Ontario already holds a powerful asset in its clean energy transition: a nuclear industry that supplies reliable, low-emission electricity while anchoring a domestic green economy. Refurbishment projects and operations contribute more than $22-billion to Canada’s GDP each year and support nearly 90,000 skilled workers in plants, engineering firms, and research labs across the province.
This industrial backbone matters for affordability. When energy comes from a local supply chain instead of imported fuels and hardware, more of every dollar on a power bill circulates in Ontario communities, supporting wages, tax revenues, and public services from healthcare to education. It is a model of citizen-powered prosperity that aligns with a province that aims to work for everyone, not just for multinational shareholders.
Germany’s recent experience highlights the risk of walking away from that foundation. After shutting nuclear stations, Chancellor Friedrich Merz called the decision a serious strategic mistake and described the country’s energy transition as the most expensive in the world. High prices and capacity shortfalls have fuelled rapid deindustrialization, a cautionary tale for any jurisdiction that bets everything on variable renewables backed by imported fossil fuels.
What thoughtful leaders in Ontario often miss is threefold. First, the distinction between cost and investment: higher near-term rates can finance assets that keep future bills lower and cleaner. Second, nuclear’s role as an enabler of renewables: a stable baseload makes it easier to integrate wind and solar without sacrificing reliability. Third, intergenerational fairness: previous generations funded the original fleet, giving today’s workers and students a competitive advantage that has lasted more than 50 years.
This paragraph briefly summarizes the evidence base behind these claims:
Refurbishment-driven nuclear activity contributes more than $22-billion each year to national GDP and supports nearly 90,000 Ontario workers.
Nuclear plants in the province also produce medical isotopes, placing Ontario at the centre of a vital nuclear medicine industry.
Germany’s choice to close nuclear stations has been publicly described by its chancellor as a strategic error leading to a very costly energy transition.
In practice, jurisdictions that retain firm, low-emission capacity experience fewer price shocks when global fuel markets tighten.
Long-lived assets such as refurbished reactors can spread their capital costs across decades of output, which supports stable pricing.
These observations support the strategic view that balanced Ontario energy policy should pair nuclear strength with growing renewables to protect families and competitiveness.
For Ontario, the path forward is not a nostalgic defence of the status quo but a deliberately mixed system. Policymakers can prioritize three moves. First, treat nuclear refurbishment and potential new builds as core infrastructure, akin to hospitals, that secure long-term affordability. Second, accelerate complementary renewables and storage in communities, paired with conservation, so families see lower usage as well as fair prices. Third, invite residents into the project through grassroots engagement, transparent rate debates, and opportunities to support local clean energy jobs.
Handled this way, Ontario’s clean energy transition can do more than keep the lights on. It can lower long-term costs for families, anchor a resilient green economy, and prove that citizen-powered politics is capable of planning beyond the next election cycle. The evidence is still dominated by practice and case experience rather than large comparative studies, so these recommendations should be treated as a practical agenda to test and refine, not as fixed doctrine.
If you haven't yet signed up for my bi-weekly Red Thread newsletter, SUBSCRIBE.
This article was created by a human editor and an AI-assisted workflow by Draiper Inc.
