Re: " Alberta mulls nuclear plants to power oil sandsextraction " [FW]

["Todd Brautigam" <brautt@myapc.com>]

Have you ever noticed that the Anti-Nukes always cite "obvious environmental concerns with nuclear

energy" but never actually state what they are... and rarely, if ever, mention the "obvious environmental concerns" of fossil fuels... AND never suggest solutions for the problems associated with other forms of energy production?



To me, it's just like when my 4-year old doesn't like what's for dinner, but when you ask him what he wants, he doesn't know.



>>> "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA> 01/29/03 09:29AM >>>

FYI, from another listserv.....



Jaro 



Sent: Wednesday January 29, 2003 8:56 AM

To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail)

Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Alberta mulls ACR for oil sands

An ACR 700 would generate more than 700 MW of steam - the oil sands need

heat more than electricity. Presumably some of the steam would be tapped off

for a turbine-generator set to provide power for the internal electrical

consumption (mainly pump motors). I'd guess that the ACR will need 40 to 50

MWe for its own internal consumption, and perhaps would be increased to

supply the oil sands plant and even some grid connection if needed.

- - - - - - - -

Globe and Mail 

Alberta mulls nuclear plants to power oil sands extraction 

By PATRICK BRETHOUR 

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - Print Edition, Page B1 

CALGARY -- Alberta is contemplating the use of nuclear reactors to feed its

power-hungry oil sands megaprojects. The province's Energy Ministry and

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the federal Crown corporation that

sells reactors, have already had preliminary discussions about how nuclear

power might be used in the oil patch. And AECL has commissioned a study from

the Canadian Energy Research Institute on how the costs of nuclear power

compare with the natural gas-fired plants currently used to generate the

steam and electricity needed to extract gooey bitumen from the oil sands and

process it into usable crude oil. The study, nearly complete, will show that

nuclear power is a viable option for the oil sands, at least on a strict

cost basis, said Bob Dunbar, CERI's senior director of research. "It does

look like it's going to be competitive," said Mr. Dunbar, head of the study.

He said that evaluation does not include the costs of complying with the

Kyoto Protocol, which would add to the expense of using natural gas for

power generation and strengthen the case for nuclear energy. Right now, the

Alberta government is willing to hear the case for nuclear power, said one

senior official in the Energy Ministry.

"We're open, but intrigued would be an overstatement," said Bob Taylor,

assistant deputy minister for oil development. He said AECL, looking for new

markets, approached the province about two months ago to kick off

discussions. Earlier, in formal remarks to a CERI conference in Calgary, Mr.

Taylor said the growth in Alberta's oil sands operations by 2045, to perhaps

four million barrels a day from about one million barrels now, could boost

energy requirements so high that "every molecule of gas" produced in the

province would be consumed. He said that such growth, while not guaranteed,

demonstrates that oil sands operators need to rethink their "addiction" to

natural gas. "What we're doing is not sustainable over time." 

One environmental group said nuclear power should not be used in the oil

sands, even if it does emit fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuel-fired

equivalents. There are other obvious environmental concerns with nuclear

energy, said Matthew Bramley, director of climate change for the Pembina

Institute for Appropriate Development. And he warned that Alberta should

heed the "economic fiasco" of nuclear power. He said that a growth in oil

sands production to four million barrels a day would necessitate a new

source of energy, but he questioned whether that level of production will

ever be achieved. Several of the fossil fuel generating plants in the Fort

McMurray area, about 400 kilometres northeast of Edmonton, sell electricity

into Alberta's deregulated market, defraying their costs of operation. The

AECL reactor that would be used, the Advanced Candu Reactor, generates 700

megawatts daily, more than double the combined output of two natural

gas-fired plants that provide Shell Canada Ltd. with energy for its new oil

sands project. Any functioning reactor in Alberta would be years distant,

even if the province were to make a quick decision authorizing the use of

nuclear power. It takes four years to get an ACR 700 reactor up and running

after a contract is signed, according to AECL. 

==============================





The contents of this email and any attachments are strictly

confidential.  They may not be disclosed to someone who is not a named

or authorized recipient.  They may also be subject to legal

professional privilege and unauthorized disclosure, copying or use is

prohibited. 



If you receive this e-mail in error please notify the sender by

replying using the words Misdirected E-mail in the subject, and  then

delete the message and any attachments from your system.



Although this e-mail and any attachments have been scanned for

viruses, the success of scanning products is not guaranteed. The

recipient(s) should therefore carry out any checks that they believe

to be appropriate in this respect.



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/