Skip to main content

Canada Nuclear Update

We've been following the story of the Alberta oil sands for some time now, especially since word first surfaced that the best way to generate electricity to support any project there might need to leverage the power of nuclear energy rather than natural gas.

Now we've gotten word that one candidate to lead the federal Liberals says that nuclear power needs to be on the table when it comes to extracting new oil from Alberta:
Canada's former Liberal environment minister set foot yesterday for the first time in Fort McMurray and says he'd be open to discussing nuclear energy as a source of power for Alberta's oilsands.

[...]

Last week, provincial Tory leadership frontrunner Jim Dinning said nuclear power must be an option.

Dion said he'd like to hear more, particularly on the issue of safe options for nuclear-waste disposal.
It's good news when the issue of nuclear energy is decoupled from partisan politics.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is a waste of time and money trying to flog this in Alberta. Spend billions on an energy source to extract another energy source from the ground. Are you kidding?

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=19012
Joseph Somsel said…
While the "global" energy economics make sense in an academic way, practical questions remain.

The most pressing political-energy issue is liquid transportation fuels. Right behind that is electricity, too often fueled with natural gas. Ergo, bringing transport fuel to market without the current huge consumption of natural gas has some logic.

On the other hand, what existing design reactor could one use? I suspect it would have to be custom-designed to match the low temperature steam conditions needed. No existing LWR or HWR matches.

Another matter is where would it be located and would one haul the sands to the central processing point? What is the design life of that facility?

It could be done but it won't be quick or easy.

I'd still think that hydrogen production reactors supplying coal-to-liquids plants is the best bet but that is really long term thinking.
Anonymous said…
I'm not so worried about "safe options for nuclear-waste disposal," [that's the same situation as with electrical generation] but I am worried about the environmental consequences of the oilsands development itself.

Recovery of liquid fuel from oil sands uses, and chemically contaminates enormous quantities of water.

Tar sands projects also have lots of sulfur dioxide and other pollutant emissions.

I'd much rather see nuclear energy used in a manner that transitions society from a dirty fossil-fuel ecnomy to a clean, electrified econmoy [with less fossil fuel use]. This implies lots of rail electrification projects [there's plenty of work for the European railway firms here!] and lots of work on plug-in hybrid cars.

We need stricter CAFE standards for all vehicles now.

To have nuclear as an adjunct to a project that will likely cause tremendous damage to Alberta's environment can only hurt nuclear energy, in my opinion.

As pro-nuclear as I am at We Support Lee, I can't endorse this idea because of the link to seriously environmentally damaging projects.

Nuclear needs to stay with emissions-free energy technologies - electricity. Even emissions-free, nuclear already has enough 'social acceptance' problems - it doesn't need more!
Anonymous said…
There are some different small reactor deigns here. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.htm

Should it be very hard to modify them from generating power to hot steam?

And should it be very hard to move the tar to the plant? We ship coal with trains and that works well.
A number of small reactors and a matrix of railroads could do the trick.

Considering the ethics of tar sands, sadly I think they are absolutely necessary. Peak Oil and all that.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin