Science and Research Committee on June 16th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Welcome, everyone. Good evening.

I'd like to begin by welcoming our witnesses to our committee. We're delighted to have you.

Welcome to meeting number 16 of the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

The Board of Internal Economy requires that committees adhere to the following health protocols, which are in effect until June 23.

All individuals wishing to enter the parliamentary precinct must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. All those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their places during proceedings.

Please contact our excellent clerk for further information on preventive measures for health and safety. As the chair, I will enforce these measures and, as always, I thank our excellent colleagues for their help.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021.

There are a few rules to follow. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You may speak in the official language of your choice. At the bottom of the screen you may choose to hear floor audio, or English or French.

The “raise hand” feature is on the main toolbar, should you wish to speak.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

When you are not speaking, your microphone should be muted and we will maintain a speaking order.

Colleagues, we are delighted to have our first panel tonight.

We have, as an individual, Professor David Novog. From McMaster University, we have Dave Tucker, who is the assistant vice president for nuclear research. Welcome to you both.

From Ontario Power Generation we are really pleased that Ken Hartwick, who is the president and chief executive officer, can join us.

We'd like to welcome you all. We hope you have a good experience today. You have an interested committee.

Each of you will have five minutes to speak. At four and a half minutes, I will hold up a yellow card. It lets you know you have 30 seconds to wrap up.

With that, we will begin with Professor Novog.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Dr. David Novog, Professor, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, distinguished Chair.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me here today to speak. It is my honour to do so.

I want to take the opportunity to also thank the clerk and the staff for their support in getting me here.

As background, I'm a professor in nuclear engineering, and I lead a multi-university, multi-million dollar small modular reactor training program. As part of my tenure at McMaster, I have taken students to the very top-performing nuclear reactors in the world, and I've taken them to the Chernobyl and Fukushima sites as well. It's all in an effort to improve their understanding of the technical and social implications of their work and their research.

I have presented on the topic of climate change at many international events and for all levels of audiences. Until recently, many of these talks focused on the almost insurmountable challenges that climate represents to our society. Some economic forecasts predict that because of climate deterioration, the quality of life of today's kids will be less than that which we enjoy.

I would like to provide a quote from James Lovelock, the famed inventor of Gaia theory, which describes the relationship of humans with the planet. He's also a member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, and he is 102 years old. He said recently, “I would say the biosphere and I are both in the last 1% [of] our lives.” One of the most pre-eminent inventors and scientists of our time does not like our chances and, for many years, I agreed.

In recent years, though, I have changed. I have rediscovered that my job as a professor is to be inspiring, to elevate students to learn, and to help them succeed in meeting these kinds of challenges. The objective has been to convince them to not give up, that we have hope and that there is a solution—to stop the paralysis that can occur when a problem seems too difficult to solve.

Today, I truly believe there is a solution.

It is a solution that has been proven to cut CO2 while improving GDP. An excellent example is a nuclear energy-based solution in France during the 1970s, which showed that a country can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by over 50% and simultaneously increase its GDP by 50%. Such a solution, combined with hydro and new technologies like wind, solar and electric vehicles, is a portfolio that can absolutely meet the challenges posed by the climate today.

In Canada we can be leaders, because it is a technology well suited to our geography and our expertise. Small modular reactors can aid in electricity generation, but they can also be an enabling technology to allow remote communities the opportunity for agriculture, desalination, education and quality-of-life improvements that do not exist today.

Counter to this are public concerns related to waste, safety and the economics of small modular reactors. These ongoing concerns highlight the need for a robust national dialogue on nuclear energy. Such a campaign should not only provide the public with a fact-based analysis, but also assess the impacts of not acting on this climate-friendly energy solution.

This campaign could also address the fundamental needs for human talent by expanding the opportunities for training and development of young people. For example, this week at McMaster, we hosted a small group of young graduate students for hands-on training on our reactor. This was funded by NSERC as part of a training program that I run on SMRs.

I am frequently asked, however, by other universities and other young people throughout Canada, why they are not included in this program. The simple answer is that even with the $2.5 million of funding I have in this program, I can dedicate that to only a relatively small cohort of people who can participate. Thus, to establish a robust SMR university environment, a coordinated and sustained program is needed beyond our existing funding opportunities.

In closing, there is no magic technology that will provide us with relief from the climate problem, but that does not mean we are hopeless. There are solutions to climate issues, and elements have already been proven at the scale that we need. By expanding the investments necessary in the technologies and in the universities to help deliver the human capacity for these projects, I think we can have hope.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Professor Novog. We really appreciate your being here.

We will now go to Dave Tucker, who is assistant vice-president at McMaster University.

[Dave Tucker, Assistant Vice-President, Nuclear Research, McMaster University]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening and thank you all so much for the invitation. It's an honour to appear here.

McMaster is Canada's nuclear university. It's home to the McMaster nuclear reactor, which is the largest research reactor in the country. Our reactor is not a small modular reactor—our output is not energy; it's neutrons for research and isotope production—but it's similar in size to small SMRs and has been a central part of our campus for over 60 years.

The McMaster nuclear reactor supplies 60% of the world's iodine-125, a medical isotope used to treat prostate and other cancers. Every year we produce enough to treat more than 70,000 patients around the world.

This five-megawatt research reactor is the only research reactor in the world that does not rely on government funding to operate. It operates on a self-sustaining, cost-recovery basis through commercial operations, and serves as a key economic driver, supporting industry and resulting in multiple spinoff biopharmaceutical companies.

These unique strengths, coupled with the co-location of other cutting-edge nuclear research facilities, make McMaster extremely well equipped to be a partner in the deployment of SMRs. It's with that in mind that McMaster was pleased to contribute a chapter to the government's SMR action plan, which noted that we would be exploring the potential of hosting an SMR on or near our campus. This would represent the very first community demonstration deployment of an SMR in Canada.

Just a few weeks ago, McMaster announced that we would be taking the next steps to scope this potential development in partnership with Global First Power and the Ultra Safe Nuclear corporation. This would involve a micro modular reactor—a very small SMR—as the heart of an integrated community energy and harvesting system.

As this committee well knows, significant hurdles lie ahead of us as Canada seeks to realize the promise of secure, clean, reliable and flexibly deployed power through SMRs. Pressing issues include research and development needs, as well as workforce capacity building.

On the R and D front, McMaster has unique facilities capable of testing materials under irradiation and at high temperatures, as well as providing support in the manufacturing of items with novel materials. We're working with SMR vendors such as Westinghouse on getting our facilities and experts to work on development areas, including material testing, fuel development, safety analysis and waste disposal relevant to SMR deployment. In fact, we're currently seeking federal support for increased availability of neutrons for neutron beam research and irradiations that will further enhance our ability to support SMR development.

As an academic institution whose primary mission includes the education of the next generation of scientific talent and professionals, we of course host nuclear training programs and have developed curricula to ensure that Canada has the necessary expertise. For example, McMaster is home to the nuclear education, skills and technology initiative, which is part of the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency and which teaches practical skills related to SMR development and management. We also deliver the small modular advanced reactor training program—the SMART CREATE program.

This sort of training and skills development will become even more critical as Canada not only successfully develops and deploys SMRs, but also operates and maintains them long term. We need to do more and we need to move more quickly across Canada to enable SMRs to play their vital role in achieving net zero by 2050.

To that end, I want to take a moment to mention that we have been pleased to see the focus that governments at all levels have been putting on SMR development to date. These actions demonstrate a clear commitment by governments to developing SMRs. They are to be commended, but as we look to deliver on the promise of this technology, McMaster proposes that next steps should involve efforts to leverage existing nuclear assets, such as the McMaster nuclear reactor, more effectively.

A comprehensive research and development plan that bridges government facilities with private and institutional laboratories, utilities, vendors, suppliers and academia should be put in place to facilitate the coordinated efforts needed to achieve these objectives. Similarly, it's essential that we begin now on a pan-Canadian strategy to begin building the workforce of tomorrow, which will deploy, operate, maintain and regulate the SMRs of the future and their associated infrastructure and clean energy systems. It's important that these be pan-Canadian efforts and that they be funded to ensure that national efforts yield national results.

With that, I thank you very much for your attention, and I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tucker. We're pleased to hear from you tonight.

We will now go to Ken Hartwick from Ontario Power Generation. He's the president and chief executive officer.

Welcome. You have five minutes.

[Ken Hartwick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Power Generation Inc.]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening. Thank you for the invitation to participate in this important conversation around small modular reactors.

As mentioned, I'm the CEO of Ontario Power Generation, one of the largest clean-energy generators in North America. We have a very diverse portfolio of assets that include hydro, nuclear, solar, biomass and natural gas, spanning Ontario and certain parts of the United States.

All of OPG's generating units and facilities are located on indigenous traditional or treaty lands. For example, our Darlington small nuclear reactor is located on the shared traditional treaty territory of the Chippewa and Mississauga Anishinabe, collectively known as the Williams Treaties First Nations. OPG has committed to working further with indigenous communities and stakeholders in order to incorporate indigenous and traditional knowledge into the project, further understand the potential impacts of the project, and strengthen assessment and decision-making.

In April 2014, OPG burned its last piece of coal to generate electricity in Ontario. The transition away from coal remains one of the largest actions to fight climate change in the world. Now, we are focused on becoming a net-zero company by 2040 and enabling a net-zero economy by 2050.

Our climate change plan outlines a range of initiatives, including our $13-billion Darlington nuclear refurbishment project—which remains on time and on budget—hydrogen development, hydroelectric upgrades and additional capacity, transportation electrification, and energy storage. It also includes SMRs, which are central to our efforts. In setting our goals, we intend to grow prosperity for Canadians, Ontarians and indigenous communities while delivering more clean energy. We believe that by doing this, we can provide a blueprint for others to follow and achieve similar goals across the energy sector.

OPG has also released our reconciliation action plan, which will guide our work with indigenous communities, businesses and organizations to advance reconciliation in a meaningful way.

This SMR study is being undertaken at a critical time for Canada and Canadians. The worsening climate crisis is now further impacted by geopolitical, economic and energy risks related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Climate change and energy security are interconnected and need to be addressed together.

Without doubling or even tripling our clean electricity supply, Canada will not be able to meet its climate change targets. Nuclear and small modular reactors are essential for meeting and addressing these climate and energy security needs. That is why OPG has been working with industry partners, including those at this table, to develop and deploy SMR technologies. There's a clear need for an energy transition in which multiple technologies enable various regions to meet their common goals.

I like to call this the “all hands on deck” approach. Let me give you an example. I think we've all heard the saying, “The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine.” That's why we need baseload power from nuclear or hydro.

However, let's understand this a bit further. Some people will say, “Well, let's just build more wind and solar, distribute it and add battery storage. It will all work out fine.” The analysis we did for Ontario suggests that the need for baseload generation is required and will allow for a more efficient and cost-effective system for ratepayers, taxpayers and, ultimately, the climate. Our analysis recognizes that all forms of technology will be required in order to optimize carbon reductions and costs for all involved.

This Ontario analysis shows that the lowest-cost option with maximum carbon reduction is a mix of these various tools: renewables, nuclear, and even a little gas during peak capacity a few times a year. We aren't the only ones who have concluded this. Worldwide, the countries we talk to, such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Poland, have also explicitly identified nuclear and SMRs as being critical to their energy and climate needs. I'm sure more countries will follow.

Let me get to what the key takeaways from this need to be.

First, Canada can do this, and in Ontario we are doing this. The most cost-effective path to net zero is a mix of different technologies, somewhat dependent on province and location. More nuclear is required in at least some provinces, and SMRs are a good fit for several provinces.

Nuclear power has been demonstrated to be good for the economy. Building this new nuclear will bring tens of thousands of jobs and billions in electricity benefits. Canada can lead the SMR enablement across the world, and we need to start now and move faster than those around us. With this, we would need federal support, such as what we've had to date, to enable nuclear to accelerate as part of the clean energy economy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Hartwick.

To all of you, again, welcome and thank you.

We're now going to hear from our members. You have a really interested group of people here.

We're going to begin with our six-minute round. Tonight, we begin with Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you for being here tonight.

I'm going to start with Mr. Hartwick. It sounds like the company has looked at the business side of things and come to the conclusion that nuclear has to be part of the mix. I want to unpack that a bit. What were some of the analyses? You said that the cheapest one that is going to lower emissions is nuclear. What would be the second one?

[Ken Hartwick]

We looked at the Ontario system, and in order to hit the climate targets, you need to at least double the size of it, so I don't think there's one technology. We think nuclear is relevant, new hydro is relevant, and solar and wind are relevant—assuming gas has played its role and will not be that big for Ontario. You really need them all if you're going to double the size. I would say probably hydro would be next, solar would be next, and wind doesn't really work in Ontario that well, so it is a distant fourth.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

When you say doubling, is it because of some of the new uses or increased use for EVs and other sources?

[Ken Hartwick]

I'd say there are three main sectors: the transportation sector, which is buses, heavy trucks and cars; heavy manufacturing, so steel mills, which I think, too, have announced they're going to convert to electric arc furnaces; and then the building sector, so the decarbonization of our buildings. For those three sectors, if you start to do the math on trying to hit our climate goals that we've set out as a country, the system will need to be at least double as those sectors transition to electricity as their primary energy source.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

On the building side, would that be to heat and cool residential and office buildings?

[Ken Hartwick]

Yes, that is correct.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I'd just like you to unpack a little more about the flexibility, and how you can have an SMR that you can plop down into the area of your province or part of the country where you need it to be. It's a little different from hydro, where we have to be gifted with being near a great part of our country that would have water running and enough of a drop that it would make sense to dam that river. There are limited spots like that left, I've been told. Can you tell us a bit more about how SMRs fit in, being as flexible as they are?

[Ken Hartwick]

I think there are two parts to the SMR technology. I'd call one a grid scale, which is what we are setting out to build at our Darlington site. They're about 300 megawatts in size, which, roughly speaking, would electrify 300,000 houses, give or take a few. We will ultimately put four of them at our Darlington nuclear site. The community is very used to nuclear in Clarington-Durham.

The second application, which was referenced a little earlier, was really the microreactors, and these are the smaller ones that you might put at a mine site or in a remote community, places where you need less load—they might be five or 10 megawatts relative to 300—and go from there.

The two different applications will move into two different spots.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

On the support from the federal government, outside of direct money, what would be an ask of the federal government that would help get more SMRs out the door?

[Ken Hartwick]

There are three items. The first is continued support of our regulatory environment. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is our regulator, which the government gave funding to in the last budget, so continued support is important.

The second is the environmental impact assessment process, which will need to be continually examined and streamlined in order for communities to go through it on a timely but fair basis.

On the financial side, I think the support has been set out in the budget, largely with the Canada Infrastructure Bank and other mechanisms to support the nuclear industry. That's a good starting point. As more provinces join this, it will need to be expanded.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

If you wanted to increase the nuclear footprint in Ontario with, say, a $100-billion expansion into nuclear, how much incentive would you need, if any, from the federal government to justify that?

[Ken Hartwick]

That sounds like an interesting ask, Madam Chair.

To me it is less about the direct support and more about the process around it, like the environmental assessment process and working with indigenous communities' support to accommodate them and to build it. Like I say, at OPG, for the site we are going to build, we will fund that ourselves, with the support really being around the other elements of it versus needing direct government support. That can vary by province. The other nuclear provinces—Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Alberta—are looking at it. I think the funding requirements will vary depending on how mature their nuclear program is. Ours is very mature.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

If we have a design that we're going to go with, say, in Saskatchewan's example, with the same design that was approved at Darlington, most of the time that it would take is more on the site selection and the consulting on the site selection. Once one is set, the regulatory framework around the design and the build should be less. Is that your—

[Ken Hartwick]

Correct. We will go first. We will have our first unit operational in late 2028 or early 2029. That's our target. Saskatchewan is probably two or three years behind that. They want to follow us and pick up our learnings, which I think is great, and they need to do work on site selection and the environmental process to get a qualified site to locate the reactor on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Mr. Tucker.

[Ken Hartwick]

I would say, from start to finish, 12 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Mr. Hartwick, I'm sorry to interrupt.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I'll have another round later.