I became a nuclear engineer to help the planet

Climate change guided my career path since high school. I’m now a 24-year-old nuclear engineer eager to help Canada attain our ambitious net-zero goals.

I chose the nuclear sector because Ontario is home to some of the largest clean-energy projects in North America: the ongoing refurbishments of our CANDU fleet. At over half the capacity of Ontario’s grid, it was clear to me back then that delivering these projects was the best way to leverage my climate concerns.

When my grandfather, Peter Rand, a distinguished member of the Royal Society of Canada, asked me why nuclear power is considered “clean,” I was surprised. If a well-educated scientist is uninformed about nuclear, then the average Canadian doesn’t stand a chance.

I come from three generations of engineers and scientists, yet never learned much about nuclear in childhood. But I was told where electricity comes from as early as Grade 5. Energy sources were crudely categorized as “clean” or “dirty.” Nuclear was labelled dirty, alongside coal and gas. My only other source of nuclear education was shared by millions: On “The Simpsons,” nuclear is a mix of green goo, greedy billionaires and three-eyed fish!

Around the same time, I went on a family vacation in France. It was March 11, 2011, and an earthquake had just hit the Pacific, triggering a tsunami that flooded the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. The news reports felt as if the world were about to end. The power plant took centre stage for weeks. Ultimately only one death was directly related to the nuclear plant. However, thousands died in the disaster.

Later, having taken every high school science course available, I still didn’t know much about nuclear technology. Only after studying at McMaster University and visiting Canada’s largest research reactor (smack-dab in the middle of campus) did I. And I learned to love it! It wasn’t just me. Every nuclear expert I spoke with had good things to say about the technology.

Why then, does it get such a bad rap? Waste and safety concerns often fuel the desire to shut down nuclear plants, a perspective often held, ironically, by environmentalists. But this reasoning is misguided.

Consider waste. The spent fuel from more than 50 years of CANDU operation in Ontario fits into just nine hockey rinks stacked up a metre high. The volume is tiny compared to the energy output. If nuclear waste is a problem, then every energy source is also unacceptable by the same standard, including wind and solar.

Although spent nuclear fuel remains radioactive for millennia, it’s not inherently dangerous for that duration. Exponential decay ensures that highly radioactive substances have short half-lives and don’t persist. In fact, 50 years after exiting the reactor, spent fuel radioactivity has already declined by 99 per cent. Extended radioactivity comes from weak, long half-life components, which, unless ingested, are harmless. Which is the same for any other toxic material.

Although radiation is a unique hazard, this doesn’t make nuclear inherently dangerous. What we call “background radiation” exposes us to roughly double the dose that a nuclear energy worker is expected to receive (1.8 mSv versus 1 mSv). Fission is a natural phenomenon. Radiation is a fundamental feature of the environment, invisible and ever present, much like gravity. It was not some mad scientist’s creation, rather, something we discovered.

On safety, nuclear energy — when assessed on a deaths per kilowatt-hour basis — aligns with renewables. Fukushima is often perceived as a failure, but it is actually a testament to the inherent safety of modern reactors. Despite enduring a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, subsequent tsunami and one direct casualty, there was minimal dose exposure to surrounding populations, with no statistically measurable impact on cancer incidence rates, according to a study in the National Library of Medicine.

While the significance of this catastrophe on those impacted should not be understated, attributing it to the nuclear power plant is misguided. An unjustified fear of radiation exposure led to an evacuation plan, which ended up hurting people more than had they stayed put. Comparing the meltdown with any other large industrial accident makes one quickly realize how the worst-case scenario for a nuclear plant is not fundamentally different than any other large industrial accident.

Canadians should be proud of our nuclear legacy. It’s how we have a clean grid today in Ontario, and it’s a big part of how we meet our climate goals. Education is a good antidote to antinuclear rhetoric. If you’re worried about a meltdown, nuclear waste, or any other topic, speak to a professional who works in the industry (there are tens of thousands in Ontario.). Your concerns will be met with evidence-based explanations and reassurances.

Let’s embrace our nuclear legacy instead of ignoring it and build a clean energy future together.