Among the vast fields of canola, white spruce and pines, fireweed and goldenrod in northern Alberta, Pat McNamara experiences nuclear déjà vu.
Two decades ago, he lived in Port Hope, Ont., northeast of Toronto, in a community that had been plagued by nuclear contamination for decades, including in his own daughter's schoolyard.
He has since moved to Northern Lights County, halfway between Edmonton and the Northwest Territories.
When he learned earlier this year that residents, especially farmers, had not heard of a proposed nuclear power plant in the area – similar to one first proposed 15 years ago – he wanted to spread the word that when things go wrong, the damage is generational.
“These people are building these properties and farms to pass on to their children and grandchildren,” McNamara said in an interview. “They won't be able to do it.”
While he was getting the message out to the public, his Northern Action Alliance was pressing the county council to hold a vote.
His efforts were crowned with success last month when a non-binding plebiscite showed more than half of voters opposed a proposal to build a twin-tower power plant, the first of its kind in Alberta, capable of powering 4.8 million homes.
A roughly equal number of voters also said they wanted to know more about the pros and cons.
Like much of Western Canada, the county was built by sweat-drenched farmers, mud-encrusted loggers and oil rig bandits.
But the region's mighty Peace River, pumping billions of cubic meters of water into a vast drainage basin, makes it an ideal source for the vast amounts of water needed for nuclear power plants.
“This represents an economic opportunity that should not be overlooked,” says County Executive Terry Ungarian.
“(People) have come to hear about all the bad things that can go wrong, and they don't look at the whole industry more objectively,” Ungarian said in an interview.
“With all the data centers, electrification of vehicles and population growth … there will be a huge demand for electricity. This is probably a very good alternative.”
Energy Alberta, the company behind the project, says it respects companies like McNamara. In August it put the project on regulatory pause pending further consultations.
On its website, the company touts nuclear power as a clean, reliable source of electricity, providing low-carbon electricity to hundreds of reactors in dozens of countries.
Energy Alberta CEO Scott Henuseth said in a recent statement that the company wants to hear from those who have questions.
The general idea itself is a kind of throwback.
Ontario-based Bruce Power, the parent company of Energy Alberta, proposed a similar project for the area in 2008, but it was canceled after residents said its benefits were not worth the safety risks.
Currently, most of Alberta's electricity comes from natural gas, but Premier Danielle Smith's government has formed a panel to review the pros and cons of nuclear power as it seeks to attract new energy sources for projects such as data centers.
But the answer will not come soon. Alberta Public Utilities Minister Nathan Neudorf said if there is demand for nuclear power, it could be a decade before a nuclear power plant comes to fruition, saying in a statement that the recent study will “serve as a basis for future engagement activities.”
David Pickup of the Pembina Institute, a clean energy think tank, said nuclear energy has positive attributes, but it may not be the best option in 2025, especially given Canada's high cost of living.
Other renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are significantly cheaper and take less time to build, he said. A nuclear power plant usually takes about 15 years, while a wind, solar or battery power plant takes less than three years.
“Nuclear power can work, but it has some potentially big drawbacks,” he said. “It's hard to imagine how nuclear weapons fit into these details in Alberta.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 15, 2025.
