Spread the largess of SMR deployment far and wide across all regions.

The equal distribution of the social and financial benefits across nations, provinces, states ['Levelling Up' in the UK]

"...The [CBOC] report estimates that building and operating a fleet of four SMRs will contribute approximately $15.3 billion to Canada's GDP, including $13.7 billion to Ontario's GDP. It will create and sustain 2,000 jobs each year in Canada over the next 65 years..."

Now here's the thing with SMRs - they have a microscopic environmental footprint and it's likely they could be sited almost anywhere in Ontario. Sticking 4 together on one site will invariably concentrate the social benefits, in terms of wages, goods and services, in and around that southern region - Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, etc..

It is not beyond the wit of Ontario's politicians and planners to spread a lot more BWRX-300s far and wide through central Ontario and up into the North. A future powered by BWRX-300s is not hard to visualise with a bit of simple arithmetic:

Ontario has a population of 15.11 million using an average of 9.6 MWh of electricity per year. Advanced light water SMRs will operate at a capacity factor of at least 95% for a design life of 60 years.

With 10% over capacity, 64 BWRX-300s would be needed, requiring an investment of CA$1.25 billion each, which totals $80 billion. Spread over 60 years, that's $1.33 billion per year.

In terms of accounting for that in electricity bills for the 4.17 million families in Ontario, it's a 'content' of $320 every year - forever. But if your a family in a community that does not benefit one jot from that boost to Ontario's GDP and jobs, then it's tough 💩
(Will 64 BWRX-300s contribute 16 x $13.7 billion to Ontario's GDP and 16 x 2,000 jobs in Canada?).

What better could the Minister for Energy, Todd Smith [at 20:20], do than spread the largess, that Ontario's vastly increased future demand for BWRX-300s will guarantee, far and wide across the Province?

And, what better could nuclear power advocates do, like Chris Keefer, Mark Nelson Robert Bryce and James Krellenstein, than reconsider their support for, and attempts to, conflate and confuse LMRs (Large Modular Reactors, aka 'Big Nuclear') with SMRs. Don't they think this one attribute of SMRs - the equalling out of the social and financial benefits across regions - is sufficient to place SMRs way ahead of LMRs in the minds of politicians, investors and the general public alike?

And, not forgetting Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) at the site boundary fences of SMRs instead of an EPZ of 10 miles radius for 'Big Nuclear'.