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:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment , Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Ontario, Canada, Alberta, AECL
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.It's good news when the issue of nuclear energy is decoupled from partisan politics.
[...]
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.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment , Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Ontario, Canada, Alberta, AECL
Comments
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=19012
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.
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!
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.