Science and Research Committee on June 9th, 2022

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Saab.

In thinking about the future of it, we know that a lot of e-waste goes overseas or gets shipped away from Canada and then ends up as pollution. I want to understand if there is any protection, and if those conversations are already happening on a global scale around what SMR waste might look like for the globe going forward.

[Edouard Saab]

Yes, not at a global scale.... I'm sure it's happening at the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, but every country is looking at that mandate to ensure that they do handle the fuel correctly. Nuclear Waste Management Organization Canada, along with the CNSC, our regulator, would have plans in place to ensure the stringent requirements of the CANDU plants in Canada are followed by any of the SMR providers having to deploy their units in Canada itself, and it's the same with the NRC in the U.S. The national regulatory council would do the same thing for U.S. colleagues as well.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Colleagues, we are now going to go to our five-minute rounds.

This time, we'll begin with Mr. Soroka.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here this evening.

I'll start with Mr. Saab.

Did I hear you correctly when earlier you said that there are really no challenges, policies or issues with building nuclear—such as SMRs—in Canada? Would this also include Bill C-69?

[Edouard Saab]

Yes, I was referring to the technology itself. Thank you for the question.

In terms of legislative requirements, yes, I wouldn't say that there are challenges, but there are processes that we need to follow. As a nuclear reactor provider, we would work with utilities, end-users and customers to follow the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission environmental assessment requirements.

Should we be looking at a microreactor under 200 megawatts, although Bill C-69 may not be mandated for us, there might be a possibility that impact assessment would be required. Now, the impact assessment does add a burden. It does add costs. It also would slow down for anything less than I think 300 megawatts the allowances that are required. There is a potential for us to take a technical process and make it a little longer and more expensive, and ultimately, the sad part of it is to delay some of the solution that could be provided to these remote communities and these industrial users of technology.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Would you find that the policies in place are making it any safer? Or is this just to give the public the feeling that it's safer?

[Edouard Saab]

That's a good question.

I guess the truthful answer is that with more rigour would probably come more questions and then more time to ensure diligence is made. Ultimately, if it's going to answer questions that had not been answered by an environmental assessment or any of the internal work done by a reactor developer such as Westinghouse, or an end-user, or even under the requirements of the licensing process under the CNSC.... I would not anticipate any questions or challenges to be posed that were not identified through those current steps, so no, I don't think the benefit, at least for Bill C-69, would be truly there for the public.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I have another question.

The committee has talked about remote communities not having an SMR and just continuing on with the current diesel or whatever other system they have to generate electricity, but in these remote communities, would having an SMR not give them more opportunities to either create a new business or to increase the area and number of people coming in so it would sort of give them a growth factor? Would this be an opportunity?

[Edouard Saab]

You are absolutely correct.

It's not just about the power and electricity provided. It really is about the economic development that clean, safe, reliable electricity and heat can provide for these areas. We are having those conversations, and that is what's being told to us. They do require the electricity because it is a GDP provider and because it will allow them to do more than what they currently can do.

To answer your question, it's an absolute yes. An SMR, our eVinci microreactor, would be a true enabler for remote communities needing clean drinking water and clean electricity, and it would really improve their quality of life and allow them to do more.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you for that.

Dr. Edwards, we've heard from witnesses who have stated that there is a critical issue with public confidence in small nuclear energy.

Do you find this to be critical in the implementation of SMRs in our community, and how vital is public engagement and communication when you are attempting to establish an SMR?

[Dr. Gordon Edwards]

Thank you.

You've certainly touched on something very important. What we've heard from the industry is that they have visions of how these SMRs could be used if somebody wanted them. The difficulty is that they don't have customers clamouring at the door and actually signing on the dotted line and saying, “As soon as these are ready, we'll buy them.” They're not like electric cars, which are selling like hotcakes. Nuclear reactors are not selling like hotcakes.

In the past they've even tried to give these things away. Here in Quebec, they tried to give away a small reactor to the University of Sherbrooke, and they couldn't succeed even there.

It's moot whether people are going to want these things and also whether the problems associated with them are as simple as presented.

With regard to environmental assessments, the only reason one small modular reactor is undergoing environmental assessment today is that it's under the old law. No new SMRs would be subject to an environmental assessment under the existing statute if they were under 200 megawatts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Soroka.

Again, I just want to acknowledge all you witnesses and how much we appreciate your being here.

We will now go to Mr. Collins for five minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their attendance this evening.

I'll start with Mr. Saab.

Mr. Saab, some critics have argued that the technology won't be ready until at least 2030, if at all, and they have characterized SMRs as an expensive science experiment. They've suggested at the same time that we should obviously be looking at wind, solar and other options. We've heard that tonight from some of the other witnesses while you've been present.

What's your response to that?

[Edouard Saab]

Thank you for the question.

I can answer it in two parts.

First, with respect to the technology-readiness level, as I mentioned before, the luxury we have had is that we are taking an existing technology and scaling it up. We have a very high comfort that the technology will be ready well before 2030. The truth is that we already have the electrical demonstration unit up and running whereby we take electricity to you to create electricity, and that is really proving the heat pipe design and the scalability of what we've licensed from the Los Alamos lab. That has been completed successfully.

The next step would be a nuclear demonstration unit, which we plan to have completed by 2026. That is well within the four years.

In terms of when it's commercially ready for the market—to the questions posed before—it really depends on the licensing process. The other question I believe Dr. Edwards mentioned was about the customer requirements as well. We do have customers who do want the unit now and we're hoping that the licensing process will be much shorter and they will have access to the unit itself today.

In terms of the partnership with renewables, I'm a huge supporter of renewables, both wind and solar, but we've heard countless times before—right now it's not sunny in Toronto—that there are times when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing.

We can envision technology like the eVinci microreactor being coupled with wind and solar to allow safe backup whenever we don't have that power coming from the renewable itself. It might actually exploit and support renewables to grow even further than what they have today—because they don't have the safe backup required—and they sometimes require, I think, diesel backups to provide power when the wind's not blowing.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks for those answers.

I was intrigued by Dr. Edwards' comments relating to the marketability of SMRs. We've had a number of witnesses in front of us who have talked about the investments made by the private sector in getting us to a point in time where the technology is proven and is ready to be sold to customers.

Can you respond to how much money the private sector has invested in the technology? Maybe just deal with that from a domestic perspective here in Canada. What does the customer base look like? Who will be purchasing these SMRs, and what kind of dollars and investments are at play as it relates to marketability?

We've heard about the economic uplift once they're in communities and jobs have been created, but I'm interested in the sales themselves. I find it hard to believe that the private sector would invest so much in the technology only to find out that there's no ROI at the end of the day.

Can you comment on that?

[Edouard Saab]

We believe there is an ROI; otherwise, we wouldn't be investing our own funds into the technology. Maybe I can speak to what's been public information, and I can be a little more specific about Westinghouse because I don't want to talk for the industry when I don't have the details.

Through the strategic innovation fund, through Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada, they have funded three different reactor technologies: Terrestrial, Moltex, and Westinghouse Electric Canada for our eVinci reactor.

For our eVinci reactor, for example, Mr. Collins, we've been given $27 million—not given; it's a contribution agreement, and we pay it back, for the record. We have a contribution agreement for $27 million to accelerate the spend within Canada. Ninety-five percent of that spend will be in Canada by Canadians to accelerate that technology. On top of that, we are going to put another $40 million just for the program tied to what we're doing under the strategic innovation fund. That does not include all of the work that Westinghouse does to ensure the technology with our people in Canada and around the world.

That investment I talked about, the $27 million plus the $40 million, is a small fraction of what's required to move it forward.

Having said that, we are a private entity, and we do have an ROI expectation. In consultation with customers, there is a requirement. As opposed to my and our saying that there are no customers required, let the customers talk to us and let them say. We are hearing from those who want to talk to us and who are proactively coming to Westinghouse looking for this technology now that they know about it. They are looking for these mobile, transportable, efficient five-megawatt batteries to complement or replace diesel backup generators.

Remote communities have stood up to say what—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Saab. I'm sorry. Interrupting is the worst part of this.

[Edouard Saab]

That's no problem. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Forgive me.

[Edouard Saab]

I can provide more information, Mr. Collins. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Now we have three minutes left, so to be fair and keep us on time for the next panel, we have Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for a minute and a half and Ms. Zarrillo for a minute and a half.

Thank you.

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

I just want to make sure that I understood correctly, Madam Chair. Do I have two and half minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

To keep us on time, you have a minute and a half so we can start the next panel, because we have a hard stop.

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

Very well, but that’s not in line with the rules we set at the start, Madam Chair.