Evidence of meeting #50 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was facility.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
From the point of view of energy security in Canada or in the world, can you talk to us about the role that nuclear energy is playing in diversifying different forms of energy?
5:20 p.m.
President and Co-Chairman , Energy Alberta Corporation
What's happening in Alberta is we have an appetite for oil and gas, and we have oil and gas there, so that appetite is amazing. But our conventional oil is pretty much used up, or the idea of finding more of it in our area, so they're going to the oil sands because it's there. They know it's there. There's no finding cost, it's just getting the product out of the ground. So we have to have a stable energy cost in order to get that fossil fuel out of the ground. Right now, with using natural gas, not only having the CO2 liability that coal has but also the fluctuation in prices, that's why nuclear power makes sense. It also, as you say, diversifies our economy, and it brings in a cleaner form of energy in order to produce that fossil fuel.
5:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
There are two opportunities with respect to nuclear. One, because it produces large amounts of energy and because it runs best at 24/7, it is capable of helping to sustain the intermittent nature of some other of our renewable fuels, like solar and wind. So we end up being able to help the system manage the intermittent nature of those units. So that is one opportunity.
The second opportunity is that because we can produce, again, 24/7 at a very high level, we are looking at being able to produce hydrogen. Right now, we're looking at the production of hydrogen from electrolysis. But when we go to the generation four project that I was earlier describing and a higher heat temperature coming from the reactors, there will be a possibility of getting into a thermal-chemical production of hydrogen, which will again permit us to move beyond where we are today into a different style of economy that will see the deployment of hydrogen as a more standard fuel around Canada.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you, Mr. Elston.
Thank you, Monsieur Gourde.
That completes our second round. We are just a bit short of our time. But I think that's probably going to conclude.
5:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
Do you want us to talk longer?
5:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
No, I think you've done an excellent job, frankly--some very good questions and very good responses. I do appreciate the work you've gone into in preparing for this meeting and the answers you've given.
As usual, we appear to have a final comment from Monsieur Ouellet.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to hear from Mr. Henuset. He said that he would like to shorten the time needed to evaluate a project. When my colleague asked him what he would like to shorten, he replied that he would like to shorten the evaluation time to one year.
Mr. Henuset, as a planner, I can tell you that it cannot be done like that. When you begin a project, you have to consider the water, the terrain, the resistance, wind direction, the presence or absence of trees, the distance between your site and neighbouring communities, security, etc. All those factors mean that you cannot get an answer easily. People have to evaluate things in different ways. You are putting up something that is more complex than a wind turbine. So it is normal that it takes some time.
5:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
It is indeed a fair comment that this is a complex package. But I think what Mr. Henuset was really commenting on was that it would be nice to be able to have one package that considered all of the elements inside. He has one project, but I think what is happening is that there are a number of places where duplication occurs. You begin, and you may go through the same principles on each of those elements, and then someone may come along from another site and say, “Go through the elements you discussed with the other regulator for me as well”, and you end up having things that are consecutive as opposed to concurrent.
If only there were some of those places is, I think, what really Mr. Henuset was talking about. But I totally agree: thoroughness of preparation, thoroughness of disclosure are all going to help us get the right responses. Ultimately, the rigour, which we can get, can be managed—and lots of places are trying to manage it—by going to one site with respect to a timely intervention. BAP in Quebec is an attempt to put in place a process that is rigorous, public, and transparent, and which I've attended, but it is a thorough process that contains all of the elements. I think that's what people are longing after.
I suppose once you get to the other side of the fence and see how green the grass is, you might look to the other side again, but it looks as though people are working to contain the entire package.
We're not looking for less rigour, nor is Mr. Henuset, but we are looking for movement that lets us be methodical. Large construction projects, large logistics projects of any sort, whether they're wind or hydro or nuclear, are most economically done when you can go methodically from one step to the next with predictability, and that's when we get the best value for the consumer.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you again, Mr. Elston, for speaking on behalf the Canadian Nuclear Association, and Mr. Henuset, on behalf of Energy Alberta Corporation. I very much appreciate your appearance today. The work you put into these presentations and the clarity of your answers are very much appreciated.
That, ladies and gentlemen, will conclude the meeting today. We will meet again in two weeks.