If we look to community…

If we look to community-level energy plans, there are so many other options for northern communities. Run-of-river hydro, biomass, geothermal or high-efficiency use of wood shavings using the waste from local lumber industries. New technologies assure that local-level systems can cycle between the peaks and valleys of both generation and demand.

The small nuclear reactor narrative is inherently flawed, it presumes that just because navies operate nuclear submarines, similar technologies are a good fit for northern communities. The two contexts could not be more different from either a social or governance standpoint.

The premise that we should introduce nuclear reactors in areas where we haven't even managed to provide potable drinking water consistently is absurd. While the proposals may provide short term benefits for energy intensive extractive industries (mines), introducing nukes is not in the best interests of the communities.

Many communities have weak road networks, and in some cases the permafrost melt will continue to weaken their reliability (ice roads and otherwise). Introducing systems that produce nuclear waste is not a good prospect in these circumstances. It will inevitably end up dumped nearby, poisoning the local population.

Ontario should listen to its first nations and other local governments, instead of steamrolling over them with yet another ill conceived scheme. The push for small nuclear reactors is driven largely by military-industrial boosters who don't actually have any credibility as far as either engineering, community planning, or nuclear science goes.