and is set to become an increasingly important source of the province’s renewable energy in the future.
The Ontario government is investing $25 billion from 2016 to 2031 to refurbish 10 of its nuclear reactors and it plans to further expand its nuclear capacity to meet growing clean energy demands.
The expansion of safe and reliable nuclear power would not be possible without the knowledge and skills of Canada’s nuclear engineers.
Canada is a world leader in nuclear technology due to the expertise of our engineers. They were vital in developing the country’s CANDU nuclear reactors — operating in Canada and other countries around the world — and continue to innovate them today.
CANDU technology also plays a crucial role in producing medical isotopes for sterilizing equipment and treating cancer.
Engineering ingenuity has also led to advancements in nuclear energy that have enhanced design, safety, efficiency and sustainability — including the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).
These innovative new reactors are smaller — in size and power output — than conventional nuclear reactors, providing a more flexible, scalable, affordable and safer energy solution that is ideal for remote communities and industries like mining.
Given their potential to address both climate change and energy needs, several provinces are considering SMRs. Ontario has already committed to bringing four grid-scale SMRs online between 2029 and 2035.
While some might question whether nuclear energy is too risky, the reality is that safety is the overriding priority in the nuclear industry, guiding reactor design, operation and decommissioning.
Engineers follow strict safety protocols and use risk assessments and backup systems to protect the public and the environment. Contrary to misconceptions, modern reactors are far safer than earlier plants.
The CANDU reactors’ decades-long safety record – they were first developed in the 1950s and ‘60s — is a testament to the skills and knowledge of Canadian engineers.
Engineers also play a key role in safely decommissioning old plants — minimizing environmental impact — and maintaining, upgrading and recommissioning facilities to extend their life and improve efficiency.
They also manage radioactive waste — securely storing it for long-term environmental safety — and they are working on ways to reduce waste and enhance stability, supporting both safety and clean energy goals.
The primacy of safety is also a cornerstone of an engineering education. Accredited nuclear engineering programs provide a strong foundation in safety, efficiency and sustainability, alongside core principles like ethics, project management and problem-solving.
Educating more nuclear engineers will be essential as Canada increasingly turns to nuclear power as a clean energy source. Their knowledge, skills, resourcefulness and dedication to safety can help drive Canada’s sustainable future.
However, Canada is facing a shortage of skilled workers – including in engineering — underscoring the need for greater investments in engineering programs to attract and retain students.
Nuclear energy holds great promise for powering the country into the future while reducing its carbon footprint.
To unlock its potential, governments and industry must prioritize investments in both nuclear innovation and the education of future nuclear engineers.
Hossam Kishawy, PhD, P. Eng, is Dean and a professor in the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at Ontario Tech University. Salam Ali, PhD, P. Eng, is an Adjunct Professor and industry Expert.©Quoi Media
-27
It’s hard to reconcile the enthusiasm for expensive nuclear electricity with the obstruction of proven, inexpensive renewable electricity. Must be something in the DNA of authoritarians to like big centralized power.
Regarding the Peace River Nuclear Project: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/162033?culture=en-CA
More factual misrepresentations and oversimplifications from Sophie.
The claim that nuclear power is more expensive than “proven, inexpensive” renewables is an incomplete analysis that ignores the full cost of an energy system.
The Hidden Cost of Renewables: While solar panels and wind turbines are inexpensive to manufacture, they are intermittent and can’t provide power 24/7. This creates a “system cost” that must be paid to keep the grid stable. These costs include:
Energy Storage: The massive and expensive battery systems needed to store electricity for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.
Fossil Fuel Backup: The need for natural gas or other fossil fuel plants to ramp up and down to fill in the gaps in renewable generation.
Transmission Lines: The cost of building new transmission lines to carry electricity from remote renewable projects to population centers.
Nuclear’s System Value: Nuclear power’s high upfront cost is balanced by its low operating cost and its ability to provide constant, reliable power for 60-80 years. When the full “life-cycle cost” of an entire energy system is considered, including the need for baseload power and backup, nuclear’s cost can be competitive with an electricity grid heavily reliant on renewables and storage.
In regard to your words of, “Must be something in the DNA of authoritarians to like big centralized power”:
This argument is based on a misunderstanding of how modern electrical grids function and makes a flawed political comparison.
Necessity of Centralized Power: Centralized power plants, whether they are nuclear, hydroelectric, or fossil fuel, are essential for providing the stable, reliable “baseload” power that a modern society requires. They are the backbone of the grid that ensures hospitals, data centers, and other critical infrastructure have a continuous supply of electricity. Decentralized renewable sources are a necessary and important part of a modern grid, but they cannot provide this stability on their own.
The Political Fallacy: Linking centralized grids to “authoritarianism” is a false equivalence. Nearly every developed nation in the world—democratic or not—operates a highly centralized electrical grid. A centralized power grid is a hallmark of a robust, modern economy, not a political ideology. In fact, modern nuclear technology, like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), directly addresses this concern by offering a smaller, more flexible, and less centralized power source.
It is a bit laughable that you lead with the ‘hidden costs’ of renewables while defending what is probably the most subsidized industry in history. The Canadian government has invested vast sums in the development of nuclear power, recently dedicating $450 million into nuclear subsidies (https://www.theenergymix.com/canada-pours-nearly-450m-into-new-nuclear-subsidies/) not to mention the $970 million investment by the Canadian Infrastructure Bank to experiment with integrating grid-scale SMRs. Add on the subsidies in refining nuclear fuel, the 15% Tax Incentive Credit, electricity subsidies in Ontario to compete with renewables, the costs of managing (radioactive, toxic) waste in the long term, health costs to cancers related to nuclear power, and infrastructure costs.
But my main point, is the observation is that nuclear power advocates are typically ‘against’ renewables. The vehemence against wind and solar seems to originate in, first, the denial of the science of climate change and, second, an authoritarian personality that recoils from what might be called a Jeffersonian diffusion of power. Statement like “centralized power grid is a hallmark of a robust, modern economy” are indefensible. I have yet to encounter a nuclear power advocate who is not also an advocate of centralized, authoritarian power.
This may be a provocation to some, but I would more likely support nuclear if it also acknowledged the importance of renewable energy technologies in the electricity mix. And I would like to see nuclear supported for technologically sound reasons and not political reasons and not by bullying – make your arguments, rely on empirical facts. For example, what are the implications of declining river flows that are required for cooling nuclear power plants? Would $billion investments be better focused on storage technologies? If a ‘centralized grid’ is most efficient, why SMRs which imply a dispersed model?Talking about technologies that are in development as if they are off-the-shelf grid-scale technologies is deceptive and what appears to me to be a delay tactic against ‘the enemy’ (aka proven renewable technologies which continue to defy all the alarmism of intermittency offered by nuclear and fossil fuel advocates).
As for the costs of electricity, this is informative:
You conflate several distinct issues and mischaracterizes the arguments of nuclear advocates. The points about subsidies, the political nature of nuclear advocacy, the versatility of nuclear power, and the urgency of climate action require a more nuanced response.
Subsidies and CostsYou accuse nuclear power of being heavily subsidized while dismissing my point about the “hidden costs” of renewables. This is a false equivalence.
The Political FallacyYou claim that nuclear advocates are “typically ‘against’ renewables” and possess an “authoritarian personality” is an unfounded ad hominem attack that undermines a productive discussion.
Versatility and UrgencyYour final points about the lack of versatility and the long lead times of nuclear power are common criticisms that are becoming outdated.
Now, George, we know as a lobbyist that you have your talking points, but it is important that we make decisions based on facts and not deceptive games.
You respond that the substantial subsidies to the nuclear industry are not really subsidies, but ‘strategic investments’ for ‘innovation and energy security’. Kind of a shell game, don’t you think? Once could make the same move with renewable energy, calling subsidies a strategic investment in sustaining a livable planet. Call it what you wish, nuclear power is highly subsidized in research, liability, production of nuclear fuel, tax incentives, electricity rates, and waste management forever. If there is a value in subsidizing this form of power generation, then make the case directly.
I agree that we are after an ‘optimized grid with a diverse mix of energy sources’. Then why are nuclear power advocates typically so hostile to renewable energy? In your example, you emphasize the importance of centralized grids as the ‘most efficient, reliable, blah blah’. This is simply not true. Centralized grids are an inheritance from an age where coal was the most cost effective source of electricity in many regions, and benefited from scale. This is no longer the case. Centralized grids offer some advantages like simplified control, but decentralized grids offer advantages in resilience, low transmission losses, and even greater security from being disabled (like the Internet – particularly given the higher risk of nuclear generation plants as a target of terrorism). They are also more flexible for integrating renewables and SMRs. With the significant improvements over the past few decades in control technologies, decentralized grids offer greater grid flexibility for a ‘mix of energy sources’.
And I agree that renewables are the fastest, most reliable path to decarbonization. With a renewables focus, there may even be a place for strategic nuclear generation in the future. It is important that this is made manifestly clear as you lobby nuclear power to our climate denying government officials (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/varcoe-province-studies-nuclear-energy-234649374.html)
Expensive maybe but reliable. You can’t ignore the benefits of nuclear power but just saying it’s expensive. I’m sure we remember our phones going off at 6 pm in January because we were close to losing power. I realize renewables were not the only cause of that but they were a big part considering over 4000 mw of wind generators were only generating less than 100 mw and solar…it was dark
Base-power is important. Nuclear power’s Equivalent Availability Factor is about 87%, similar to hydro (84%) and gas-turbines (88%). The problem with nuclear power is that it is not versatile. Gas turbines that can be ramped up and shut down quickly is as ‘reliable’ as nuclear power and also complements intermittency in wind generation. The only reason this is a discussion (beyond burning cheap coal) is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so designing a grid that reduces to a minimum the reliance on fossil fuels is important and this necessitates the focus on renewables. Furthermore, a meaningful response to reducing GHG emissions is long-overdue and cannot wait a decade or more for a nuclear power plant to be built in Alberta, or for other magical technologies decades away from grid-scale application. We should be supporting existing, low-emission technologies with a greater emphasis on reducing/managing demand, non-centralized electricity production, improving storage, and greater grid-integration across the country using low-loss transmission for grid stability and greater access to low-ghg hydro from BC and eastern Canada.
And, you are right about the focus on cost. If we were honest about costs we would be asking what the costs are for our collective inaction on the climate crisis.
You correctly state that nuclear, hydro, and natural gas have similar Equivalent Availability Factors (EAFs), which measure how often a plant is available to generate power. However, it completely misses the crucial distinction between EAF and the type of power each source provides.
The False Dichotomy of Nuclear vs. RenewablesThe argument that we must “focus on renewables” and cannot wait for new nuclear plants presents a false dichotomy. It suggests that the two are mutually exclusive and that choosing one means rejecting the other.
Your final points about grid-integration and managing demand are valid but do not negate the need for nuclear power. A “greater emphasis on reducing/managing demand” is an important strategy, but it can only go so far. A modern economy, with its increasing reliance on data centers, electric vehicles, and industrial processes, needs a growing supply of reliable electricity.
nuclear power dredges up the most insidious and dangerous toxins we can mine, and then pretends to make them go away nice and safe simply by burying them. what goes up comes down; and, what goes down comes back up.
The waste from nuclear power is indeed highly radioactive and requires careful management. However, the process is far more sophisticated and secure than you suggest.
Waste Form: The primary waste product, spent nuclear fuel, is not a loose “toxin” but a solid material. It’s an inert, ceramic-like substance that is chemically stable and does not dissolve easily.Containment: The waste isn’t “simply buried.” The current method for long-term disposal is a multi-barrier system. This includes the waste form itself, a corrosion-resistant container, and a geological repository deep underground in a stable rock formation, such as granite or clay. The purpose of this system is to isolate the waste from the environment for tens of thousands of years.The “What Goes Down Comes Back Up” Fallacy: This is a catchy phrase but scientifically inaccurate in this context. Geological repositories are carefully chosen to be in areas with low seismic activity and minimal groundwater flow. The waste is buried hundreds of meters deep in rock formations that have been stable for millions of years. The process of burying the waste is designed to prevent it from ever resurfacing. The small amount of waste generated by a nuclear plant (a typical plant produces a volume of waste equivalent to a single soda can per person’s lifetime electricity needs) makes this deep geological disposal a manageable and secure process. Comparing Nuclear Waste to Other Energy Waste
It is also important to consider the waste generated by other energy sources. While nuclear waste is highly radioactive, its volume is minuscule compared to the waste from other forms of power generation.
Coal: Coal-fired power plants produce millions of tons of waste annually in the form of fly ash and bottom ash. This waste contains heavy metals like mercury, lead, and arsenic, which are chemically toxic and remain hazardous forever. This waste is often stored in surface ponds or landfills, which have a much higher risk of leaching into the environment than a deep geological repository.Renewables: While seen as clean, solar panels and wind turbine blades also create waste. Solar panels contain heavy metals and plastics that can become a landfill issue. The sheer volume of waste from a full-scale renewable transition will be enormous, and recycling methods are still being developed.Nuclear waste is a serious issue that is handled with sophisticated, multi-layered safety measures, not by “simply burying” it. The problem is a manageable one with a well-defined long-term solution. The phrase “what goes down comes back up” is a complete misrepresentation of the science and engineering behind modern nuclear waste disposal.