BC should revisit nuclear energy to address BC Hydro shortages

The short-term costs of nuclear SMRs are preferable to paying hundreds of millions to import foreign energy in the long-term.

British Columbia takes great pride in its tremendous hydroelectric resources, which result from the province’s many long, powerful rivers. For decades, BC has found it easy to rely on hydroelectricity as a clean, renewable source of power for homes, industry, and businesses.

However, the ongoing viability of hydropower in BC should be called into question due to worsening summer droughts and declining snowfalls, which have negatively impacted the annual supply of hydropower. BC has not seriously entertained the possibility of alternatives, even though other provinces have begun to embrace one particular source of energy that has been illegal here for over a decade: nuclear power.

By refusing to strike down the law passed in 2010 that prohibits the mining of uranium or the building of nuclear reactors, BC has made itself an outlier among its peers. Since last year, Ontario has announced plans to expand its existing nuclear capacity, which already provides the majority of the province’s electricity.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia have also begun to explore the possibility of expanding nuclear power to help power their growing provinces. BC has prohibited nuclear energy since passing the Clean Energy Act of 2010, which bans the building of reactors or mining uranium.

This prohibition is a barrier to diversifying BC’s energy supply, which has become more reliant on foreign energy. Due to energy shortages, BC Hydro had to import 15 to 20 percent of the energy required to meet the province’s needs.

Do not expect the situation to improve. Snowpacks are shrinking in the winter months, and summer droughts have become more frequent, which means BC’s dams will see a reduction in their power capacity. Power shortages may be on the horizon, leading to vastly more expensive purchases of foreign energy to meet BC’s growing electricity demand, driven by the construction of new homes and projects like LNG facilities on the coast.

Energy diversification is the solution, and nuclear power should be included, especially Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

Low-carbon and reliable, SMRs can provide steady nuclear power in any season. They are flexible and much more cost-effective than traditional, large-scale nuclear reactors.

For a vast province like BC, filled with small communities separated by mountainous terrain, SMRs can be deployed with great ease to ensure energy stability in remote and Indigenous communities that still struggle with energy access. The Haida Nation, for example, is still reliant on diesel to supply its energy, which goes against the BC government’s clean energy goals and relies on fuel being shipped to the Haida Gwaii archipelago.

While SMRs are cheaper than massive nuclear reactors, they are still expensive and require strict safety regulations due to the ever-present risks associated with nuclear energy. However, is the cost of building nuclear facilities in the short term more expensive than importing energy for years to come?

In 2023, BC Hydro spent upwards of $300 million USD on imported energy, while the cost of the smallest SMR is $50 million, with the more expensive units costing up to $3 billion. Building SMRs now is the right decision from a cost-benefit perspective and in terms of BC’s clean energy goals because SMRs guarantee low-emitting energy, unlike imported energy.

The Clean Energy Act stands in the way of nuclear power’s emergence in BC. Amending it will be necessary for that to change.

BC is not going to need any less energy going forward.

It is high time to get over old fears and stereotypes of nuclear energy. Hydroelectricity need not be displaced as the cornerstone of BC’s energy supply, but it alone cannot face the challenges of the future.

Related Topics:#ResourceWorks #SmallModularReactors BCNuclearPower NuclearPowerCanada SMR's

Up Next

Rethinking Public Education

Don't Miss

Trump Has A Plan To Fix The Electricity Grid — Increase Supply

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump Raises US Tariffs on Canadian Products by 10% after Doug Ford’s $75,000,000 Ad Campaign

Economy / 11 hours ago

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 15 hours ago

Canada Needs a Mandatory National Service

Economy

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From Michael Shellenberger

Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid-19th Century, and thus none showing human-created emissions caused an acceleration in recent decades.

This does not mean that climate change isn’t happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human-caused climate change.

Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public.

In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world’s leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me.

For years, the world’s top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into how the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers, and the wider public for so long.

You might think this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real-world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention-grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has, since the 1990s, been the main justification for apocalyptic climate claims, and past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show that scientists were deliberately misleading.

The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

Not only can I prove that the real-world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration, I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented their research, and how they did it, thanks to my on-the-record email conversation with Kopp of Rutgers….

Please subscribe now to support Public’s award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video!

Full version: x.com/shellenberger/

Scientists for years said they had proof that climate change was accelerating sea level rise. But that's not what the evidence shows. They knew the truth and misled the public. And now I have a long email exchange with a top scientist that shows how they did it. Massive scandal. pic.twitter.com/MNIX1025Fe

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 24, 2025

Alberta

B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.”

In case you haven’t heard, the Alberta government plans to submit a proposal to the federal government to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast.

But B.C. Premier Eby dismissed the idea, calling it a project imported from U.S. politics and pursued “at the expense of British Columbia and Canada’s economy.” He’s simply wrong. A new pipeline wouldn’t come at the expense of B.C. or Canada’s economy—it would strengthen both. In fact, particularly during the age of Trump, provinces should seek greater cooperation and avoid erecting policy barriers that discourage private investment and restrict trade and market access.

The United States remains the main destination for Canada’s leading exports, oil and natural gas. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. In light of President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy and other goods, it’s long past time to diversify our trade and find new export markets.

Given that most of Canada’s oil and gas is landlocked in the Prairies, pipelines to coastal terminals are the only realistic way to reach overseas markets. After the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project in May 2024, which transports crude oil from Alberta to B.C. and opened access to Asian markets, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent. This new global reach strengthens Canada’s leverage in trade negotiations with Washington, as it enables Canada to sell its energy to markets beyond the U.S.

Yet trade is just one piece of the broader economic impact. In its first year of operation, the TMX expansion generated $13.6 billion in additional revenue for the economy, including $2.0 billion in extra tax revenues for the federal government. By 2043, TMX operations will contribute a projected $9.2 billion to Canada’s economic output, $3.7 billion in wages, and support the equivalent of more than 36,000 fulltime jobs. And B.C. stands to gain the most, with $4.3 billion added to its economic output, nearly $1 billion in wages, and close to 9,000 new jobs. With all due respect to Premier Eby, this is good news for B.C. workers and the provincial economy.

In contrast, cancelling pipelines has come at a real cost to B.C. and Canada’s economy. When the Trudeau government scrapped the already-approved Northern Gateway project, Canada lost an opportunity to increase the volume of oil transported from Alberta to B.C. and diversify its trading partners. Meanwhile, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, B.C. lost out on nearly 8,000 jobs a year (or 224,344 jobs in 29 years) and more than $11 billion in provincial revenues from 2019 to 2048 (inflation-adjusted).

Now, with the TMX set to reach full capacity by 2027/28, and Premier Eby opposing Alberta’s pipeline proposal, Canada may miss its chance to export more to global markets amid rising oil demand. And Canadians recognize this opportunity—a recent poll shows that a majority of Canadians (including 56 per cent of British Columbians) support a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.

But, as others have asked, if the economic case is so strong, why has no private company stepped up to build or finance a new pipeline?

Two words—bad policy.

At the federal level, Bill C-48 effectively bans large oil tankers from loading or unloading at ports along B.C.’s northern coast, undermining the case for any new private-sector pipeline. Meanwhile, Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” And the federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector will inevitably force a reduction in oil and gas production, again making energy projects including pipelines less attractive to investors.

Clearly, policymakers in Canada should help diversify trade, boost economic growth and promote widespread prosperity in B.C., Alberta and beyond. To achieve this goal, they should put politics aside, focus of the benefits to their constituents, and craft regulations that more thoughtfully balance environmental concerns with the need for investment and economic growth.