Oil patch going nuclear?

[slowpoke]

Here's an interesting twist on energy - using Candu reactors to generate steam, hot water, hydrogen etc for use in extracting heavy oil. This would replace some of the natural gas they're using to generate steam right now and it wouldn't contribute to global warming.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20070111.html

.."Two Calgary-based entrepreneurs, Wayne Henuset and Hank Swartout formed Energy Alberta Corp. and teamed up with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to promote the Candu-6 as the answer to the vast energy needs of the oilsands.

Henuset, the president of the company, said in an interview the group is building the project around two Candu-6 reactors, which would produce a total of 1,400 megawatts of power and which would be built together smack in the middle of oilsands country, just south of Fort McMurray.

The projected capital cost is roughly $4.5 billion and the reason for the centralized location is that one of the biggest needs of oilsands extractors is high-pressure steam, and steam from a central plant such as this only has an effective range of about 24 kilometres when delivered through pipelines.

The Candu-6 is a full-scale 700-megawatt reactor that has been around since the early 1980s. It is the one Canada has exported to China, Korea and Romania, and the same one that is found at Point Lepreau, N.B., and most of the sites in Ontario, including the Darlington, Pickering and Bruce plants.

AECL would build and operate the plant, while Energy Alberta and private equity groups would own it. There is no plan to have any government equity in the project, says Henuset."....

 

[danmand]

AECL would build and operate the plant, while Energy Alberta and private equity groups would own it. There is no plan to have any government equity in the project, says Henuset."....

Not yet.

 

[slowpoke]

Not yet.

I was thinking the same thing. With all this emphasis on carbon emissions, Kyoto etc, there are probably all kinds of handouts available. They could sell their carbon credits and probably some of their surplus electricity too.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

In fact Germany the world leader in Green energy is shutting down twelve nuclear reactors and replacing them with eight green house gas emmitting coal fired stations because they will get more credit under Koyoto for building windmills to make up the difference. That treaty is so F&*(#$ UP!

What a joke.

I didn't know this, but I'm not surprised.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

win win as far as I'm concerned.... provides electicity as well if its done right.

Win win?

I thought the goal was to reduce greenhouse gasses.

 

[train]

Win win?

I thought the goal was to reduce greenhouse gasses.

It does.

 

[train]

Uhm,



In fact Germany the world leader in Green energy is shutting down twelve nuclear reactors and replacing them with eight green house gas emmitting coal fired stations because they will get more credit under Koyoto for building windmills to make up the difference. That treaty is so F&*(#$ UP!


EU

Exactly...why we originally agreed to it is beyond me. If we would have kept in our penalty payments would probably go to Germany.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

It does.

Replacing nuclear generators with coal fired generators doesn't.

Am I missing something?

 

[slowpoke]

Uhm,

Nuclear power doesn't get carbon credits under Koyoto. So sorry. Oh and since they will be producing oil they will not get credit for that either.

In fact Germany the world leader in Green energy is shutting down twelve nuclear reactors and replacing them with eight green house gas emmitting coal fired stations because they will get more credit under Koyoto for building windmills to make up the difference. That treaty is so F&*(#$ UP!

Anyways, the nuclear reactors will probably be built, because Alberta is running out of natural gas which is what they use now.
EU

I was merely speculating about future possibilites. I didn't say the sale of carbon credits would necessarily be at the Kyoto level. Energy companies whose production emissions are below their targets will very likely end up selling their credits to those who can't meet the targets. The use of nuclear energy during production should allow these companies to extract oil while emitting less carbon than their targets. And so on...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/12/dion-energy.html

..."Dion said a Liberal government would create a carbon trading market similar to one already running in Europe to allow companies that didn't meet emissions targets to buy credits from those that exceeded the standard."...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wcarbon0110/BNStory/Business/home

..."He said that as the process unfolds, the largest emitters of carbon dioxide will increasingly need to purchase emissions credits from the economy's “greenest” companies. He said the Canadian energy sector, which accounts for about 20 per cent of this country's emissions, would be most affected by this trend."...

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/552554.html

..."You will have a regulation that means . . . the industry will have to decreases their emissions by 10 per cent," he said as an example. "If you are able to decrease it by 15 per cent, you may sell the extra five per cent cut of emissions on the market to the ones that are unable to reach the target."..

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I realize I don't have the grasp on the issue that Dion and many in here have, but I fail to see how buying and selling emissions credits helps the environment.

 

[CooCoo]

Ideally, it'd be nice in a perfect world. But this world is akin to, 4 people in a car that's going 100km/h at a brick wall. With the people in the backseat trying to tell the ones up front to slow down. It's futile.
Read this analogy from David Suzuki in Macleans I believe. Very scary stuff.

 

[slowpoke]

I realize I don't have the grasp on the issue that Dion and many in here have, but I fail to see how buying and selling emissions credits helps the environment.

I don't completely understand how these credits work either. I can see how a company's failure to meet the targets will result in them having to buy credits. So the credit purchase is basically a fine or penalty. But does Canadian company A buy credits from Canadian company B so the cash stays in the country or is it an international credit exchange where some countries will end up net losers and others will be net winners?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I don't completely understand how these credits work either. I can see how a company's failure to meet the targets will result in them having to buy credits. So the credit purchase is basically a fine or penalty. But does Canadian company A buy credits from Canadian company B so the cash stays in the country or is it an international credit exchange where some countries will end up net losers and others will be net winners?

If it's cheaper for company A to buy credits from company B than to re-tool its factory, what do you think comapny A is going to do?

Even if the money stays in the country, all we've accomplished is the creation of another bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, the polar bear's struggles continue.

 

[basketcase]

Linda Stuntz threw some very cold water on this suggestion, pointing out that the Chinese were bringing a new coal plant online every 10 days capable of meeting the electricity needs of a city like Dallas.
...

Listen people in the West believe in global warming. They do not believe in oil depletion. They are in for a very big F&*()%^ surprise and very damn soon.

Interesting post, that the Chinese keep making coal plants is proof that the west doesn't believe?

 

[danmand]

Canada Norway and England are the only Western nations to produce an oil surplus. The USA and the EU will be hit hard when the next energy crisis comes.

EU

Don't fool yourself, Everybody on this planet will be hit hard.

 

[basketcase]

China produces all of it's coal internally. Oil is imported. Gas would also be imported from Russia. China is securing its energy future by using coal instead of natural gas. Also, China is making a big commitment to nuclear, as well as Iran and the Russian Federation.
...

I think that in itself provides a reason for worry for the environment. Burning coal (as far as I'm aware) is less efficient than natural gas and therefore leads to more CO2 (and sulfur, and...) emissions. The fact that China has less to worry about in terms of supply means that they will have no internal reason for finding alternative energy sources.

The west (deservedly) gets a lot of heat (pun intended) over global warming and Kyoto while countries such as China continue to quiety do what they want. For me, China's expanding economy is something for us all to worry.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I think that in itself provides a reason for worry for the environment. Burning coal (as far as I'm aware) is less efficient than natural gas and therefore leads to more CO2 (and sulfur, and...) emissions.

Actually it's the opposite. The more efficient the combustion, the higher the levels of CO2.

The west (deservedly) gets a lot of heat (pun intended) over global warming and Kyoto while countries such as China continue to quiety do what they want. For me, China's expanding economy is something for us all to worry.

I remember getting shot down a couple of months ago for stating the same thing. One of the many problems with Kyoto is that we are setting goals on an uneven playing field.

 

[slowpoke]

If it's cheaper for company A to buy credits from company B than to re-tool its factory, what do you think comapny A is going to do?

Even if the money stays in the country, all we've accomplished is the creation of another bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, the polar bear's struggles continue.

Company A will probably pay company B for credits until it is time to retool or shut down for maintenance. All equipment needs to be repaired and eventually replaced. Comany A has probably replaced a lot of their old processes with newer ones over the years and that will continue - ie: I doubt that company A is still using horse-drawn wagonloads of coal to heat the offices anymore so it isn't like company A is frozen in time. Company A would probably never change anything without a reason. So the fines or credits become an incentive to change things. The problem with most fines is that the gov't takes the money and wastes it. But if company A has to buy credits from another company instead of just paying a fine, there is an added incentive for other companies to clean up and sell their excess credits as a reward.

 

[shakenbake]

Uhm,

Nuclear power doesn't get carbon credits under Koyoto. So sorry. Oh and since they will be producing oil they will not get credit for that either.

In fact Germany the world leader in Green energy is shutting down twelve nuclear reactors and replacing them with eight green house gas emmitting coal fired stations because they will get more credit under Koyoto for building windmills to make up the difference. That treaty is so F&*(#$ UP!

Anyways, the nuclear reactors will probably be built, because Alberta is running out of natural gas which is what they use now.
EU

The present German government is so anti-nuclear it isn't funny at all. Again, it is politics and the treati sis so screwed up, I agree with you.

As for running out of natural gas, who can we trust with the politically motivated estimates of reserves? By the way, with nuclear power, it would be feasible to crack the hydrocarbons in-situ, to produce the emthande and other light hydrocarbon gases. As well, with the nuclear power, hydrogen could also be produced in-situ, by high temperature water electrolysis. This is another plan in the works.

shakenbake

 

[slowpoke]

This is a link to a really good article about carbon emissions and the best way to go about reducing them. There is good information from a U of Calgary economist and sustainalbe energy expert who is a friend of Stephen Harper as well as commentary from the heads of Syncrude, Shell, EnCana and Canadian Oil Sands Trust etc. Also the article shows the emission levels from just about all sources. It was in this weekend's Globe and Mail but it is reprinted on this Workopolis site for some unknown reason. The Globe will only run a link for a few days and then you'd have to buy the article so I've used the Workopolis link instead.

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20070106/RCOVER06?section=Energy

..."Greenhouse gases in Canada spew out from disparate sources across the country -- vehicles on the roads are as guilty as industry -- but massive growth in the oil sands is drawing the most attention with the rising prominence of the environment and the containing of carbon dioxide emissions. The oil sands region is already home to two of the four single biggest emitters in the country and is set for incredible growth, with $100-billion of projects planned over the next decade. The use of fresh water and the destruction of several thousand square kilometres of delicate boreal forest through surface mining are also key concerns.

All this attention has raised fear in the energy industry, which in 2002 fought noisily against the Kyoto Protocol, with oil sands operators threatening to shut down planned projects or process the raw output in the United States. New threats from energy firms have not yet emerged but industry leaders speak with fretful words like "concern" and "nervous."

To Mr. Mansell, the answer is clear, though it sounds like an oxymoron: A green oil sands -- a future that marries what he calls the 3 Es, energy, environment and economy, using technology to increase recovery, reduce emissions and capture carbon dioxide.

But the key, he insists, is the government taking charge, making hard and clear rules, instead of waiting and hoping industry will make the full push.

"If governments aren't going to lead, it won't happen," Mr. Mansell says. "We're a nation that's never achieved our potential. We've done okay but we've never reached the next level."

It's the lack of precise policies that discourages improvement and innovation, he said. "You have to have the market working for you. It needs the right signals, the right incentives. . . . It's like a mission to the moon. If we point people in the right direction, we'll come out with wonderful things."

Mr. Mansell, an economist like Mr. Harper, who remains a good friend, said the Prime Minister has always believed the environment is a major priority even if wasn't among his top five coming into office a year ago. But that situation is now changed dramatically with Mr. Harper establishing a special cabinet committee devoted to the problem alongside his remade cabinet."...