Natural Resources Committee on May 14th, 2007

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

But Canadians will still be benefiting from the hazards of their waste, won't they, in terms of asthma, air pollution, and everything else? You say it's very difficult to retrofit these plants, therefore these plants will still continue to operate until their life is over, so Canadians will still be suffering from their effects. Is that correct?

[John Marrone]

If they're going to be on, then they will continue operating as they are now.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

What do you mean by “next generation nuclear”?

[Graham Campbell]

If I might, just before we go on, slide 15 in your deck is the schedule of what we call “retirement” or “replacement” of coal technology. So the utilities are facing this curve, in other words, and as this capacity comes off line, it will have to be replaced. So as John has said, the middle of that curve is about 2015, 2020, and as a consequence, it will have to move along to replace the capacity that was there before.

You asked a question about next generation nuclear. If you look at the current CANDU system, it's essentially a generation two or a generation two-plus of technology. The technologies referred to as “next generation” are those that will come on stream in 2025 to 2030. So these are technologies of an advanced nature. They often involve combinations of features that we don't have at this time.

Canada is participating in an international collaboration on these technologies, of which six have been chosen. We're participating in two of the six. We're leading on supercritical water reactors and we're working with the community on very high temperature reactors.

The program is built on a national basis. Certainly, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is the leading performer. But we've also reached out to a number of universities and research institutes across Canada and government as well to try to build this knowledge toward the nuclear technology that will be put into practice at that time.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I notice you just put that in there, but there's no indication of what may or may not happen in the future with nuclear waste. Will the next generation of nuclear proposals deal with the waste of nuclear--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Excuse me, Mr. Stoffer. Could I ask you to stick to coal today? The only reason I mention it is that we have dedicated our meeting on Wednesday to an in-depth discussion of the very point you're on. You're welcome to join us.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I'll go back to another coal question then.

In Nova Scotia we're traditionally referred to as the tailpipe of North America. We can't blame the rest of the world for the problem; we burn enough coal on our own to cause our own problems. Our lakes suffer, and our children have tremendous amounts of asthma, etc.

I'm concerned that these older plants you talked about may be around for quite a while. They're expensive to retrofit, so they'll continue on their present course if nothing changes. My concern is what Canada's reaction will be. Having the new ones 10 or 15 years from now sounds great, but we have to deal with the now. What would you suggest to deal with the now? What do we tell our constituents about what's happening with their environment in this regard, if the older plants are allowed to continue? As well, if any new plants are built within, say, the next two years, as you said, they're not going to have the technology of 10 years down the road.

[John Marrone]

It's hard for me to comment on a specific plant, except to say that for all pollutants other than carbon dioxide it is possible to bring down the emissions.

It is something each jurisdiction would have to look at. It's a trade-off. It would probably increase their rates; are the citizens willing to make that trade-off? It is possible for particulates, for instance, and for mercury and other pollutants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Gourde is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Natural Resources Canada is conducting active research into a cleaner use of coal. We can think, among other things, of the clean coal technology road map. In your experience, what is the future of coal? In the long term, will clean coal be able to coexist with new renewable sources of energy?

[John Marrone]

One of the problems with renewable energy sources, with the exception of hydroelectric power, is their variability. Wind energy and solar energy are examples of this. Power companies must have a base-production capacity in order to meet a certain demand for power at all times. They have few choices: large-scale hydroelectricity, nuclear energy, coal and natural gas. I don't know whether there are any others, but these are the energy sources that big power companies use to ensure a reliable supply of electricity.

In that context, I think that coal has a future, particularly if it is clean.

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

Besides developing clean coal technologies and CO2 capture, could you talk about other research projects that you are working on to make energy production and consumption greener?

[Graham Campbell]

One area of interest to our group is the integration of renewable energy sources into grid supply. In the province of Quebec, for example, wind energy has come on in large measure. It is used in combination with hydro. When the wind is blowing and the generation is there, you save the water behind the dam, and, as a consequence, when the wind is not blowing, you've got stored energy, if you like, in your reservoirs for use.

So we're very much interested in the integration and combination of renewable energy sources.

Another issue, though, is that bringing those intermittent sources into the grid can cause difficulties. First of all, they are intermittent, so you can't necessarily predict in detail when they'll be available. You need to have back-up systems and supply that's ready to be dispatched instantly when the wind is no longer available. Bringing these renewable sources into the grid is another area we're interested in.

Thirdly, many remote communities, which are not located on-grid, rely on diesel generation for the purposes of making their electricity. Not only is it expensive to bring diesel into the community, but there's also a local emissions consequence of using diesel for power.

One project that we have in the province of Newfoundland, with which we're very pleased, is the integration of diesel with wind energy that's generated locally. There are six small turbines that are used in combination with a diesel generator to use wind to the greatest extent possible. The next stage in that project—we're into the third stage of it now—is not only to use the wind and diesel, but also to produce hydrogen for the purposes of storing energy and using the hydrogen, then, in place of diesel in the long term.

So my message is that we're working very hard on trying to integrate these renewable resources into the grid to the greatest extent possible, and we're very much interested in a variety of configurations that make sense and can be suited to local circumstance.

Thank you.

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

In Canada, 17% of our electricity is generated by coal combustion. Will clean coal technology help alleviate problems in such countries as China, where 80% of their energy is coal-generated?

[John Marrone]

As I mentioned a bit earlier, it is advantageous for Canada to be among the first countries to be working on this, because the export market is quite high--and China comes to mind, of course. The Chinese are going to be adding--I don't know--some 500 power stations in the next 20 years, according to one prediction. That's a lot of power stations, and most of them are just going to be using the older technologies for coal, unless, of course, they have access to the clean coal technologies. This is where we hope to have some Canadian offering as well by then.

So the answer is yes, it would help China.

[Graham Campbell]

In my presentation, I spoke about our international ties with other countries, particularly China, India and South Africa. These are countries where economic activity and electricity consumption are growing rapidly. That is why we are very interested in sharing with them information and ideas and developing business opportunities. We are also quickly expanding their electricity supply. Consequently, it might be useful to examine how they use modern electricity technology in order to broaden our knowledge.

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

You said that Canadian clean coal R&D could help all countries develop greener and more competitively-priced electricity, which would impact positively on the environment.

[Graham Campbell]

That's right. At the same time, Canadian businesses could tap into those foreign markets.

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

Is Canada a world leader in terms of research? Is our technology a couple of years ahead of that used in other countries, in emerging economies?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Marrone, please make sure you speak into the microphone. The translators aren't getting it.

Just tap the microphone over towards you.

[John Marrone]

We have better coal technology than we have microphone technology, that's for sure.

On the question about our technology, the answer is yes. We are right now at the forefront of this technology. We have been working on it with our industry for 13 years now. Although there are gasification plants and one oxy-fuel demonstration, none of which have CO₂ capture and storage, we have Canadian companies saying they're willing to take the business risk of trying this new technology before anybody else. I would say that bodes very well for this type of technology in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Good. Thank you.

Thank you, Monsieur Gourde.

We're going to try to make a second round of questions, but we're going to have to be brief. I'm going to ask you to try to keep questions and answers to about three minutes, if you can.

We'll start with Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I have two quick questions.

Maybe I could have a short answer so I can get my second question in. You talked about us having leading scientists in the world on coal, which is great, and the wind energy and the other renewables to get rid of diesel hydrogen. Have we been working on that for more than two years?

[Graham Campbell]

The project I referred to, Mr. Bagnell, is in Newfoundland. I believe it started in 2004. It has moved into its second phase, so I think the answer is yes. Our investment in clean coal research goes back two decades probably. The integration of renewables into the grid is more recent. We have been working on that for three or four years.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Good. I just wanted to get the good work of the previous government on the record.

My main question concerns sequestration and the 800 years we can put it underground. Is it in the west where the sedimentary basin has room for that? What about the carbon dioxide that's created in, say, Toronto? I don't think there's a spot to store it underground, for instance, in that part of Ontario or in Quebec.