ABB receives power order to support Iraqi industrial infrastructure

Pickering nuclear refurbishment will modernize Ontario's Candu reactors at Pickering B, sustaining 2,000 MW of clean electricity, aiding net-zero goals, and aligning with Ontario Power Generation plans and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reviews.

Key Points

An 11-year overhaul of Pickering B Candu reactors to extend life, keep 2,000 MW online, and back Ontario net-zero grid.

✅ 11-year project; 11,000 annual jobs; $19.4B GDP impact.

✅ Refurbishes four Pickering B Candu units; maintains 2,000 MW.

✅ Requires Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission license approvals.

The Ontario government has announced its intention to pursue a Pickering refurbishment at the venerable nuclear power station, which has been operational for over fifty years. This move could extend the facility's life by another 30 years.

This decision is timely, as Ontario anticipates a significant surge in electricity demand and a growing electricity supply gap in the forthcoming years. Additionally, all provinces are grappling with new federal mandates for clean electricity, necessitating future power plants to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.

Todd Smith, the Energy Minister, is expected to endorse Ontario Power Generation's proposal for the plant's overhaul, as per a preliminary version of a government press release.

The renovation will focus on four Candu reactors, known collectively as Pickering B, which were originally commissioned in the early 1980s. This upgrade is projected to continue delivering 2,000 megawatts of power, equivalent to the current output of these units.

According to the press release, the project will span 11 years, create approximately 11,000 annual jobs, and contribute $19.4 billion to Ontario's GDP. However, the total budget for the project remains unspecified.

The project follows the ongoing refurbishment of four units at the nearby Darlington nuclear station, which is more than halfway completed with a budget of $12.8 billion.

The proposal awaits the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's approval, and officials face extension request timing considerations before key deadlines.

The Commission is also reviewing a prior request from OPG to extend the operational license of the existing Pickering B units until 2026. This extension would allow the plant to safely continue operating until the commencement of its renovation, pending approval.

Ontario's Ambitious Nuclear Strategy

The announcement regarding Pickering is part of Ontario's broader clean energy plan for an unprecedented expansion of nuclear power in Canada.

Last summer, the province announced its intention to nearly double the output at Bruce Power, currently the world's largest nuclear generating station.

Additionally, Ontario revealed SMR plans to construct three more alongside the existing project at Darlington. These reactors are expected to supply enough electricity to power around 1.2 million homes.

Discussions about revitalizing the Pickering facility began in 2022, after the station had been slated to close as planned amid debate, with Ontario Power Generation submitting a feasibility report to the government last summer.

The Ford government emphasized the necessity of this nuclear expansion to meet the increasing electricity demands anticipated from the auto sector's shift to electric vehicles, the steel industry's move away from coal-fired furnaces, and the growing population in Ontario.

Ontario's capability to attract major international car manufacturers like Volkswagen and Stellantis to produce electric vehicles and batteries is partly attributed to the fact that 90% of the province's electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Global Electricity Demand Surge underscores rising coal generation, lagging renewables deployment, and escalating emissions, as nations prioritize reliable power; nuclear energy and grid decarbonization emerge as pivotal solutions to the electricity transition.

Key Points

A rapid post-lockdown rise in power consumption, outpacing renewables growth and driving higher coal use and emissions.

✅ Coal generation rises faster than wind and solar additions

✅ Emissions increase as economies prioritize reliable baseload power

✅ Nuclear power touted for rapid grid decarbonization

By Robert Bryce

As the Covid lockdowns are easing, the global economy is recovering and that recovery is fueling blistering growth in electricity use. The latest data from Ember, the London-based “climate and energy think tank focused on accelerating the global electricity transition,” show that global power demand soared by about 5% in the first half of 2021. That’s faster growth than was happening back in 2018 when electricity use was increasing by about 4% per year.

The numbers from Ember also show that despite lots of talk about the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, coal demand for power generation continues to grow and emissions from the electric sector continue to grow: up by 5% over the first half of 2019. In addition, they show that while about half of the growth in electricity demand was met by wind and solar, as low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all new demand over the next three years, overall growth in electricity use is still outstripping the growth in renewables. 

The soaring use of electricity, and increasing emissions from power generation confirm the sage wisdom of Rasheed Wallace, the volatile former power forward with the Detroit Pistons and other NBA teams, and now an assistant coach at the  University of Memphis, who coined the catchphrase: “Ball don’t lie.” If Wallace or one of his teammates was called for a foul during a basketball game that he thought was undeserved, and the opposing player missed the ensuing free throws, Wallace would often holler, “ball don’t lie,” as if the basketball itself was pronouncing judgment on the referee’s errant call. 

I often think about Wallace’s catchphrase while looking at global energy and power trends and substitute my own phrase: numbers don’t lie.

Over the past few weeks Ember, BP, and the International Energy Agency have all published reports which come to the same two conclusions: that countries all around the world — and China's electricity sector in particular — are doing whatever they need to do to get the electricity they need to grow their economies. Second, they are using lots of coal to get that juice. 

As I discuss in my recent book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, Electricity is the world’s most important and fastest-growing form of energy. The Ember data proves that. At a growth rate of 5%, global electricity use will double in about 14 years, and as surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain around the world, the electricity sector also accounts for the biggest single share of global carbon dioxide emissions: about 25 percent. Thus, if we are to have any hope of cutting global emissions, the electricity sector is pivotal. Further, the soaring use of electricity shows that low-income people and countries around the world are not content to stay in the dark. They want to live high-energy lives with access to all the electronic riches that we take for granted.  

 Ember’s data clearly shows that decarbonizing the global electric grid will require finding a substitute for coal. Indeed, coal use may be plummeting in the U.S. and western Europe, where U.S. electricity consumption has been declining, but over the past two years, several developing countries including Mongolia, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and India, all boosted their use of coal. This was particularly obvious in China, where, between the first half of 2019 and the first half of 2021, electricity demand jumped by about 14%. Of that increase, coal-fired generation provided roughly twice as much new electricity as wind and solar combined. In Pakistan, electricity demand jumped by about 7%, and coal provided more than three times as much new electricity as nuclear and about three times as much as hydro. (Wind and solar did not grow at all in Pakistan over that period.) 

Hate coal all you like, but its century-long persistence in power generation proves its importance. That persistence proves that climate change concerns are not as important to most consumers and policymakers as reliable electricity. In 2010, Roger Pielke Jr. dubbed this the Iron Law of Climate Policy which says “When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.” Pielke elaborated on that point, saying the Iron Law is a “boundary condition on policy design that is every bit as limiting as is the second law of thermodynamics, and it holds everywhere around the world, in rich and poor countries alike. It says that even if people are willing to bear some costs to reduce emissions (and experience shows that they are), they are willing to go only so far.”

Over the past five years, I’ve written a book about electricity, co-produced a feature-length documentary film about it (Juice: How Electricity Explains the World), and launched a podcast that focuses largely on energy and power. I’m convinced that Pielke’s claim is exactly right and should be extended to electricity and dubbed the Iron Law of Electricity which says, “when forced to choose between dirty electricity and no electricity, people will choose dirty electricity every time.” I saw this at work in electricity-poor places all over the world, including India, Lebanon, and Puerto Rico. 

Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado as well as a highly regarded author on the politics of climate change and sports governance, has since elaborated on the Iron Law. During an interview in Juice, he explained it thusly: “The Iron Law says we’re not going to reduce emissions by willingly getting poor. Rich people aren't going to want to get poorer, poor people aren't going to want to get poorer.” He continued, “If there is one thing that we can count on it is that policymakers will be rewarded by populations if they make people wealthier. We're doing everything we can to try to get richer as nations, as communities, as individuals. If we want to reduce emissions, we really have only one place to go and that's technology.”

Pielke’s point reminds me of another of my favorite energy analysts, Robert Rapier, who made a salient point in his Forbes column last week. He wrote, “Despite the blistering growth rate of renewables, it’s important to keep in mind that overall global energy consumption is growing. Even though global renewable energy consumption has increased by about 21 exajoules in the past decade, overall energy consumption has increased by 51 exajoules. Increased fossil fuel consumption made up most of this growth, with every category of fossil fuels showing increased consumption over the decade.” 

The punchline here – despite my tangential reference to Rasheed Wallace — is obvious: The claims that massive reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions must happen soon are being mocked by the numbers. Countries around the world are acting in their interest, particularly when it comes to their electricity needs and that is resulting in big increases in emissions. As Ember concludes in their report, wind and solar are growing, and some analyses suggest renewables could eclipse coal by 2025, but the “electricity transition” is “not happening fast enough.”

Ember explains that in the first half of 2021, wind and solar output exceeded the output of the world’s nuclear reactors for the first time. It also noted that over the past two years, “Nuclear generation fell by 2% compared to pre-pandemic levels, as closures at older plants across the OECD, especially amid debates over European nuclear trends, exceeded the new capacity in China.” While that may cheer anti-nuclear activists at groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the truth is obvious: the only way – repeat, the only way – the electric sector will achieve significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions is if we can replace lots of coal-fired generation with nuclear reactors and do so in relatively short order, meaning the next decade or so. Renewables are politically popular and they are growing, but they cannot, will not, be able to match the soaring demand for the electricity that is needed to sustain modern economies and bring developing countries out of the darkness and into modernity. 

Countries like China, Vietnam, India, and others need an alternative to coal for power generation. They need new nuclear reactors that are smaller, safer, and cheaper than the existing designs. And they need it soon. I will be writing about those reactors in future columns.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta electricity price spike drives 25% CPI surge amid heatwave demand, coal-to-gas conversions, hydro shortfalls, and outages; consumers weigh fixed-rate plans, solar panels, home retrofits, and variable rates to manage bills and grid volatility.

Key Points

A recent 25% monthly rise in Alberta power prices driven by heatwave demand, constraints, outages, and fuel shifts.

✅ Heatwave pushed summer peak demand near record

✅ Coal-to-gas conversions and outages tightened supply

✅ Fixed-rate plans, solar, retrofits can reduce bill risk

Albertans might notice they are paying more when the next electricity bill comes in as bills on the rise in Calgary alongside provincial trends.

According to the consumer price index, Alberta saw its largest monthly increase since July 2015 as the price of electricity in Alberta rose 25 per cent amid rising electricity prices across the province.

“So I paid negative $70 last month. I actually made money. To supply power to the grid,” said Conrad Nobert, with Climate Action Edmonton.

Norbert is an environmental activist who favours solar power and is warning that prices will continue to go up along with the rising effects from climate change.

“My thoughts are that we can mitigate the price of power going up by taking climate action.”

Alberta experienced one of the hottest summers on record and many people were left scrambling to buy air conditioners.

That demand, along with a number of other factors, drove up prices, prompting some households to lock in rates for protection, says an assistant professor at the University of Calgary who teaches electricity systems.

“At the end of June, during the heatwave, we were a couple megawatts shy of setting an all-time record demand for electricity in the province. That would have been the first time that record for demand in the summer. Traditionally Alberta is a winter peaking province, as shown by an electricity usage record during a deep freeze not long ago,” explained Sara Hastings Simon, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary.

Other reasons for the spike: Alberta’s continuing shift from coal to natural-gas-fired power and changes to electricity production and pricing across the market.

There are a few ways consumers can save money on their power bill; installing solar panels and retrofitting your home to opting for a fixed-rate plan, or considering protections like a consumer price cap where applicable.

“So by default, people are put into a variable rate plan, that changes month to month and that helps to manage prices so you don’t get that big surprise at where prices might be. I think we will get a lot more people looking at that option.”

A statement provided by Dale Nally, Alberta’s Associate Minister of natural gas and electricity, noted recent policy changes including the carbon tax repeal and price cap now in place that affect consumers, says in part:

“This period of high market prices is driven by low supplies of hydro-generated electricity from British Columbia and the pacific northwest, scheduled outages for coal-gas-conversions, unplanned infrastructure outages and unprecedented, and record-breaking high demand due to hot weather. We expect some of the factors that have caused recent increases in prices will be short-term.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New Brunswick Small Modular Reactors promise clean energy, jobs, and economic growth, say NB Power, ARC Nuclear, and Moltex Energy; critics cite cost overruns, nuclear waste risks, market viability, and reliance on government funding.

Key Points

Compact reactors proposed in NB to deliver low-carbon power and jobs; critics warn of costs, waste, and market risks.

✅ Promised jobs, exports, and net-zero support via NB Power partnerships

✅ Critics cite cost overruns, nuclear waste, and weak market demand

✅ Government funding pivotal; ARC and Moltex advance licensing

When Mike Holland talks about small modular nuclear reactors, he sees dollar signs.

When the Green Party hears about them, they see danger signs.

The loquacious Progressive Conservative minister of energy development recently quoted NB Power's eye-popping estimates of the potential economic impact of the reactors: thousands of jobs and a $1 billion boost to the provincial economy.

"New Brunswick is positioned to not only participate in this opportunity, but to be a world leader in the SMR field," Holland said in the legislature last month.

'Huge risk' nuclear deal could let Ontario push N.B. aside, says consultant
'Many issues' with modular nuclear reactors says environmental lawyer
Green MLAs David Coon and Kevin Arseneau responded cheekily by ticking off the Financial and Consumer Services Commission's checklist on how to spot a scam.

Is the sales pitch from a credible source? Is the windfall being promised by a reputable institution? Is the risk reasonable?

For small nuclear reactors, they said, the answer to all those questions is no. 

"The last thing we need to do is pour more public money down the nuclear-power drain," Coon said, reminding MLAs of the Point Lepreau refurbishment project that went $1 billion over budget.

The Greens aside, New Brunswick politicians have embraced small modular reactors as part of a broader premiers' nuclear initiative to develop SMR technology, which they say can both create jobs and help solve the climate crisis.

Smaller and cheaper, supporters say
They're "small" because, depending on the design, they would generate from three to 300 megawatts of electricity, less than, for example, Point Lepreau's 660 megawatts.

It's the modular design that is supposed to make them more affordable, as explained in next-gen nuclear guides, with components manufactured elsewhere, sometimes in existing factories, then shipped and assembled. 

Under Brian Gallant, the Liberals handed $10 million to two Saint John companies working on SMRs, ARC Nuclear and Moltex Energy.

Greens point to previous fiascoes
The Greens and other opponents of nuclear power fear SMRS are the latest in a long line of silver-bullet fiascoes, from the $23 million spent on the Bricklin in 1975 to $63.4 million in loans and loan guarantees to the Atcon Group a decade ago.

"It seems that [ARC and Moltex] have been targeting New Brunswick for another big handout ... because it's going to take billions of dollars to build these things, if they ever get off the drawing board," said Susan O'Donnell, a University of New Brunswick researcher.

O'Donnell, who studies technology adoption in communities, is part of a small new group called the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development formed this year to oppose SMRs.

"What we really need here is a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of it," she said.

Government touts economic spinoffs
According to the Higgs government's throne speech last month, if New Brunswick companies can secure just one per cent of the Canadian market for small reactors, the province would see $190 million in revenue. 

The figures come from a study conducted for NB Power by University of Moncton economist Pierre-Marcel Desjardins.

But a four-page public summary does not include any sales projections and NB Power did not provide them to CBC News. 

"What we didn't see was a market analysis," O'Donnell said. "How viable is the market? … They're all based on a hypothetical market that probably doesn't exist."

O'Donnell said her group asked for the full report but was told it's confidential because it contains sensitive commercial information.

Holland said he's confident there will be buyers. 

"It won't be hard to find communities that will be looking for a cost effective, affordable, safe alternative to generate their electricity and do it in a way that emits zero emissions," he said.

SMRs come in different sizes and while some proponents talk about using "micro" reactors to provide electricity to remote northern First Nations communities, ARC and Moltex plan larger models to sell to power utilities looking to shift away from coal and gas.

"We have utilities and customers across Canada, where Ontario's first SMR groundbreaking has occurred already, across the United States, across Asia and Europe saying they desperately want a technology like this," said Moltex's Saint John-based CEO for North America Rory O'Sullivan. 

"The market is screaming for this product," he said, adding "all of the utilities" in Canada are interested in Moltex's reactors

ARC's CEO Norm Sawyer is more specific, guessing 30 per cent of his SMR sales will be in Atlantic Canada, 30 per cent in Ontario, where Darlington SMR plans are advancing, and 40 per cent in Alberta and Saskatchewan — all provincial power grids.

O'Donnell said it's an important question because without a large number of guaranteed sales, the high cost of manufacturing SMRs would make the initiative a money-loser. 

The cost of building the world's only functioning SMR, in Russia, was four times what was expected. 

An Australian government agency said initial cost estimates for such major projects "are often initially too low" and can "overrun." 

Up-front costs can be huge
University of British Columbia physicist M.V. Ramana, who has authored studies on the economics of nuclear power, said SMRs face the same financial reality as any large-scale manufacturing.

"You're going to spend a huge amount of money on the basic fixed costs" at the outset, he said, with costs per unit becoming more viable only after more units are built and sold. 

He estimates a company would have to build and sell more than 700 SMRs to break even, and said there are not enough buyers for that to happen. 

But Sawyer said those estimates don't take into account technological advances.

"A lot of what's being said ... is really based on old technology," he said, estimating ARC would be viable even if it sold an amount of reactors in the low double digits. 

O'Sullivan agrees.

"In fact, just the first one alone looks like it will still be economical," he said. "In reality, you probably need a few … but you're talking about one or two, maximum three [to make a profit] because you don't need these big factories."

'Paper designs' prove nothing, says expert
Ramana doesn't buy it. 

"These are all companies that have been started by somebody who's been in the nuclear industry for some years, has a bright idea, finds an angel investor who's given them a few million dollars," he said.

"They have a paper design, or a Power Point design. They have not built anything. They have not tested anything. To go from that point … to a design that can actually be constructed on the field is an enormous amount of work." 

Both CEOs acknowledge the skepticism about SMRs.

'The market is screaming for this product,' said Moltex’s Saint John-based CEO for North America, Rory O’Sullivan. (Brian Chisholm, CBC)
"I understand New Brunswick has had its share of good investments and its share of what we consider questionable investments," said Sawyer, who grew up in Rexton.

But he said ARC's SMR is based on a long-proven technology and is far past the on-paper design stage "so you reduce the risk." 

Moltex is now completing the first phase of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's review of its design, a major hurdle. ARC completed that phase last year.

But, Ramana said there are problems with both designs. Moltex's molten salt model has had "huge technical challenges" elsewhere while ARC's sodium-cooled system has encountered "operational difficulties."

Ottawa says nuclear is needed for climate goals
The most compelling argument for looking at SMRs may be Ottawa's climate change goals, and international moves like the U.K.'s green industrial revolution plan point to broader momentum.  

The national climate plan requires NB Power to phase out burning coal at its Belledune generating station by 2030. It's scrambling to find a replacement source of electricity.

The Trudeau government's throne speech in October promised to "support investments in renewable energy and next-generation clean energy and technology solutions."

And federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan told CBC earlier this year that he's "very excited" about SMRs and has called nuclear key to climate goals in Canada as well.

"We have not seen a model where we can get to net-zero emissions by 2050 without nuclear,"  he said.

O'Donnell said while nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases, it's hardly a clean technology because of the spent nuclear fuel waste. 

Government support is key 
She also wonders why, if SMRs make so much sense, ARC and Moltex are relying so much on government money rather than private capital.

Holland said "the vast majority" of funding for the two companies "has to come from private sector investments, who will be very careful to make sure they get a return on that investment."

Sawyer said ARC has three dollars for every dollar it has received from the province, and General Electric has a minority ownership stake in its U.S.-based parent company.

O'Sullivan said Moltex has attracted $5 million from a European engineering firm and $6 million from "the first-ever nuclear crowdfunding campaign." 

But he said for new technologies, including nuclear power, "you need government to show policy support.

"Nuclear technology has always been developed by governments around the world. This is a very new change to have an industry come in and lead this, so private investors can't take the risk to do that on their own," he said. 

So far, Ottawa hasn't put up any funding for ARC or Moltex. During the provincial election campaign, Higgs implied federal money was imminent, but there's been no announcement in the almost three months since then.

Last month the federal government announced $20 million for Terrestrial Energy, an Ontario company working on SMRs, alongside OPG's commitment to SMRs in the province, underscoring momentum.

"We know we have the best technology pitch," O'Sullivan said. "There's others that are slightly more advanced than us, but we have the best overall proposition and we think that's going to win out at the end of the day."

But O'Donnell said her group plans to continue asking questions about SMRs. 

"I think what we really need is to have an honest conversation about what these are so that New Brunswickers can have all the facts on the table," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News