This article was written by Joe Friesen and was published in the Globe & Mail on January 12, 2026.
A blue glow emanates from the core of the McMaster Nuclear Reactor, which provides neutrons for research and medical isotope production at McMaster University’s campus in Hamilton.
Funding and new minor studies program attract students keen to work in industry
A mesmerizing deep blue glow emanates from the nuclear reactor nestled in the heart of the campus at McMaster University in Hamilton.
Sunk 10 metres beneath the surface of a pool of water, encased in an air-locked, 15-sided, concrete building, the uranium fuel generates enough power to heat hundreds of homes.
But its significance to the university is far more about its research potential than its three megawatts of power.
At a time when nuclear power is in the midst of a renaissance, McMaster is wrapping itself in the label of Canada’s nuclear university.
The school launched a minor in nuclear studies in the fall and plans for a bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering are in the works. Last term, 148 students signed up for a new interdisciplinary course on nuclear technology applications. Meanwhile, the university’s reactor produces about 60 per cent of the world’s supply of iodine-125, a medical isotope used for cancer treatment. And its new president, Susan Tighe, is bullish about nuclear’s role in driving the university’s ambitions.
“I think nuclear has great potential from a research perspective, as well as commercialization,” Dr. Tighe said. “And it’s great training for our students.”
Dr. Tighe, who became president of McMaster in July, is the first engineer to hold the top job at the university.
Having previously been provost at McMaster for five years she’s conscious of the financial clouds hanging over the university sector and says she’s determined to keep McMaster operating within its means. She’s proud to note that the school ran a surplus in 2025 and is among the handful of Ontario universities operating in the black.
“What I like to say is we’re a public sector organization that operates with private-sector principles,” she said. “We’re trying to be responsible with what we get.”
In September, the Ontario government announced $18-million in funding to allow McMaster to operate the nuclear reactor around the clock, seven days a week, up from five days. The extended hours will also allow it to boost production of medical isotopes that are crucial to cancer care and to expand research and training opportunities for students.
“We do have this unique research facility, and given that we’ve had support from the provincial government to operate 24 hours a day, it’s enabling more access to the reactor,” Dr. Tighe said.
The McMaster nuclear reactor was built in 1959, when the university had begun to grow beyond its Baptist roots. The project was spearheaded by Harry Thode, a Canadian nuclear pioneer who worked on the Canadian branch of the Manhattan project in the Second World War. He later served as president of the university from 1961 to 1972.
“For Canada to put a research reactor on a campus at that time was really visionary,” said David Novog, a physics professor, who has been leading tours of the reactor since the 1990s.
Prof. Novog said he first came to McMaster as a grad student because he was drawn by the chance to work on the most powerful research reactor on a Canadian campus. He explains that the blue light that surrounds the low-enriched uranium fuel cells in the water of the reactor pool is actually Cherenkov radiation, named for a Nobel-winning Soviet scientist.
Today Prof. Novog supervises grad students such as Jessica Lo, who is looking into neutron imaging of fuel bundles.
She decided to go into the nuclear field after finishing an undergraduate degree in physics. “There’s no other school that compares to McMaster. You have a reactor right on campus,” Ms. Lo said.
The reactor has a few dozen students working at various times in the week, often using its rays for imaging, particularly for close examination of turbine blades.
They also study health physics, looking at the impact of radiation on humans. And there are research applications for mining, too.
For Arianna Santos, a fourthyear engineering student, the chance to attend a university with a nuclear reactor was also too good to pass up.
Ever since watching science shows on television when she was young she has been captivated by nuclear’s potential to serve the world’s energy needs with a minimum of greenhouse gas emissions.
“I’ve been told that all the energy a person needs for their life on Earth could be contained in a single soda can of uranium,” she said.
Many of today’s students would be too young to remember some of the disasters that have led to public skepticism about nuclear technology: notably, the reactor meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, following a 2011 earthquake and the explosion in Chernobyl, Ukraine of the Soviet-built reactor in 1986.
Ms. Santos recognizes there’s public anxiety about the technology. But she feels reassured by the extensive safety protocols in nuclear facilities.
“These buildings are really, really safe,” she said.
Ms. Santos is one of about 150 students who’ve signed up for McMaster’s new minor in nuclear studies. She’s also a member of McMaster’s nuclear club, where students network and explore job opportunities.
Last summer she conducted research in nuclear science, working with a hot cell where she used mechanical arms to manipulate radioactive material. Her dream after graduation is to pursue a career in the nuclear field.
“This small atom, you just split it and it releases so much energy and heat that we barely have to use any uranium. It’s amazing, it’s crazy, it’s fascinating.”
Ontario is investing billions into reactors — even as the rest of the world turns to solar and wind. Is this the wrong bet?
This article was written by Marco Chown Oved and was published in the Toronto Star on January 11, 2026.
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.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Premier Doug Ford announce expansion plans at the Darlington energy plant last fall.
“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.”
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 20thcentury 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 coalfired 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 road map 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 Toronto’s 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 build out.
“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 nationbuilding 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 bestcase 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 realworld costs of recently completed nuclear projects, York University Professor Mark Winfield calculated that Ontario’s full nuclear build out 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 build out 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 `agrosolar’ 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 longterm 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 BWRX300 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 30km 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 oped 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.”
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.
This article was written by Andrew Clunis, President Power Workers’ Union, and was published in the Toronto Star on December 12, 2025.
Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and others have identified a looming electricity capacity gap starting in 2035, with demand for electricity rising much faster than the province is building new, clean generating facilities. According to the province’s Integrated Energy Plan, between now and 2050, Ontario could need 17,500 megawatts (MW) of additional nuclear generation alone – the equivalent of adding five new Darlington-scale nuclear stations.
Analyses by the Power Workers’ Union suggests the gap could be much bigger. While the IESO projects a 75 per cent rise in demand for electricity in Ontario, some experts indicate the actual need could be more than double today’s levels. Fulfilling such a power requirement would be a significant task, to say the least.
Ontario’s large reactors have been the quiet workhorses of our clean-energy system for more than half a century. They have afforded the province one of the lowest-carbon electricity grids in the world. The CANDU technology that powers these reactors today is Canadian-designed, Canadian-built and globally respected for its safety, reliability and long operating life. Nuclear also has one of the highest capacity factors of any electricity source — over 90 per cent — and the smallest land footprint per unit of energy produced. That stability anchors Ontario’s low-carbon grid.
To address the imminent electricity crunch, Ontario must start building large-scale nuclear again. Ideally, the sooner, the better. The development process from planning to engineering and regulatory review to permitting and construction time takes years. Delays have real costs.
Ontario is already building more gas generation to meet rapidly growing demand driven by electrification of transportation, heating systems, AI data centres and industrial processes. By investing in nuclear now, public funds that would otherwise be spent on additional gas-powered carbon-emitting generation could be saved, and the transition to Ontario’s net-zero electricity system expedited.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) could be part of the solution. These innovative and promising new technologies are well suited to complement large-scale nuclear workhorses needed to power high-demand growth regions like the Greater Toronto Area.
More importantly, SMRs (typically up to 300 Megawatts (MW)) will be particularly valuable in locations that require hundreds of MW of new carbon-free electricity generation rather than the thousands needed in Ontario’s major load centres. SMR’s “fit-for-purpose” scalability, and prospect of shorter design and construction timelines, have attracted interest from multiple provinces, industries and the federal government.
Construction of the G7’s first four SMRs is already underway at the Darlington site in Clarington, Ontario.
Now there are even more reasons to get moving quickly, including economic development, high-skilled jobs, industrial renewal and energy sovereignty.
Canada’s trade relationships are undergoing an unprecedented restructuring that will take years if not decades to develop and stabilize. In this environment, Canada’s nuclear industry is not just a powerhouse, it’s an economic accelerator.
According to an economic impact study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Association in 2024, the nuclear sector contributes 22 billion per year to GDP, and sustains approximately 80,000 highskilled jobs in engineering, construction, manufacturing, mining and plant operations. This industry study is consistent with federal government findings. Natural Resources Canada stated in 2024 that over 75,000 Canadians are employed across the nuclear supply chain and that the nuclear industry is a significant contributor to GDP, government revenue, and employment. Canada’s nuclear supply chain is dominated by domestic companies, including over 250 firms concentrated in Ontario’s industrial heartland (represented by the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries). Employing our uranium, technologies and workforce keeps energy dollars and project management in Canadian hands and underpins our economy and sovereignty.
More than half of Ontario’s electricity is produced on three relatively small sites in Pickering, Tiverton and Clarington. In the face of unprecedented electricity demand growth, neither Canada nor Ontario can afford to delay the launch of next generation large-scale nuclear projects. This work should start at “Bruce C,” a proposed project to build up to 4,800 WW of nuclear power generation on the existing Bruce Power property in Tiverton. Wesleyville is an existing Ontario Power Generation site near Port Hope that could support up to 10,000 MW of new nuclear capacity. These truly generational projects will drive Canadian prosperity, cut emissions and protect our energy sovereignty.
Canada’s nuclear industry is essential to meet Ontario’s massive demand growth for clean electricity and power the economy at a time when we need it most, especially in light of the US government’s tariffs affecting Ontario manufacturing and heavy industries. Doing so will also deliver on our netzero-by-2050 commitment – all while building on Canada’s longstanding strengths as an energy superpower.
Power Workers’ Union calls on Ottawa to treat new large-scale nuclear as a nation-building priority by fast-tracking approvals through Major Projects designation and providing federal funding and Clean Economy Investment Tax Credits to support construction. Large-scale nuclear, capable of delivering large volumes of clean, reliable and ‘round-the-clock power, will help secure Canada’s economic future and long-term energy sovereignty.
This opinion was written by Martin Regg Cohn and was published in the Toronto Star on November 29, 2025.
Stephen Lecce wasn’t yet born when Pickering’s nuclear reactors first came to life in the 1970s.
But he’s lived long enough to see the first batch of problemplagued nukes decommissioned over the last two decades. Deemed unworthy for retrofitting, the four reactors of Pickering “A” lie dormant and entombed beside Lake Ontario.
Now, Ontario’s 39yearold minister of energy wants to rebuild and reincarnate what remains of the Pickering fleet, part B — an aging cluster of four nukes from the 1980s whose political halflife has long been questioned.
Scheduled for mothballing seven years ago, they are instead getting a new lease on life from Lecce. Thanks to a fresh investment of $26.8 billion, the four nukes are projected to last another 38 years once they are completed over the next decade.
The problem with nuclear power, for those in political power, is that there are always so many vexing questions:
How much will it really cost? Who will truly pay the bill? When will it ultimately come due? How safe is this redo?
The paradox of nukes in this province is that the question of safety is rarely a debating point. While nuclear power is politically radioactive in Europe — prompting a panicked Germany to shut down its reactors — the major parties in this province are not so easily spooked.
In fact, most politicians are supportive in principle of nukes, given their longstanding safety record in Ontario. What they’re not all sold on is the rapidly rising costs of nuclear power.
That’s because the third rail of electricity in Ontario is not so much safety or radioactivity but affordability and proximity. Ontario has long been ground zero for NIMBY opposition to wind turbines and provincewide hysteria over hydro prices.
That’s why a previous Liberal government rejected a refurbishment of Pickering back in 2009 and took a rain check on buying new nukes. That’s also why Doug Ford won political power in 2018, vowing to rip
Ontario politicians have always dreamed of cheap power, not just to pacify voters but also to attract foreign investment
up contracts for subsidized wind power while promising to keep the price of electricity low.
All these years later, the premier presides over a government that spends massive amounts of taxpayer dollars subsidizing power from all sources — not just wind but gas turbines and nuclear.
During their years in opposition, the Tories joined the New Democrats in persuading Ontarians that electricity rates were unaffordable. Facing a reelection debacle, the Liberal government came up with an unsustainable plan to subsidize hydro by hiding the true cost.
Today, Ford’s Tories are perpetuating that ruse to the tune of $6.5 billion in this fiscal year for “Electricity Cost Relief Programs” buried in the budget.
Against that backdrop, the massive costs of nuclear refurbishment are destined to weigh down electricity bills long into the future. Lecce wouldn’t specify the costs to consumers, just the benefits — 30,000 new construction jobs and 6,700 permanent positions.
So why did Ontario reverse course after ruling out a Pickering refurb long ago? A major difference is that projected electricity demand had flatlined in 2009 due to decreased manufacturing demand even with an increasing population.
Today, by all accounts, electricity usage is destined to rise thanks to EV and AI — electric vehicles and artificial intelligence, both of which are putting pressure on power generators around the world. Ontario politicians have always dreamed of cheap power, not just to pacify voters but also to attract foreign investment — historically in manufacturing, now in the industries of the future.
What are the realistic alternatives, given Ontario’s traditional reliance on lowemission nukes that helped the province rid itself of coal? Hydroelectric power is largely tapped out at 24 per cent of Ontario’s energy mix, leaving natural gas and oil (16 per cent), wind (nine per cent) and solar (one per cent).
Questions will persist until the final bills come due — long after Ford and other political elders have taken their leave of Queen’s Park. As for Lecce, will he still be around a decade from now, presiding over ribbon cutting ceremonies at Pickering, wondering if this big bet made sense?
This article was written by Matthew McClearn and was published in the Globe & Mail on November 27, 2025.
Work on the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in Pickering, Ont., seen in 2020, is scheduled to begin in early 2027, with all units returned to service by the mid-2030s.
Crown corporation plans to replace steam turbines, steam generators and station’s water intake
The Ontario government has granted final approval for the refurbishment of four nuclear power reactors at Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.
The approved budget for the project is $26.8-billion, more than double the cost of refurbishing the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, which generates significantly more power. OPG says the Darlington project is on track to wrap up next year, meeting its original schedule and $12.8-billion budget.
The Pickering refurbishment is substantially more expensive in part because of the plant’s age. OPG plans to replace steam turbines, steam generators and the station’s water intake – expensive work that was deemed unnecessary at the newer Darlington station. There’s also been considerable cost inflation between the two projects.
Refurbishments are complex, expensive undertakings, presenting numerous technical and logistical challenges. When they don’t go as planned – as happened with New Brunswick Power’s Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station and at Pickering in the 2000s – it can cost taxpayers dearly.
Candu reactors can operate for about three decades between major overhauls. Their fuel and heavy water moderator must be removed, and much of the reactor must be disassembled. Crucial components, such as the pressure tubes, must be replaced. All the resulting radioactive waste must be stored. Meanwhile, utilities may elect to overhaul or replace other major components in the station, such as steam generators and turbines.
The idea of refurbishing the four reactors at Pickering B was previously considered beginning in 2006, but rejected a few years later. OPG’s board of directors warned that the units were at significant risk of performing poorly once returned to service, with high operating costs. The estimated refurbishment cost back then was $10.7-billion.
Work is scheduled to begin in early 2027, with all units returned to service by the mid-2030s.
Pickering B’s refurbished reactors, located around 35 kilometres from downtown Toronto, are expected to have a combined capacity of 2,200 megawatts, a boost of 100 megawatts. (Darlington’s capacity is about 3,500 megawatts.) Arne Wohlschlegel, managing director at Siemens Energy Canada, said part of the increase will come from design improvements to the steam turbines and turbine control systems. (Siemens Energy has been awarded the work to replace the turbines.)
Energy Minister Stephen Lecce said Wednesday at a news conference the station’s life will be extended by 38 years and that the project will create 30,000 jobs during construction and another 3,700 permanent positions.
Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy cast the announcement as the latest example of his government’s firm commitment to the nuclear industry.
“I can guarantee you that we’ll have the nuclear industry’s back all the way through for the next 50 years,” he said.
Critics decried the decision. Mike Marcolongo, an associate director with Environmental Defence, described it as “a costly and high-risk choice that will push electricity bills higher.”
Pickering is Canada’s oldest commercial nuclear power station, featuring eight Candu reactors. Only the four newer B units, built in the 1970s and 80s, will be refurbished. They produce about one-tenth of Ontario’s power, and are expected to shut down in the third quarter of next year. There are no plans to overhaul the A units, which are permanently shut down.
Ontario has now marked nearly its entire commercial reactor fleet for refurbishment, and several units have already returned to service. Bruce Power is in the midst of refurbishing the eightreactor Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Tiverton, Ont. The overhaul of the final Darlington unit is nearly complete.
The Pickering project requires approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which has a long record of greenlighting such applications from nuclear utilities. Pickering B was originally expected to close roughly a decade ago, but the CNSC has consistently granted permissions to extend its life.
This opinion was written by Jean Chretien and Mike Harris, and was published in the Globe & Mail on November 19, 2025. Jean Chrétien is a former prime minister of Canada. Mike Harris is a former premier of Ontario. Both serve as co-chairs of Canadians for CANDU, a campaign by AtkinsRéalis to promote CANDU nuclear-reactor technology.
When we were both in office in the 1990s, Canada and China agreed to the sale of two Candu nuclear reactors, marking the largest commercial agreement between our two countries at the time.
Many decades later, we continue to see the benefits of that partnership and the construction of more than 30 other reactors built domestically and across the world: a strong supply chain, thousands of Canadian jobs and a global reputation for Canadian nuclear excellence. We advanced our interests as global energy suppliers then, and we can build on that momentum today.
In an increasingly uncertain world, energy security is national security. Every country that wants to chart its own future must be able to power its economy with confidence, independence and reliability. For Canada, that means using the technology we invented, perfected and continue to lead the world with: the Candu nuclear reactor.
A recent nuclear announcement from the government of the United States that offered support to their domestic technology makes one thing abundantly clear: We live in a world where large-scale nuclear deployments only succeed when they are backed by their host governments. Financial, regulatory, political and diplomatic support are needed for competitiveness.
For more than six decades, Candu technology, which is owned by Canadians, built by Canadians and driven by Canadian innovation, has powered our homes, businesses and hospitals with clean electricity. It has produced life-saving medical isotopes and helped establish Canada as one of the world’s most trusted nuclear innovators. All this, plus it is fuelled by natural uranium, abundant in Canada.
No foreign-designed reactor can be built or adapted to Canadian safety standards without reliance on enriched fuel that must be processed abroad and imported into Canada.
For more than six decades, CANDU technology, which is owned by Canadians, built by Canadians and driven by Canadian innovation, has powered our homes, businesses and hospitals with clean electricity.
In today’s protectionist world, that dependence poses a real risk. Candu avoids it entirely. Our reactors use natural uranium, mined and refined right here at home, in Saskatchewan and Ontario. This creates a homegrown fuel supply that can’t be disrupted by tariffs, trade wars or reactionary measures by unpredictable political actors around the globe.
The American strategic alignment changes the global nuclear landscape. Washington is now putting its considerable financial heft behind its own domestic nuclear technology. The implications for Canada are profound. If the U.S. is rallying behind its homegrown nuclear industry, then Canada must do the same. We must ensure that Canada remains competitive, not only for the sake of our energy security, but also for the thousands of Canadian workers and suppliers whose livelihoods depend on this sector.
We want to be clear: 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.
If Canada wants to truly be considered an energy superpower, we must first demonstrate confidence in our own technology. We cannot market and sell Canadian tech abroad if we do not invest in it at home. By choosing Candu for our next wave of large-scale nuclear builds, we send an unmistakable message to international partners: Canada stands behind its own technology.
Candu’s proven tech has been successfully deployed in Ontario and around the world for generations, with technology enhancements ready to deliver even greater efficiency to meet Ontario’s growing electricity demand. More than 90 per cent of Candu’s supply chain is domestic, concentrated in Ontario, a province facing significant trade challenges with the U.S. Investing in Candu directly supports Canadian steel, construction, manufacturing and skilled trades.
This is a blueprint for national independence. As the federal government seeks to support skilled trades workers, Candu offers a ready-made solution. The sooner approvals are made, the sooner more high-value, highskill jobs are available. Candu means real, lasting opportunity for Canadian workers and Canadian industry.
The choice of Candu technology for new builds in Ontario is about more than power generation: It’s about leadership. When we choose our own technology, we demonstrate to the world that Canada is serious about its energy ambitions and capacity to compete globally.
Rate increase caused by higher nuclear costs, spending on electricityconservation programs
This article was written by Marco Chown Oved and was published in the Toronto Star on November 7, 2025.
The price of electricity in Ontario just jumped by nearly 30 per cent, though few people may have noticed.
That’s because the price hike was almost entirely absorbed by a near doubling of the Ontario Electricity Rebate, which now covers nearly a quarter of the cost of power to consumers.
While the net result on residential hydro bills is minimal, the increase in the electricity subsidy will cost taxpayers an estimated additional $2 billion per year, on top of the $6.5 billion the province already pays to reduce the cost of power.
As a result, power subsidies now make up the majority of the provincial deficit, which was projected to be $14.6 billion this year.
“That’s money coming out of the provincial budget, which otherwise would have gone to deficit reduction, schools and hospitals, and instead is going to effectively socialize the cost of these increases in electricity costs,” said Mark Winfield, a political science professor who studies electricity policy at York University.
“The political cost of making people pay for these increases would be unacceptable,” he said, noting that hydro prices were a major campaign issue for Ford’s election in 2018. “So, instead, they hide these costs.”
Winfield calculated the costs of the existing electricity subsidies and estimated the $2 billion a year cost of the increase based on provincial budget documents and a Financial Accountability Office report.
“After a decade of hydro hikes under the Liberals that cost working families and seniors an extra $1,000 a year, our government made a clear commitment: to keep energy rates stable and affordable. Since 2018, we’ve delivered on just that — ensuring electricity rates have stayed near or below inflation,” wrote Chelsea McGee, a spokesperson for Energy Minister Stephen Lecce.
The hydro rate increase, which came into force on Nov. 1, was caused by higherthan expected nuclear costs and an increase in spending on electricity conservation programs, according to the Ontario Energy Board.
Ontario is planning a massive increase in power generation as both industry and people electrify. From electric steel making to EVs and heat pumps, the province anticipates that it will need 75 per cent more electricity by 2050.
To meet that demand, Premier Doug Ford has turned to nuclear, starting construction on the first small nuclear reactors (SMRs) in the western world, proposing two new fullsized reactors and refurbishing Ontario’s existing fleet.
Because Ford has allocated $21 billion for four SMRs, and billions more for new fullsized reactors, Winfield says Ontarians can expect further hikes to hydro prices in the future.
This raises challenges for both economic competitiveness and combating climate change, said Winfield. “As electricity costs go up, the notion of electrifying things like space heating or transportation or industrial processes is going to get a whole lot less attractive,” he said.
When Ford campaigned to be premier, he promised to lower electricity bills by 12 per cent, a promise he later claimed to have kept, even though hydro rates went up.
Average time of use electricity rates have risen 57 per cent since May 1, 2018, though much of that increase has been offset by an increase to the electricity rebate that covered eight per cent of the pre HST cost of power on consumers’ bills that year, and now covers 23.5 per cent, according to the OEB.
Just before the rate increase came into effect, Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) released its report on the future of the electrical grid in Toronto, saying a new underwater transmission line will be necessary to meet growing power demand, which is expected to double by 2043. The report also recommended keeping the Port Lands gas plant online past its current contract termination in 2034.
Ontario has not constructed any new wind or solar in the seven years since Ford became premier.
The rebate increase will cost taxpayers an estimated $2 billion more per year, making power subsidies the majority of the provincial deficit
This article was written by Matthew McClearn and Emma Graney, and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 29, 2025.
Since previous attempts to bring nuclear power to Western Canada’s electricity grids, the industry’s cost disadvantage has grown. Wind and solar generation, meanwhile, have declined dramatically in price.
Previous bids to bring power plants to Saskatchewan and Alberta failed, but both provinces are newly optimistic
In Jeremy Harrison’s telling, one of the most crucial decisions in the history of Saskatchewan’s energy sector has already been made: It will build nuclear power plants.
“The government has made the binary decision that we are going to be moving to nuclear baseload power generation,” Mr. Harrison, the province’s Minister of Crown Investments Corporation, declared in an interview.
Saskatchewan, which explored building nuclear plants more than 15 years ago, has only just started. Its Crown power utility, SaskPower, has established a subsidiary called SaskNuclear, and earlier this year the federal government announced a contribution of $80-million to support the utility’s early preparations. The province wants the federal government to pay for three-quarters of the cost of its first reactor.
Meanwhile, conversation around incorporating nuclear into neighbouring Alberta’s grid has just begun. A new Nuclear Energy Engagement and Advisory Panel has been set up to advise Alberta’s government about its potential role in advancing a nuclear energy industry, and Utilities Minister Nathan Neudorf is optimistic about how that might roll out.
Alberta’s power market differs markedly from others in Canada, in that it’s privatized. That means the government is “trying to be as agnostic as possible” on what technology might fit into the province’s grid, Mr. Neudorf said in an interview. A small handful of private developers are promoting early-stage projects.
“We want to let the private market do their work and facilitate their pursuit of this, so that we allow for that good competition and the best fit to rise to the top without government tipping the scales one way or the other,” he said.
Alberta previously considered building nuclear plants but later stood down. Concerns about risk to taxpayers prevailed both there and in Saskatchewan, as did antinuclear sentiment. But recent opinion polls suggest a change of heart: A 2023 Angus Reid poll found residents of both provinces to be more enthusiastic than respondents in Ontario and New Brunswick, which already have nuclear plants.
Ontario’s decades-long journey to building more than 20 nuclear reactors had rocky periods, but they became the backbone of its power grid. New Brunswick’s lone nuclear station, though, has placed its government in a financial bind, and can be regarded as a cautionary tale for less populous provinces.
If Alberta and Saskatchewan truly are committed to nuclear power, what can they do to avoid the pitfalls that have plagued other nuclear jurisdictions while maximizing the benefits?
A MOMENT OF OPTIMISM
Reactors’ ability to churn out copious quantities of electricity has contributed to perceptions that their moment has finally arrived in Western Canada.
“What power utilities across North America are seeing is almost unprecedented load growth demand, and projections out to 2050 showing potentially doubling of load growth,” Mr. Harrison said.
Mr. Neudorf says three notable changes in the power conversation explain the West’s growing interest in nuclear – concern about greenhouse-gas emissions, optimism that the cost of nuclear is shrinking and a wider realization that amid geopolitical and supply chain disruptions, “trusted partners may not be as trusted as they were before.”
While both governments remain strongly supportive of burning hydrocarbons for power – Saskatchewan recently unveiled plans to refurbish three coal-fired plants – they present nuclear as an attractive source of “baseload” power. This refers to the amount of energy required to meet an electrical grid’s minimum level of demand – say, during the middle of the night.
Baseload power indeed ranks among nuclear’s strengths.
SaskPower’s plans have gradually evolved over the past several years. It selected the BWRX-300 (an American-Japanese reactor planned for first construction in Ontario) a few years ago and identified potential sites, including in the Estevan and Elbow regions, where it might build two reactors.
EAC Capital Limited Partnership (which operates as Energy Alberta) proposes to build what would be among Canada’s largest nuclear plants near Peace River, Alta., at 4,800 megawatts. It startled some observers earlier this year by commencing an impact assessment with two federal regulators, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It plans to commission its first reactor a decade from now, with the other units entering service in 2038, 2040 and 2043.
But in August the company asked the CNSC to suspend the impact assessment, asserting a need for additional time to consult Indigenous communities.
Chief executive officer Scott Henuset says while the “entrepreneurial attitude of Albertans” is the driving force behind the project, there are wider opportunities for Western Canada if it embraces nuclear. Alignment between the provinces and the Northwest Territories would create a more stable grid in the West, he said, which would help fuel industries such as critical minerals, mining, liquefied natural gas facilities, the oil sands and population growth in general.
“The provinces shouldn’t be fighting amongst each other, and the proponents either,” he said. “We should all be banding together to make sure that we have enough power supply in Western Canada to facilitate our lights being on at our homes and our fridges being cold, as well as industry growth and economy growth, so that we can stay competitive.”
Edmonton-based independent power producer Capital Power (which owns a fleet of natural-gas plants across North America) announced a partnership with Ontario Power Generation nearly two years ago to explore developing small modular reactors, or SMRs, at 11 candidate sites within a 150-kilometre radius of Edmonton. Their joint reports, released earlier this year, contained only generic information, and Capital Power has barely discussed nuclear in its recent communications with investors; the company declined an interview request from The Globe and Mail to discuss its plans.
Founded in 2022, Calgarybased startup Nucleon Energy previously said it’s predeveloping two projects in Alberta (one in Bonnyville, another in the Peace River region) but has yet to apply for permits. Its CEO, Dustin Wilkes, said Nucleon is open to using a wide variety of reactors, but the company announced this year it’s exploring potential deployment of the ARC-100, a conceptual SMR from a small New Brunswick developer.
A HISTORY OF WINDOW-SHOPPING
Saskatchewan’s fascination with nuclear power is motivated in part by concerns about its uranium mining and milling sector, for which it is known internationally. The problem is that its nuclear value chain essentially stops there: It doesn’t process its own uranium for use in reactor fuel, let alone consume that fuel to generate power.
Anxieties mounted in the late 2000s when Saskatchewan lost its status as the world’s largest uranium producer. An industry-dominated group called the Uranium Development Partnership recommended the province build 3,000 megawatts of nuclear generation capacity.
Alberta, though, had its own plans. Industry accounts for roughly three-quarters of the province’s energy use. Many industrial processes need not only electricity but also steam; nuclear plants can produce both. Energy Alberta rose during this era: Established in 2005, it drew up initial plans for a Peace River plant before being purchased by Bruce Power, a dominant player in Ontario’s nuclear industry, in 2007.
Yet both governments’ ardour quickly cooled. Saskatchewan’s premier at the time, Brad Wall, acknowledged nuclear’s high costs and public opposition. In 2009, his government kiboshed Bruce Power’s proposal to build a large nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan. That same year, Ed Stelmach, then Alberta’s premier, described nuclear power as a “viable option” but vowed no public money would be spent on it.
Jason Wang, an analyst with the Pembina Institute, an energy think tank, said the lack of nuclear proposals since then is revealing.
“Any time between then and now, private entities could have said, ‘We’d like to build a project and work with the government on developing all the regulations necessary to execute that,’ ” he said.
“But we haven’t seen it.”
THE COST CONUNDRUM
The nuclear industry’s cost disadvantage has grown since then. The only reactor constructions in North America during that period went dramatically over budget and blew past deadlines. Wind and solar generation, meanwhile, declined dramatically in price.
SMRs were intended to bridge that gap, but the promised savings haven’t materialized. Ontario Power Generation expects to pay $20.9-billion for a 1,200megawatt station consisting of four BWRX-300s, far above optimistic estimates by SMR vendors.
The price for a 1,000-megawatt Monark, the reactor proposed for construction in Peace River, has not been disclosed. But its developer, AtkinsRéalis Group Inc., has estimated a single unit might cost between $10-billion and $15-billion.
Nuclear cost estimates are famously unreliable. Mr. Wang said the Pembina Institute analyzed recent nuclear projects globally over a six-year period, and found that the average cost overrun was 125 per cent.
All considered, it’s worth asking whether Alberta and Saskatchewan can really afford nuclear plants. The Alberta government’s total operating expenses were $62-billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year – that’s for health, education, child care, social services, the legislative assembly and everything else. As for Saskatchewan, its total revenues amounted to about $21-billion, and expenditures were slightly greater.
Mr. Harrison said Saskatchewan will only build reactors that have already been constructed elsewhere, which he expects will drive down costs and minimize risks. He expects federal financing, and pointed to Britain’s Sizewell C, priced at £38-billion or roughly $70-billion, as one nuclear project that has attracted private financing.
Proponents argue that nuclear’s large upfront costs must be weighed against alternatives over plant lifetimes. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith appears to accept that logic, asserting in late August that nuclear is “low-cost in the long run.”
WATER, WASTE AND WAITING
In another stark contrast with alternatives, nuclear plants can easily take a decade or two to plan and construct – a drawback for jurisdictions with immediate wants and needs.
Ms. Smith is eager to attract data centres to Alberta, and casts reactors as a natural fit. Yet, Mycle Schneider Consulting’s latest report on the nuclear industry, published in September, pointed to such projects’ penchant for lengthy construction schedules and frequent delays.
“Building new nuclear plants for data centers appears incoherent,” the report concluded.
“Time horizons do not match: while data centers need power in the short term, nuclear power plants need many years to develop, plan, and build; competing solar power plants can be set up within months.”
Alberta and Saskatchewan present additional challenges for building nuclear plants. The simplest and cheapest way to cool a nuclear station is by drawing water directly from an ocean, large lake or river. Partly for this reason, Ontario’s were built on the shores of the Great Lakes, Quebec’s on the St. Lawrence River, and New Brunswick’s alongside the Bay of Fundy.
Water is generally scarcer across swaths of Western Canada, particularly southern Alberta. Alternative cooling methods exist, including cooling towers and evaporation ponds and nuclear plants have been built in arid regions. But alternatives can add to cost and also consume large quantities of electricity, further eroding a plant’s economic attractiveness.
Radioactive spent fuel requires permanent disposal, and this is again tricky and expensive. Canada’s nuclear industry proposes building an underground facility known as a deep geological repository in Northern Ontario, at an estimated cost of $26-billion. It’s unclear whether plants in Western Canada would ship their spent fuel there, or the provinces would need to build their own.
For Mr. Harrison, failure is not an option; Saskatchewan has no fallback plan for achieving its long-term electricity and decarbonization targets.
“We’re committed to having nuclear being the evolution to where we go,” he said. “We’re going to work through this.”
This article was written by Matthew McClearn and James Bradshaw, and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 29, 2025.
The Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga., is shown in May. The U.S. government has signed an agreement with Westinghouse Electric Co. and its Canadian owners – Brookfield Asset Management and Cameco Corp. – intended to spur construction of as many as eight large nuclear reactors.
Owners of Westinghouse will work with Japanese vendors to build reactors in the United States
U.S. reactor vendor Westinghouse Electric Co. and its Canadian owners, Brookfield Asset Management and Cameco Corp., have signed an agreement with the United States government intended to spur construction of as many as eight large nuclear reactors.
Described as a “binding term sheet,” the agreement requires the U.S. government to arrange financing and facilitate permitting approvals for reactors costing at least US$80-billion, the parties announced on Tuesday. The proposed reactors would be built on U.S. soil and are intended to power data centres and artificial intelligence computing capacity.
A statement issued by the White House on Tuesday said that as part of a bilateral agreement, the Japanese government and various Japanese companies had committed to provide up to US$332-billion to support “critical energy infrastructure,” including construction of nuclear reactors from Westinghouse and GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, an American-Japanese vendor.
The announcement came after U.S. President Donald Trump met with newly elected Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Tokyo on Tuesday. Japan’s motives for funding the U.S. projects were unclear.
Separately, the Japanese government said it would spend up to US$100-billion on reactors, adding that Japanese suppliers such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Toshiba Group could be involved.
The Westinghouse deal suggests a new role for the U.S. government in power plant construction. Whereas utilities and state governments traditionally had the final say in greenlighting multibillion-dollar nuclear plants, under its agreement with Westinghouse the federal government is responsible for making the final investment decision.
Koroush Shirvan, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s nuclear engineering department, said it’s a strong indication the U.S. government wants to catch up with China and Russia, which have dominated reactor construction for decades.
“The reason China and Russia are winning the nuclear constructing battle is that the government has a stake in it – it’s all government-driven,” he said.
The deal also exemplifies the U.S. administration’s increasing willingness to intervene directly in key sectors. Under Mr. Trump, the U.S. has taken stakes in major companies such as Intel and US Steel, as well as Canadian critical-minerals companies Lithium Americas Corp. and Trilogy Metals Inc.
Providing certain milestones are met – including Westinghouse reaching a valuation of US$30-billion – the company would be compelled to hold an initial public offering, and the U.S. government will be entitled to buy a minority equity stake in the company, up to about 8 per cent of the outstanding shares.
That stake could be worth more than US$2.5-billion, and would be granted to recognize the government’s role in deploying “its financial, regulatory, policy and diplomatic tools to support the objectives of the partnership,” Cameco said in a news release.
Chris Gadomski, head of nuclear research for BloombergNEF, said U.S. state ownership of major nuclear companies would be “a two-edged sword.” The government can bring the billions in financing that are crucial for nuclear projects, he said, but U.S. and French nuclear companies with significant state ownership often haven’t performed well.
Mr. Gadomski added that key details were absent from the Westinghouse announcement, including the locations of the proposed plants.
“I would feel a lot more confident about the substance of this press release if they had a hyperscaler or a utility saying, ‘Yeah, we’re really excited – we’re going to have an AP1000 on our site.’”
Westinghouse’s main offering is its AP1000 reactor, a large pressurized water reactor with a capacity greater than one gigawatt. (A gigawatt would provide enough electricity to power about one million homes.) Two are operating in the U.S. and four in China, and more than a dozen others are under construction. Many of Westinghouse’s competitors promote reactors that haven’t yet been completely designed, let alone licensed or constructed.
But the reactor’s history also highlights the challenges of building nuclear plants in North America.
Two AP1000s were constructed at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia and began operating in 2023 and 2024, respectively, but both suffered years-long delays and large cost overruns. (The two units ultimately cost US$34-billion combined.) Construction of two partly-completed AP1000s, at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina, was terminated in 2017.
The U.S. has 94 operational reactors, but the fleet is among the world’s oldest, and no reactors are currently under construction. In May, Mr. Trump signed an executive order demanding that the Department of Energy work with the nuclear industry to begin construction of 10 new large reactors by 2030.
Prof. Shirvan noted that when construction, financing and grid connection costs are all considered, it can cost US$15-billion or more to build new reactors. But with several AP1000s already constructed, the risk of cost and schedule overruns is greatly reduced.
“The biggest risk is you build and nobody comes to buy the power,” he added.
“Because at the end of the day, a gigawatt is a gigawatt, and with 10 of them we’re at 10 gigawatts. That’s a lot of power.”
Brookfield’s private equity arm first acquired Westinghouse out of bankruptcy for US$4.6-billion in 2018, from Toshiba Corp, using a mixture of cash and debt. Under a subsequent turnaround plan, Brookfield narrowed Westinghouse’s focus to nuclear, cut costs and bulked up the company through acquisitions.
In 2022, Brookfield sold Westinghouse for US$4.5-billion plus more than US$3-billion in assumed debt to its own renewable energy arm, which took a 51-percent stake in the business, and to Cameco which bought the remaining 49-per-cent interest.
The deal, which closed in 2023, gave Brookfield’s private equity business a sixfold return on its investment, while keeping the asset manager’s majority control of Westinghouse. At the time, nuclear power was enjoying renewed popularity after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent energy prices in Europe soaring.
Brookfield has been an investor in power and renewable energy for decades, starting with the purchase of hydroelectric assets in the 1980s. Nuclear energy has emerged as a key part of its strategy over the past few years, as the company bet on a revival driven by tailwinds in the decarbonization and electrification of energy sources, and the heightened focus on energy security amid wars and trade disputes.
Last week Santee Cooper, South Carolina’s state-owned power producer, announced its board of directors had entered into exclusive negotiations with Brookfield to complete the two AP1000s at V.C. Summer. Under an arrangement described as a “letter of intent,” the two companies agreed to commence a sixweek process to select a project manager and consider construction providers to resume the work, while also entering into discussions with potential buyers of the power the reactors would generate.
This article was written by Ryan Tumilty and was published in the Toronto Star on October 24, 2025.
As Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a $2 billion investment in new Ontario nuclear reactors, which have been flagged as potential projects in the “national interest,” sources inside Premier Doug Ford’s government said that designation is no longer something they want.
Carney and Ford appeared together at the Darlington power plant in Bowmanville, Ont., on Thursday morning to announce a combined $3billion investment in small modular reactors (SMRs).
The SMRs have been marked as potentially in the “national interest” projects by the federal government and were among the first projects Carney referred to the government’s Major Projects Office in September. Under the Carney government’s One Canadian Economy Act, if the Major Projects Office designates a project as “in the national interest,” it is expedited through the regulatory process and must be reviewed within two years.
In a letter sent this summer, Ford highlighted Ontario’s broad plans for nuclear expansion, which include the Darlington reactors, as projects the government should consider as in the national interest.
But a Ford government source said that is something they don’t want for the province’s nuclear plants, nor for a proposed road to the Ring of Fire mining region.
“We don’t want to be designated” a source said, speaking on background because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
A source said working with the Carney government’s Major Project’s Office has been a good experience, but they don’t believe their projects need the handson attention. Instead they hope the federal government simply improves the approval process for future nuclear projects. As an example, they suggested any future Canadian power provider that wants to use the same model SMR as Ontario should have a more expedited review, because the technology has already been studied.
A Ford government source said they are no longer interested in a “national interest designation” for the Ring of Fire road project because they believe it can be expedited if the federal government simply “gets out of the way.” The province and the federal government have both launched reviews of the road projects, which would improve access to communities north of Timmins and Thunder Bay, allowing valuable mineral deposits to be mined.
A federal government source, who also spoke on background, said the government didn’t open the Major Projects Office to create more of a regulatory burden and wants willing partners on any projects.
The source said with the Ring of Fire in particular many Indigenous communities believe they have a direct relationship with the crown through the federal government and will want Ottawa to be involved.
My Climate Change Website 