COUNTRY REPORT | CANADA


The changing face of Canada’s nuclear industry


In the decade since the global recession and Fukushima slammed the nuclear sector, Canada has made significant advances in its capabilities. But in an era of multiple technologies and burgeoning markets for nuclear, Jacquie Hoornweg considers what defines “Canadian” in today’s nuclear sector


THE YEAR 2009, WASN’T GOOD for many and certainly not for Canada’s nuclear industry. The “great recession” that began with the US housing bubble in 2007 was the longest recession since World War II and saw the largest gross domestic product drop in the post-war era. Globally, for the nuclear industry the pains of the recession were exacerbated by the March 2011 tsunami that swamped both the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and, with it, confidence in the industry. The recession dealt a heavy blow to the Canadian nuclear


sector but it weathered Fukushima better than many thanks to strong social license in its host communities. That never faltered. Where some jurisdictions are still in early recovery today and others have remained stalled, the Canadian industry has advanced its capability significantly in the past decade. It is well poised as the world rediscovers nuclear, or in some cases, considers it for the first time, with a new appreciation for its ability to uniquely address the urgency of climate change and energy security. In Canada, the nuclear sector has spent the past decade


Jacquie Hoornweg


Executive director, Brilliant Energy Institute and Canadian Global Affairs Institute Fellow


steadily employed thanks to massive refurbishment projects and early action on small modular reactors that has helped solidify the industry as a cohesive and effective whole. But the genesis for today’s success traces back to the industry’s response to the adversity it faced in 2009 when its future seemed anything less than certain.


From challenged past to promising future Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, is the epicentre of nuclear power in Canada. In 2006, the provincial government and its power generation utility, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), began preparations to build two additional large-scale units at OPG’s Darlington Nuclear site. The units would be built alongside the pre- existing four CANDU units (3512 MW total), constructed in the 1990s.


But, in June 2009, after an intense bidding process, the Ontario government cancelled the new build. The decision


36 | April 2023 | www.neimagazine.com


followed a federal government announcement a few months earlier when it stated it would privatise Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL), the national original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for CANDU technology, as a valve for taxpayer relief. In Ontario’s decision to axe its new build, it cited the


uncertainty of AECL’s future, and the price tag. The Province said the company had submitted the only fully compliant bid to the terms, which included that the vendor assume all project risks (France’s Areva SA and then US-based Westinghouse Electric Co. had also participated in the bidding). Downward energy-demand forecasts reflecting the gut-kick to the province’s manufacturing sector also factored in the decision. The fact there was a competitive process at all had


generated significant angst. Many felt the two levels of government should have used the opportunity for a domestic build to give AECL, and the supply chain that largely resides in Ontario, a leg up in the international market; a sore spot that remains for some, today. The new build cancellation felt like a nail in the coffin


for beleaguered AECL and equally for the supply chain that relied upon it and on Ontario’s nuclear programme.


A phoenix from the ashes At the same time the door closed on new build, decisions had to be made on the province’s existing reactors, coming due for mid-life refurbishments. In February 2010, the Province announced it would move forward with a full refurbishment of the four existing Darlington units. On another timeline, it also signed contracts for Bruce Power to complete life extensions for all of the Bruce’s eight units (6550 MW total) through major component replacements (MCRs). The Province’s commitments were a lifeline but were contingent on on-time, on-budget performance with off-ramps that kicked in if the industry failed to deliver. Recognising the do-or-die reality with no new build in sight, the industry rallied.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47