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

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

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should