The BASIC ARTICLE relating to the “Spending big on nuclear”

[ This is the original Toronto Star article in full, a very long read. It is essential to have a thorough background behind the topic.] 

Spending Big on Nuclear

By Marco Chown Oved
TORONTO STAR, Sunday, Jan 11/2026

Ontario’s Nuclear Bet

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, emissions-free 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 well-established 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.”

The Promise and the Peril

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 decade-long 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 long-term 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 25-year 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 20th-century 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 21st-century 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 coal-fired 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 25-year roadmap 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 four and a half 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 buildout.

“The government recognizes that having low rates is really critical,” he said. “So it is kind of baffling to us that there’s such a strong focus on new nuclear projects.”

The price tag for this nuclear pivot hasn’t been fully calculated. The four new Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) at Darlington have a budget of $21 billion. The Pickering refurbishment is expected to cost $26.8 billion. The refurbishment of Bruce Power’s nuclear plant has a $13 billion budget. Darlington’s refurbishment is currently projected to be completed on budget at $12.8 billion. No price tag has been announced for new nuclear plants at Wesleyville and Bruce, which could add tens of billions more to the total.

That could bring the nuclear construction budgets north of $100 billion, a similar scale of investment as the $116 billion announced for all 11 nation-building projects announced by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Major Projects Office this fall (which included support for Ontario’s SMRs). Even that colossal amount of money could prove to be a best-case scenario, because nuclear projects worldwide have often suffered from severe cost overruns that, on average, lead to a doubling of their original budgets.

The only new nuclear reactors built in the E.U. or North America this century characterize this trend. The Vogtle plant in Georgia cost more than twice as much as budgeted; in Finland, the Olkiluoto plant came in at four times the original budget; and in France, the Flamanville reactor’s final cost was seven times greater than expected.

Using real-world costs of recently completed nuclear projects, York University Professor Mark Winfield calculated that Ontario’s full nuclear buildout could cost as much as $400 billion, all of which would have to be paid for through increases to hydro rates — something that’s been politically toxic in Ontario.

For his part, Lecce says Ontario can and will do better — and has proven it during the last decade of refurbishments.

“I’m aware of the global reality. But here at home, we’re doing something right,” he said. “We’ve been doing large-scale refurbishments of some of the largest nuclear reactors on the continent ahead of schedule and on budget, unit by unit. From Bruce Power to Darlington, we have demonstrated project discipline.”

Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which owns and operates all the province’s nuclear reactors except for those at Bruce, declined to comment for this story.

Lecce says that the risk is worth it, not only to provide the power needed to expand Ontario’s mining, refining and manufacturing sectors, but also to sustain a nuclear industry whose expertise can be exported.

The nuclear industry currently contributes $22 billion annually to Canada’s GDP and employs more than 89,000 people, the majority in Ontario, according to the Canadian Nuclear Association. The Ontario buildout promises to add tens of thousands of temporary construction and permanent operation jobs and billions in economic benefits to that total.

“Ninety per cent of the spend is staying in the province,” said Lecce. “This is the obvious path forward.”

Why the Nuclear Option Has Competition in Wind and Solar

While Ontario has for decades been Canada’s leader in nuclear, the province was also, briefly, the nation’s leader in the construction of wind and solar.

But when Doug Ford was elected premier, he cancelled every renewable project in the pipeline — some of which were partially built — at a cost of $231 million. In the seven and a half years since, as renewables have come to dominate new global power projects, not a single new renewable energy project has been commissioned in Ontario.

Meanwhile, thanks to aggressive Chinese industrial policy, the cost of building new renewable power has dropped by 70-90 per cent over the last decade, to the point that wind and solar are now the cheapest ways to generate electricity in most countries in the world, according to the International Energy Agency.

Not only that, but renewables are far faster to build than nuclear plants and can be deployed quickly as demand grows, instead of waiting for lengthy nuclear builds — and burning more natural gas in the meantime.

This is why renewables are winning out worldwide, said physicist and energy analyst Amory Lovins in a recent article.

“Each year, nuclear adds as much net global capacity as renewables add every two days,” wrote Lovins, who cofounded the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Only five years into a global renewable building spree, wind and solar have already far surpassed total nuclear generation, which took 65 years to build. “Soaring renewables generate three times more global electricity than stagnant nuclear power,” Lovins wrote. “In 2023-24, China added 197 times more solar and wind than nuclear capacity, at half the cost.”

Despite being elected on a platform hostile to renewables, even Ford has come around, issuing a round of procurement that could end up including wind and solar.

But the idea that the debate is settled and that renewables are cheaper and better is something the nuclear industry in general, and the provincial government in particular, pushes back on.

Renewables are “controlled by the Chinese, manufactured there, by an unethical regime using coal-fired power to drive their production. In what world is that product from that nation with that human rights record adding any value to Canada?” Lecce said, adding: “This narrative that the alternative of wind and solar is cheaper is demonstrably false.”

The Important Ways Nuclear Is Different Than Wind and Solar

Cost comparisons between nuclear and renewables get muddy because they’re not apples to apples.

Nuclear provides inexpensive and stable baseload power, but is difficult to ramp up and down to meet demand.

Renewables can provide cheaper power, but only intermittently — when the wind blows, and the sun shines. They become “dispatchable” when they’re paired with batteries that are charged when the power isn’t needed and discharged back into the grid when it is.

A study prepared by the IESO last summer found that renewables paired with batteries can provide dispatchable power for less than half the cost of nuclear. This scenario becomes even more beneficial if natural gas is kept as a backup and excess generation is exported for profit.

The same study found, however, that nuclear SMRs will produce baseload power for about two-thirds the cost of renewables and batteries.

But price isn’t the only consideration that Lecce says favours nuclear.

Unlike wind turbines and solar panels, which typically have a commercial lifespan of 20-25 years, nuclear reactors can last “80 to 90 years,” Lecce said.

And if Ontario were to build renewables instead of new nuclear plants, it would require significant “overbuild” to make up for the intermittency of wind and solar — five to seven times more generation, according to the IESO.

To accommodate that overbuild, the energy ministry estimates it would need to set aside approximately 100 times more land for solar and 500 times more land for wind to generate the same amount of power as a potential 10,000 MW nuclear station at Wesleyville.

Corporate Knights’ Torrie said these arguments rely on fanciful assumptions that “tilt the scales” in favour of nuclear.

A 90-year lifespan is unrealistic, he said, considering no nuclear plant in the world has ever operated for even 60 years. None of Ontario’s fleet of CANDU reactors has reached 45 years of operation, he said.

“CANDUs typically have to be rebuilt when they are 20-25 years old, and so far the longest any CANDU has operated after being rebuilt is 23 years. We are not even close to being able to say with confidence a CANDU will last for 60 years, even with a complete rebuild along the way,” he said.

Solar panels, by contrast, may be guaranteed by the manufacturer to last 25 years, but have a track record of functioning far longer than that.

“Solar panels slowly lose efficiency over time,” said Torrie. “But they can be operated for decades after they have paid for themselves.”

A recent study found a 30-year-old solar installation in Switzerland was still producing at 80 per cent of its original output. In New Hampshire, a single rooftop panel was still producing power after more than 40 years. The first modern solar cell, produced by Bell Labs in 1954, still generates electricity, more than 70 years after it was manufactured.

Unlike nuclear plants, solar panels don’t require any fuel, so even with a lower output, the electricity they produce is close to free.

As for the issue of land use, Torrie invites anyone to visit a wind farm and look at how much space is between the turbines — space that’s used to graze livestock or grow food.

“For solar, the panels are often installed on rooftops, where they have zero land impacts. Solar farms are now being built on agricultural land without taking it out of production, and these ‘agro-solar’ projects are generating new income streams for farmers.”

By contrast, while the footprint of a nuclear facility may be small, it’s off limits to any other use and the long-term storage of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel requires setting aside land for tens of thousands of years.

‘Energy Security Is National Security’

Even among nuclear proponents, Ontario’s choice of an American reactor design for the SMRs has raised economic and security concerns. Unlike the existing fleet of Canadian CANDU reactors that use natural uranium from mines in Saskatchewan, the BWRX-300 reactors chosen for the SMRs rely on enriched uranium, which must be imported from the United States, requiring much more robust security to avoid action-movie scenarios where radioactive materials are hijacked by terrorists.

And, of course, the debate over nuclear power can’t avoid the elephant in the room.

The most recent nuclear meltdown, which occurred in Fukushima, Japan in 2011, prompted the long-term evacuation of a zone that extends up to 30 km from the accident site and remains contaminated with high levels of radiation. That accident happened following the fourth most powerful earthquake ever recorded. The world’s only other nuclear catastrophe to max out the rating scale — the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which left behind a vastly larger exclusion zone — was caused by the confluence of flawed Soviet reactor design and operator error.

No one, not even the fiercest critics, says Ontario’s nuclear plants are vulnerable to the specific events that caused these accidents. But it’s undeniable that nuclear comes with nonzero risk.

If the Pickering nuclear plant were to experience an accident on the scale of Fukushima, a 30 km evacuation zone would extend all the way to Yonge Street, forcing millions of people to abandon their homes and businesses with untold human and economic cost.

While a major nuclear accident or a Hollywood hijack scenario are both extremely unlikely to happen in Ontario, that doesn’t mean the public is going to forget the risk.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former Premier Mike Harris recently coauthored an op-ed arguing that in order to reap the full economic benefits of a new generation of nuclear reactors, the Canadian-designed CANDUs must be used.

“In an increasingly uncertain world, energy security is national security,” they wrote. “If Canada does not choose CANDU and instead goes with an American technology, that will mean the transfer of tens of thousands (and potentially hundreds of thousands) of jobs to the U.S. and abroad. The painful changes we are currently experiencing in our automobile industry in Ontario are a reminder of what happens when we tie our fortunes to foreign technologies and foreign companies.”

First-Mover Advantage or Risky Bet?

Asked about the choice of design for the SMRs, Lecce said Ontario is getting “first-mover advantage,” by taking on the risk of building the first reactor of its kind. The province will develop SMR expertise that will be highly sought after by other countries looking to build small-scale nuclear and has established 80 per cent of the supply chain locally.

“The Canadian supply chain is at the heart of the gain of this project. We’re selling SMRs abroad. Ontario owns part of the intellectual property of the reactor design. Every time we sell, we make money,” he said.

Even though the first SMR hasn’t yet been built, Lecce has already announced deals to provide nuclear expertise to New York, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Belgium and Bulgaria.

“Ontario is solidifying Canada’s global leadership in clean, emissions-free nuclear power, and the world is watching,” Lecce said at the announcement in Sofia, last month.

Meanwhile, the first SMR is already behind schedule. In 2023, the province announced that it would be built by 2028. After a protracted licensing process carried out by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, OPG now says construction will be complete “by the end of the decade” and “connect to the grid by the end of 2030.”

The aggressive timeline for these small nukes is part of the promise that they will buck the technology’s reputation for being expensive and slow to build.

“We’re not talking 20 years out. We’re talking a matter of another four-odd years,” Lecce said.

By then, it will be a little clearer whether Ontario’s nuclear ambition represents foresight or folly.