Nuclear power in the wrong hands isn’t an option
By Lethbridge Herald on August 27, 2025.
Scott Sakatch
Lethbridge Herald Editor
I want to start this off by solemnly swearing that this column about nuclear energy in Alberta will NOT include any snide references to Homer Simpson.
But that doesn’t mean I’m not sorely tempted to include one, particularly given the current situation in the province, vis a vis the government and its track record on a whole shwack of different issues.
First, let’s recap: yesterday, Premier Danielle Smith announced the creation of the Nuclear Energy Engagement and Advisory Panel. Accoring to Smith, the panel will be talking to Albertans to get their thoughts on bringing nuclear-fired electrical power to the province. There will also be an online survey (that will be open for all of a month) for those people who can’t speak directly to the adivsory panel.
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. It’s actually long past time that that Alberta started talking about nuclear energy and what role, if any, it should play in powering the province.
Of course, the ideal time for discussion would have been around 15-20 years ago, when the then-PC government started making predictions that our population would exceed 3.5 million by the mid-2020s. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that we all agreed nuclear power was a good plan; if we’d talked about it back then, Alberta could have had a functioning plant by now.
But we didn’t talk about it then, and today we’re closing in on a population of 4.5 million. We regularly face rolling brownouts during the heat of summer and the cold of winter because of power demand on the province’s aging grid.
I say “aging grid” for a reason. Alberta’s power distribution system, like a significant amount of its infrastructure, hasn’t come close to keeping pace with the demands of growth. The UCP government loves to tout the fact that we’re the fastest-growing province in Canada, but they neglect to mention we also have one of the worst infrastructure deficits in Canada.
What does that have to do with nuclear power plants? A lot. If past is prologue, we have every reason to expect our government will handle nuclear energy the way it has handled the existing grid, not to mention roads, schools, water plants and pretty much all infrastructure: it will ignore problems until they get so big they can’t possibly be ignored any longer.
Spit and baling wire has been the order of the day in Alberta for more than a generation. We put off construction/maintenance because we “can’t afford X amount of dollars.” Then a decade goes by and we discover that not only is the project desperately needed, it’s now going to cost five times as much as it would have cost if we’d just done it in the first place.
It’s bad enough when that kind of backward philosophy is applied to schools and roads. It gets much worse when its applied to hospitals. And one could only imagine that it would be exponentially worse if/when applied to the infrastructure necessary for a nuclear reactor. Too few schools means too many kids in classrooms. Too few hospitals means longer waits for treatment.
A compromised nuclear power system could mean radioactive contamination, meltdown or worse.
I’m not saying we should automatically reject nuclear power. In fact, I think it’s a viable option that, if done right, could be one part of an overall energy strategy to feed a growing province. It could work alongside our current gas-fired system and sustainable options such as solar and wind.
Of course, the latter won’t be part of the discussion because of an asinine moratorium placed on it by – you guessed it – the very same people who want you to trust them with nuclear power.
What it all boils down to is risk. Statistically, the risks involved in nuclear power are low, just like the risks involved in air travel are low. But on the rare occasion that something does go wrong with either one, the potential consequences are extremely high.
We’ve recently seen what can happen when airlines cut corners: Boeing has had doors on its 737s blow off mid-flight. And that’s a company run by experts.
What are the potential downfalls of a nuclear energy system that relies on decisions made by the same people who ignore maintenance and don’t believe their own scientists on the risks to water from selenium generated by coal mining?
It all comes down to whether you trust the people minding the power plant.
(See? I never once specifically mentioned Homer Simpson.)
20-19
I do agree with you that we are behind in our nuclear energy implementation and I think there are several reasons why.
For one, the newer, smaller modular reactors didn’t have a proven track record that showed that they would not have many of the negative impacts of the old reactors, so they waited for tangible evidence. Many were concerned with the old style of reactors! This is not an new concept for Alberta!
Too much hope was placed on solar and wind energy, which soon was found to have a bigger carbon footprint than fossil fuels and of course, the wind didn’t blow 24/7 nor the sun shine 24/7, and we soon saw shortfalls early in the implementation.
Now in part, shutting down coal generation caused some of those shortage because we relied too much on wind and solar filling those needs.
In 2015, as part of the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan, Premier Rachel Notley announced a comprehensive plan to phase out coal-fired electricity generation in Alberta and as pressure grew from environmentalists, the timeline was reduced, again putting too much reliance wind and solar.
It is the federal government oversees nuclear energy, not the the province!
Federal nuclear officials, primarily from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), are responsible for overseeing nuclear reactors under the federal Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) to ensure health, safety, security, and environmental protection. The CNSC regulates all nuclear facilities and activities through a comprehensive licensing, compliance, and enforcement process, including detailed environmental and technical assessments.
This federal agency is the sole authority for regulating nuclear energy and materials in Canada.
At a time when the world scrambled to find greener energy, many poor decisions were made because they rushed to find solutions.
Alberta does not operate the electric energy grid!
US affiliated AltaLink owns and operates most of Alberta’s electric transmission lines, with Berkshire Hathaway Energy (Warren Buffet company) as its owner. Other transmission facility owners include ATCO Electric (private sector, publicly traded), EPCOR Distribution and Transmission/ENMAX Power Corporation (municipal government owned).
The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) is responsible for operating and managing the grid and coordinating the TFOs.
Alberta cannot freely fund many infrastructure projects unless we have the funds to pay for them. Our energy sector has been under attack with some wanting to kill all oil and gas industry, which is by far the biggest contributor to our provincial GDP with Canada only emitting 1.6% of the world GHG’s and China over 34% one has to wonder who is behind killing and industry in Canada which by far has is the cleanest fossil fuel producer in the world.
I am against any new coal mines! It would be a step backwards, but I wonder if anyone has considered the fact the nuclear waste lasts for hundreds of years, thousands in some cases?
There is a lot more to say about who is behind killing oil and gas industries in the West, while China and other countries ignore efforts to cut greenhouse gases and seem to want to kill the Western economies!
We cannot poor millions into infrastructure, roads, programs, etc. if we don’t have the revenues coming in, or else we will soon be facing a ‘debt wall’ due to being so deep in debts.
A few years ago a democratic socialist country, Sweden had to cut some of their services because income taxes were 40-48%.
Do we want to pay that much of our wages so we can pay for all of the services you want right now? Or should be just continue to borrow more money and spend, spend, spend? If you overtax industry they move to other provinces, or countries which is more industry friendly. We saw this in BC decades ago and in Alberta when Stelmach increased royalties collected and pushed oil and gas companies into Saskatchewan, Manitobe and northern BC.
Nuclear: prohibitively expensive power, and highly subsidized (including 100% of the insurance) by taxpayer. Interestingly, advocates of nuclear are the same people deriding renewables, a much safer and the least expensive electricity available today.
Nuclear: needs lots of water. In a province that doesn’t show the foresight to protect the eastern slopes from clearcutting and industrial activities like coal mining, the water will not be available. This, not to mention the impacts of climate change melting our glaciers and reducing snowpack. (Same for AI server farms, another fantasy of this government).
Nuclear: advocates always wax poetic about their dreamchild of small modular reactors. Too bad they are just a dream, like carbon capture, that encourages business-as-usual behaviours.
Ask Australia about cheap power. The only thing we agree on is CCS is a scam.
https://joannenova.com.au/2025/08/energy-crisis-in-australia-costs-are-3-or-4-times-higher-than-the-us-manufacturing-is-at-a-tipping-point/
More ill informed armchair judgements that show you just read and spew without actually researching! Carbon capture has come a long way and does work, including products now made from the carbon.
These reactors take considerably less water! You are not going to stop the change in climate! It has been occurring for thousands of years! The solar activity is one of the biggest factors! So many sheep that blindly follow the herd!