Science and Research Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Plummer.

Thank you, Monsieur Lauzon. We appreciate this.

Again, just as a reminder, if you have a question for Mr. Hartwick, please get it on the record.

We'll now go to Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Plummer.

The New Brunswick Power Corporation is currently focusing on small modular reactors, among other things. I would like to hear your comments on Canada's competitive advantage when it comes to producing that technology.

[Brett Plummer]

We were early movers on the small modular reactor in north America, and also in western Europe.

We took the lead in basically collaborating, coming up with a pan-Canadian approach, a road map and an action plan. As a result, we're well down the road through a regulatory review process, through the vendor design review of phase one and phase two, on many of these technologies.

There's an economic advantage there, as long as we continue to support nuclear and small modular reactors. That competitive edge is the fact that we were early movers, and also the fact that many different vendors came to Canada because we have a graded approach associated with evaluating the safety of innovative new technologies.

Now, if we don't act and support the small modular reactors, we will lose that advantage in a very short period of time.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

One of the economic arguments used is obviously standardization—large-scale production of small modular reactors. But to achieve economies of scale, many units will of course need to be produced and cost efficiency will need to be achieved.

Do you have any data on that? How many units need to be produced to achieve true economies of scale?

[Brett Plummer]

First off, we will need to standardize design. These are small modular reactors. They're very simplistic. They will not require the staff that's on some of our larger safe operating units, but we do need a standardized design. They will require some kind of support centre for all different activities, to minimize the cost.

It is a fleet concept. We will be manufacturing with advanced manufacturing technologies. Again, these are small modular reactors, so these components can be built in a factory and standardized, with quality assurance, to eliminate some of the issues we're seeing around the world with large-scale nuclear build-out, associated with taking design and turning it into the actual components or assembling the components with the integration in the field.

There's a tremendous advantage there. What we will need to do in order to have this build-out is to all work towards getting the first of a kind. We will have to make sure we do the preparation for the nth of a kind, so that once we prove the technology through the first of a kind, we are ready to execute through the supply chain in manufacturing to support the nth of a kind. We've done supply chain studies in New Brunswick. We are basically working with organizations within Canada to make sure we understand what's ahead of us from a manufacturing standpoint.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Plummer.

Can you tell us exactly how many small modular reactors will need to be produced to achieve profitability?

[Brett Plummer]

We will need a tremendous amount of energy. You've already heard testimony that we're going to need two to five times the existing energy we have. This will be a combination of all of the above. A lot of it will be local, provincially driven by what you have for an advantage with the new province. For example, Quebec is blessed with hydro, as is B.C. In New Brunswick, it will be a combination. We are very diverse. We have some hydro and we have wind and solar, but we also have nuclear. It will be a combination thereof.

That said, a lot of people are leaning towards at least.... One model is 24% nuclear across Canada. If you do the math—again it's a math problem, as Mr. Gorman said—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I have to interrupt you, Mr. Plummer. I'm sorry, time is running out.

When it comes to production, you say you don't have any data. So on what data are you basing your belief that global production or demand will be sufficient to support that production at scale?

[Brett Plummer]

There are multiple documents out there. There's a very good study done by SNC-Lavalin on engineering net zero that basically has one model to achieve it within Canada. There's also information out there from international groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, associated with driving why nuclear is important and how it's going to be a component within the energy mix going forward. There are many studies. MIT has done a study as well. They all come to the same conclusion: We will need nuclear, and it will be a large percentage of the component for clean energy.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Plummer, how many small modular reactors do you think you can produce over the next five years?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

May I suggest, Mr. Plummer and Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas, that we ask for a written response on this?

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas.

We will now go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, again, to the witnesses.

I'm going to start with Mr. Plummer and ask a question I was hoping to ask Mr. Sullivan of Moltex before, but we ran out of time. Since I understand that's the technology New Brunswick Power will be banking on for SMRs, perhaps you can answer it, as well.

The question revolves around a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister a year ago, I believe, by 10 or so American nuclear experts, nuclear regulators, Harvard professors, top diplomats and White House advisers from past American presidencies, who were very concerned about the Moltex technology.

They had two concerns. One is around a fact that Moltex tries to sell as a benefit, and that is reducing the volume of waste that we get from CANDU reactors by 95%. The trouble is, we're ending up with 5% of the really nasty stuff that is still serious waste, and there's plutonium involved. They are concerned, as are others, about plutonium, because it gets potentially into nuclear proliferation, weapons and things like that.

Moltex has called this technology “proliferation-resistant” for various reasons, but a 2009 review by experts from six U.S. national labs found that it was as susceptible to misuse for proliferation as the standard reprocessing technology.

So there's that concern, and the second one is talking about the long-term risk of the waste. Moltex claims the removal of plutonium would reduce the long-term risk from a deep underground radioactivity waste repository, a claim these experts say has been discredited repeatedly.

Finally, they urge that Canada, before making any further commitments in support of this reprocessing, convene high-level reviews of both the non-proliferation and environmental implications of the Moltex reprocessing proposal. They believe that such reviews will find reprocessing to be counterproductive on both fronts.

That was a long lead-up question, but I'm wondering what your response to that is. Since it came out a year ago, I assume you have something to reply.

[Brett Plummer]

We've seen the report, and I'm not going to try to comment or discredit the report. I will give you our professional opinion from New Brunswick Power.

We believe that in the future there's energy in used fuel. We need to take advantage of that energy. The world has been reprocessing fuel for decades. Thirty per cent of the used fuel around the world is already reprocessed, and reprocessed safely. We have to have trust in our regulators, internationally and across Canada, to make sure, as we go down and evaluate this process, that we can do it safely.

It will reduce the volume and it will reduce the toxicity of the waste that's left. It's a tremendous amount of energy for future generations, and again, it's done in other parts of the world.

We believe this is the path to go.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Do you have any concerns? Someone, I'm not sure whether it was you, Mr. Plummer, or Mr. Rencheck, talked about making sure that we can use these technologies across countries so that we could export this IP and export this technology.

There are countries like the United States, which has a long-standing history going back to the Jimmy Carter presidency of really being wary or very negative about processes involving plutonium. Is there any concern about whether that will be a strike against the Moltex technology, at least in terms of trade with the United States?

[Brett Plummer]

Is the question for me? I apologize.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Plummer.

[Brett Plummer]

No, we don't have any concern, because we have trust in the process through our regulators, again internationally and across Canada. From, basically, a fuel supply standpoint with the build-out that we're going to need in nuclear, and also from a national security standpoint, we believe that in the future we will want to reprocess fuel. I believe that if we follow our processes and we do it safely, it will help us in the future.

[Michael Rencheck]

I can add to that question, as well.

The process has been under way for decades in France. France reprocesses nuclear fuel, and they've been doing it for other countries successfully for many decades: Germany, Japan and the U.K. Quite frankly, that fuel has been reused over and over again. What it produces, effectively.... What you would get in terms of waste, if you use nuclear energy for your entire lifeline, would be a footprint about the size of a pop can. The residual left over is vitrified into glass logs. The studies I'm familiar with show that those glass logs last for a minimum of 10,000 years, with the possibility of 100,000 years. The only reason they don't go to 100,000 years is that they don't really have the empirical data to prove it, so they stop at a much shorter time frame. Those logs are vitrified and pretty much impermeable, so the waste is contained and stored.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Rencheck, and I'm sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Cannings, thank you for the questions.

Dear colleagues, we're now going to go to the five-minute round.

We'll go to Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

Mr. Hartwick, I'm going to give you a few questions. You can answer me, but you can certainly submit in writing to the committee. I'm probably going to get into this with other witnesses.

Number one, what is the short-term, medium-term and long-term vision for Ontario Power Generation and energy? Number two, given the demand for energy in the build-out, do you have a worker shortage right now in labour, and where do you see that in the future? Number three, do you support an energy corridor in Canada, and what does that look like?

I'll start with Mr. Plummer. Certainly, it's the same kinds of questions for the medium and long terms.

One thing we spoke about briefly.... I think you mentioned hydrogen. When we look at Canada in the long term, we talk about hydrogen being a major form. This is in the long term, probably 30-plus years out. Number one, can you tell me how nuclear plays a role and how you see that? When we look at Canada right now, natural gas is going to power hydrogen development. Do you see nuclear taking that over, and would you see that at the source—around cities, for instance?

[Brett Plummer]

I do see nuclear playing a large role—not the only source, but playing a major role in hydrogen and ammonia generation, especially with the high-temperature reactors that can run the electrolyzers to generate hydrogen. I believe there is a perfect partnership between other energy sources and nuclear, used intermittently, especially with the appropriate storage system used in between. For example, you can use the intermittent power to generate the hydrogen, and nuclear can supply the grid. When the wind blows and the sun shines, you can use that power for the grid, and you can use nuclear to develop the hydrogen, ammonia, or other synthetic fuels, or to support manufacturing.

I see, in the future, an integration of energy, as I mentioned before. Nuclear is very conducive to that.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Rencheck, I'll ask you the same question.

[Michael Rencheck]

I see the same: an integrated energy system. I think we're going to need all the clean energy we can make. Clearly, natural gas will play an important role in the creation of hydrogen, but so will nuclear. We'll be able to do it at scales that are quite large and therefore able to power economies.

You also asked about a worker shortage. We haven't seen that in the nuclear industry. Our young people are flocking to the industry, because they see what we're doing to protect the environment and save lives through medical isotopes. For example, for 20 operator positions last spring, we had over 1,000 applications. In the last two years, we've had nearly 30,000 applications for about 2,000 positions, so our young people are attracted to this environmentally friendly technology. They want to make a difference, they want clean energy, they want to protect the environment, and they want to save lives.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

I will follow up on the long-term strategy before I get into the short term.

You need a buy-in from the government. Mr. Plummer, I heard you talk about financial supports. Is there anything else you would recommend, or that you need? What should the government be doing over the long term, at this point, such as supporting R and D?

[Brett Plummer]

Yes, we need help with research and development. We have tremendous universities, partnerships, memos of understanding and collaboration within Canada and also with other countries associated with research and development. We need support, through research and development, for these innovative power energy sources—not just for nuclear, but for others as well.