Patrick Jean,
Municipal Energy Manager,
As someone born in Peace River and raised in the Falher-Donnelly area, I care deeply about the land, water, and communities that would be affected by the proposed nuclear facility in northwestern Alberta.
Although I live in Edmonton now, I now work as a municipal energy manager for a small rural municipality in the province, and my family still lives across the region – from McLennan to Marie-Reine.
Though I’m relatively new to public service, I bring over 20 years of experience in project management, systems analysis, and strategic planning across various sectors including energy, agriculture and technology. I’ve worked with municipalities, nonprofits and institutions across Alberta on energy efficiency, infrastructure modernization, and rural economic development. I hold an Honours degree in Sustainability Management from MacEwan University and continue to deepen my training in energy policy and climate adaptation as I prepare to do my Master of Sustainable Energy Development at the University of Calgary.
I’ve also published and presented research on how geothermal energy can support rural economies – work that reflects my broader commitment to clean, decentralized solutions that benefit communities like the one I come from.
That’s why I find the Peace River Nuclear Power Project so concerning. Energy Alberta’s plan to build four CANDU reactors by 2035 is not only highly optimistic and economically risky, it’s out of step with the urgent need for affordable, flexible, and timely climate action.
Recent nuclear projects show just how slowly these facilities come online. Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia were first proposed in 2006. Unit 4 is only now being completed nearly 20 years later, at a final cost of over US $35 billion, more than double the original budget. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland took 17 years. Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom is now expected to cost more than 30 billion pounds and will not be online before 2030. Based on that record, Peace River’s 2035+ target is deeply optimistic.
In contrast, Alberta is already building faster, cheaper alternatives. Between 2019-22, the province added over 1,400 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar, with another 2,500 MW in development, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator (ASO). Most renewable projects are completed in under five years, with many rooftop and community systems operational in less than one. In 2022, solar became the world’s fastest growing source of new electricity capacity.
They are also far more cost-effective. Lazard’s 2025 Levelized Cost of Energy+ estimates nuclear at $141-251 per megawatt-hour, compared to just $37-81 for wind and $38-66 for solar. Nuclear is up to six times more expensive than renewables, and that does not include long-term waste management, decommissioning, or liability coverage – costs that often fall to the public.
Clean energy isn’t just cheaper, it is better for jobs. A dollar invested in solar, or wind creates 2.8 to 5.7 times more employment than the same dollar spent on nuclear, according to peer-reviewed research in Energy Policy. These are jobs in construction, maintenance, engineering, and operations – many of which can be located in rural and under-served communities.
Even if built, nuclear does not align with the needs of modern energy systems. Grids today depend on flexibility, not constant output “baseload” plants like nuclear reactors that can’t adjust quicky to changing demand. When renewable energy production is high, inflexible nuclear can force the grid to waste clean power. In contrast, renewables combined with battery storage, smart grid controls, and demand-size response offer more adaptable, resilient energy systems. Research in Joule and PNAS shows that 100 per cent renewable grids with storage are not only viable, they are more stable than those relying on nuclear.
In the time it would take to bring Peace River’s reactors online, Alberta could:
- Deploy 10-15 GW of solar and wind,
- Install 1-2 GW of grid-scale storage,
- Retrofit public buildings and homes for energy efficiency,
- Lunch locally-led clean energy partnerships, and
- Create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs.
The local risks are just as serious. A nuclear facility would withdraw millions of litres or water per day from the Peace River for cooling, potentially harming aquatic ecosystems and fish spawning habitats. A 2021 study in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment found that thermal pollution and water drawdown from nuclear plants disrupt river ecosystems.
Public submissions and academic research have also raised critical concerns about the cultural and social impact of this project. The proposed site lies within Treaty 8 territory – an area with deep spiritual, cultural, and subsistence significance.
According to the Canadian Journal of Native Studies (2022), long-term nuclear waste storage near such lands threatens intergenerational safety and undermines the cultural integrity of surrounding communities.
The Land Use Policy journal emphasizes the importance of free, prior, and informed consent under Canada’s obligations to UNDRIP – yet many affected communities report they have not been meaningfully engaged. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (AAC) has already documented frustration with inaccessible technical documents and limited public engagement in its Summary of Issues.
We don’t need to go down this road. Alberta already has the tools to reduce emissions, create good jobs, and support rural communities without waiting decades to spending billions on a legacy system that does not serve our needs.
The Peace River nuclear proposal would delay real climate action, raise electricity costs, and place long-term environmental and financial burdens on the very communities it claims to help. We already have faster, cleaner, and smarter options. We should be investing in them now.