One Word: Nuclear

Notions on the New Year, Part IV

So far, my musings about the new year have been pretty dark. War (Ukraine). Death (MAID). Division (Flags). It struck me that the topics I was listing off for 2023 evoke a sense of melancholy and dread for the future. I can assure you that is not the case. While 2022 was certainly a very difficult year for Canadians (including for my family), there is a lot to be optimistic about for the future. I am an optimist by nature. After all, this Substack and my podcast are named ‘Blue Skies’. I believe that you can always find the silver lining in a dark clouds, or have the strategic patience to know that better weather is coming. With this in mind, this essay is intended to get you excited and optimistic about one aspect of the future. To do that, I will say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? Nuclear.

2023 will be a big year for nuclear energy in Canada and around the world. I hope that this renewed interest and capital investment in the technology will also help change public perceptions. I am borrowing the set-up for this topic from the movie The Graduate, which used a similar one-word prediction of a promising future. For Dustin Hoffman’s character, ‘plastics’ was the one-word of guidance given to him by a family friend as he contemplated the future. Looking back, it was pretty good advice from both an employment and growth point of view for a 1960s graduate, even if it was a bit staid for someone looking for excitement. Innovation and major capital investments led to tremendous growth in the plastics sector over the next two decades following that one word of advice.

Today, the same can be said for nuclear energy. The technology is poised for major investment and growth in the coming decades and that presents an opportunity to break down several long-standing fallacies that surround nuclear power. The nuclear sector is already a critical part of our economy and environmental stewardship. It employs over 76,000 Canadians in and contributes up to $17 Billion to our GDP. We also have a decades long track record of being a vertically integrated exporting country selling both the fuel that powers nuclear fission (uranium) and the technology and professional expertise used to operate the generating stations around the world. Nuclear is also the cornerstone of a serious climate change plan. Ontario generates 50% of our electricity virtually Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission free courtesy of nuclear energy. These plants combined with one in New Brunswick brings nuclear to 15% of our national total. Countries that have phased out nuclear are watching their emissions rise dramatically (Germany), while countries that have built their national electricity grid on nuclear energy are seeing emissions drop (France).

Canadian Nuclear Renaissance

The end of 2022 brought headlines that show that nuclear is enjoying a renaissance after decades of indifference and underinvestment. In October, Canadian corporate heavyweights Brookfield and Cameco announced a deal to buy the iconic American brand Westinghouse Electric for $7.9 Billion. Westinghouse is a major nuclear operator and technology company. This transaction will bring together a global leader in fuel (Cameco) and a global leader in infrastructure and power generation (Brookfield) at a time that politicians and capital markets around the world are renewing their interest in nuclear. The war in Ukraine, energy insecurity and the harsh reality of the challenges surrounding emission reduction has led to many countries rekindling their interest in nuclear and some developing countries looking to nuclear for the first time.

Canada is also rekindling its interest in nuclear showcasing an innovative new approach to generation that could lead to far more applications for nuclear energy. In December, Ontario Power Generation and the Ontario government broke ground on the construction of the first nuclear reactor to be built in Canada in decades. The site chosen - Darlington Generating Station in the amazing riding of Durham - will be the location for the first Small Modular Reactor (SMR) in Canada. SMRs are a natural evolution for the industry bringing versatility and speed in deployment of a reactor and safety and simplicity to its operation.

An SMR will generate 300 MW of electricity or less, as compared to the 3500 MW generated by the four reactors at a traditional plant like Darlington. The modular aspect of their design means they can be factory manufactured and transported to a site for assembly. This flexibility holds great promise for remote communities or industrial sites. The smaller size also means less quantity of radioactive materials and fewer risks from operation and decommissioning. There is also tremendous promise that this technology could help mitigate risks of massive cost overruns, which have plagued mega-construction projects in traditional nuclear or hydro projects like Muskrat Falls.

Artist rendering of the Darlington SMR that is now under construction in Durham

Nuclear Fallacy #1 - Safety

Despite the great news surrounding nuclear, there is still a high degree of reticence on the part of the public. This is understandable when you consider the origin of the nuclear industry in the Second World War. Nuclear - or atomic - power was developed by the United States with the support of its allies, including Canada, to win the war. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan certainly ended the war in the Pacific quickly, but they also demonstrated the incredibly lethal power of this technology. A few years later, the Soviet Union developed the same atomic weapons and set off an arms race that defined the post-war period. Baby boomers and Gen Xers grew up in this Cold War reality where nuclear power may have helped keep the lights on, but it also served as the technological underpinning of Mutually Assured Destruction and fall-out drills in school. Not a great start for the ‘nuclear’ brand.

The peaceful use of nuclear power in electricity generation also had some high profile stumbles in terms of three serious accidents over the last half century that perpetuated public unease about the technology. Three Mile Island in the United States. Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. And more recently, Fukushima in Japan. All of these accidents were avoidable and led to immediate corrections by the industry, but they left the impression that the technology was unsafe.

On top of all this you can add the cultural impact and particularly the subtle, yet very real, erosion of confidence caused by the comedic portrayal of the industry in The Simpsons. The hilarity of the incompetence of the nuclear plant operators combined with the ruthlessness and disregard for safety of the owner and managers only added to negative impressions of the technology. The longest running show on television cheekily suggested that we are all doomed with nuclear, or that we better get used to three-eyed fish in our rivers.

The reality is that nuclear is the safest form of power generation when it comes to any serious examination of the issue. It is in a league of its own when compared to other large baseload sources of electricity generation like fossil fuels, and is virtually tied with the smaller more intermittent sources of power like wind and solar. This takes into consideration both accidents and pollution (See chart below).

It would likely astound people to learn that the three serious accidents related to nuclear produced relatively few injuries or deaths. Obviously any death is a serious matter, but the hysteria that is associated with these accidents clouds the real picture. Three Mile Island had no injuries or deaths. Chernobyl - the worst of the major accidents - accounted for 30 deaths from the accident itself 15 additional deaths over the next twenty years.¹ Fukushima had only 1 death attributable to the accident.²

Nuclear Fallacy #2 - Waste

Another concern that has led to further brand challenges for nuclear is the issue of waste. Spent fuel, radiated equipment and other production outputs are hazardous because of their radioactivity. They need to be properly handled while in operation and safely stored after use, but this is another area that is not well understood by the public and often manipulated by critics. Concerns can be easily be addressed with some basic examination of the issue.

First, the generation of electricity from nuclear is the only form of power generation that actually accounts for and captures all of the waste from the manufacturing and generation process. Other sources of power generation have emissions into the atmosphere that are not collected (fossil fuels, biomass) or waste streams with hazardous elements that have no serious plan for their handling (solar, wind). In the case of nuclear, every element of waste is accounted for and handled properly.

Second, the energy stored in uranium is so incredibly dense compared to other sources, that there is relatively very small amounts of waste by-products when it comes to spent fuel from the process of nuclear fission. The amazing capacity of nuclear energy makes it much easier to plan for the safe handling and disposal of waste.

Finally, there are detailed regulations and plans in Canada with respect to handling low-level and high-level radioactive waste in both the short and long terms. Unlike other energy sources, the handling of radioactive waste is heavily regulated. There is also a detailed plan to fund the costs of storage with the producers and consumers contributing to these costs through the regulated price of electricity. In the short term, waste is limited enough that it can all be safely stored on site at the various reactor locations. For the long term, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (a crown agency) has detailed plans to locate and operate a Deep Geological Repository to permanently store the waste.

The reality is there is far less waste with nuclear than other energy sources from a life-cycle basis and the handling of this waste is safely and effectively managed in a very transparent manner.

Reputational Renaissance for Nuclear

If we can jettison the misconceptions surrounding nuclear power, I believe the public will begin to understand why it is so critical for the future. The economic and environmental benefits of nuclear is why I have been such a strong advocate for the technology. I have done my best to speak, write and propose policy with respect to nuclear energy since I was elected in 2012.

Global energy demand will only continue to grow as the developed world starts to enjoy the same quality of life that developed countries like Canada have enjoyed for generations. Global climate change plans also have to take into account how to power this increase in energy while lowering emissions. This is where the true opportunity lies for Canada. In the short-term, the world needs to shift to lower emission sources of energy like natural gas, while planning for a longer-term transition to nuclear energy for baseload electricity generation. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) and nuclear energy are Canadian strengths and they should be the cornerstones of any just transition plan put forward by Canada.

In the last decade, approximately 85% of total global energy use has come from the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are also the source for approximately one-third of electricity generation around the world. This is mainly from the burning of coal to generate electricity. These figures³ demonstrate that the single area of greatest progress for the world to meet its emission targets is for a clean energy source like nuclear to displace high emission coal in the generation of electricity. Since electricity grids in each country are either operated by or regulated by their governments, this should be the easiest part of the planning for a lower carbon future. Sadly, despite all the lofty rhetoric by many governments, this low-hanging fruit of the global climate change movement has not been happening.

Coal burning regions with pink shades being sites planned or under construction.

In fact, the opposite has been happening. Coal use has dramatically expanded in the last two decades. This is especially the case in China and the Indo-Pacific, where building coal generation plants was a relatively fast and cheap way to provide electricity to large swaths of developing populations. To put it in perspective, in the last two decades global coal use nearly doubled from 1066 GW to 2024 GW. In the same period, Ontario eliminated 8.8 GW of its electricity generated from coal. Our decarbonization efforts were a measly o.4% drop in the bucket and this drop was only possible thanks to nuclear.

The reality is that the world needs nuclear energy. We need it to tackle climate change. We need it for global prosperity. This is why some of the most skeptical environmentalists are changing their mind when it comes to nuclear and why you should help in its rebranding effort. The world needs a nuclear renaissance.

I hope you were listening.

1. There remains some debate on this post-accident number, but it is still relatively small.à

2. There were large numbers of deaths an injuries from the related tsunami and poorly-run evacuations, but they are not attributable to the technology. https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

3. https://www.carbonbrief.org/