Natural Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2007

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

According to your transparencies, you have a budget of $835 million. I suppose industrial partnerships account for $166 million. We see here on page 3 of your presentation that $30 million a year are spent on energy R&D and $10 million on outside programs, that is on energy R&D programs.

What percentage of your budget is earmarked for energy R&D? Are these the only figures you have? Are they accurate? I don't think you spend a very large portion of your budget on energy R&D. The energy in question here includes traditional oil and tar sands.

We can subtract from these $40 million money allocated to fossil energy research. What's really left for renewable energy R&D?

[Sherif Barakat]

Regarding the $40 million, we actually contribute to a survey every year for the International Energy Agency. These numbers show what energy work we're doing.

A number of areas—I mentioned many of them—are related to industry and priorities. We don't have a concentrated program in renewable energy, particularly. We haven't had that since the early eighties, when we had the solar program and the other program in energy. But priorities have changed, and NRC doesn't—

We look at how we can actually help industry meet the demands on them to meet energy requirements or reduce their energy use. As you probably heard from industry at committee, in manufacturing, one of their major concerns is increasing energy costs, and these are the things we work on. One is to use renewable energy and new fuels and so on to try to reduce their costs.

So we may put that in the industry pocket. That's how we can help industry, but it's not really renewable energy. We don't give—We don't characterize our work as alternative energy; we characterize it as industry needs.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Of these $40 million, how much is earmarked for the renewable energy sector? Could you get that information to us?

[Sherif Barakat]

Yes, certainly, I can do that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I see.

Last week, the committee heard from the Canadian GeoExchange Coalition. While we were discussing energy efficiency problems, someone made a comment that made sense to me, namely that all of the efforts devoted to R&D into energy efficiency would be for naught without mandatory energy efficiency standards for new house construction.

You stated that builders should be required to comply with an energy code. Are you referring to the federal or provincial level? Who is responsible for the building code?

[Sherif Barakat]

Certainly the building code and general construction is a provincial jurisdiction. What NRC does is work with the provinces—it's a very close collaboration—to produce a model code. The model code then has to be adopted into force by provincial legislation. It can't be effective until the province says it will use that code as its energy code and actually puts it into effect.

This did not happen for the past code. The difficulty is that the cycles change, with energy. By the time we produced the code, energy and environment were not at the top of their priorities, and no province has adopted it. There is, in Quebec and Ontario, some energy.... Quebec has adopted energy measures that were produced back in 1983. Ontario has energy requirements in its building codes. But there isn't an energy code per se.

I think the intention now is really to take the leadership with NRCan in the discussion with the provinces that we update that energy code. The hope—actually, maybe the promise—is that they're going to put it in effect for buildings this time.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Where do matters stand, as far as drafting this energy code is concerned? We've been discussing this for a long time, since 1995 in fact. Is the current government actively promoting the drafting of a code? Is this a priority for the government?

[Sherif Barakat]

We have a code from 1997. It needs to be updated, because energy costs and the cost of construction have gone up and changed, and so has the financial position. So we have that, and provinces such as British Columbia have used it as guidelines for a long time. Now they would like to update it to the new realities. They agree with NRCan to start on updating very soon, so it's actually an agreement almost in effect now to start updating the code.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Madame DeBellefeuille, I have to interrupt that line of questioning. Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Barakat, for your presentation.

We've talked a bit about national codes for building for energy efficiency, but I want to take it just another step further, I guess, and talk about what our houses are built out of.

When talking about sustainability in the manufacturing of homes, you can look at a lot of the homes in Ontario, Quebec, and across the country that are made out of stone, and they've been around for hundreds of years. In British Columbia, where we have mostly wood, some of them were built 150 years ago and are still standing.

But look at what's happening today in a lot of developments where houses are only built to last maybe 25, 30, or 40 years. The products they're being built with are plastic siding, fibreboard that rots in a few years—just so many things that are used to build our houses that aren't sustainable. They may be affordable for people, but they're not built sustainably any more.

Just thinking about that and about how we use so much energy to create these materials—the plastics for the siding, for the windows, for the flooring.... They might be more airtight, more energy-efficient while they're in use, but they deteriorate a lot more quickly and cost us more money to redo all over again. There's a lot more renovation required.

So I'm wondering about national standards and codes. Is there any thought or any kind of research, from the beginning to the end of building your home, in which you're looking at the use of fossil fuels to make the plastics we use more and more in our homes? That's all energy-intensive use, so we might save energy somewhat. So there's that piece of it.

I wonder whether there's been any research into that.

[Sherif Barakat]

There's definitely an international direction looking at sustainability in general, and one of the areas is life cycle analysis of building materials and components, where you choose a material and you have to look at it from the source, all the way to decommissioning, when you throw it away, even the disposal. There is work around databases that actually show concrete versus wood versus steel, and that sort of thing, so people can make decisions.

However, it hasn't penetrated the industry. The industry still goes with traditional wood frame with whatever new materials come in. When you look at the sustainability, at the same time you have to look at a number of things—how it will perform, and as you mentioned, how it will last with time, and so on, not only the price and the sustainability.

It hasn't been taken on. The industry hasn't really picked up the life cycle analysis as a means for choosing materials. There's other work on the materials even in terms of what does it emit inside a home, emissions and indoor air quality. That work exists, but it hasn't penetrated as much in the construction sector yet, not only here but worldwide, I would say. There are some countries doing better than others.

But definitely that's the trend, to look at life cycle analysis—and at the same time, performance. You look at the performance and the longevity of these materials. Sometimes it's not the materials per se. We now use composite materials, plastic and wood together, so we can use the waste wood along with polymers, and so on. The material may be good and stay, but if you look at it from one end to the other, it may or may not be better than wood. I don't have the answer, but it's really something to look at.

The difficulty with using materials in buildings, as well, is how you integrate that material within the system. The wood chipboard, or whatever, the OSB, oriented strand board, can be a good material if you really build it right, if you include it as a system, rather than putting it as you used to put other sheathing. It's a different material. It has to be integrated within the system. You have to look at how the system will behave with that material in it. If we don't do that, it will be what you've seen, early rotting and so on.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Okay.

On another topic, then, fuel cells for vehicles, everybody is looking at hybrid vehicles, and that's great, but we don't see very many vehicles that run on just a fuel cell, just a battery, because you can't go very far in them. Is there any research done on the hybrid vehicles being able to be run on battery when you're in the city and then you can fill it up with gas when you want to go cross-country, which would save gas and would also save GHGs?

[Sherif Barakat]

Yes, there's quite a bit of work on hybrids as well. The NRC has not worked on the whole system, but we have worked, in one of our institutes, on batteries, lithium batteries and other batteries, new technology for batteries that actually work in hybrids.

As to fuel cell cars, there are still few around, I guess, until China builds up their—A thousand cars is probably the largest fleet. The industry is looking at fuel cell cars, but they will probably be on the market only in 15 years or so. Fuel cells for other applications are moving faster than for cars.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like to thank the witnesses. This is a very interesting topic.

Hydroelectricity is the main source of renewable energy in Canada. What kind of research into hydroelectric power is the National Research Council of Canada currently conducting? Is it doing research into small, more accessible plants that are closer to markets, or is it focussing solely on large stations in Northern Canada where operations are more complex?

[Sherif Barakat]

Actually, the NRC is not doing any work on hydro-electricity. The only work I mentioned is some work where IRAP funded some companies to look at small systems to place in the middle of a river or stream, or even a waste stream. It's the idea of an egg beater that rotates and generates electricity from the stream. It takes about 40% or 50% of the stream energy to actually generate it. That's one.

For the rest of small hydro and the rest of the alternatives, there's quite a bit of work supported by Natural Resources Canada, so we haven't got into that. The mandate is at NRCan, and we get into areas where we can work with industry, whether with NRCan or with our expertise, and bridge the gap between them, but not much in hydro-electricity.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Canada's has vast reserves of renewable energy. I believe these reserves are comparable to those of other countries. Are you doing any research into second generation wind and geothermal energy? Right now, we see large windmills erected, but are there any types of wind energy devices, for example, horizontal windmills, that could be used in the future to generate energy?

[Sherif Barakat]

We did work a long time ago, about 20 years ago, on horizontal wind turbines. At that time, we called them “egg beaters”. You may have seen the pictures. The work was done at NRC, and it was tested at the wind tunnels as well, but it didn't actually take off. I guess the Europeans have somehow taken hold of the wind energy file or wind energy production. Most of the wind turbines being used now come from places like Denmark and Holland, the Netherlands.

There are small wind turbines, as I mentioned. A company makes small ones that you can put on top of a house to run a heat exchanger, a small hot-water system, or something like that. This is a new development. It can be integrated with energy systems for a single unit or a small building, where you can combine wind, small hydro near a stream, or fuel cells in the future. It will become an integrated system that you won't supply through only one item. You can supply electricity and heat from difference sources and integrate that within a building.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

You're a step ahead of me, because I was about to ask you if any research is being done to incorporate geothermal, solar panel or wind energy into single homes to make them energy self-sufficient. You've answered part of my question. Could research culminate in the next 10 to 15 years in truly energy self-sufficient construction in remote regions?

[Sherif Barakat]

The research we're doing at the Canadian Centre for Housing Technology is part of that. When we put in a fuel cell, the first fuel cell to be put in a residential building, the idea was to integrate it with other sources within the house to supply energy. The next step, which is the thinking now and is not in place, is to try to put an integrated energy system in a house, working with NRCan and others in putting that together.

Our institute in Vancouver is as well trying to think of fuel cells in an integrated fashion. For example, there are some fuel cells used in Japan as part of the energy system for a house. The company in Vancouver is selling that in Japan.

It is starting to show up. The institute will look at how you can integrate that particular source, along with other energy systems, so that it comes with controls to connect to the grid, area controls, and instrumentation areas.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

You may have one more question, Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

My last question concerns the transmission of electrical energy. It's a known fact that a tremendous amount of energy can be lost during the transmission process because our hydroelectric dams are located in the North and our needs are greatest in the South. Is any research being done into the transmission of electrical energy?

[Sherif Barakat]

No, it's not done at NRC. The research at NRC is really on transportation.

Electricity generation and transport work is done at our Institute for National Measurement Standards. They actually work on measurements and on how to measure these losses. In the exchange of electricity for electrons going south, north, east, and west, how do you really measure it accurately to be able to get the right charges? This is work that is being done at NRC at our National Metrology Institute.

I know the work on losses and transportation, DC and AC, is done quite extensively at hydro, whether it's Manitoba, B.C., or Quebec, but it's not done at NRC.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Russell has warned the chair that his questions will take ten minutes. It's not doing much for our image, Mr. Russell. I hope you will take somewhat less time than that.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing before us this afternoon.

I have a broader question. How do you set your priorities? From your presentation, there is a tremendous amount of work in various fields. How do you set your priorities? What drives your research and development agenda?