Evidence of meeting #65 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was technology.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you very much, Mr. Trost.
We go now to Mr. Gravelle, for six minutes, and you've indicated you might want to share it with Mr. Nicholls if you finish yours.
February 7th, 2013 / 5 p.m.
NDP
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Sure.
My line of questioning is going to be for Mr. Thompson because I'd like to learn a bit more about geothermal.
Mr. Thompson, can you tell us how much money is being spent right now in Canada on research and development?
5 p.m.
Representative, Chief Executive Officer, Borealis GeoPower Inc., Canadian Geothermal Energy Association
Specifically, in the geothermal sector, there's $100,000 committed.
5 p.m.
Representative, Chief Executive Officer, Borealis GeoPower Inc., Canadian Geothermal Energy Association
It doesn't, frankly. It doesn't matter what metric you use, per capita, as a function of the resource, as a function of the potential, we're lowest on all metrics.
5 p.m.
NDP
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Can you give me an idea of what other countries with the population size of Canada are spending on research and development for geothermal? Any idea?
5 p.m.
Representative, Chief Executive Officer, Borealis GeoPower Inc., Canadian Geothermal Energy Association
Population's not necessarily the right view, but if you have a potential resource of a certain size, let's say you had between 4,000 and 10,000 megawatts of potential resource, which is what we have and, identically, what the United States has, the United States' expenditure is running $120 million a year on technology and ours is one one-thousandth of that.
5:05 p.m.
Representative, Chief Executive Officer, Borealis GeoPower Inc., Canadian Geothermal Energy Association
As I presented, there are two possible reasons. One, I think we've enjoyed an abundance of really good options, both from a hydrocarbon point of view—cheap coal, cheap gas, lots of oil—and we've had some really great hydro. But as Mr. Bettencourt was mentioning, incremental generation is going to become increasingly more expensive. So geothermal, while it may not have played a prominent role in our history, should play a prominent role in our future, and we're trying to make that transition come about, if you will.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
You mentioned something about a geothermal power plant. Can you give me an idea of how much it would cost to build a geothermal plant that would service a certain amount of the population, and what the cost per kilowatt hour would be?
5:05 p.m.
Representative, Chief Executive Officer, Borealis GeoPower Inc., Canadian Geothermal Energy Association
In terms of the capital cost to build a geothermal power plant based in B.C., which has some of the best resources, the first merit order of plants are probably going to cost $5 million per megawatt, and the minimum plant size is probably 20 megawatts, so $100 million a plant.
In terms of the net cost per kilowatt hour, so I'm going to quote this in cents, for the best plants, it's going to be about 6.5¢ per kilowatt hour, significantly lower than many of the other options. The worst plants that you'll economically bring on will be in probably the 9.5¢ range, because you've got a limited ability to sell into that market at any price that's higher than that.
Does that answer your question?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Yes.
Is it feasible or possible to have a geothermal power plant in northern Canada and the Yukon and Northwest Territories? And if we had one of those in a native community, could we take them off diesel power?
5:05 p.m.
Representative, Chief Executive Officer, Borealis GeoPower Inc., Canadian Geothermal Energy Association
The answer to that question is yes. We were recently pursuing a project at Fort Liard, to take the town of Fort Liard off diesel power. It has, however, not progressed primarily because of the entrenched bias I spoke of. The project was both technically and economically feasible.
5:05 p.m.
Representative, Chief Executive Officer, Borealis GeoPower Inc., Canadian Geothermal Energy Association
I have to sell power to a utility or a crown corp. If they're not interested in buying the power from me, I have nowhere to go.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Bettencourt, I'd like to ask you a question about renewables and smart grid technology. You talked about the old one-way distribution. I'd like you to expand for the committee on how a smart grid increases efficiency of transmission for renewables and the challenges. As you said, the wind doesn't blow all the time, the sun doesn't shine all the time, so how does a smart grid increase the efficiency?
5:05 p.m.
Managing Director, SmartGrid Canada
Especially in Ontario.... Ontario has some of the most generous feed-in tariffs in the world. Right now they're paying 13¢ a kilowatt hour for wind, 40¢ for solar, 60¢ for small-based rooftop. That's been creating quite a lot of new renewable energy projects in Ontario. Ontario's doing it in order to meet some environmental policies, but as well to create jobs in Ontario. That's creating—
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I'm sorry, could I just interrupt you for one second?
The policy framework in Ontario has added to interest in the smart grid. There's actually a policy framework from the provincial level that has driven research and action in this sector. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Managing Director, SmartGrid Canada
That is correct. It started primarily with their Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Largely, they were trying to encourage renewable energy manufacturers to locate in the province, and to do that they encouraged developers to build renewable energy in Ontario.
However, to get that renewable energy onto that distribution system causes lots of local issues, right? When the wind blows really hard it's feeding a lot of power into a part of the grid that wasn't designed for it. It can cause voltage to come up. Voltage has to be stable within a very limited band. So what you need to do is put these voltage-regulating devices along the line that will tick the voltage up and down, based on whether the wind's blowing hard or not. We were never able to do that before, because to run the communications between all those devices would have been very expensive. One thing the federal government did that's been great for the industry is that they granted the utility industry, the electric companies, wireless spectrum—something that they usually sell to the Bells and Rogers of the world—and they granted it for a very nominal fee so we can use it for our utility operations.
So in some of the projects that the utilities are doing, they're saying let's use this wireless spectrum that we got from the government for free, and try to get all these devices to talk fast enough in a way to accommodate the renewables. Now, the same technology—
I'm out of time, sure.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Nicholls.
I didn't mean to interrupt.
Go ahead, Mr. Armstrong, for up to five minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just for the information of our panellists, I'm the only member today from Atlantic Canada, so I'm going to ask a couple of questions that pertain to my region of the country.
First, we were very excited on the east coast at the possibility of reversing a pipeline that currently runs east to west to running west to east. You might have seen Premier Alward from New Brunswick out visiting Alberta, talking to Premier Redford this week.
Mrs. Kenny, I wonder what the position of your association is in terms of reversing that pipeline and trying to bring some oil sands oil out to the east coast.
5:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
The pipeline in question, Line 9, which is owned and operated by Enbridge, was built in the mid-seventies for the express purpose of bringing western crude oil into Montreal. The direction that's being proposed now is actually a re-reversal and a return to normal.
The added possibility of extending into New Brunswick or Halifax is entirely within the hands of economics. Normally, what we see is that rail can be a good interim option. When you have sustained, larger volumes, they are more efficient and safer a metre under the ground in a pipeline. I think that's where people are looking very seriously at least in connecting between Montreal and the Irving refinery.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
In terms of environmental concerns around re-reversing this pipeline, because the pipeline already exists, because it has already run in both directions in its history, do you see any environmental concerns popping up that would slow down that project?
5:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
No, I see none at all. I'm pleased to see that it is going forward into a major hearing, as it should, under the National Energy Board. It's heavily regulated across environment, safety, economics, etc., and there will be ample opportunity for public participation and crown consultations through that process.
Fundamentally, I wish pipelines were more special, but they're just the cheapest deal, a metre under the ground, and we run them all over all kinds of territory, halfway up the Mackenzie Valley to Norman Wells and on down to Montreal and down into the port of Vancouver. They're really well understood. There's nothing tricky about this re-reversal that should cause any concern.