The power plant delivers steam that gets injected into the oil sand to reduce its viscosity. The electricity is used to produce hydrogen so the heavy oil can be hydrocracked into lighter compounds. So, everybody wins, right?

Except for the people of the region, who are stuck with not just the dregs left over from oil sand mining but also a rapidly vanishing water table and a pile of radioactive bliss when the robber barons decide its time to move on.

The nuclear lobby must be licking its chops.

What, what, what? Someone (Rafael?) has got to know whether this is actually worthwhile from more than just the economic perspective. We already use enough NG in extraction/refining operations to power an EV about the same distance as the refined gasoline takes a similar ICE propelled vehicle, provided of course the NG used in extracting/refining the oil was instead used for power generation.

I mean, at least now, it's kind of a wash, and we do use/need all the other refined products, so in some respects it's better to use gasoline constructively if we're gonna end up stuck with it anyway, even with all the additional pollutants associated with it, since we don't have much to replace all those other refined products. But this, I dunno... How much does this extra energy needed, that could be electricity in the consumer's home, favor an EV compared to all the pollution assocaited with an operation like this?

Er... Welp, that was quick. :)

Normally I find your posts rational and reasonable, Rafael. But I just don't understand your opposition to nuclear power.

One insanity supplemented by another.

By 2017 wind power will be far more economical than this nuclear facility. And then we get clean energy as well instead of nuclear power that would not be built if it was not for their exemptions from liability for accidents, terrorism etc. Also 2000MW by 2017 is nothing compared to the annual global production of wind turbines in 2017 that will be between 112000MW and 272000MW depending on whether the industry will grow at 20% pro anno from its present level or whether it will grow at 30%. The 2000MW of nuclear power compares to 5000 MW of wind turbine power because of a better capacity factor for nuclear power. If they need the power by 2017 they should just order 5000MW of wind turbines in 2015 and it will be ready at less cost and no pollution. The business case for nuclear power simply does not make any sense any more.

This is more elegant than traditional nuclear power in that a waste product (heat) is used to supplement another process (oil sand extraction)...but it is still not a satisfying outcome. Sure, Saudi light sweet crude can be extracted for a couple bucks a barrel, and this process will never be competitive with that. However, at $70/barrel, they're going to extract from oil sands. They might as well use less carbon doing it.

I think a more interesting usage of nuclear power waste heat is to pump it into bedrock to make the bedrock a giant heat synch, that can be tapped in the winter for geothermal power...but that might be far fetched.

There are some prominent environmentalists who are nuclear power proponents. Namely, Stewart Brand, who created the Whole Earth Catalog, and Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace.

If we're going to have a reactor, the CANDUs have a great safety record and are inherently much safer than other designs. Expensive yes, as the water coolant is also the moderator (heavy water) but if you lose the coolant you also lose the moderator and thus the reaction. Then you just have the waste heat to disperse.

Way safer than lumping graphite in there.. Steam explosion? Wigner energy and a whole load of other horrid complications. Graphite is cheap, otherwise it'd be banned.

Ya know, windmills take up vast quantities of land, especially to get the wattage you're talking about, plus you have to run A LOT of wires, and you loose a lot of efficiency doing it that way. plus nuclear power is reliable, wind isn't always blowing, but you can get a pretty constant stream of uranium coming in.

Ruaraidh,

the vast majority of nuclear power reactors use a water moderator. The reason why CANDU used heavy water is that the lower neutron adsorption cross section of heavy water allowed them to use natural uranium rather than enriched. Though IIRC current CANDU designs like this one do require enriched uranium.

Expensive yes, as the water coolant is also the moderator (heavy water) but if you lose the coolant you also lose the moderator and thus the reaction.

Actually, the coolant in CANDU is ordinary water. The heavy water is in the calandria around the pressure tubes and is not itself at high pressure or temperature. This is actually a nice feature, since the large volume of pressurized water in a PWR contains considerable stored energy that has to be dealt with in accidents.

New generation CANDUs also use much less heavy water (about 1/4 as much, IIRC) to improve the economics of the system. Also, the Canadians have a new heavy water production technology (based on hydrogen-water exchange, using hydrogen either from reformed methane or from electrolysis) that reduces the cost of making heavy water well below that of the old Girdler Sulfide process.

Use of enriched uranium enables the reactor to operate with higher burnup, which reduces operating cost and the number of spent fuel elements.

First, the proposed cost of this plant is $ 6.2 Billion, not to mention the cost of maintenance, fuel purchase and waste storage. Who said Nuclear fuel is cheap?
That's a lot of research that could go into solar cells and batteries.
Second, this proposed site is many 100's of kilometers away from Ft Mt Murray and the oil sands, so I doubt that the waste heat will be used.
Third, this site is remote and Alberta currently has trouble attracting and retaining a highly skilled workforce.
I don't think it will fly and if it does we should simply charge our plug in hybrids or EVs directly.

There are some prominent environmentalists who are nuclear power proponents. Namely, Stewart Brand, who created the Whole Earth Catalog, and Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace.

So? Moore is an industry hack, so that leaves one.

People who are radical often swing the exact opposite direction at a later point in life. David Horowitz is a perfect example.

Still doesn't matter. Bad ideas are bad ideas. Doesn't matter who supports them.

Jack:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, though an ad hominem attack on Moore just doesn't cut it as a rebuttal.

Interesting that among those proponents is that radical of radicals, James Lovelock.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, though an ad hominem attack on Moore just doesn't cut it as a rebuttal.

Did you actually present Moore's arguments or simply use an appeal to authority fallacy yourself?

Interesting that among those proponents is that radical of radicals, James Lovelock.

That makes three appeals to authority.

Jack:

I think it'd be best for all here if we just agree to disagree rather than engage in an endless verbal tennis match.

"Perhaps new advances in technology will remedy the environmental and economic problems that plague the industry. If so, fine. Investors will respond with orders for new nukes and we'll have no complaint. But in the meantime, the feds shouldn't try to ram this technology down the market's throat.

In the final analysis, the nuclear industry is purely a creature of government. The administration needs to practice the free-market rhetoric that it preaches and put away its nuclear pompoms."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4290

But I just don't understand your opposition to nuclear power.

Cervus, you're kidding, right? Does no one here care about sustainability? The near-universal once-through fuel cycle is a toxic joke. The U.S. has been piling up waste since the 1940's and still hasn't figured out where to put it.

If you can convince the governments of the U.S. and Canada to open a proper waste depository and/or build reprocessing plants, I'm all ears.

Otherwise, you're just pawning off today's energy problems onto tomorrow's children.

No freaking way!

BlackSun:

I view the waste issue as a solvable technological problem. IE: Reprocessing to squeeze more energy out of the available uranium. Hence my support.

@Cervus -

my reasons for opposing nuclear power in a nutshell:

a) even in supposedly safety-conscious Western countries like Japan, Sweden and Germany, nuclear power stations regularly suffer minor accidents. Nothing unusual about that in a large industrial installation and, there are backup and containment systems for just about every conceivable scenario. Nevertheless, a little sloppiness / idiocy can go a very long way when it comes to radioactivity (cp. Chernobyl).

b) over 60 years after the first commercial nuclear reactors came on stream, there is still no viable solution for the long-term storage of waste or the safe decommissioning of the most polluted reactor components. Yes, only ~5% of the uranium is actually use so the waste can and should be reprocessed, if only to avoid depleting soures of primary uranium. And yes, robots can cut up the steel parts and safely ensconce them in glass. That's not the point. The point is no-one wants the stuff in their back yard (cp. Yucca Mountain).

c) the true economic cost of construction, waste disposal and decomissioning are often understated because the taxpayer often takes on huge liabilities in addition to overt subsidies.

d) if Western nations decide to get back in the business of building commercial reactors, what hope do they have of dissuading dodgy regimes from pursuing nuclear weapons under the cover of a purely civilian program? The dividing line between military and civilian uses for nuclear technology is quite thin and hard to detect if a country chooses not to co-operate fully and truthfully with international watchdog agencies. Attempting to contain a rogue government for what could be many decades is both risky and expensive.

f) countries that have nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered naval vessels need to make sure the scientists and engineers involved are kept busy even when no new military systems are needed. Idle hand make the devil's work etc. (cp. Pakistan's freelance nuclear industry). It is no coincidence that the world's nuclear powers all run large civilian programs as well.

---

Against all that, nuclear power's main selling point these days is that it doesn't produce any CO2. This is not a trivial advantage. However, as other commenters have pointed out, renewables achieve the same thing. Depending on how you count the true cost of nuclear power, it could well be the cheaper option. This is especially true if we get serious about conservation first. Energy is not just about ever-increasing supply.

Rafael:

Thank you for your detailed answer. I can see where you're coming from. However, all those negatives must be weighed against CO2 issues and the shortcomings of intermittent renewables. Even if we doubled our efficiency through conservation or other measures, we would still need to replace the older reactors we have in operation as they come to end of life, if only to use safer designs like the CANDU or pebble bed.

Who here thinks the nuclear industry gives one flying flip about CO2?

Part of the reason some old-hand environmentalists come out with (tepid) support of nuclear is because so many heel draggers didn't listen to them 30 or 40 years ago when we could have averted the much worse choices we face today. Inevitably, they all fall back on some false dilemma of "lesser of two evils" thinking, comparing it to coal.

I find it ironic that now the very same people who openly mock "hair-shirt environmentalism" (of which Mr. Brand, Mr. Lovelock, and Mr. Moore were one-time supporters of) now take their side when it fits their opinions. I also find it ironic that those very same people are of the type who got us into the mess we're in in the first place.

@ Rafael:

If I might add: Yucca Mountain's reservations for nuclear waste space is full and it hasn't been completed yet (NPR).

Remember when President Bush announced that we were addicted to oil and then proposed the use of nuclear power and switch grass, along with the rest. I asked myself, "What's in it for his oil buddies?" Now I see the ties between the nuclear industry and the oil industry; feathering his nest from both sides. Still trying to figure out the switch grass connections. It might have been thrown in there just to convolve the alternative energy issues and mask underling motives.

Nuclear waste reprocessing would not only solve 90% of the waste problem but would also extend the usefulness of nuclear fuel greatly. I don't like tar sands oil but this is a better then burning huge amounts of natural gas. I hope they make electricity at the same time.