Canada's oil sands going nuclear - AFP

[Eugene]

Source: Agence France-Presse

Canada's oil sands going nuclear

by Guillaume Lavallee
Tue Jun 26, 3:34 AM ET

FORT MCMURRAY, Canada (AFP) - Petroleum companies are
eyeing nuclear power to feed burgeoning oil production in
Canada's oil patch, pitting ecologists against ecologists unable
to agree on its climate change impact.

Squeezing one barrel of oil from the Athabasca, Peace River and
Cold Lake Oil Sands in western Canada requires twice as much
energy as pumping it from a conventional well, according to the
industry, or three times as much energy, say environmentalists.

-snip-

But with wide fluctuations in natural gas prices and pressure
from the government and environmentalists to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions, some petroleum companies are
contemplating switching to cleaner and stable nuclear energy
to fuel the oil sands boom.

-snip-

Some ecologists acknowledge nuclear power is without emissions
versus burning fossil fuels.

But others see inherent "risks" in sparking up nuclear reactors,
raise security issues, and lament disposing of radioactive waste.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070626/wl_canada_afp/canadaoilenvironmentwarming_070626072730

---

The article goes on to mention coal as an option too.

[RC]

1. There has to be a better way to waste energy than

building nuclear power plants to heat tar sands. These idiots need to start thinking out side their limited world view. Like the buggy whip holder on a horseless carriage.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Nuclear energy is relatively inexpensive

The Canadian oil sheiks must think they can get more money from using nuclear energy to get oil out of the tar sands than selling it outright.

Of course, the "activists" haven't started filing lawsuits yet.

--p!

[jpak]

6. No it's not

If nuclear power was cost competitive with wind or or fossil fuels, the plants would be built.

They are not.

And in this case, nuclear power will be used to increase emissions of CO2 to the "collapsing" atmosphere...

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Seventy at last count, not including the USA

Who's building vs. who's decommissioning:



And here's the World Nuclear Association database. You can even use it to look up the failures.

Even Brazilian President Lula is pro-nuclear. The world is finally outgrowing its fear of nuclear energy cooties.

There were 27 new applications filed for reactor construction in the USA as of last month, too, though anti-nuclear "activists" will be suing every one of them like Scientology or RIAA lawyers.

"And in this case, nuclear power will be used to increase emissions of CO2 to the "collapsing" atmosphere..."

Yet wind or solar energy would make it acceptable. Not that the economics make it worthwhile.

There are several "green energy" proposals, some even approved, for exploiting the Athabascan deposits. Funny how that line of logic works.

--p!

[Ganja Ninja]

3. Burning oil or coal so you can extract more oil.

Seems like there ought to be a better way to heat the sands and remove the oil other than burning more fossil fuel. Wind or solar would be better than nuclear but either is better than burning fossil fuel to get more fossil fuel.

[Preening Fop]

4. And a US Military Invasion Garrison on the Northern Montana Frontier

:nuke:Just in case:nuke:

the exploited 'Canadians' become
a wee bit, to Testy...!!

(Thinking,
corporate bought US politician for a few seconds.)

[Javaman]

5. wow, the big tar sand microwave.

Sigh. this is the big feedback loop of stupidity.

This one makes my brain hurt.

:banghead:

[NNadir]

8. I really can't get my head around this one.

It's really a poor choice of what to do with nuclear energy, a really poor choice.

It would be better if Canada used its nuclear resources - technical and otherwise - to phase out fossil fuels, in particular, coal.

[phantom power]

9. The "addict hitting bottom" metaphor leaps to mind every time I read oil-shale schemes.

[GliderGuider]

10. In this case the pushers have all the money

They aren't about to let the addicts pull the needle out.

I've pretty much given up on "coulda shoulda" and started to focus on what we will actually do. "What we will actually do" does not involve any change of course until Thelma and Louise's wheels are in the air. Focusing on "What we ought to do" will just make you heartsick when it doesn't happen. Better to be realistic about human behaviour and plan accordingly.

There's a very good chance we'll get nukes to go with the strip mining, tailing ponds and CO2. To expect anything different is pissing into the wind.