GE-Hitachi small modular nuclear reactor concept

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Doug Firby

Nuclear power is the best bet for Alberta but time is running out

Alberta needs nuclear power—and fast. While much of the world, including provinces like Ontario, has spent decades building reactors, Alberta remains stuck in neutral, still debating whether the technology is even worth considering.

Affordability and Utilities Minister Nathan Neudorf recently admitted as much.

“We still have an entire legislative and regulatory framework to establish to allow for this novel—as in new—type of generation to happen within the province of Alberta,” Neudorf told the Canadian Press. And now, the province wants to take a full year to gauge public appetite for nuclear power.

Oh my God. Can we not just get on with it?

Here’s the reality. More than a century ago, the province opted for the cheapest form of electricity—coal-fired generation— because Alberta had lots of it. As environmental and health concerns mounted, the province turned to natural gas to fire its generators.

Natural gas is still a fossil fuel—cleaner than coal, but far from perfect. And while renewables like wind and solar don’t have fuel costs, their output isn’t always reliable. That’s why natural gas is still needed to fill the gaps— especially when demand peaks or the wind isn’t blowing. Because it’s often the last generator brought online when renewables fall short, it sets the market price. That’s what drives electricity costs higher—even if most of the power is coming from renewables.

And speaking of renewables, Alberta has smothered a growing industry with strict limitations on where wind and solar farms can operate. According to the Pembina Institute, since October 2023, 11 gigawatts worth of wind, solar and energy storage projects have been withdrawn from the provincial grid operator’s connection queue—more than the province’s average total power demand.

Meanwhile, electricity consumption is expected to soar. The province is chasing $100 billion in data centre investment—facilities that require massive amounts of electricity to run and cool.

So, add it up: Gas-fueled generation is not seen as a good long-term bet, wind and solar has run into a regulatory brick wall, the province’s hydro potential would be hugely expensive (and environmentally complex) to develop, the population of the province has soared past five million and growing, and with the growth in EVs and the rise of more electrical home heating and cooling, we are headed toward the “electrification of everything.”

Why are we taking a year to find out whether Albertans support nuclear power? And what happens if they say no?

Now let’s also face some facts about nuclear. It’s a highly regulated industry—and rightly so— and even then, it has had its share of safety incidents. Chernobyl. Fukushima. Three Mile Island. Because of that, it can take years to move from proposals to construction. And with regulations constantly evolving, the cost of building nuclear plants often exceeds initial estimates.

Ontario’s experience is a cautionary tale. Over two decades, as Ontario Hydro built 20 reactors, it faced repeated cost overruns, missed deadlines and declining performance. By 1999, Ontario Hydro’s debt stood at $38.1 billion. Its assets? Just $17.2 billion. The government was left with a $20.9 billion stranded debt.

Thankfully, with thoughtful execution, Alberta could avoid many of the teething problems Ontario encountered as it nurtured then-nascent nuclear technology. For one, Premier Danielle Smith is rightly seeking proposals from the private sector and will only consider establishing a Crown corporation if private proposals don’t meet the province’s needs. Private sector investment drove the explosive growth in renewables (until the province brought it to a halt with new restrictions); potentially, the same could be true for nuclear.

Alberta can also benefit from decades of global experience with nuclear power. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Among the more promising developments are SMRs—small modular reactors. These typically produce 300 megawatts or less and can be factory-built, then transported to site. Like prefabricated homes, they offer streamlined construction, better scalability and the ability to be integrated into multi-unit facilities as demand grows.

This could be especially valuable if Alberta succeeds in attracting those power-hungry data centres.

Cost isn’t the only consideration. Water use and nuclear waste transport must also be managed carefully. But there are compelling reasons to pursue nuclear—and to lift the restrictions on renewables while we’re at it. Not the least of these is its zero emissions.

Now, we need to get going. In the most optimistic forecasts, the first nuclear reactor is at least a decade away. By then, our demands for electricity will have grown substantially, barring some sort of unforeseen breakthrough in efficiency.

You don’t have to love nuclear power. You just have to recognize the truth: Alberta needs to prepare for it now.

Doug Firby is an award-winning editorial writer with over four decades of experience working for newspapers, magazines and online publications in Ontario and western Canada. Previously, he served as Editorial Page Editor at the Calgary Herald.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country. 

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Elmira Aliakbari

Prime Minister Carney’s recently released list of five projects—which the government deems to be in the national interest and will expedite—doesn’t include a new oil pipeline for western Canada in general or Alberta in particular. The reason given was that no private developer stepped forward to finance or build one. But the reason for that is not a mystery: Justin Trudeau’s damaging energy policies continue to drive away oil and gas investment even though his successor campaigned on a different, more pragmatic approach. It’s no wonder Albertans are frustrated.

Promising to make Canada the world’s leading “energy superpower,” the Carney government in the spring introduced Bill C-5, the “Building Canada Act,” to give the federal cabinet sweeping powers to circumvent existing laws and regulations for projects deemed to be in the “national interest.” In effect, cabinet and the prime minister are empowered to pick winners and losers based on vague criteria and priorities. But while specific projects will be expedited, so far nothing has been done to undo the damaging federal policies that have hamstrung Canada’s energy sector over the last decade.

Trudeau-era changes to the regulatory system for large infrastructure projects included: Bill C-69 (the federal “Impact Assessment Act”); the West Coast tanker ban (as spelled out in federal Bill C-48); and the federal cap imposed exclusively on oil and gas emissions. These have hindered energy investment and development and impeded prosperity, not only in energy-producing provinces, but across the country.

The Energy East and Eastern Mainline pipelines from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the east coast would have expanded Canada’s access to European markets. But the Trudeau government rendered the projects (Energy East and the Eastern Mainline) economically unprofitable by introducing new regulatory hurdles that ultimately forced TransCanada to withdraw from the project.

A year after taking office, the Trudeau government simply cancelled the Northern Gateway pipeline, an already approved $7.9 billion project that would have transported crude oil from Alberta to the B.C. coast, thus expanding Canada’s access to Asian markets. As for Trans Mountain, the one pipeline project that did survive the Trudeau years, after the private investor was frightened off by regulatory hurdles and delays and the federal government took over, costs sky-rocketed to $34 billion—more than six times the original estimate.

With policies like these still in place, it’s no wonder investors aren’t lining up to put big money into Canadian oil and gas. Just how great the discouragement has been is indicated by the 56 per cent inflation-adjusted decline in overall investment in the oil and gas sector between 2014 and 2023 (from $84.0 billion to $37.2 billion).

That decline in investment has had and will continue to have big consequences for the western provinces, particularly Alberta, where energy is a key part of the economy. But it would be a mistake to think the costs are limited to Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes they paid minus federal money spent on or transferred to them) was $244.6 billion. A strong Alberta helps keep taxes lower and fund public services across Canada.

Canada urgently needs new oil pipelines to tidewater. The U.S. is currently the destination for 97 per cent of our oil exports. This heavy reliance on a single customer leaves us exposed to policy shifts in Washington, such as the recent threat of tariffs on Canadian energy. Expanding pipeline infrastructure both westward and eastward would help diversify our export market into Asia and Europe, as well as strengthen our energy security.

Prime Minister Carney’s short list of projects is another blow to western Canada, and especially Alberta. There’s an obvious reason no private developer has stepped forward to finance or build a new oil pipeline: the Trudeau government’s damaging energy policies. The federal government needs to undo these policies and allow the private sector to make Canada an energy superpower.