Nuclear Power for the Oilsands
Posted by Stoneleigh on May 26, 2007 - 11:04am in The Oil Drum: Canada
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: advanced CANDU, nuclear, oil sands [list all tags]
This is a guest post by Brian Wang (advancednano).
In order for nuclear power to replace the burning of natural gas to power the extraction of oil from the oilsands involves about 4.4 GW of nuclear power per million barrels per day of oil extracted (according to Wayne Henuset,director of Energy Alberta Corporation. estimate of a 2.2 GW reactor separating 500,000 bpd). 10 million bpd would take about twenty 2.2 GW twin reactors. A detailed analysis is provided from the Nuclear Energy journal. It was written by Atomic Energy Canada and Canadian Energy Research Institute scientists.
A paper - Opportunities for CANDU for the Alberta Oilsands - from journal of Nuclear Energy (peer reviewed) is probably the definitive word on how much oil would be separated using a CANDU reactor.
SAGD can recover over 50% of the initial volume of crude bitumen in place. An average steam/oil ratio of 2-3 is required. Working from output levels of high quality steam of 62400 m**3/day, a cumulative steam/oil raio of 2.5, operating capacity of 93%, the results was consistent with a 146,000 barrel per day bitumen production.
A typical advanced CANDU reactor
Configuration of a reactor as part of oilsands project
A 728 MWe (gross) nominal electric output ACR-700 design generates 1983 MW (thermal). The CANDU reactor can be adapted to provide steam of 2-6 MPa. An ACR700 would provide in one configuration 140MWe (net), 420,000 barrels/day/steam and supply pressure of 2.2 MPa. The production rate of bitumen using this steam would depend on the steam/oil ratios required in the SAGD wells. For steam/oil ratios of 212.4-224 degrees celsius the bitumen production rates would be 168,000-210,000 bbl/day. The project would achieve a 10% advantage in steam cost even if natural gas were at USD3.25/mmbtu.
The twin 2.2 GWe reactor proposal would generate 507,000 to 634000 bbl/day in a similar configuration with similar assumptions.
Cost Sensivity of the project
"One reactor (would be) in 2016 and the second one would be in 2017 ... We're taking it to where we feel there's less resistance (from the public)," corporation director Wayne Henuset told Reuters.
"We hope to site it and talk to the communities in the next two months," he said in an interview on the sidelines of a nuclear industry seminar.
Two further reactors are planned for a later unspecified date.
Canada's Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn told Reuters in January that, in theory, he liked the idea of nuclear power for the oil sands.
Henuset said Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. -- the government-ownedmanufacturer of the Candu -- estimated it could build the first reactor in 36 months.
He also said he hoped that nuclear waste from the plant would be stored either on site or in special chambers until it could be reused.
Shell Canada Ltd. Chief Executive Clive Mather told Reuters in January that although he was not ready to buy into the nuclear concept, it could offer a price advantage over time. Shell is a major oil sands operator.
The World Nuclear Association estimates natural gas is 60 percent of an oil-sands facility's operating costs.
A new Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process has been developed and proven in Canada during the last decade. It is compatible with the steam conditions from CANDU reactors would release about 0.10 tonnes/barrel for extraction and upgrading of bitumen from much deeper deposits.
Reviewing the short history of oil sands production suggests that, based on current production and past rates of growth, production in 2050 would reach about 1.5 billion barrels/year (4 million bpd). About half would come from in situ projects. Presuming the production rate increases at a higher than historical rate of 5%/year, compounded annually, results in production of 3 billion barrels/year (8 million bpd) by 2050.
A single large dedicated CANDU 9 reactor could supply the steam and electricity to extract and upgrade about 600 million barrels of bitumen over a period of 30 years. The land area from which bitumen would be extracted is about 18 square miles requiring steam distribution and bitumen recovery piping from a centrally located 60,000 barrel/day plant of up to about 3 miles. Smaller reactors would be suitable for smaller production rates with shorter piping distance.
Henuset is quoted as saying that the 2.2 GW twin reactor would separate up to 500,000 barrels of oil a day.
In a speech to a high-powered business audience in New York last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said production from the oil sands — which now supply about one million barrels of crude a day — is now "on its way" to four million barrels by 2015, a target that exceeds the bullish 3.5 million barrels forecast used by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Here is a pdf of a Wayne Henuset speech
The National Energy Board has forecasted that the oil sands production would increase fourfold by 2015, largely using steam assisted gravity drainage. If all the SAGD projects planned were to use natural gas as the fuel in cogeneration systems that would see natural gas demands in the region skyrocket to over 3 billion cubic feet/day by 2015. That's more natural gas than all the rest of Alberta uses now. 375 million cubic feet/day is replaced by the 2.2GW reactor. USD1.095 billion/year for the 375 million cubic feet/day if natural gas is at $8 per 1000 cubic feet.
[1000 cubic feet of natural gas is equal to 293 kWh.
320 billion kWh per year in 2015. Twenty 2 GW reactors needed to fully replace the natural gas usage]Putting the brakes on the oil sands development is not the answer. Canada needs the oil sands. Conventional oil and gas reserves are declining. Energy conservations are important and necessary but they won't eliminate the need for fossil fuels in our economy. In addition, oil sands activities will lead to significant economical impact not only to Albertans but across the nation with substantial increase in gross domestic product, employment generating over $123 billion in tax revenues.
It makes no sense to squander precious and declining reserves of natural gas to make oil in the oil sands. That's simply like burning gold to make coal. The answer for this is using nuclear power.
The first strategy is using CANDU nuclear electricity generation to extract the oil from the carbonate triangle involving potentially 450 [billion] barrels of bitumen. This is new. The second strategy is generating hydrogen electricity for the upgrading of the bitumen. The third is providing steam supply for the SAGD process in the oil sands; and finally, generating electrical needs for the utility companies in Alberta to keep up with our provinces projected growth.
One ACR1000 reactor would result in an annual displacement of around 500 million tons of CO2 compared to an equivalent gas fired generator accounting to a savings of $100 million, annually, of carbon dioxide cost if it was at $20.
So either you burn natural gas to get at oil from the oilsand OR you use new processes where you burn some of the oilsand to get oil from it OR you make a lot of nuclear reactors. If oil prices stay high and we go past peak oil and the prices go higher then it seems that making the nuclear reactors to extract the most oil for other purposes is the way to go. If all current conventional oil in North America had to be replaced with oil from the oilsands that would be about 24 million bpd. 9 billion barrels per year. If Henuset/AECL/CERI are correct in the 500,000-630,000 bpd estimate then 48 of the 2.2 GW twin reactors would be needed for the SAGD extraction process.
One way of viewing nuclear powered oil sands is to think of it as making a hybrid version of the global energy system.
Addendum on Water Supply
Of the total water allocated in the province, the oil and gas sector actually uses less than half of one per cent for water and steam injection processes (enhanced oil recovery). Water used for these purposes has declined from 88.7 million cubic metres in 1973 to 47.5 million cubic metres in 2001 – 37 million cubic metres of this was non-saline (fresh) water, 10.5 million was saline or brackish water. (Source: Water Use for Injection Purposes in Alberta report, Alberta Environment, 2003)
A CANDU reactor would (700MW) would generate 420,000 barrels per day of steam. A cubic meter is 8.38 barrels. Therefore, the (700MW) reactor would generate 18.3 million cubic meters of steam per year. 57.4 million cubic meters of steam for the 2.2 GW twin reactors. Water expands to 1700 times its volume in steam.
So the 2.2 GW reactor would be using 33,800 cubic meters of water for that amount of steam. Scaling up that amount of water usage 100 times would be well within the bounds of the water allocated for steam and water injection. The steam for the nuclear plants does not seem to be the limiting factor. Also, as I not further down this article 90% of the water can be recovered and recycled in the SAGD process.
The oil and gas industries complete allocation is 432.4 million cubic meters of water. (4.6% of 9.4 billion cubic meters of water).
The oil and gas industries gets 178.6 million cubic feet of water for steam and water injection. (1.9% of 9.4 billion cubic metres of water). This amount could get increased if needed.
If agriculture had to give up some of its water allocation, then in theory 33% of the the 9.4 billion cubic meters of water might go to oil and gas. The re-allocation can be reduced by using wastewater from the 11% of the water (1 billion cubic meters) that is used for people in their homes could be used. The oilsands industry could then be
scaled up 65 times from 2001 levels even still using the same wasteful methods as used in 2001.
Up to the end of 2001, Alberta had allocated over 9.4 billion cubic metres of water annually for a variety of uses. Allocations from surface water sources account for 98 per cent of this total; the remaining two per cent are from groundwater sources.
For 2001, the oil and gas sector was licensed to use 4.6 per cent of all the water allocated in Alberta; less than half (1.9 per cent) of this water is allocated for water and steam injection operations. By comparison, the agriculture sector (including irrigation) was licensed
to use the largest amount of water of any economic sector, at approximately 46 per cent. Municipal water supplies accounted for 11 per cent.
On page 25 of this report (Technology roadmap for the oilsands), it has chart which shows that thermal (steam) extraction of oilsands was using about 7 million cubic meters of water. This produced 125000 bpd. Scaled up 200 times, it would be 1.4 billion cubic meters of water, or 15% of Alberta's water. It would mean re-allocating water or re-using wasteawater or recycling more of the SAGD water and being more efficient, but it is feasible. Especially if there was great need because of any potential peak oil situations.
A criticism of some of this is that "even the oil industry is not looking at more than 4 million bpd from the oilsands". That is because the oil industry does not believe in peak oil. They are looking at 4 million bpd and thinking about new markets they would need to find to sell it.
So in summary, (since all the dots connections have to be spelled out):
1. There is plenty of water to scale up, even if water inefficient processes from 2001 are scaled up.
2. The water/steam for the nuclear reactors is not that large a demand and can be scaled up and the nuclear reactor/SAGD process is more water efficient than current oilsand methods
3. The steam from cooling any nuclear reactor used for SAGD can be 90% recycled
4. The water for the nuclear reactors can be wastewater
5. The SAGD process is more water efficient than other methods currently in use in the oilsands.
Also reviewing the other points that I have made in this thread:
In March 2006, Canada's leading private sector companies in the nuclear and power plant field, Babcock & Wilcox Canada, GE Canada, Hitachi Canada and SNC-Lavalin Nuclear joined together with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) to create Team CANDU. The financial backing from those companies means
that cost overruns will be borne by them and not by the Canadian tax payer.
The project (the first 2.2 GW twin reactors) is expected to cost C$5.5 to 6.2 billion.
The 6 most recent CANDU reactors in S Korea and China were on time and on budget.
Another point is that a CANDU reactor Can generate 30-40% more energy from Light water reactor "waste" or unburned fuel and CANDU reactors can also breed Thorium.
Brian,
I don't see a cost estimate for anything here?! Or who will pay what part...
Will Ottawa, re: the taxpayer, be on the hook for this as well, at the same time that they're losing billions on the Mackenzie pipeline?
As per my Law of Receding Horizons, you can be sure that any cost estimate we'll see eventually, will be based on present day oil prices. Hence, as oil prices go up, which is the reason the oilsands seem economically viable in the first place, so does the cost of mining them.
The oil from the sands gets more expensive for the exact same reasons that make it seem profitable. And you know what that means? That it is no longer profitable.
Also, of course, you can be sure that when an industry talking cheerleader head predicts 2016 as the date for the first operable nuclear plant, that's nothing but an optimistic construction date. Things like public consultation and permits are assumed "done". A realistic version then teaches you that nothing will be operable before 2020 at the earliest.
By then, you have to really seriously start wondering what will power the machinery required for construction and transport. What happens to the entire picture with oil at $15 a gallon? How about $25? I think we all know what happens: collapse.
And even if you ignore this mechanism, who would you produce the oil for? People driving cars? Who will drive a car at those gas prices? What carmaker will survive as car sales go down 75%? How many gas pumps will remain?
Oil decline will doom the whole infrastructure, as well as the economic system that already is stretched to the limit today trying to keep it alive. Any attempt to prop it up with $50 billion nuclear plants (see, there’s an estimate) is uttter lunacy conceived by people who are too myopic to understand how all elements in a system are interconnected. It’s also one more massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations. Well, the taxpayer will stop paying, out of sheer destitution.
The cost estimates that I have seen are C$5.5 billion to C$6.2 billion. I have not seen any indications of taxpayer support being required.
Rising oil fuel prices would make the project more profitable and more likely.
Gasoline costs people in many places in Europe $7 per gallon. They are still driving. The recent tripling in fuel pump prices over the last few years has only modestly lowered driving and slightly altered car selection to mroe fuel efficient.
300 gallons per year (12000-15000 miles per year depending on efficiency) would cost $4500/year at $15 a gallon.
There are 30 nuclear plants being built in the world right now. They are not showing big delays or cost overruns like you are describing. Show me where you see current nuclear plant projects with the delays and overruns you are talking about.
The May, 2007 stats for nuclear reactors are being built (30), planned (74) or proposed (162).
This is a 21% increase from from February, 2007. 266 reactors versus 219 reactors are now in the development pipeline. Since february, 2007 of 3 more being built, 12 more planned and 32 more proposed. This does not include the 10 more being discussed in the UK or India's plan for 10 more beyond older statistics.
The recent IPCC report indicates that increasing nuclear powers share of supply to 18% (up from 16%) is reasonable.
The EPRI (as reported in the recent Engineer Poet report from Clean Tech 2007 on theoildrum) adding 64 GW in the US by 2030 is part of an overall plan of carbon reduction.
The EIA 2007 energy outlook projects nuclear power going up 50% by 2030.
As I indicate the more the peak oil situation actually hits then the more nuclear plants there will be around the oilsands. People in the US could drive less OR dozens of reactors could be built in Alberta and the oilsands could be scaled up to Saudi levels and higher.
I see this deal getting rubber stamped and breezing through approvals. You think it will take four years to get approved. We can check back next year. The behind closed door handshakes have been done. Shell plopped down $571 million to buy rights that make sense when this deal is factored in.
===========
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
Why are the estimates missing from your post? What do they include? Decommissioning? Water rights? Waste disposal? Let's see numbers.
No, taxpayer support is never a part of the first phase. That would kill the project right away. It will be there later, though. It always is. Name one nuke plant that has not involved public money. And document it.
Look at what goes on with the Mackenzie pipeline. And Tony Blair swore two years ago no nukes would be built in the UK with any money from government. Look at him now.
More likely yes. More profitable no. That's faulty thinking. What cost for uranium is included in the budgets? One that is 25 times as high as present costs? 250 times? How about the water problems?
And that, you think, will go on forever? People will keep driving no matter what the price, obeying some boiling frog principle? Come on, get serious, this is no fun.
The American population is getting poorer by the minute, a fact that can't even be hidden anymore by borrowing ever more, or printing money. And they will be able to pay gas prices that are a multiple of what they are today? That, by the way, is exactly what the idea of profitability for the oilsands is based on. It envisions nothing like a 75% demand destruction in the US. But where will people get the money to pay those higher prices?
In a society such as ours, where everything depends on that same energy source, people make one and the same mistake all the time. They see one thing changing, which they interpret as an opportunity, and forget that everything else changes as well. That is Receding Horizons.
1/ That's a lot of money for a burger flipper. Any clue how much food costs will rise at those gas prices? Electricity, clothes, everything else? Ever gave that even one second of thought?
2/ 40-50 miles a gallon?
They will all have both the overruns and the delays. Try and name an example that has not had them. Well documented please.
Oh, there is no doubt we'll do a lot more damage than we have already done. It’s the one thing we really have a talent for.
Where will the feedstock come from? Where is all the waste going to go?
Nuclear power is labeled clean only by those invested in the industry. Are you?
Saudi levels, as in 9mbd? You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? We're getting p**sed off now, Brian, you can at least try to make some minimum sense. But you just simply have no clue what you're saying.
The most optimistic, and therefore least realistic, estimates go nowhere beyond 4.5 mbd. No-one has ever suggested higher numbers, and you simply double them? Whatever.
Dozens of nuclear plants? No-one has ever suggested that either.
You completely lost me there, on those two points. I’m starting to think you’re a trolling fraud.
Not a big proponent of democracy, are you? Presenting ”behind closed door handshakes” as if that’s something positive.
All in all, when you write a post like this, prepare it better. The Oil Drum, as far as I understand it, is supposed to be a serious forum, not a promo site for industries. And I think they made a big mistake allowing you to post this. There has to be some zero standard.
Here are links to list of reactors. When they started construction and when they came online generating power. It also lists how much power they generate.
You seem totally clueless as to how the world works.
I am saying that I believe before the scenario you presented where people stop driving, that the oilsands get scaled up and a lot of nuclear plants get built.
I am not presenting the fact that deals get made as positive..it is just a fact.
If you do not like my writing, then I am ok with that.
Where are your numbers. Data from sources ? Documented cases that prove your case ? I have not seen any sources or links from you. Just ranting opinion . The one off topic example of the McKenzie pipeline.
US
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=US&sort=&...
Canada
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=CA&sort=&...
China
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=CN&sort=&...
France
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=FR&sort=&...
Japan
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=JP&sort=&...
Russia
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=RU&sort=&...
Slovakia
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=SK&sort=&...
India
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=IN&sort=&...
Taiwan
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=TW&sort=&...
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
Any chance you will answer any of my questions? Or some IAEA list is all you got?
9mbd, Brian? Dozens of reactors in Alberta? You sure you don't want to think that over?
Where are the data about delays and cost overruns?
All I see from you are industry and lobbying files. Which for the Oil Drum is way below par.
You write a post, defend what you say. No strawmen.
http://www.aecl.ca/Projects/CANDU-P/Wolsong-P.htm
several Candu 6 reactors completed on time and on budget in the 90s in South Korea.
The IAEA list has detailed information on construction times.
In general if they completed roughly on time then they would be roughly on budget.
Do you understand the original article? Apparently you do not.
The point I was making is
1. there is details on the thermal energy and electrical energy and how that will translate into generated oil
2. It shows detailed cost assumptions. It also shows sensitivity analysis where if there were delays or problems or changes in prices how that would effect the project. So if you have some other assumptions you can run the numbers yourself. Fire up an excel spreadsheet. You do know how to use a spreadsheet.
3. You want to find numbers on delays and overruns. Look it up and Google it yourself.
4. I have answered your questions. Sometimes the answer is that you have put up a strawman or your question is absurd. Those are also answers.
The 9mbd, I already said that is my opinion on what will happen before some doom and gloom scenario.
5. What I have said is the one twin reactor looks certain. The other possible reactors are based on calculations of IF reactors are used for most or all of the oilsand powering.
6. A lot of what is said here on the oildrum are scenarios based on crunching numbers and using researched facts.
=====
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
All you have done so far is patch together a bunch of industry and lobby quotes. That is way below par for the Oil Drum, and in no way belongs here.
Not because of me, but because of the people who write posts here that have high levels. These people deserve to stand apart from what you write. Also, the readers who come to TOD for them, for Stuart Staniford and Robert Rapier et al., should feel confident that posts contain some minimum level of truth, effort, research and understanding of the topic. You are nowhere near, you haven't even tried to get an opinion that could provide a counterweight to all the corporate sales talk. So you insult two groups of people. Both deserve much better than this.
When I ask you questions, there are no answers, other than links to bland IAEA files or more of the same industry snake-oil. I take that to mean that you don't know the answers to the questions. Where's the waste going to go, Brian, what's in the budget for securing it for the next 100.000 years? How much in the budget for decommissioning the plants in 2060? Never mind, you have no idea, do you?
Costs are crucial factors in these matters, not unfortunate incidents falling by the wayside. Cost assumptions by AECL are worth less than the paper the numbers are printed on. They're not proof of anything at all, apart from an active PR department in the industry. At $290 million annually in taxpayers' money, that's hardly surprising. And that's just AECL's subsidy.
If these are the people who pay you, you need to come forward and say so. If not, I can't imagine why you would post this; certainly not to be taken seriously. I'm sure you didn't expect to, not here of all places. People here do actual crunching of numbers and researching of facts, they don't copy quotes from promo flyers.
The answers for your question is in the articles. Were you unable to read them.
They already said the waste (unburned) fuel will be stored on site. Just like all other fuel for Canadian reactors currently operating are stored on site.
I have already answered your questions. You complain that I don't have the answers while in fact I did answer your questions. Which you could not take the time to contribute by simply reading what I had already provided or googled.
So I find your whining worthless when you do not read or try to understand.
I found all of the details and answers that you were unable to do for yourself.
So your welcome. I know you want to thank me but you are embarassed by your inability to read wikipedia or google. I guess you have some kind of internet dyslexia. Should we start an internet fund raiser for you. You say that numbers are crunched here. Why don't you prove it. I have not seen your crunched numbers. Dazzle me with your number crunching savant skills. I say savant skills since you are unable to communicate without insult tourettes or actually completely reading a set of articles or information.
In a few years we will see who is right about the world. I bet this project happens and your statement about $15/gallon does not. So this is a little preview of the future. I also bet that by 2025 the second oilsand reactor is also operating.
Well, this is useless Brian. You can't answer my questions, nor defend your points, because you have done no research.
Pointing back to the same industry promo clips that your entire 'post' is based on, is void of any meaning. It does, however, make abundantly clear what the level of your thinking and writing is.
And that is, as I said, way below par for TOD. I'm starting to think you were set up, and you'll be the laughing stock of the family soon.
In the meantime, are you going to tell us if you work for the nuke industry? Personally, I can't figure any other reson why someone would produce this drivel.
PS I didn't make this personal, you did, And you're not very good at that either.
PS 2 You say:"You say that numbers are crunched here. Why don't you prove it."
I'm sure Stuart et al will really appreciate being cut to size in this manner.
HeIsSoFly,
Any idea how much energy is lost when instead of direct use of natural gas or nuclear they are used to refine this third product oil?
Seems like we are trading one lame horse for another lame horse, and that to run a senseless horse; the auto industry.
As far as multiples of nuclear plants, where is all that water to come from, I am led to understand that present use is about maximum? Could be wrong here though and as well maybe it would be a goodly step in removing our treaty obligations with the first nations, you know that part that goes....'So long as the sun shines the grass grows and the rivers run'. Get those nukes steaming away and with Monsanto having a lock on the death of grass and just about everything else green and growing all we would have to do then is wait for a solar eclipse and voila this devastated land would really be ours...the only question is would we want it?
You obvisouly do not comprehend the scope of what is happening with the resurgence of the nuclear industry. 30 reactors being built right now. $60+ billion going into to that.
In Canada, they already have all the local, provincial and federal support. Candu cut big money deals with Hitachi to ensure no taxpayer financed overruns. They do not need anyone readig the Oil drum to agree with them.
I am saying prove anything that you "HeisSofly" are saying. None of what you said has any number crunching. None of what you say has any research. I am saying that you cannot figure your way out of a paper bag. It is why you think because information that upsets your world view is presented you think that someone must be paying me to present it.
you say that you did not start making it personal. Reread your first posts. You are a silly liar and a buffoon.
===============
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
Waste will be stored above ground in ponds until is become more economical to run it through a different nuclear cycle than dig up new nuclear fuel.
The above statement HAS ALWAYS been proven TRUE.
There was an article somewhere about how recycled waste has higher ppm concentrations of precious metals than commercial ORE. This means that for Gold and Copper we are closing the cyclic loops, and will likely transition to sustained development!!!
That statement is merely stupid. There has never been a viable next nuclear cycle other than the weapons vs power generation one, which are entirely different levels. There are no breeders in the world today, and there never will be again. It's just nonsense contocted by horny 10th grade males.
France used to have one, it was uneconomical to run.
What is meant is that humans can recognise the value of waste and knowing that it can be reprocessed if nessiary means that it will not be sealed away.
The 4th gen nuclear fuel cycles are on the way, far from today, but I speak of the future.
Your statement of 'no more breeders' flys in the face of experience. Some places burn trash for power, TRASH!
The Russians has a functioning Fast Breeder Reactor (560 MW) Beloyarsk 3
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/04/status-of-nuclear-breeder-react...
Russia has funded and restarted construction on their 800MW fast breeder, which they also are discussing selling to Japan.
China has a 75 MWth FBR under construction scheduled for divergence in 2010
India is making FOUR 500 MW fast breeder reactors.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2854
Japan will be reopening the Monju reactor in 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju
So by 2008 back to two breeder reactors.
In 2010, 4 breeder reactors
In 2012, 5 breeders generating abot 2GW of power.
============
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
About 8% of the nuclear waste (unburned fuel) (66000 tons/year) that is generated in the world each year is being reprocessed into MOX.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/04/status-of-nuclear-breeder-react...
COGEMA La Hague site, France 1700 tonnes/year
Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield, United Kingdom
900 tonnes/year
Rokkasho nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, Japan
800 tonnes/year
Mayak, Russia 400 tonnes/year
B205 at Sellafield, United Kingdom 1500 tonnes/year
Kalpakkam Atomic reprocessing plant, India 275 tonnes/year
The French reprocessing has been going on for decades.
Do you not tire of being wrong?
===================
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
Here are links to list of reactors. When they started construction and when they came online generating power. It also lists how much power they generate.
You seem totally clueless as to how the world works.
I am saying that I believe before the scenario you presented where people stop driving, that the oilsands get scaled up and a lot of nuclear plants get built.
I am not presenting the fact that deals get made as positive..it is just a fact.
If you do not like my writing, then I am ok with that.
Where are your numbers. Data from sources ? Documented cases that prove your case ? I have not seen any sources or links from you. Just ranting opinion . The one off topic example of the McKenzie pipeline.
US
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=US&sort=&...
Canada
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=CA&sort=&...
China
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=CN&sort=&...
France
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=FR&sort=&...
Japan
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=JP&sort=&...
Russia
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=RU&sort=&...
Slovakia
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=SK&sort=&...
India
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=IN&sort=&...
Taiwan
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=TW&sort=&...
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
¿Who pays for the insurance?
Not the owners. There is a law that makes them not responsible of any damage they cause above a cap.
The government also pays but not the whole amount neither.
So you can say that the public around the nuclear plant "pay" for the insurance, by not being insured.
'mencial' links the Wikipedia article on the Price-Anderson act, which obviously does not apply to nuclear power reactors in Canada, and suggests that owners do not pay for insurance, which an honest article would not say, although conceivably a Wikipedia article on a given day might.
Reactors built to heat tar sands so as to drain the tar out will obviously assist in perpetuating accidents of the sort listed here, aside from the coal-mine ones, and here. But at least the gas that would otherwise have had to be piped to the tar sands won't have to be, and the risk of another New Mexico or Ghislenghien gas pipeline disaster will be alleviated.
It's instructive to divide the number killed by gas pipeline explosions and the like in a country in a year by the fossil fuel tax revenue received by that country's public purse in a year. Typically government gets several tens of millions per death. Where it substitutes fossil fuels, nuclear energy prevents virtually all those deaths, but it also prevents the revenue.
By asserting that nuclear operators don't buy private insurance, and offering as evidence a law in one country that requires them to do so*, persons with oil- and blood-stained cheque-cashing hands sometimes try to distract attention from this. The charade gets a little thin when they have to choose between putting their personal skins on board a diesel boat or a nuclear one, and they choose nuclear.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
* Some other countries' laws are reviewed here.
He Is So Fly
Sorry I failed to attribute the Law of Receding Horizons to you below. I could't remember who invented it. I believe it is a terribly important insight that will govern much of what happens from now on.
An update on this article is that the Globe and mail reports that Shell is buying 70% of the power from the reactor.
So Shell main customer.
Local support about 300 to 5 against.
Local government, provincial government, federal government all on board.
The cost is C$6.2 billion. It looks like a primarily commercial deal for the main building of the reactor. The project will probably have whatever standard government business support and tax incentives that any such business would have.
==========
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
Advanced,
Nice article. I think your carbon credit values are low. Ultimately we will need a $100/ton tax to get any serious changes going. Including carbon credit, the payback looks like about 6 years versus a 40+ year life out of a reactor.
CANDUs are very flexible - they can burn all kinds of fuel, so fuel cost won't be a problem.
Sure nuclear isn't perfect, but it's way ahead of wasting natural gas for steam generation.
Actually the ACR's can burn the spent nuclear fuel from American Light water reactors.
So the American's can send their nuclear waste, (plus a not small number of dollars :-) to Canada and get Oil in return...
Candu explains their Darlington project and quote the ontime construction the S Korea plants and two more recent projects in China
http://www.canducanada.ca/eng/budget.html
Wikipedia description of CANDU reactors
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU
Discussion of Candu in a management magazine
http://www.managementmag.com/index.cfm/ci_id/3071/la_id/1.htm
A Macleans article
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Rogers/Macleans/2007/05/03/4150972-mac.html
First, last spring, AECL executives created "Team CANDU," an alliance with big private companies, which Lunn duly applauded, saying the participation of players like Hitachi and SNC-Lavalin boosts his confidence that any future Canadian reactors projects will be completed without any risk that taxpayers would be on the hook for cost overruns. Second, last fall, AECL struck its deal with Energy Alberta to push the oil sands concept that carries such obvious appeal for Harper and his Alberta base.
AECL gets about 290 million per year in support from Canada. Plenty of big Canadian corporations get support.
============
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
Interesting stuff. It does seem a good fit to use the 2/3 of power of nuke plants, waste heat, for the steam to assist tar sand extraction. Natural gas is too valuable for that. The water requirement doesn't seem too high from Wikipedia. It's much better than destructive surface mining.
It makes more sense to build nukes where they burn natural gas (or oil) for electricity (if no NG in base load, also build pumped storage or build nukes in an area with a fair amount of hydro) and burn NG to extract tar sands.
1) Construction costs will be VERY high anywhere near Ft. McMurray, cheaper to build nukes elsewhere.
2) Tar sands are close to NG production, save on transport costs.
3) Processing plants already built or under construction are designed for NG, not nuke. Projects in the pipeline should use almost all available water.
4) NG based tar sand technology can be adapted more easily to new technology/processes than nuke based (scrap costs are less).
Best Hopes for Systems Thinking,
Alan
I think it is insane to waste precious Natural Gas on the tar-sands. And I have a lot of doubts about Nuclear, but to the extent more reactors are built, it would be much more productive just to generate electricity and feed it into the grid.
Shut the tar-sands down, ultimately, they’re a waste.
Antoinetta III
They turn a profit still, dont they?
Alan, you are too kind. I would add that it would make more sense to use the nukes to support electric rail and electric cars, and leave the bitumen in the ground.