Connect with us

Energy

Strong domestic supply chain an advantage as Canada moves ahead with new nuclear

Published

2 years ago

8 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Sasha Istvan

Canada has two major advantages. We produce uranium and we have an established supply chain.

The pledge from 22 countries, including Canada, to collectively triple nuclear capacity by 2050 drew cheers and raised eyebrows at the United Nations Climate Change Conference last fall in Dubai. Climate commitments are no stranger to bold claims. So, the question remains, can it be done?

In Canada, we are well on our way with successful and ongoing refurbishments of Ontario’s existing nuclear fleet and planning for the development of small modular reactors, or SMRs, in Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and most recently Alberta.

The infrastructure required to generate nuclear energy is significant. You not only need engineers and technicians working at a plant, but the supply chain to support it.

Over five decades worth of nuclear generation has allowed Canada to build a world class supply chain. Thus far it has focused on servicing CANDU reactors, but now we have the potential to expand into SMRs.

I first became interested in the CANDU reactor after working as a manufacturing engineer for one of the major fuel and tooling suppliers of Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power. I witnessed firsthand the sophistication and quality of the nuclear supply chain in Ontario, being particularly impressed by the technical expertise and skilled workers in the industry.

The CANDU reactor is the unsung hero of the Canadian energy industry: one of the world’s safest nuclear reactors, exported around the world, and producing around 60 per cent of Ontario’s electricity, as well as 40 per cent of New Brunswick’s.

Having visited machine shops across Ontario, it’s evident that Canadians should take pride that the expertise and technology required for the safe generation of nuclear energy is available here in Canada.

As Canada looks to grow its nuclear output to achieve net-zero goals, its well-established engineering and manufacturing capabilities can make it a leader in the global expansion of nuclear energy as other nations work to make their COP28 declaration a reality.

Canada has two major advantages. The first is that it is a globally significant producer of uranium. We already export uranium from our incredible reserves in northern Saskatchewan and fabricate unenriched uranium fuel for CANDU. Canadian uranium will be an important ingredient in the success and sustainability of a nuclear renaissance, especially for our allies.

The second is that we have an established and active supply chain. While new nuclear builds have slowed dramatically in the western world — a result of the fallout from Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as competition from cheap natural gas — Bruce Power and OPG are in the midst of major refurbishments to extend their operations until 2064 and 2055, respectively.

Bruce Power has successfully completed the first unit refurbishment on schedule and within budget, with ongoing work on the second unit. OPG has accomplished refurbishments for two out of its four units at Darlington, with the latest unit completed ahead of schedule and under budget. These multibillion-dollar refurbishments have actually grown our nuclear supply chain and demonstrate that it’s firing on all cylinders.

SMRs are the next phase of nuclear technology. Their size and design make them well suited for high production and modular construction. Investing in the supply chain for SMRs now positions Canada for significant economic gains.

OPG plans to build four GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 reactors, with the first slated for service as early as 2028. This first-of-a-kind investment will help identify and overcome design challenges and develop its own supply chain. That will benefit not only their project but those that follow suit.

SaskPower is planning to proceed with the same SMR design, as well as the first pilot globally of the Westinghouse eVinci microreactor; New Brunswick is moving ahead with the ARC-100, both for its existing nuclear site at Point Lepreau as well as in the Port of Belledune; and OPG and Capital Power recently announced a partnership to explore a nuclear reactor in Alberta, including the potential for the BWRX-300.

While the bulk of the nuclear supply chain is currently located in Ontario, other provinces have already been investing in the development of local capacity.

All this activity sets Canada up to leverage first-mover advantage and become a significant global provider of BWRX-300 components. Canada will not only see the economic benefits during initial construction but also through sustained demand for replacement parts in the future.

Nuclear energy has already made a significant contribution to the Canadian economy. In 2019, a study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Association and the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries showed that the nuclear industry accounted for $17 billion of Canada’s annual GDP annually and has created over 76,000 jobs.

Notably, 89 per cent of these positions were classified as high-skilled, and over 40 per cent of the workforce was under 40. This study, conducted before the announcement of SMR plans, was followed by a more recent report from the Conference Board of Canada on the economic impact of OPG’s SMR initiatives. The study found that the construction of just four SMRs at OPG could boost the Canadian GDP by $15.3 billion (2019 dollars) over 65 years and sustain approximately 2,000 jobs annually during that period.

Public perception of nuclear is improving. In 2023, the percentage of Canadians wanting to see further development of nuclear power generation in Canada grew to 57 per cent compared with 51 per cent in 2021.

As well, the Business Council of Canada has voiced its support for nuclear expansion, emphasizing Canada’s strategic advantages: political and public backing across the spectrum, coupled with a rich history of nuclear expertise.

Nuclear energy is dispatchable, sustainable and a proven technology. As nations move to achieve their climate goals, it has one other major benefit: a supply chain that is wholly western and in Canada’s case almost totally domestic.

While the critical minerals and manufactured goods required for batteries, wind and solar energy rely heavily on China and other politically unstable or authoritarian countries, nuclear provides energy independence. Canada is well positioned to help our allies improve their energy security with our strong, competitive nuclear supply chain.

Sasha Istvan is an engineer based in Calgary, with experience in both the nuclear supply chain and the oil and gas sector.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Energy / 6 hours ago

‘The electric story is over’

Business / 6 hours ago

Some Of The Wackiest Things Featured In Rand Paul’s New Report Alleging $1,639,135,969,608 In Gov’t Waste

Alberta / 13 hours ago

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Energy

‘The electric story is over’

Published on December 24, 2025

By

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

Oil economist Dr. Anas F. Alhajji challenges assumptions about EVs, demand and Canada’s future.

Every episode of Power Struggle offers a different doorway into the global energy system. But every so often I speak with someone who doesn’t merely interpret the data — he dismantles the illusions around it. Energy economist Dr. Anas F. Alhajji is one of those rare voices.

For anyone who follows world oil markets, Anas requires little introduction. He is one of the most widely referenced analysts in global energy economics, managing partner at Energy Outlook Advisors, and a commentator whose views often diverge from the political narratives that dominate Western media. Our conversation, fast-paced and data-driven, reinforced a point I’ve been making for years: many assumptions about the energy transition are overdue for a hard reset.

And if you think the transition is unfolding as advertised, Anas has a simple message: look again.

Peak oil demand — or peak illusion?

We began with the recurring claim, made most notably by the International Energy Agency, that global oil demand is nearing a terminal peak. Anas has long challenged this analysis, but his breakdown was especially stark.

“In May 2025, they said they are revising up global oil demand… They’ve been wrong for 18 straight years. By how much? Two or three years. The total is about 350 million barrels.”

He added an even sharper example.

“In August, they revised up Mexico’s oil demand by a hundred thousand barrels a day — since 2020. With all of this, who is going to believe the IEA?”

If we are going to debate “peak oil demand,” Anas argued, we must start with accurate numbers. And reality, as he laid out, tells a very different story.

Oil demand is higher — not lower

The most striking fact he brought to the table was where global demand sits today.

“Current world demand for oil is 107 million barrels a day.”

That figure sits eight million barrels above 2019 levels, despite rapid growth in electric vehicle sales. And here is where the assumptions collide with the data.

“Right now we have about 55 million EVs… 35 million are in China. The replacement in terms of oil is only 1.3 million barrels a day. That’s it.”

EVs are increasing, yes — but the global vehicle fleet is expanding even faster, and so is mobility demand. A century’s worth of built energy systems does not pivot overnight.

Hybrids now dominate

This brought Anas to the point that may surprise the most people.

“The trend right now is very clear. We are going hybrid. Hybrid. The electric story is over.”

He emphasized that this is not ideological — it is practical. Hybrids outperform EVs on cost, convenience and grid impacts, and consumers are voting with their wallets.

“Hybrid sales have been going through the roof. And this is going to continue… The media reports EV sales all the time. But what matters is the number of EVs on the road.”

This distinction matters. Monthly sales data can create a false sense of momentum. What counts for emissions, infrastructure planning and oil displacement is the stock of vehicles actually in use.

Three ‘scams’ in EV sales reporting

Anas went further, arguing that even sales data does not always reflect real-world adoption. He described what he called three “scams” that inflate EV sales figures globally. He shared one example on air:

“There are many tens of thousands of them in parking lots that are not being sold… A manufacturer calls an official, says: I have 2,000 cars. I will sell them to you. You issue the license plates, you issue the insurance, you get all the subsidies, we split it. But the cars are still in the parking lot.”

On paper, these are “sales.” In reality, they are inventory.

The broader point is that EV market statistics need scrutiny — and policymakers who rely on headline numbers may be basing major decisions on flawed data.

Why Canada still needs another pipeline

We then turned to Canada’s current debates about pipelines and whether the country still needs more tidewater access. Anas answered without hesitation.

“I can tell you without any reservation, we do need another pipeline, another Canadian pipeline to tidewater.”

His rationale was blunt.

“Energy demand globally is increasing at a very high rate in a way that we have never seen before.”

For Canada, this is about competitiveness. Without access to global markets, Canadian oil is priced at a discount — a problem solved only by pipelines reaching the coast.

On LNG: “Canada should go at full speed”

Anas was even more emphatic when discussing natural gas.

“That’s where Canada basically should go at full speed.”

He criticized the idea of a long-term LNG surplus.

“All those ideas about a surplus in LNG… it is nonsense.”

Asian LNG demand is projected to grow sharply, and Canada’s low-emissions LNG — powered by hydro — gives the country a unique competitive advantage.

Why voices like Anas matter

What I value most about conversations like this is the grounding they give us. In energy, narratives and evidence are drifting apart. You may not agree with every assertion, but you can’t dismiss the data. Whether discussing EVs, oil demand, LNG or Canada’s infrastructure, Anas reminds us that aspirations only matter when they intersect with reality.

This episode of Power Struggle is exactly the kind of dialogue we need: sober, data-based, and challenging enough to re-examine assumptions.

You can listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. If it unsettles a few comfortable stories — that’s the point.

Watch the video on Power Struggle 

Power Struggle on social media:

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Alberta

What are the odds of a pipeline through the American Pacific Northwest?

Published on December 23, 2025

By

From Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

Can we please just get on with building one through British Columbia instead?

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is signalling she will look south if Canada cannot move quickly on a new pipeline, saying she is open to shipping oil to the Pacific via the U.S. Pacific Northwest. In a year-end interview, Smith said her “first preference” is still a new West Coast pipeline through northern British Columbia, but she is willing to look across the border if progress stalls.

“Anytime you can get to the West Coast it opens up markets to get to Asia,” she said. Smith also said her focus is building along “existing rights of way,” pointing to the shelved Northern Gateway corridor, and she said she would like a proposal submitted by May 2026.

Deadlines and strings attached

The timing matters because Ottawa and Edmonton have already signed a memorandum of understanding that backs a privately financed bitumen pipeline to a British Columbia port and sends it to the new Major Projects Office. The agreement envisages at least one million barrels a day and sets out a plan for Alberta to file an application by July 1, 2026, while governments aim to finish approvals within two years.

The bargain comes with strings. The MOU links the pipeline to the Pathways carbon capture network, and commits Alberta to strengthen its TIER system so the effective carbon credit price rises to at least 130 dollars a tonne, with details to be settled by April 1, 2026.

Shifting logistics

If Smith is floating an American outlet, it is partly because Pacific Northwest ports are already drawing Canadian exporters. Nutrien’s plan for a $1-billion terminal at Washington State’s Port of Longview highlighted how trade logistics can shift when proponents find receptive permitting lanes.

But the political terrain in Washington and Oregon is unforgiving for fossil fuel projects, even for natural gas. In 2023, federal regulators approved TC Energy’s GTN Xpress expansion over protests from environmental groups and senior officials in West Coast states, with opponents warning about safety and wildfire risk. The project would add about 150 million cubic feet per day of capacity.

A record of resistance

That decision sits inside a longer record of resistance. The anti-development activist website “DeSmog” eagerly estimated that more than 70 percent of proposed coal, oil, and gas projects in the Pacific Northwest since 2012 were defeated, often after sustained local organizing and legal challenges.

Even when a project clears regulators, economics can still kill it. Gas Outlook reported that GTN later said the expansion was “financially not viable” unless it could obtain rolled-in rates to spread costs onto other utilities, a request regulators rejected when they approved construction.

Policy direction is tightening too. Washington’s climate framework targets cutting climate pollution 95 percent by 2050, alongside “clean” transport, buildings, and power measures that push electrification. Recent state actions described by MRSC summaries and NRDC notes reinforce that direction, including moves to help utilities plan a transition away from gas.

Oregon is moving in the same direction. Gov. Tina Kotek issued an executive order directing agencies to move faster on clean energy permitting and grid connections, tied to targets of cutting emissions 50 percent by 2035 and 90 percent by 2050, the Capital Chronicle reported.

For Smith, the U.S. corridor talk may be leverage, but it also underscores a risk, the alternative could be tougher than the Canadian fight she is already waging. The surest way to snuff out speculation is to make it unnecessary by advancing a Canadian project now that the political deal is signed. As Resource Works argued after the MOU, the remaining uncertainty sits with private industry and whether it will finally build, rather than keep testing hypothetical routes.

Resource Works News 

Continue Reading

Trending

X