John Rustad wants B.C. to go nuclear

John Rustad, the climate skeptic leader of the increasingly popular Conservative Party of B.C., would consider building nuclear reactors if he wins next month’s provincial election. 

The veteran politician made the comment in a recent podcast interview with controversial right-wing and ex-psychology professor Jordan Peterson, criticizing what they call B.C.'s "socialist trainwreck." Nuclear power, Rustad claimed, is the pinnacle of energy production because it uses less raw material to generate energy than wood or fossil fuels. 

It would be a huge shift for the province, which has a long history of anti-nuclear activism.  

For decades, B.C. has been home to a strong anti-nuclear movement – Greenpeace was founded in Vancouver to protest nuclear testing – and in 2010, the former B.C. Liberal government banned nuclear power. Last year Premier David Eby reaffirmed that the NDP government will not build nuclear power plants in the province, citing the province's "massive clean energy resources" like solar, wind, geothermal potential and existing hydro infrastructure.  

Rustad, who was a parliamentary secretary in the B.C. Liberal cabinet when his party imposed the ban, said on Peterson's podcast the move was made "because of politics." His former colleagues were trying to chase votes instead of  "standing on the principles … that are needed to be able to create a good society and quality of life," he claimed. 

Climate-minded proponents of nuclear power say it is a reliable source of fossil fuel-free electricity that can help back up renewable power sources like solar and wind. A 2015 study found that if countries invested in nuclear power at the same rate as Sweden and France did between 1960s to the 1990s, the coal- and gas-fired power plants that existed at the time could be replaced within a few decades.  

However, many experts say nuclear power is actually more expensive than renewables like wind and solar. 

"It would be a great way to throw money down a black hole," said Thomas Green, senior climate policy advisor for the David Suzuki Foundation. Building nuclear power plants is a "money sink" and the construction tends to get delayed. Solar or wind farms are cheaper and faster to build, and a more efficient way to generate electricity. 

B.C. is uniquely well placed to take advantage of renewables because it already has an extensive network of hydroelectric dams, which can be used to meet demand for electricity when it is dark outside or there is no wind blowing. Developing so-called "smart grids" that distribute demand for power more evenly through the day so it gets used more efficiently can also eliminate the need for increased power generation, he said.  

A 2022 study by researchers at the University of Victoria and the David Suzuki Foundation found that renewables could meet all of Canada's projected electricity needs by 2035. Achieving this will require building more solar and wind power facilities, and creating better links between the provinces so they can share electricity more efficiently. 

Meanwhile, researchers have found that the high cost and limited availability of nuclear reactors mean they aren't helpful in the transition the world away from using fossil fuels. Some have even gone so far as to say that "investments in new nuclear plants are bad for the climate due to high costs and long construction times." 

M.V. Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia's school of public policy, concurs. Nuclear energy is the most expensive form of energy, costing more to build and maintain than renewables. It is also slow. Even if Rustad is elected next month and decides to pursue nuclear power, a B.C. nuclear facility wouldn't come online before the 2040s at the earliest between the time it would take to obtain permits and actually build the facility, he said

Most importantly, nuclear power generates significant amounts of highly toxic, radioactive waste. Canada is already struggling to dispose of the waste generated by existing facilities, and both Green and Ramana noted that the problem would only be exacerbated if a facility were built in B.C.

"You cannot describe nuclear [power] as a clean source of power," Ramana said. "It has its own pollutants, as a coal plant does." 

Still, there are those who think building nuclear power facilities in B.C. could be a good idea. Margareta Doval, managing director of Resource Works, a Vancouver-based organization focused on natural resource use, credited Rustad for raising the possibility. 

"It is long overdue in the B.C. political space to be talking about [nuclear] as an option," she said. Building a nuclear power plant is technically feasible, she said; what B.C. is missing is the "social license" to use nuclear power. 

Echoing Rustad, she said nuclear energy is a "pragmatic option" that can help provide a foundational energy source if B.C.'s hydro reservoirs can't provide enough power to supplement renewables like wind and solar. She also estimated that as long as B.C.'s population was large enough, nuclear facilities could be built without significantly increasing costs to consumers and government coffers. 

Nuclear power could help provide low-carbon power to fuel the projected growth of B.C. LNG projects, she added. The private sector's choice to pursue these projects shows there "is a variety of demand pathways for the product" and it can help Asian countries reduce their reliance on coal. 

However, experts question if there is enough demand for B.C. LNG to make the projects, which have received over $5.3 billion in government subsidies, economically feasible. Refraining from developing these projects, which are projected to use eight times the amount of electricity generated by the Site C dam, would make more renewables available to B.C. residents. 

Beyond the cost and practical challenges to building nuclear reactors, Ramana emphasized it is unlikely Rustad could find a community that would be willing to host the facility. While accidents at nuclear plants are rare, high-profile disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl elevate the sense of risk, and few people are willing to accept the risk of being forced to evacuate their home forever on short notice – or suffer even worse consequences. 

"There is always resistance for justifiable, rational, reasons because there's a source of risk," he said. "I don't see why in B.C. it is going to be any easier."