Coalition urges Carney to drop nuclear from energy plan

Hamilton Spectator

23-05-2025

A coalition of First Nations, physicians and environmental organizations is ramping up pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney to drop nuclear energy from his 'energy superpower' strategy, warning it comes with high costs, long delays and long-term risks.
In an open letter
, dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage. The letter warns that new nuclear projects are likely to increase electricity costs while delaying meaningful climate action.
'We are concerned that you may be unduly influenced by the nuclear and fossil industry lobbies,' reads the letter.
During the federal election campaign,
Carney pledged to make Canada 'the world's leading energy superpower
,' focusing on clean and conventional energy. His platform promised faster project approvals and a national clean electricity grid, among other energy promises. The coalition sent their letter in an effort to ensure Carney does not invest more significantly in nuclear energy, as he prepares to set his government's agenda and ministers' mandates.
While Carney's plan doesn't mention nuclear energy, he praised it during the first leaders' debate and referenced two companies in the sector he previously worked with at Brookfield Asset Management.
Nuclear energy is frequently cited as a clean, reliable alternative to fossil fuels. Agencies from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the International Energy Agency expect nuclear power to have a role in the energy transition.
Nuclear power has been part of Canada's electricity mix since the 1960s, with 22 reactors at five plants across three provinces now supplying about
15 per cent of the country's electricity
.
The federal government — through the Canada Infrastructure Bank —
has committed $970 million
in low-cost financing to Ontario's Darlington New Nuclear Project, which aims to build Canada's first grid-scale small modular reactor.
The federal government also
invested millions in Moltex Clean Energy
, a New Brunswick-based company developing a technology called Waste to Stable Salt, which aims to recycle nuclear waste into new energy.
Jean-Pierre Finet, spokesperson for le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie, one of the organizations that signed the open letter, said he worries about the long-term future of any nuclear plants built today without a plan for their waste.
'We object to our federal taxpayer dollars being spent on developing more nuclear reactors that could be abandoned in place, ultimately transforming communities into radioactively contaminated sites and nuclear waste dumps that will require more federal dollars to clean up,' Finet said.
Gordon Edwards, president of the
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
and a longtime nuclear critic, says the federal government is backing the slowest and most expensive energy option on the table.
'In a climate emergency, you have to invest in things that are faster and cheaper,' Edwards said. 'Canada hasn't built new reactors in decades. There's no practical experience left, and what's being proposed now is largely speculative.'
'We're very concerned about a misappropriation of public money and investment in what we see as a losing strategy,' Edwards said, stressing that the coalition is not asking private companies to stop building plants — but rather asking the federal government to stop subsidizing them.
Canada's electricity demand is expected to double —
or even triple — by 2050
, driven by population growth, electrified transportation and industrial decarbonization. In Ontario, the Independent Electricity System Operator projects a 75 per cent increase in demand by mid-century.
To meet this demand, the Ford government is
heavily investing
in nuclear power to meet Ontario's growing electricity demand, banking on
small modular reactors
and nuclear refurbishments as key pillars of its long-term energy strategy. But Edwards points to the Ford government's cancellation of over
750 renewable energy contracts in 2018
, and argues that those lost projects could have already been delivering clean, reliable power today, instead of relying on increasing nuclear energy.
Much of the current controversy focuses on Ontario's Darlington New Nuclear Project, as growing skepticism around the cost of small modular reactors mirrors global concerns.
In the US, two nuclear reactors in
South Carolina were abandoned
after $12.5 billion (CAD) had already been spent, triggering the
bankruptcy of Westinghouse
Nuclear —
now owned by Canadian firms Brookfield and Cameco
. Meanwhile, two completed Vogtle reactors in
Georgia came in at $48
billion, more than double the original $19-billion estimate, making them among the most expensive infrastructure projects in US history.
In the UK and Europe,
new nuclear power project efforts are facing delays
, budget overruns, or outright cancellations.
Meanwhile, a report from the
Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates
that electricity from new nuclear power will cost up to 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and nearly twice as much as offshore wind. It argues that Ontario could meet its energy needs more cheaply and quickly by expanding renewable generation and grid connections with neighbouring provinces.
Ontario Power Generation has
pushed back
against this criticism, saying the Darlington small modular reactor will reuse existing infrastructure, avoid land-use issues common to wind and solar, and help maintain grid stability with 24/7 baseload power. The company argues that renewables require large land areas and new transmission lines, and may face more complex supply chain risks.
Still, some energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. 'Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,' said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. 'These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.'
Winfield calls small modular reactors 'a distraction and likely a dead end,' warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production.
Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.
'There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,' Winfield added in an email.