How sustainable is Ontario’s nuclear energy dream? PCs ramp up plans for Pickering & Port Hope

Within a week, the PC government, which has a poor track record on sustainable energy, surprised many by announcing not one but two major nuclear projects in Ontario, marking a potential shift toward clean energy.

On January 15, the provincial government revealed its initial steps toward potentially constructing a new nuclear generating station near Port Hope, Ontario, which if completed, would be the largest in the province. 

Port Hope Mayor Olena Hankivsky shared with The Pointer that the municipality had received a letter from Stephen Lecce, Minister of Energy and Electrification, asking whether Port Hope would be open to discussions with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) about a community engagement and consultation process to examine the feasibility of clean energy projects at Wesleyville, a site within the municipality on the shores of Lake Ontario just east of Oshawa.

On December 17, 2024, the Council of the Municipality of Port Hope unanimously passed a motion endorsing continued engagement with OPG and the Ministry of Energy and Electrification.

Just a week later, on January 23, Lecce announced the government's approval for OPG to advance to the next stage in refurbishing the "B" units of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

The PCs say the Pickering refurbishment will produce more than 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity, enough for two million homes, and will be completed in about a decade.

Both projects are positioned as part of Ontario’s Affordable Energy Future initiative to address the province's growing energy demands which is forecasted to increase by 75 percent by 2050, according to Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

They are a crucial step toward transitioning to electricity sourced from non-emitting power and align with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s 2021 commitment to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. 

To reach net zero, the government introduced the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) in December 2024, setting annual pollution limits for fossil-fuel-based electricity producers. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and nuclear are exempt, gas plants must either cut emissions or limit their operations.

The CER is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 180 Mt by 2050, equivalent to removing 55 million cars from the road for one year. However, fossil fuel companies and some provincial governments, including Ontario and Alberta, weakened the regulations, allowing gas plants to operate unregulated until 2035, with some newer plants like the large Nepanee plant in Ontario, which is under construction, exempt until 2049. The lenient pollution cap and allowance for carbon offsets mean Canada’s grid may not reach net zero by 2035, and local pollution from gas plants could continue to harm public health for years.

According to modelling by the David Suzuki Foundation, Canada has the potential to achieve 100 percent zero-emissions electricity by 2035, which will be possible through substantial boosts in the installation of renewable energy, energy efficiency improvements, interprovincial transmission, and expanded battery storage capacity.

Proponents of the oil and gas industry often cry wolf about job losses. However, the transition to clean energy is expected to create over 75,000 new jobs annually in construction, operation, and maintenance, totalling 1.5 million job-years from 2025 to 2050. 

By replacing fossil fuels with clean electricity, this shift could reduce over 200 million tons of CO2e annually by 2050, contributing to 27 percent of Canada's emissions reductions needed to meet net-zero goals—totalling 3.2 billion tons of CO2e saved by 2050.

Transmission capacity expansion across Canada by 2050 for the Zero Plus scenario.

(David Suzuki Foundation)

In the Zero Plus scenario in Ontario, wind generation grows steeply to support the retirement of fossil natural gas generation capacity and later in the study period to replace nuclear capacity. Major retrofits and refurbishments of Ontario’s nuclear reactors cease after 2027 in this scenario, and reactors are retired at end of life, with virtually all nuclear capacity being decommissioned by 2040.

(David Suzuki Foundation)

Indigenous clean energy leaders assert that decarbonizing electricity must also involve decolonizing power and ensuring that local communities benefit. Since renewable energy projects and infrastructure are located on unceded Indigenous territories or treaty lands, the success of this transition depends on securing full Indigenous consent and participation, while upholding Indigenous rights and title.

In nearly all recent models aimed at reducing carbon intensity and expanding Canada's electricity supply, wind and solar play a pivotal role.

(David Suzuki Foundation)

“We have abundant wind, water and solar resources, and we are well on our way to phasing out coal. Phasing out gas is the final step,” Environmental Defence’s senior program manager of climate and energy, Aliénor Rougeot, said in a statement.

Ontario is taking a different approach but its nuclear energy strategy is not new. In 2015, the provincial government approved the refurbishment of ten nuclear generating units—six at the Bruce Power site and four at the Darlington site with the addition of the Pickering site, announced in January 2024. 

In the past five years, over $300 billion has been invested in nuclear energy globally with over $35 billion in North America alone.

(Visual Capitalist/X)

With a $26 billion budget, this 17-year program was showcased as one of the largest non-emitting energy projects in North America and is expected to extend the life of each unit by 30 to 35 years.

While these projects are significant steps toward addressing Ontario’s energy needs, questions remain about the timing and viability of nuclear energy as a truly clean and safe alternative compared to other renewable energy systems.

When Greenpeace Canada’s senior energy strategist Keith Stewart saw the announcement for Port Hope, it was clear to him that “we're a long way from getting anywhere close to actually having nuclear there. It was basically a pre-election move, trying to get some votes in that area by promising a big investment.”

On January 24, Ford confirmed those suspicions when he announced he would be “seeing the lieutenant governor on Tuesday (January 28)” in a press conference that appeared to be an unofficial PC party campaign launch. 

Hankivsky also emphasized that the municipality is still in the “early stages” of the process, and the “immediate benefit” for the community has been receiving $1 million to take the initial steps. 

“In terms of some of the predictions of what could be the economic benefit for the community, that's information that the province is sharing publicly. We heard it for the first time at the conference this week, but as a municipality, we're still in the very beginning process of learning more,” she added.

Nonetheless, Hankivsky says the community is “excited to start the work and to explore truly what this is going to mean for the community.” 

“As mayor of a community that has not always had as many economic development opportunities as other communities, this has the potential to become once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

With this ‘good news,’ the PC government has also strategically leveraged tariff threats from the Trump administration to deflect attention from its ongoing controversies including criticisms for disregarding the Environmental Bill of Rights, as highlighted by Ontario’s Auditor General, as well as backlash over the redevelopment of Ontario Place, the contentious and heavy-handed Bill 212 for Highway 413, and threats to the Greenbelt, at-risk species among other vital natural resources across the province.

“Sixty percent of all the oil imported in the U.S. comes from Canada. Putting a 25 percent tariff on 60 percent of your import—your price of gasoline would go up astronomically,” Ontario Economic Development Minister Vic Fedeli stated during a recent press conference.

The PC government has been portraying a strong front, with Premier Doug Ford frequently championing Canadian oil, gas and electricity. 

Sporting a “Canada is not for sale” cap during press events, Ford has stood against U.S. tariffs and policies by suggesting that he is prepared to cut off energy exports to the U.S. which could impact over a million Americans in states heavily reliant on Ontario for electricity, even as former President Donald Trump reignited rhetoric about Canada becoming an American state, doubling down on claims that the U.S. doesn’t need Canadian-made vehicles, lumber, or oil and gas.

(Doug Ford/X)

While promoting the vision of making Ontario a clean energy hub and potentially “sending clean energy to the U.S.” in the future, Lecce took the opportunity to criticize the carbon tax, claiming it drives oil and gas businesses south of the border.

He also unveiled new energy efficiency programs under Ontario’s 2025-2028 Incentives Framework, which clean energy advocates welcomed. Under the announcement, he directed the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to launch an electricity conservation and demand-side management (eDSM) framework starting in 2025, but specific details for the first three years (2025-2027) are yet to be announced.

Stewart says the latest set of nuclear energy announcements might not be the good news one might hope.

A major environmental concern with nuclear power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is the creation of radioactive waste, including uranium mill tailings, spent reactor fuel, and other radioactive materials.

“The thing we haven't solved yet is what to do with the (nuclear) waste,” Stewart warned.

Nuclear waste remains highly radioactive for thousands to millions of years, posing serious health and environmental risks if not properly managed. Secure long-term storage solutions for this waste remain underdeveloped.

Stewart also raises concerns about the risk of accidents, and evacuating populations in the event of a nuclear accident. While the likelihood of such events is low, the potential consequences would be devastating and is especially concerning in Ontario, where nuclear plants like Pickering and Darlington are located near major urban areas.

“Imagine trying to evacuate a 30-kilometre zone around the Darlington or Pickering plants — that’s like moving half the GTA…the probability might be low, but eventually, it's going to happen,” he warned, citing disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima as proof that such accidents are not out of the question. 

The safe operation of nuclear plants also relies on long-term societal stability, which is far from assured.

“Right now, there's a war around nuclear plants in Ukraine, and that's risky. Do we really want to rely on the United States remaining stable for the next 100 years? Maybe, maybe not — just look at what’s happening right now.”

While nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source—producing little to no carbon dioxide during operation and generating about one-third of the world’s carbon-free electricity—there’s another key challenge.

When transitioning to nuclear, gas is often used as a ‘bridge fuel’ to balance the intermittent nature of renewables like wind and solar.

“There’s a reason why the oil and gas industry is cheering nuclear announcements—they know a nuclear plant is essentially just a gas plant,” Stewart said.

Nuclear plants are also often delayed or cancelled due to cost overruns, and in the meantime, gas steps in to fill the gap, Stewart explained.

He says the “main issue with nuclear energy over the last decade, even with strong government support, has been the economics.” 

In the early 2000s, under former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government, there was a push to build a new nuclear reactor. A bidding process was set up requiring proponents to cover any cost overruns, as nuclear plants often end up three times more expensive than initially promised. The bids came in at around 60 cents per kilowatt-hour, while wind and solar were priced at roughly 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In 2009, plans to build new reactors were halted when the cost was projected to reach $26 billion.

“The project was ultimately not pursued because the cost was just too high,” Stewart said. He believes this same economic challenge will hinder the currently proposed nuclear energy projects in the province.

While the PC government touts its clean energy initiatives, it's crucial to remember its track record when in 2019, the Ford administration spent over $230 million cancelling renewable energy projects, including a partially-built wind farm located in a cabinet minister's riding.

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you