Nuclear energy policy has been almost a no-go area in Ontario’s election campaign.

The sector is on the verge of spending $25 billion or more on two massive projects, and constructing a nuclear-waste site that must last for millennia to come.

But while voters will ultimately pay for the projects through their hydro bills, the nuclear issue has barely raised a ripple in the current election campaign. In fact, it doesn’t even rate a mention in the New Democratic Party’s election platform.

Mid-life overhauls of two nuclear stations – Bruce and Darlington – are on the table. The price tag for Darlington’s four reactors alone is currently estimated at $10 billion in 2013 dollars – or $12.9 billion if interest and contingencies are included.

The price tag at privately operated Bruce Power – where six reactors will undergo mid-life refits – comes in at $2 billion per reactor, but with associated work over the next 15 years, spending will total $15 billion, company officials said earlier this year.

In addition to the nuclear overhauls, Ontario Power Generation proposes to construct a permanent disposal site for low and intermediate level nuclear waste at the Bruce.

But the mega-projects have raised scarcely a ripple on the hustings.

In some ways, the lack of attention is not surprising, as nuclear energy is well entrenched in the province.

Ontario has relied on nuclear energy for half a century. It provides more than 50 per cent of Ontario’s electricity.

Moreover, the plants where the big spending is taking place – Bruce and Darlington – already exist. The overhauls are life extension projects.

Still, it’s a lot of money – even if the projects stay within budget.

And staying within budget is not something that nuclear projects have been prone to in Ontario. The unpopular debt retirement charge – an extra 0.7 cents a kwh that’s finally due to expire at the end of 2015 – was levied to pay for past nuclear project cost over-runs.

The Liberal and Conservative platforms clearly support the nuclear overhauls.

“We will invest in the refurbishment of 10 nuclear units and Darlington and Bruce over 16 years, creating and sustaining 25,000 high-wage jobs,” the Liberal platform pledges.

The Conservatives go even further.

They note that Pickering with its eight reactors is due to close.

“We must build new ones and refurbish others,” they say in their Paths to Prosperitypolicy paper, released prior to the election.

The price tag on new reactors of unknown size and design is unclear, but would be multiple billions.

Building them would be further complicated by a federal court ruling that told OPG it can’t build new reactors, in part because there are no firm plans for handling waste that will remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousand of years.

The same environmental groups who won that decision are seeking a similar ruling on the Darlington refurbishment.

The New Democratic Party is more skeptical of the nuclear overhauls, according to energy critic Peter Tabuns.

“We haven’t seen a business case that supports refurbishment and we won’t make a decision on this until we do see a business case,” he said in an interview.

The NDP unequivocally opposes building new reactors, he said.

The Liberals have suspended any consideration of new reactors, declaring last December that they are “not needed at this time,” though keeping the option open for the future.

The one issue none of the parties address in their formal platforms is OPG’s proposal to entomb low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste in a limestone formation 680 metres below ground on the shore of Lake Huron.

A federal review panel is currently examining the proposal, but since OPG is owned by the province, the ultimate decision to proceed with the billion-dollar-plus proposal will lie at Queen’s Park.

The proposal took a new twist in February when a similar waste storage facility in Carlsbad, New Mexico leaked radiation.

Investigators are still probing the accident, and are zeroing in on a waste container that seems to have been damaged by extreme heat.

(No one’s certain what caused the container to heat up, but the most likely cause seems to be kitty litter -- presumably used to mop up a liquid spill -- that somehow reacted with some of the waste nuclear material.)

Various local, state and federal politicians in Michigan have expressed alarm at OPG’s proposed nuclear waste site.

The latest is Michigan state senator Phil Pavlov, who has called the waste site a “critical threat to the health of the Great Lakes.”

(Michigan’s federal senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin have also expressed stiff opposition to the site.)

Pavlov has introduced resolutions calling on the president or Congress to submit the project to the International Joint Commission, which deals with cross-border issues on the lakes.

“I talk to people every day that can’t understand the rationale behind this,” Pavlov said in an interview.

“The fact that we’re even considering something this close to the lake needs to be challenged,” he said.

“From what I’ve been hearing there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of interest being generated in Ontario on this issue. I’m having a hard time figuring that part of it out.”

Tabuns of the NDP says the New Mexico incident is worrisome.

“I don’t think there’s been a proper analysis of this and the risks that come from putting a nuclear waste repository directly adjacent to the Great Lakes,” he said in an interview.

“Before anything goes ahead, we need to look at why there was a failure of this technology in New Mexico and what that means to us here.”

The Liberals say they’re waiting on the federal panel to report before taking a final position on the waste site.

The panel has extended its hearings to gather information on the New Mexico incident, but no dates have been announced.