Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:55 am    Post subject: Nuclear power and the oil sands Reply with quote

Quote:
The much-touted potential for Canada's oil sands to offset projected declines in North American oil production remains highly questionable because of constraints on natural gas production and environmental problems, a group of Swedish industry experts concludes in a new report.

To meet its ambitious targets, the industry would likely require the construction of a nuclear power plant near Fort McMurray in Alberta in order to replace natural gas in the energy-intensive production process, the scientists argue.

http://www.globeinvestor.com/s.....5/GIStory/

If only the Sask government had already started building this.
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sad but true...Saskatchewan needs a government that can bring in the big players, as it is now they will either do a crown effort which regects all laws rules and regulations private companies have to follow irritating virtually everyone includeing the private company, or they will intentionally use the private company to punish and sway peoples opinion.

Some examples are the crown corp transgas for ignoring regulations and cameco's failed refinery for warman, which got people so upset. Rightfully so!


We are going to build a uranium refinery by a city..how stupid , DU in your land , air, and water.. If they could only get their crap together and do things properly instead of politically. They have the uranium and desolate land they can right off as forever contaminated and be done with it. Nuclear plants require nuclear fuel that create nuclear waste, and that's the problem they face.

Stick the waste in the canadian shield , force customers to ship it back for disposal in the sheild so they don't use the by products in weapons. Hence makeing everyone happy and even fatten up their coffers. Provide a safer fuel for the province and sell the excess . They just can't seem to do anything correctly. :x

Do they think for a minute Alberta gives a crap about all the acid rain it's produceing for northern Saskatchewan or manitoba..I don't think so. They will just have to bite the bullet and right off an area and manage what they do have better. Like Alberta does! via various institutes like the pembina institute for example.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nuclear power does not mean having to write off an area as contaminted forever, that is only if you do it wrong. A modern reactor actually has the potential to help clean up some of the fissionable material that is just laying around Sask, like the tailings piles up by Uranium City.

Most likely, after natural gas gets too expensive, they will switch to a cheap, plentiful fossil fuel like coal to produce the heat and enrgy they need. If you do some research, you would find that there are radioactive impurities that are naturally occuring in coal. When it is burned, they go up the stack. People living near coal fired power plants are actually exposed to far more radiation that those living close to nuclear plants. It is only people's perceptions that make them fear nuclear power more than coal.
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Most likely, after natural gas gets too expensive, they will switch to a cheap, plentiful fossil fuel like coal to produce the heat and enrgy they need. If you do some research, you would find that there are radioactive impurities that are naturally occuring in coal. When it is burned, they go up the stack. People living near coal fired power plants are actually exposed to far more radiation that those living close to nuclear plants. It is only people's perceptions that make them fear nuclear power more than coal.


That is so true and then some. Saskatchewan is presently useing coal fired plants that have so much uranium in it they are considered noth america's number 1 polluter because of it.The government has recognized the problem and they will be building clean air coal plants.

Natural gas is even worse for Saskatoon as on those extremely cold days the carbon monoxide has a tendency to stay put and not dissipate causeing CO detectors to go off at nauseum. While the media does place warnings on the tv they leave out permanent brain damage as the consequence of inhaling carbon monoxide. Then there is the radon factor. Over time the naturally occuring radon gas builds up in the pipelines giveing the poor people even more radiation specific damage.

Perhaps that's why the city folk seem to vote ndp and the rural conservative. The city folk are annualy lobotomized . :lol:
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just find the talk of building nuclear power plants in the oilsands a bit ironic given our stance with regards to nuclear power and Iran.

Aside from the guy being a psycho (Iranian president not Klein), I always questioned the need for nuclear power in an oil rich area.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It actually makes a bit of sense, Craig. One of the side-products of nuclear power is hot water. One of the products needed to extract oil from the tar sands is... hot water!! Talk about a win-win. Rather than wasting precious & non-renewable oil on power generation, let's get nuclear for electricity!!

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It takes energy to extract energy. In the case of light sweet crude, the energy may already be stored as pressurized gas just waiting to force the oil out of the closest hole. In the case of the tar sands, you need heat to separate the bitumen out and refine it. That is where the nucler power comes in. It helps to that we are not a theocracy bent on expediting the coming of the hidden Imam.
Montgomery





Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 53
Reputation: 10.6
votes: 1
Location: Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nuclear power is great. Better we start using it than burning off natural gas that could be sold, like the oil, for disgusting profits - and, not so coincidentally, stimulus to the Canadian economy. That and it would definitely help with pollution and even (if you could appease the foaming-at-the-mouth treehuggers) help reduce CO2 emissions. Sounds like a brilliant plan to me.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Natural gas is not really a solution to anything. There are only a few decades of proven reserves in the entire world. Even coal, the most plentiful fossil fuel in the world has only 330 to 400 years supply. So yes switch to nuke power, and yes sell the gas while it is still around. I read a paper that said that the earth has some billion years worth of fissionable material, so nuclear is definitely the way of the future.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu.....cohen.html
jw





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 90
Reputation: 14.5

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should use all resources available to us and combine them when possible ... ie using the waste heat from a nuke plant to render tar sands.

We should probably have at least one fast breeder reactor --probably of the French design-- to use our CANDU-spent fuel rods. Put that near the tar sands too as fast breeders REALLY throw heat.

Also we need to look at new & renewable technologies such as wind, solar, tidal etc.. Plus, it wouldn't hurt to keep throwing some money at Fusion, we're not ready to light a fusion reactor yet, but maybe soon ...
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't wait to see what ITER results in...

http://www.iter.org/
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Nuclear power and the oil sands

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB