The coalition mentioned Ontario, Canada, when touting its nuclear policy, but downstream problems remain there too

The coalition has proposed huge investments in nuclear energy for the coming decades.

This proposal has led some coalition politicians to take Ontario, Canada's largest province, as a model.

Here in Pickering, 30 kilometres from Toronto, people like Joyal Applewhaite live in the shadow of the nuclear power plant.

Her home is barely more than a kilometer away from the crime scene.

The six reactors in operation generate enough electricity every day to supply two million households.

“It's just something you walk past, or you go to the beach, or you go to the park, you know, or the woods. It's just there,” Ms Applewhaite said.

Ontario opted for nuclear energy 60 years ago. The country spent enormous sums of money on CO2-free electricity, accepted the risks and produced thousands of tons of radioactive waste.

Nuclear energy accounts for more than 50 percent of Ontario's energy mix, and the average price of energy for households in the province is in the middle range of all Canadian provinces.

The province relies on three large nuclear power plants with a total of 20 reactors, some of which have been shut down and others are being renovated.

The cost estimates for this are in the tens of billions of dollars. Nevertheless, Ontario's conservative premier Doug Ford and opposition leader Peter Dutton believe that nuclear power is the right way to go.

“If there is no wind or no sunny day, we cannot generate electricity from renewable energy,” Ford said.

In both Canada and Australia, nuclear power has sparked major debates.

While this debate has been nipped in the bud in Australia for many years due to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, vocal critics continue to speak out in Ontario.

They argue that the province has doubled down on its nuclear energy efforts and that this strategy has come at the expense of investments in renewable energy.

“It’s cheaper and can be built much, much faster.”

Another major problem is the question of what happens to the radioactive waste from spent nuclear fuel.

There is currently no primary nuclear waste disposal facility in Australia, although a private facility is being opened in the Sandy Ridge desert in Western Australia.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) stores its low-level radioactive waste on site, but only has sufficient interim storage space until 2040.

There is a similar problem in Ontario, where about three million radioactive fuel elements are “temporarily” stored on the premises of nuclear power plants.

Canada is planning a deep repository, a permanent solution to store nuclear waste 700 meters deep. However, this project will not become a reality unless the potential target communities vote for it.

A permit is by no means guaranteed and even in the best case scenario, no waste would be stored in the deep repository for at least two decades.

“Whether we will find a solution is still up in the air, and even if we do, it will take a long time until that solution actually exists and we finally have a place where we can dispose of the garbage.”

Will the proposed SMRs actually be implemented?

Solving this problem is critical to Ontario's nuclear future and includes the province's plans to build four of the world's first small modular reactors (SMRs).

SMRs are smaller than conventional reactors and are touted as cheaper, with an estimated cost of $2.2 billion each.

“There are other jurisdictions that need smaller designs, and this is definitely a game changer,” said Subo Sinnathamby of provincial utility Ontario Power Generation.

Forecasts say the province will need to double its electricity production by 2050. Sinnathamby says nuclear energy will be crucial to achieving this goal.

“It will play a bigger role … whether it's small modular reactors, refurbished reactors or building new large nuclear power plants,” she said.

“I prefer nuclear power to coal”

Nuclear energy now accounts for 51 percent of this energy mix. Natural gas generates 25 percent of electricity in Ontario, followed by hydropower with 21 percent. Wind power contributes only 3 percent. There is no coal-fired power.

Mr. Ford said nuclear power was critical for the province to achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

And if Australia does explore nuclear energy, Ontario would be happy to help, he said.

“You have two options: either you go down this path or you build coal-fired power plants like we see in the US and China.”

“I prefer nuclear power to coal-fired power plants any time.”

Regard 7.30Monday to Thursday 19:30 am ABC iview and ABCTV