What is WRONG with Canada?

I oppose the proposed nuclear power generating project at the Wesleyville site.

What is WRONG with Canada?

It is not the world it was when large-scale nuclear energy production in Canada was first considered and debated. Then, we were told that nuclear would avert an expected energy deficit caused by anticipated sharp increases in demand.

Those increases never came.

Because of faulty predictions and other follies, we were stuck with expensive and dangerous nuclear power generation facilities. However, once the facilities were present, many who understood the truth were willing - in the interests of being reasonable - to tolerate nuclear energy production until the facilities reached end of life. Some of us have been counting the days!

But, end of life has turned out to be a moving target, with seemingly endless “refurbishments” to old reactors which become increasingly risky to operate.

“Nuclear” is not only the most dangerous way to boil water, it is the most expensive. The shell game continues with our electricity bills to this day when - astoundingly - Canada is throwing open its doors to nuclear once again!

But why? Since 2009, wind and solar costs have plummetted, with solar falling ~90% and wind ~70% in 15 years. As of 2023-2024, these are the cheapest sources of new electricity globally, with the gap expected to widen even more over coming years and decades. We are also now fully apprised that well-designed, renewable energy systems do not require traditional, inflexible, 24/7 baseload power from nuclear or fossil fuel energy production.

Some hold out China as an example of another country that is investing in new nuclear, but it must be borne in mind that China's renewable energy capacity is growing much faster than its nuclear power capacity. Unlike Canada, China not only supplies itself with copious renewable power, but it is investing heavily in its green energy sector in order to supply the world with solar and wind power generating equipment. 

And China is not alone. Germany is the largest producer of renewable energy in Europe, focusing on wind, solar, and hydrogen technologies. Southeast Asian nations are emerging as hubs for manufacturing, particularly batteries and solar photovoltaic systems, driven by the need for domestic energy security (some wishing to avert dependence on China). Denmark has a long-standing, robust wind manufacturing sector. India has invested heavily in becoming a world supplier of solar panels.

And Canada? Canada, with its abundance of open spaces, sunshine and wind, is being left in their dust, not only as a manufacturer to supply its own needs but as a player on the world stage during what could be seen as a current “gravy train” of renewable expansion. 

Balanced against the potential economic benefits of supporting its green energy sector (if Canada can still be said to have one), is the enormous cost and risk of nuclear energy production, which Canada is, for some reason, signing up for (pssst...we can still bow out with good grace!). 

I, as a supporter of and volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North, oppose the currently proposed burial and abandonment of nuclear fuel waste in northern Ontario - waste that remains more radioactive that the uranium from which it was made, for a million years - and a dire risk to human and environmental health for tens of thousands of years. 

It is astounding that, despite having stockpiles of nuclear fuel waste at present and no agreement on how to manage it (hint: build long-term, hardened management facilities at the reactor sites, and continue with on-site waste management, for which we there is a respectable safety track record), Canada accepts plans to create even more of the waste.

And guess where?

Environmental Justice

Wesleyville is in Port Hope, site of an ecological and social disaster owing to the operation of Eldorado Nuclear’s (a federal Crown Corporation) radium and uranium refining operations, which ceased in 1988. 

One can’t avoid drawing a parallel between Ontario Power Generation promoting a new nuclear facility in Port Hope, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization promoting the burial and abandonment of all of Canada’s present nuclear fuel waste in the headwaters of the Wabigoon River system, just upstream from Grassy Narrows First Nation, the victim another of Canada’s worst and most enduring industrial pollution disasters.

It is almost as if these areas have already been written off as sacrifice zones - but without telling those who live there and whose lives have been blighted by ill-conceived plans, and frank negligence.

I am ashamed of my country when I contemplate the proposals to burden these communities once again. Many Canadians feel the same. Add this social harm to the physical and environmental ones.

Drinking the Kool-Aid

Given all of the above, how can those in official positions of power support the construction of new nuclear power generation facilities? It leaves one scratching one’s head. I can only surmise that the nuclear industry has falsely convinced a large proportion of our leaders that nuclear is clean, “green” energy. This notion has a very basic appeal. No carbon-belching smokestacks sit atop a nuclear power facility. Nuclear is a “new” technology - relatively - and new is good, right? I also expect that industry lobbyists play on the conception that nuclear matters are too complicated for laypeople - so we must rely upon nuclear industry representatives to advise us on how to proceed and set our energy policies. In other words, trust the salespeople.

On top of that, it is easy for our leaders - and anyone - to conflate terribly polluting and dangerous (every step of the way) nuclear FISSION with comparatively miraculous (and as yet unperfected) nuclear FUSION. Fusion will be clean, revolutionary, grand! - but for now, we have fission, which we should have left strictly alone as soon as scientists began to grasp the sheer enormity of its implications.

A Note on the Comment Period

I wish to register my frustration that the Impact Assessment Agency’s initial comment period for the Wesleyville project overlapped with that of the NWMO’s nuclear waste project in northern Ontario. Many who responded to the comment period for the NWMO project, which began on January 5 stated, quite correctly, that 30 days was far too short to read and respond to a 1,200+ page document. For those who did attempt this, they - including myself - were left with a mere seven days to respond to the Wesleyville project’s comment period.

I thank the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for considering my comments.