Fight Proposed Nuclear Power Plant To Power The Alberta Oil Sands

This drive to build nukes to make oil out of the tar sands is a consequence of the approaching "Peak Oil" crisis when the world's conventional oil production goes into decline. he world economies are for the most part geared for perpetual economic growth (when economies don't grow we have recessions) and to date the increasing amounts of energy needed to fuel that growth has been relatively easily (and cheaply) obtained simply by pumping more oil.<br />
<br />
Conventional oil is relatively easy to get out of the ground so once conventional oil production goes into decline, the world will have no option but to rely increasingly on alternative sources for energy (including tar sands derived oil) to keep the perpetual economic growth party from coming to an end. Unfortunately just about all the alternative sources of energy available to date provide a very low rate of EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) compared to traditional, energy-dense, conventional oil. Many of the alternative sources barely break even in that they return not much more useful energy out as had to be supplied to create the energy in the first place. Also natural gas which has to date provided most of the energy used to extract the oil out of the tar sands is at or near peak production in North America as well ( <a href="http://www.hubbertpeak.com/gas/primer/">http://www.hubbertpeak.com/gas/primer/</a> ), hence the drive to find some alternative to keep the economic merry go rounds turning, no matter what the costs or risks involved.<br />
<br />
It's important that in all the hype over breakthroughs in alternative energy sources leading some to believe that we can continue our energy intensive lifestyles in perpetuity (we'll just fill up the SUV on hydrogen instead of gas or diesel) we don't overlook the EROEI issues. I saw it described this way on a web site recently:<br />
<br />
Imagine you came across a bank ATM machine into which you would insert $1 and get $100 dollars out and this machine functioned day in and day out whenever you needed it. Life would be sweet because there is no way you could ever run short of cash now as long as you could get to this ATM machine and had at least $1 in your pocket. After making this amazing discovery you quit your job, move to a much bigger house, buy a new sports car, have all the latest electronic gadgets, take expensive vacations in luxury resorts at the drop of a hat and quickly get accustomed to this new luxurious lifestyle. After a few years you noticed that the amount of cash returned started to decline so that the machine was now only giving out $50 for each dollar inserted. It wouldn't be a big deal really because a 50:1 return for hardly any effort is still a heck of a good deal. As time goes on the machine gives out less and less money for each dollar inserted, but even at 10:1 who would complain that they got $10 dollars back after putting in only $1. But what happens when the bank machine is only spitting out $1.25 for each dollar inserted and the trend tells you that in a few months time you might be lucky just to get $1 for each $1 invested in the machine. At that point you have to consider how much it costs you to drive to the machine's location each time you need money, the inconvenience of having to get stacks of $1 coins to feed into the machine for a relatively low rate of return and the hassle of taking all those stacks of coins back to a bank to get changed into paper currency etc.<br />
<br />
You just might be forced to conclude at this point that life on easy street is coming to an end, and it might be easier in the long run just to get a job and rejoin the 9 to 5 grind with the rest of the cube rats, in order to put some food on your table. At that point the reality sinks in and you realize that when the money was free flowing and abundant you made investments in luxuries and frivolities and came to regard the luxuries as essentials, but there is now no way you can afford to keep your sports cars, big house, vacation homes etc and still eat and buy shoes and clothing.<br />
<br />
Back in the 40s and 50s it was estimated that the EROEI on oil was as high as 100:1. In other words, for every unit of energy invested in discovering and producing oil, humanity got back 100 units of energy to use to find more oil and to turn into gasoline, diesel, electricity etc. Today as more and more oil comes from unconventional sources and deep offshore etc. it is estimated that the EROEI on newly discovered oil is somewhere around 10:1. Still a good deal overall, but what happens when the easy to get at and cheap to produce conventional oil has peaked and we have to rely increasingly on low EROEI sources for our energy, many of them with an EROEI of maybe 3:1 if we are lucky. In addition many of the alternative energy sources are being produced today in an environment where the underlying industrial systems are run in economies for the most part still sustained by a relatively high EROEI oil. As the conventional (high EROEI) oil keeps declining it could make it more and more difficult to produce the new alternative energy sources that are supposed to offset the decline in oil. Consider how much oil based energy goes into producing a nuclear power plant, i.e. in the trucking, the building of the concrete structures and the complex piping systems, boilers, reactors, control systems etc. As oil prices rise the price of nuclear power stations will keep rising as well and we could find ourself chasing our own tails in an attempt to keep living the North American lifestyles that we have come to know and love and think of as "normal".<br />
<br />
From the blog Resource Insights:<br />
<br />
Tar baby: Oil sands and peak oil<br />
<br />
SNIP<br />
<br />
As you might expect the earliest discoveries of oil and coal were the easiest to get and thus yielded the highest net energy. Before 1940 the net energy for oil was greater than 100 to 1, that is 100 units of energy yielded for every 1 unit expended. Since then it's declined to around 20 to 1 for current production and 8 to 1 for new discoveries. The same is true of coal though the ratios differ.<br />
<br />
When oil optimists point to the Canadian oil sands and say there is more oil there than in all of the Middle East, what they don't tell you is this. First, as I mentioned in Do high oil prices foreshadow a deeper crisis?, no resource can ever be economically extracted at 100 percent rates. It's not unusual for oil fields to yield only 30 to 40 percent of their total oil before it costs more to extract the oil than it's worth. There's every reason to believe that extraction rates for the oil sands will be no better.<br />
<br />
Second, it takes a lot of energy to separate the oil film from the sand. Lots of hot water is involved. That takes a lot of energy. Third, the water has to come from somewhere and pumping it takes energy. (The oily waste water is pumped into vast lagoons for disposal, but that is another issue.) Fourth, and very important, the product produced up to this point isn't conventional oil. The residue left from this process has to have hydrogen added to it before it becomes suitable for use. Where does the hydrogen come from? Much of it comes from natural gas another finite resource the supply of which may very well be peaking in North America and may peak worldwide sometime before 2050.<br />
<br />
The bottom line: It takes something like the equivalent of two barrels of oil in energy to make three barrels of conventional oil from oil sands. The technology will surely improve. But, it is unlikely to ever move from 1.5 to 1 to the 20 to 1 ratios we're getting from old production. And, as the cost of all conventional energy sources rises, so will the cost of extracting oil from oil sands.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2004/10/tar-baby-oil-sands-and-peak-oil.html">http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2004/10/tar-baby-oil-sands-and-peak-oil.html</a><br />
<br />
A more detailed explanation/discussion of EROEI issues here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.eroei.com/articles/the_chain/what_is_eroei/">http://www.eroei.com/articles/the_chain/what_is_eroei/</a><br />
<br />
For some streaming videos and articles on Peak Oil see:<br />
<a href="http://www.peakaware.com">http://www.peakaware.com</a>

It just drives me insane. Putting in nuclear power to extract fossil fuels. It's become where the black gold is more important then any other commodity on earth. It's placed above the well being of the earths citizens. Then we have Canada strutting over the fact, we can can provide the world with nuclear power when Canadians don't want it in their country. I sure would like to hear the sales pitch on that. Perhaps the sale of the stuff will promote the need for it.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

I hope the project doesn't go ahead for the sake of the folks in Alberta.

Off topic: I have researched and concluded that peak oil is not a reality but rather a hoax just like man-made global warming is. Both scams have been created by the corporate government to further the creation of new taxes such as the proposed global carbon tax. Now, that's after researching it myself. I suggest everyone conduct their own research on these topics. BBC's 'The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)' has been removed from Google Video. What does that tell us? There is strong opposition to allowing the truth to come out. Hmmm, I wonder who could pull strings like that? Again, I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong, this is simply my personal conclusion. I don't buy any of it because it is manufactured propaganda and lies.

“Tritium is created and released into the environment in far greater quantities from CANDU reactors than from other power reactors, such as the American ‘light-water’ designs”, according to Dr. Gordon Edwards in <a href="http://www.ccnr.org/tritium_1.html"><i>Health Dangers of Tritium Emissions</i></a>.<br><br> “The emission of large amounts of the radioactive element tritium is unique to the CANDU reactor, because it is produced in great abundance by the exposure of heavy water to radiation”, according to David H. Martin in <a href="http://www.ccnr.org/turkey_syndrome.html"><i>The CANDU Syndrome</i></a>.<br><br> The following question and answer is from <a href="http://www.friendsofbruce.ca/Special%20Reports/Tritium_in_Drinking_Water_Notes.html"><i>Canada vs. U.S. Tritium Standards in Drinking Water (A Primer on Tritium)</i></a> by the Bruce Centre for Energy Research & Information:<br><br> “How do Canadian CANDU reactors compare to U.S. nuclear reactors with respect to generation and emissions of tritium?<br><br> The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has noted that Canadian CANDU heavy water reactors generate about 30 times the amount of tritium of a light water U.S. reactor.<br><br> According to UNSCEAR, a CANDU reactor also normally releases over 20 times the amount of tritium to the environment (water and air) than a U.S. light water reactor.”.

Higher radioactive tritium levels reduce CANDU reactor lifetime performance and increase safety problems, such as leaks caused by corrosion fatigue cracking, stress corrosion cracking, pitting, and embrittlement.<br><br> According to <a href="http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/appendix2.pdf"><i>Ontario's Nuclear Generating Facilities: A History and Estimate of Unit Lifetimes and Refurbishment Costs, Appendix 2</i></a> (pdf document) by the Pembina Institute:<br><br> “As CANDU reactors in Ontario have aged, they have experienced increasing technical problems and poor performance -- typically worsening dramatically after about ten years of operation. Although it was originally assumed that CANDU reactors would last for forty years, they are experiencing serious operational problems much earlier. Ontario Hydro’s decision in August 1997 to temporarily shut down its oldest seven reactors was dramatic proof that the early aging of CANDU reactors leads to poor performance and safety problems. (41)<br><br> The four Bruce ‘A’ reactors lasted less than half of their expected 40-year lifetimes, before being shut down for long-term repair work. The Pickering ‘A’ reactors lasted only 25 years, despite having been re-tubed 1983-1993.”;<br><br> and,<br><br> “CANDU performance world-wide compares poorly to dominant world types of power reactors. According to <i>Nucleonics Week</i> (29), a nuclear industry trade journal, the 2003 average capacity (load) factors for the major competitive reactor types were as follows: Pressurized Water Reactors (259 PWRs) = 82.62%; Boiling Water Reactors (92 BWRs) = 70.23; Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (30) (41 PHWRs) = 63.28%. While CANDU performance has declined over the last 20 years, nuclear reactors in the United States have been steadily improving from an average capability factor of 62.7% in 1980 to an average of 88.7% in 1999. (31)”.

"The nuclear power plant is being billed as 'clean' energy since nuclear doesn't produce greenhouse gas emissions"

This is one good example of why I've been so critical of the politicization of science wrt "global warming".

Just because something does not produce carbon dioxide directly, does not mean that it won't produce it indirectly or that the process is going to be clean.

To solve our environmental problems requires a holistic approach because there never are quick fix solutions to complex (and poorly understood) problems. Reducing carbon emissions alone will do nothing for us, and may even create worse problems in the long run by encouraging the use of processes are far more dirty and destructive than burning oil & gas.

Read CWC's article on radiation:<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070611235926404">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070611235926404</a><br />
Can anyone still say that nuc-u-lar power is "green"?<br />
(Well, of course it is green, silly! That way you can get subsidies to build the damn thing.....)<br />
<p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

"Can anyone still say that nuc-u-lar power is "green"?"

Of course I can, you know me better than that.

Breeder reactors (in use in Japan) produce nethier tritium, depleted uranium nor any long term waste, nor do pebble bed reactors (in use in China). Breeder reactors can also re-process waste and 'depleted' uranium from other reactors and make it 'active' again - like a big battery charger.

And on the horizon is the largest Fusion reactor, to be completed in France. We'll see where that goes.

I repeat this often, but somehow, people would rather focus on the downside of Nuclear Power, even considering something as simple as workplace safety is held to a much higher standard than most other electrical generating plants.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Plus - Winters are going to start getting pretty expensive. Most power in Alberta is generated by Natural Gas. Ontairo is decomissioning coal plants in favour of NG, and the oilsands is the #1 user of NG in Alberta.<br />
<br />
And Alberta is running out of NG.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=dda00b3d-baa7-4d47-8d23-056bb9cc9c52">http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=dda00b3d-baa7-4d47-8d23-056bb9cc9c52</a><p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />

"Well, of course it is green, silly!"

Yeah, and it'll glow green in the dark too.

"Breeder reactors (in use in Japan) produce nethier tritium, depleted uranium nor any long term waste, nor do pebble bed reactors (in use in China). Breeder reactors can also re-process waste and 'depleted' uranium from other reactors and make it 'active' again - like a big battery charger."

Thanks for pointing this technology out. I for one was unaware of it (as previously noted in past discussions), and I presume most people are unaware of it as well.

One question: Given the advantages, why are breeder reactors generally not in use? Is it because nuclear power has been politicized to the point where even positive solutions no longer can be considered? I know that a few breeder reactors were built in Europe and elsewhere, but most (or all) of them were eventually shut down. The question is why were they shut down?

"And on the horizon is the largest Fusion reactor, to be completed in France. We'll see where that goes."

I think that these massive reactors are the wrong approach, and that smaller is better. All the money is going into these massive systems that so far do next to nothing other than consume massive amounts of research resources. Almost nothing is going into promising alternatives (all eggs in one basket kind of thing).

The "fusor" seems like a much more promising route. For one thing, a small fusion reactor can act as a direct power source for a building, and perhaps could power something as small as a car, but massive reactors have to deliver power to a remote destinations making them impractical as direct power sources for many applications. Fusors have been shown to generate a ratio of more power output vs input than any of the large reactors to date, and the cost of these devices are minuscule by comparison.

"One question: Given the advantages, why are breeder reactors generally not in use? Is it because nuclear power has been politicized to the point where even positive solutions no longer can be considered? I know that a few breeder reactors were built in Europe and elsewhere, but most (or all) of them were eventually shut down. The question is why were they shut down?"

They were outlawed in the US, because they can take poor (power grade) uranium and make it into weapons grade uranium or plutonium. I don't know why they were shut down in Europe, but I suspect pressure by our southern cousins.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

They did more than just shut them down, they seem to have kept the idea away from the publics eye. I suspect very few people know about breeder reactors.