Nunavut should go nuclear, energy industry representative says
Westinghouse Electric Corp. speaker pitches nuclear microreactors for territory at mining symposium
Agata Leszkiewicz of Westinghouse Electric Corp. talks nuclear energy at the Nunavut Mining Symposium Thursday in Iqaluit. (Photo by Arty Sarkisian)
Updated on Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. ET.
Nunavut should consider the potential benefits of using small nuclear reactors to generate electricity, says a representative for a U.S. supplier of nuclear power technology.
“It could be coming. It could be the right fit for you,” said Agata Leszkiewicz, eVinci business development lead Canada for Westinghouse Electric Corp. eVinci is one of the company’s microreactor projects.
“We’re here to start raising awareness and sort of walk with you along the way as we continue to progress.”
Leszkiewicz spoke to about 100 delegates at the Nunavut Mining Symposium in Iqaluit on Thursday.
A typical nuclear reactor uses the power within atoms of uranium and produces roughly one gigawatt of electricity. The reactors Leszkiewicz is pitching for Nunavut are 1/2ooth the size, at five megawatts.
A five-megawatt microreactor would be big enough to be “economically feasible” but small enough that it could be easily transported and deployed, Leszkiewicz said.
Iqaluit, for instance, currently requires 10 to 11 megawatts provided by generators that use 15 million litres of diesel fuel per year.
The model Leszkiewicz suggested is an above-ground nuclear power plant that would require less than two acres of land and be operational for more than eight years without having to resupply it with uranium fuel.
It is designed to be easily transportable by ships and constructed in 30 days once on site.
Nuclear energy produces about 15 per cent of Canada’s electricity. There are currently five plants in three provinces that house 22 nuclear power reactors, according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
There is one ongoing project in Canada involving a Westinghouse microreactor, Leszkiewicz said.
In November 2023, the Government of Saskatchewan announced $80 million in funding to the Saskatchewan Research Council for the creation of the first microreactor.
It would be enough to power 5,500 homes and avoid 55,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per year, the project plan said. It doesn’t specify a timeline or the total cost.
Leszkiewicz said this is the best time for Nunavummiut to consider nuclear energy, as all levels of government are becoming more interested in it as an energy source to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint.
“So much change in such a short period of time,” she said, talking about the shift in governments’ attitudes. “Moving at nuclear speed, as we call it.”
Leszkiewicz didn’t say whether Westinghouse has approached the Government of Nunavut with a proposal for nuclear energy.
In recent months, the territory has received a total of $26 million in federal funding for the planned Iqaluit hydroelectric plant which could generate 15 megawatts of power.
The project is led by Nunavut Nukkiksautiit Corp., an Inuit-owned subsidiary of Qikiqtaaluk Corp., and would include an approximately 50-metre-high dam and a powerhouse built along the Kuugaluk River, about 60 kilometres northeast of Iqaluit.
There is no estimated price tag for the plant that could be operational by 2033. But in 2017, it was estimated to cost up to $500 million.
Correction: This article has been update from its originally published version to clarify the source’s role in the energy industry.
Micro-nuclear is a great idea. It would indeed be a great fit for Nunavut, which could supply its own uranium!
It never ceases to amaze me how ridiculous people can be about the fact that there is uranium in Nunavut – like maybe we could dig it up and shovel it straight into a small nuclear reactor. To become nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons uranium has to through a very energy-intensive process called enrichment. That is done at a military facility in the US. There is no way to distinguish ‘uranium from Nunavut’ from uranium from anywhere else. And there is no way to ensure that uranium mined in Nunavut wouldn’t end up in nuclear weapons.
Fear monger, yes nuclear weapons, there are already enough to destroy the world 3 times, but if you see global warming is destroying the planet.
There is sufficient Hydroelectric resources for power generation in Nunavut besides Small Nuclear power plants. But transmission losses and costs through power lines to remote areas is the problem. No Nukes is better after a thorough study.
We Inuit will oppose any Uranium mining on our lands. Baker Lake already voted to oppose Uranium mining. Areva, a French Mining company really wanted to develop a Uranium Mine over here but pulled out in 2017 because of community back lash.
Look at the map, the Uranium deposits are located where the caribou herds calve every year, mining in the area will displace our main food source and wipe them out.
Outsiders tell us Inuit what is best for us is a joke.
Outsiders tell us Inuit what is best for us is a joke.
Main food source or to sell to Baffinmiut?
Main food source? I bet you go to the local Northern Store more often than hunting, like everybody else.
I don’t know where you got your information about uranium mining being banned in Nunavut, apparently their are at least 6 uranium companies that are presently minining not only for uranium, but also for gold.
Not sure where you get your information from, but there not “at least 6 uranium companies” in Nunavut “mining” for uranium. A few exploration companies are exploring for uranium, yes, but no-one is actually mining for it.
There is a company that is trying to get going with uranium exploration again in Baker Lake up the Thelon River. The Nunavut Impact Review Board is currently reviewing the documents. It’s time for the community to be informed about this. Something needs to be done to protect the Thelon River and its surrounding area for future generations.
The Beverly herd and the Qamanirjuaq herd have declined drastically. The Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Management Board reports that the Qamanirjuaq herd has declined from 496, 000 in 1994 to 252, 900 in 2022. The Beverly herd has declined from 276, 000 in 1994 to 103, 400 in 2018. I hope the needs of the caribou, and those who rely on them, will be protected against the potential for temporary monetary gains. The caribou, if protected, will be here for future generations. This means everyone can eat – not just a few who want to exploit the land.
And what do you think is the biggest reason for the decline in that herd? I’ll give you hint: it’s not mining.
This is an energy source for the future that has credibility. The $80 million for the Saskatchewan reactor makes a heck of a lot more sense than the half billions and counting for the hydro project. The hydro project breaks even only if it has to compete with oil priced in the hundreds of dollars per barrel compared with US$ 60 today. Also Nunavut has uranium deposits to power nuclear power.
Hydro project $500m tag is in 2017 dollars, and is probably double in today’s dollars
NJ wait till they build that 500-million – 1 billion dollar 150 foot high dam and back water up 50 km and flood thousands of acres of land and change the environment for ever, then people will be screaming, and who do you think will be paying the power bills but wait, who pays power bills in Nunavut, that’s right nobody.
A new strange idea that people across Nunavut do not pay their electricity bills.
Try telling that to a family whose power has been restricted.
Small modular reactors make a lot of sense for places like Nunavut both economically and environmentally.
Small Modular Reactors, none built yet. Like most nukes the price will 10x before anything is putting out electricity .
The $80 million is only to “study” small nuclear reactors (SMR).
A total of zero commercial SMRs have ever been built, and no one knows how much they will cost, but based on the nuclear industry’s track record, it’s going to be a lot.
I have been pondering the design of the Westinghouse eVinci micro-reactor too. The Westinghouse website makes it clear that this is still an unproven concept. It is not yet ready for “prime-time”.
Here are just a couple of the questions that come to mind:
1. How does the “innovative heat pipe technology” actually work? The eVinci micro-reactor merely creates heat. Whereas conventional reactors use this heat to boil water to create steam, which then drives a turbine to turn a generator (e.g. 1800rpm alternator), the “Westinghouse heat pipe” uses no liquids at all. But exactly how does it work? And how efficient will it be? What about reliability? (Remember that conventional steam-turbine-generator setups have a long history dating back over a century, since they first started with coal. This heat-to-electricity conversion technology is very transparent and is easily serviceable, and it brings good efficiency. Of course, the nuclear-reactor portion will be separately sealed off and designed to be only swapped out as a “cartridge-style” module every 8 years.)
2. What if Westinghouse Nuclear were to go out of business? The eVinci is a proprietary technology with the reactor “cartridge” modules being swappable (i.e. ship up a new module and install it while the old one is reaching the end of its life, then later remove the old one and ship it back down south for refueling at Westinghouse). But everything seems to depend on Westinghouse. This is dramatically different from the current technology of diesel generators, which are extremely well-proven and are made by many firms. Parts are readily available. So, any trained mechanic can fix any engine. This creates local jobs too.
3. The design of the fuel pellets of the eVinci reactor is such that they are tiny sand-like pellets highly enriched uranium-235, coated with layers of ceramic. This makes for a very safe reactor that is effectively meltdown-proof. But it also means that the depleted fuel is not recyclable. In contrast, conventional reactors (e.g. CANDU in Canada, and BWR and PWR in the USA) generate “nuclear waste” that can in fact be reprocessed into fuel that can be used again, often repeatedly, if suitably engineered reactors are at hand. (Breeder reactors are one example that comes to mind. Nuclear engineering is a highly complex topic.)
Canada used to build the Cando reactors and sold them world wide. Why buy anything from the US. While we are at it. Dust if the plans for the avro aero build in canada in the 1950s. To this day it was faster, flew higher and farther than the us F16. Why would we buy anything from the US.
They are a Canadian owed company!
CANDU reactors are significantly different than these microreactors. But yes, Canada has the expertise to parallel develop similar technologies if they had the willpower.
Nuclear (and hydro for that matter) have significant considerations to factor in, and will not likely be sole-source options, ever.
They aren’t responsive to electrical demand, so you have to either produce your minimum demand levels and supplement with alternate (like diesel/coal) or you overproduce and sell it (NU can’t because they’re not on a grid). A nice solution to this is electric vehicle batteries to absorb the surplus in off hours, but despite my affinity for them, they really aren’t a reasonable solution in arctic communities (small #’s and limiting in use).
There is no longer a role for a starfighter type design like the Arrow, and even if there was, a 60 year old dogfighting chassis like the falcon (with its drastically different mission) is a poor comparator to what is available today.
Need to sit down for a proverbial beer or two with you my fellow earthling.
Here, here!
It’s a great idea, that’s why Nunavut won’t do it. Endless talk about developing resources but put up roadblocks at every turn. Same with all development that makes sense.
giving the plans to a nuclear reactor to a 6 year old? good idea.
What could possibly go wrong.
If micro nuclear technology was so amazing for remote northern communities, why are there no operational micro nuclear reactors in Alaska today?
The National Research Council experimented with a small nuclear reactor for remote communities. It was called a SlowPoke, it never gained much traction because of people fearing anything to do with radioactivity.
Jesse James , Alaska is in the process of replacing all their diesel generators, and installing these small nuclear reactors,because of the cost of diesel fuel,
I’m all for alternatives to fossil fuels, but what would Nunavut do with the nuclear waste? Ship it south at a massive cost due to the dangerous nature of the bi product? Or find somewhere on the land that we don’t mind irradiating for the next thousand years or so?
Since our communities are filled with nuclear engineers, they will finally be able to find work. Great idea.
Nuclear reactors, eh?
So just how do these “smart” and “intelligent” people figure this will work?
Let’s say the reactor is up and running but THEN, it needs its daily maintenance performed BUT no operator shows up cuz of whatever they did last night. Then what? Hmm?
The intelligencia thinks they’re really smart coming up with these GREAT ideas and then they disappear without remotely considering any follow up or follow through. Keep your good ideas to yourself and your other “saviours”.
Nuclear power plants are safer than diesel-burning power generation plants of comparable size.
Keep the Muricans out of our Arctic!
And keep their grubby paws off our minerals.
No nukes!
There is possible alternative called enhanced geothermal energy. You drill deep enough to hit sufficient heat. Then you send down water to create a closed steam turbine loop with cooling pipes on the surface. You can vary the water volume for the demand. It’s 24 hours and year-round
You get to cheat on the drilling cost if you have any abandoned oil or gas wells.
Think of the money nunavut could spend on other things besides all the fuel to keep the lights on
Is she kidding? Nunavut has a hard enough time keeping the lights on on a regular basis in most communities. God forbid that we install a nuclear reactor here!
May be good for Nunavut, but remember those countries who opposed the seal skin production against the Inuit society… they made sure Nunavut didn’t prosper like the European has… they desperately need resources but has left the Inuit everytime there is a new technology… remember the whaling Era from 1848 to 1920… the whole world left the Inuit after using their value… wouldlet the European had anything to do with anything in the north…. especially the French…. they party and share your partner… lol can’t trust anything that is a research still… there is a way,,, just need to find the rigth environmental safest way… good luck
Look at Greenland
They burn the garbage to create heat
India burns the sewage for heat
It nuclear energy can be very possible for Nunavut
awesome idea, then we should mine BITCOIN with NUCLEAR power. start a Nunavut BTC reserve . then with those mining sites , use excess energy waste into heating solutions for green houses.
money printer , and grow food .
Baffin will deplete Kivalliq caribou. No problem.