Yahoo Finance Opinion: Ontario needs to understand — nuclear is green, too
By Chris Keefer
With its Green Bonds, Ontario has raised over $15 billion of low-cost capital for sustainable infrastructure projects. Under the current framework, however, it cannot invest any of this money in nuclear energy, even though nuclear provides 60 per cent of the province’s electricity and does so with zero emissions. Recent studies by Ontario’s systems operator suggest we may need a whole lot more nuclear to meet our climate goals. It’s therefore time we put all our options on the table and lift the exclusion of nuclear energy.
A gradually changing perception of nuclear energy’s environmental benefits has led several jurisdictions to add it to their green financing frameworks. After scientific analyses debunked outdated anti-nuclear narratives, the European Union included nuclear in its “sustainable finance taxonomy” in July of last year. A little after that South Korea followed suit and two weeks ago the U.K. joined in declaring nuclear sustainable.
Is nuclear energy really green? United Nations analyses show that nuclear power has the lowest carbon footprint of any electricity source throughout its entire lifecycle. In a mineral-hungry energy transition, nuclear also has the benefit of having the lowest mining footprint. Unlike weather-dependent power sources like wind and solar, nuclear provides reliable baseload power that decisively replaces fossil fuels. In fact, nuclear power contributed 90 per cent of the power needed to phase out coal in Ontario, North America’s single greatest greenhouse gas reduction.
But what about the waste? Nuclear energy produces a minimal volume of waste, which has been easily isolated from the environment with a perfect safety record. Canada’s entire 70-year inventory of spent nuclear fuel would occupy a single hockey rink stacked the height of one hydro pole. I’ve stood next to the dry casks that can store this waste for hundreds of years and received a radiation dose far lower than I would flying in an airplane.
Unshielded and fresh out of the reactor, nuclear waste is indeed deadly. But it decays rapidly, losing 99.9 per cent of its radioactivity within 40 years and returning to natural uranium ore’s level of radioactivity within 500 years. Unlike heavy-metal pollution, nuclear waste is not “forever waste.” Today’s long-term solutions include recycling waste to unlock the 90 per cent of unused energy that remains in spent fuel or returning it deep underground in a geologic repository.
Our clean, nuclear-powered grid makes Ontario an attractive investment environment for companies seeking to reduce their emissions. This is evidenced by the rush to locate manufacturing of electric vehicles and low-carbon steel in Ontario, though the economic growth involved will impose significant demands on the grid.
Choices for growing the grid are limited. We have already exhausted our best hydroelectricity potential, and wind and solar simply can’t power factories running 24 hours a day. If we don’t take rapid action to increase our nuclear power generation, our low-carbon grid is in peril as we sleepwalk our way into increasing reliance on natural gas.
Ontario is well-equipped to deploy new nuclear quickly and economically, thanks to an active supply chain, skilled workforce and proven CANDU reactor design. The ongoing nuclear refurbishment megaprojects at Bruce and Darlington stations, proceeding on budget and ahead of schedule, attest to our abilities.
A recent “Decarbonization Pathways” report by the Independent Electricity System Operator suggests that alongside other low-carbon power sources, Ontario may need to more than double our already sizable nuclear fleet.
William Watson: Joe Biden delivers his State of the Continent address
Opinion: Is net-zero putting Canadians’ pensions in jeopardy?
This level of nuclear deployment will require significant investment. The 60- to 80-year lifespan and consistent high output of nuclear plants provide excellent long-term return on investment. Nuclear is Ontario’s second-cheapest electricity source after hydroelectricity, although high up-front costs, measured in the multiple billions of dollars, will require significant investment. Using the green bond as a financing tool reduces those costs. “Multiple billions of dollars” may sound like a lot but recall that the Green Energy Act costs us $3.1 billion in subsidies per year for wind and solar, with a total expenditure of almost $60 billion.
It is high time that Ontario, a world leader in the nuclear energy that enables its low carbon, environmentally friendly electricity grid, joins peer nations in including nuclear energy in its Green Bond framework.
Chris Keefer is an ER physician practicing in Toronto and the president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy, a non-profit independent of industry. He is an unpaid volunteer and receives no income from the nuclear industry.
