Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2013

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

We're talking about moving above ground versus underground.

[Timothy Egan]

That's correct.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Which is safer?

[Timothy Egan]

I couldn't comment on the relative safety because the standards are extraordinary on both, and as I mentioned, the situation is highly regulated in both instances. I really couldn't comment on which is safer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Crockatt.

We go now to Mr. Julian from the NDP, followed by Mr. Hsu from the Liberals.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will just make a comment to close off the questions we just heard. The Transportation Safety Board—and we've discussed this as a committee—has indicated that incidences of spills in oil pipelines have actually tripled over the past few years. Obviously and definitely there is a problem.

That's not a question I'm going to ask of you, but I think it's important to note. The lack of safety oversight in our nation's pipelines is something we've continued to come back to.

I will begin with you, Ms. Labrie.

Regarding all of the issues related to incinerators, you were very convincing. We are talking about reducing greenhouse gases and landfills. There are clear advantages.

However, where I am from, in British Columbia, there was a discussion on incinerators, and the general public reaction was negative. Innovation is one thing, but it is another to present it to the general public in such a way that people are comfortable with it and see the advantages of this system.

How do you convince people that it really is beneficial for the environment and for energy production to set up more and more sites like those put in place by your company?

[Marie-Hélène Labrie]

The response to our projects and their social acceptance have been very positive. When we talk to people about biofuels produced from their garbage, they are very receptive.

We permitted our plant in Alberta, and we did an open house and had a public comment period. We did it also as part of our Mississippi project; we had a public comment period as part of the NEPA process.

In Quebec, at our plant in Westbury, we have never had problems. We do not burn waste. It is therefore not an incinerator, anyway. There is usually no confusion about that. It is a biorefinery. We're talking about producing biofuels. We've never had problems during our projects. However, if confusion arises, the project needs to be explained to people.

Enerkem is a green chemistry process, a biorefinery process. We convert the solid waste into chemicals.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Merci.

Mr. Michaels, I would like to ask you the same question. Did you get the translation of the question I asked earlier?

[Ted Michaels]

I did.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It's the issue of the social licence. We obviously have in these new technologies a real advantage in adopting and broadening their use, but the question is really about public acceptance and ensuring that there are appropriate public consultations.

How would you respond, concerning establishing that social licence?

[Ted Michaels]

That's a challenge that's faced by every type of energy generator. It's nothing unique to the waste energy sector. An important part is providing as much information as you can. Providing as much science-based data as possible is a great first start. A lot of times people are nervous about the unknown, so when you're going into a community that has not had experience or history with this technology, there is naturally going to be some fear of the unknown.

We have found that in communities in the United States that have expanded existing waste energy facilities, there is virtually no opposition to the expansions because the communities have understood what is involved in the waste energy process and what it's like to be a neighbour in the community that has waste energy. We have communities in the United States that put their emissions data online. There is live streaming of emissions data on the Internet, where anybody can come and see what's happening.

This is not a closed process. It's not a mystery; it's a very highly regulated industry. We, in the Untied States, are regulated under what they call maximum achievable control technology standards. We're very proud of the equipment and the engineering advances that are made to make this technology as clean as it can be. There is history. People hearken back to the 1960s or 1970s, when there was waste incineration without emission control and without energy recovery, but that is not the process that takes place today.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

You're talking about a new generation, and that's very true, and perhaps the federal government has a role in providing the public with that information.

Mr. Hemstock, I'd like to come to you.

You talked about the 800-megawatt natural gas-fired generation plant. There is a real push in Canada to move to replace existing coal-fired plants with natural gas-fired plants and other alternatives, more green energy.

What would be the comparable reduction in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from an 800-megawatt natural gas-fired plant as opposed to a coal-fired plant?

[Robert Hemstock]

The reduction is approximately just over 50% relative to the traditional coal-fired generation in Alberta today. ENMAX in particular has the power purchase arrangements, which is the right to dispatch two large coal plant facilities in Alberta. So we're very familiar with the emissions profile of those plants.

The measure that's commonly used in our industry is tonnes per gigawatt hour of greenhouse gas emissions. A typical traditional coal plant will emit 1,000 tonnes per gigawatt hour versus a natural gas-fired cogeneration plant, like our Shepard project, which is anticipated to emit approximately 420 tonnes per gigawatt hour. So it's a significant reduction.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Do you anticipate seeing further reductions as the technology is developed?

[Robert Hemstock]

Absolutely. The idea behind the Shepard project is that the waste heat will also be used for heating processes and commercial processes. It's fairly low-temperature hot water by the time it's waste heat from a power plant. But the idea there is that by utilizing this waste heat in facilities that are geographically around the power plant, those facilities don't have to burn their own source of natural gas or other fuel to generate heat in their buildings. There is an environmental benefit, clearly, of being able to harness that energy. That's precisely what our district energy plant that's already built in downtown Calgary was designed to ultimately achieve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We go now to Mr. Hsu.

Go ahead, please, for up to seven minutes.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

I would first like to ask Ms. Labrie a question.

Could you compare Enerkem to Plasco? It is another company that I know a little. You could make a comparison, simply so I can better understand what Enerkem does.

[Marie-Hélène Labrie]

Of course.

In Plasco's case, they produce electricity, while Enerkem has a biofuel production process. It is an integrated process.

Upstream, Enerkem turns solid matter into a synthesis gas that is then purified and conditioned to reach chemical grade. This chemical grade syngas can then be synthesized into alcohol using catalysts.

In Plasco's case, we are talking about plasma gasification. When plasma is used, the temperatures are over 4,000 or 5,000^o. In Enerkem's case, gasification is only a small part of the integrated process. Enerkem's gasification process is unique. It is low severity, at temperatures below 1,000^oC. Already, in terms of energy efficiency, it is a different approach.

Enerkem has developed a series of purification steps for its syngas to make it chemical grade. By contrast, Plasco does not need to do the same type of cleaning because they burn their gas in a motor to produce electricity. Enerkem does not burn its gas; the gas is synthesized into alcohol using catalysts. It is an integrated process. The solid matter first becomes methanol, which then becomes ethanol. All of that happens in four minutes.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay.

[Marie-Hélène Labrie]

I hope my explanation was clear.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I know that Plasco has had commercial problems. I don't know Enerkem's history. I imagine the organization has had fewer technical problems related to commercial difficulties.

[Marie-Hélène Labrie]

I cannot comment on Plasco. However, I can tell you that Enerkem has carried out all of the development stages for a new technology. We are talking about a clean technology. In terms of R and D, we conducted the pilot stage.

Since 2003, Enerkem has tested 25 types of raw material. The company then went from the pilot stage, with the help of a pretty big pilot plant, to the demonstration stage. During the demonstration stage, we carried out three steps: first, we produced our chemical grade synthesis gas; then, we produced biomethanol; and today, we produce cellulosic ethanol. It is all done using different raw materials at our demonstration plant.

We are currently building our first commercial-size plant in Edmonton. All of these stages were followed. Our approach reduces the level of risk. In fact, the tanks we use at the Edmonton plant are only 2.5% times bigger. That simple 2.5% increase in equipment volume, which does not represent much more risk, increases our annual production capacity from 5 million to 40 million litres.

In addition, the tubes used for catalysis, that is to turn syngas into alcohol, are used both in our demonstration plant and in our Edmonton plant. A variety of measures have been taken to reduce risk. So far, all of the stages have validated the engineering and the results. We are therefore very optimistic.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You're using urban waste. Do you have separate negotiations with the institutional, commercial, industrial sector and the residential waste managed by the municipality? Do you do those sorts of things?

Which waste stream do you use?

[Marie-Hélène Labrie]

We can use a wide variety of waste. In Edmonton the agreement is with the City of Edmonton. In Varennes, we have agreements with different suppliers of waste streams that are coming from the ICI sector, construction, and demolition. In this sector, it's usually private waste holders, and for residential it's usually the municipal world. But we work with both, and we can also take other waste residues. In Westbury, we're using used power poles, electricity poles, and our feed stock agreement is with a sawmill that recycles used electricity poles from Hydro-Québec—they produce 4x4s for construction, demolition, and the exterior is shredded and it's our feedstock for cellulosic ethanol.

So it's quite diverse.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

When you negotiate with a municipality, do you have to...? I remember complicated negotiations when people were talking with Plasco about not composting too much because they would get rid of a lot of the energy from the organic waste, and so on.

What conditions do you impose on the municipality of Edmonton for the rate?