12 May Canada’s Darlington SMR
While Canada pushes boldly into the 21st century with shovels in the ground for its first grid-scale small modular reactor (SMR), Australia continues to gaze nervously at its 1990s-era ban on nuclear power as if it were sacred scripture. Ontario Power Generation (OPG), in collaboration with GE Hitachi, has begun constructing a BWRX-300 reactor at the Darlington site—setting Canada on track to be the first Western nation to deploy this next-generation nuclear technology.
Let that sink in, not an artist’s impression, not a feasibility study, not a taskforce. Construction.
This 300-megawatt reactor, small enough to be deployed modularly but powerful enough to deliver reliable zero-emissions baseload electricity, is the prototype for what Canada—and increasingly, the rest of the worldviews as the future of clean energy. It uses passive safety systems, has a smaller footprint than traditional plants, and can be built in a fraction of the time. It’s nuclear for the modern age.
Meanwhile, Australia still pretends that nuclear power is too dangerous to even discuss—enshrining that fear in legislation passed in 1998, when we were still using dial-up internet and renting videos from Blockbuster. While we tie ourselves in ideological knots over how to balance wind and solar with ever-more costly battery and gas backup, Canada is solving the problem.
Ontario’s SMR is scheduled to come online by the end of the decade. Regulatory approvals are well underway, the site is ready, and the technology is exportable—ready for other provinces like Saskatchewan and international partners alike. Notably, Canada’s leadership in uranium production and nuclear engineering means it stands to benefit economically as well as environmentally.
Australia, by contrast, sits atop some of the world’s richest uranium reserves—yet we’d rather export it to others than use it ourselves. Somehow, it’s ethical to dig it up, ship it out, and watch others decarbonise with it, but not to plug it into our own grid. We’re like a baker refusing to eat bread because someone once burned a slice.
If Canada can do it—with colder winters, tougher grid demands, and just as much public scrutiny—why can’t we even have a conversation?
The world is moving on. The question is: will we?
Brett McMahon
Posted at 15:57h, 12 MayWhat is the cost of an SMR, and what population will it support in comparison with a coal fired station like mt Piper?
David Wilson
Posted at 18:56h, 12 MayThanks for your comment. To put things in perspective:
A typical small modular reactor (SMR), like the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300, generates about 300 megawatts of electricity—enough to power around 250,000 people, assuming average Australian household usage.
In comparison, a coal-fired plant like Mt Piper in NSW produces around 1,400 megawatts, supporting roughly a million people.
While an SMR only produces about a quarter of the electricity of Mt Piper, it has zero emissions, a much smaller physical footprint, and can be deployed modularly—offering energy security without the carbon burden.
Costs vary depending on design and location, but a BWRX-300 is expected to cost AUD 2.5 to 3.5 billion, whereas replacing an ageing coal station like Mt Piper could run into $5–8 billion today.
So, while SMRs aren’t a one-to-one replacement for large coal plants, they offer a clean, scalable, and increasingly cost-competitive option—especially when combined with renewables.