NewEnergyNews: NUCLEAR TO DIG SANDS?

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

Every day is Earth Day.

YESTERDAY

  • Weekend Video: Spray On Solar
  • Weekend Video: Wind In The Rural Landscape
  • Weekend Video: What Dark Snow Means
  • -------------------

    GET THE DAILY HEADLINES EMAIL: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    THE DAY BEFORE

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHERE NEW ENERGY NEEDS TO BE
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-KUWAIT’S POSSIBLE SOLAR
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHAT INDIA WIND NEEDS
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

  • TTTA Thursday- HOW CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WORKS
  • TTTA Thursday-HOW WOMEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
  • TTTA Thursday-POLITICS AND THE EPA
  • TTTA Thursday-THE ENORMOUS LED OPPORTUNITY
  • THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE NEW INTELLIGENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY
  • QUICK NEWS, May 15: MINNESOTA’S SOLAR AMBITIONS IN CONTEXT; RHODE ISLAND’S FIGHT OVER OCEAN WIND; VC MONEY FOR SMART GRID STEADY

    AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: HOW OIL MARKETS ARE MANIPULATED
  • QUICK NEWS, May 14: HUGE BUFFETT WIND BUY IN IOWA; THE VALUE OF ARIZONA’S SUN; MINNESOTA LOVES WIND
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE VALUE OF SOLAR WITH STORAGE
  • QUICK NEWS, May 13: HOW BIG OIL USES REPUBLICANS; WIND SAVES MONEY FOR RATEPAYERS – STUDY; BRIGHTSOURCE EXEC TALKS SOLAR TOWER TECH & BIZ
  • --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, is a biweekly contributor to NewEnergyNews

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012) by Anne Butterfield (Boulder Daily Camera via NewEnergyNews)

    From the sparring at the first presidential debate, it's pretty sure that energy has become a divisive as well as a competitive issue. Both President Obama and Governor Romney want to be the triumphal producer of energy.

    However Romney likes to smear climate change concerns and clean energy investments, as if all of them go like Solyndra, where a half a billion in loan guarantees went down with the company, as he crowed that 50 percent of clean energy investments supported by the stimulus bill had gone belly up. This was dubbed the "lie of the night" by Michael Grunwald, author of a book about the stimulus bill, citing that maybe one percent of government backed clean energy ventures failed.

    Try getting that rate of safety in your investing. According to a new poll by Hart for the solar industry, voters seem to know that loan guarantees are a steadfast service of government and highly safe, as the Solyndra debacle was deemed unimportant by respondents. Ninety-two percent of registered voters found it important that solar be more widespread, with 70 percent believing that the federal government should be doing more to promote it with incentives (with 71 percent of swing voters feeling this way).

    And, sigh, with tens of thousands of wind power jobs on the chopping block already, Mitt Romney opposes the renewal of the Production Tax Credit. This, even as red states need it renewed, putting him in the dog house with GOP politicians such as Senator Chuck Grassely of Iowa whose state produces 20 percent of its power from wind, and Governor Brownback of Kansas who has made vigorous pleas for the extension of the credit, due to expire this at the end of this year.

    Didn't Romney get the memo? Republican governors are making hay with clean energy such as Haley Barbour and Chris Christie. To Mississippi, Barbour brought four solar sector firms to Mississippi along with two in biofuels plus a clean tech car venture with China. Christie made New Jersey a leading solar market in the nation, this year contending with California for first place.

    But Romney and other high priests of the GOP act as though the only real energy is the type that can be burned, and somehow, Obama has nibbled at this hemlock by constantly touting his success with fracking and his openness to the XL pipeline.

    A truly strange specter is that pipeline; it lets our heartland be used as a byway for tar sands products (which sink rather than float when spilled), so they can go straight to international markets. We get the downsides and none of the upsides -- even as the pipeline could increase gasoline prices in the Midwest, which would lose its existing access to tar sands products.

    One plausible upside of the pipeline being routed through the United States (where it might be built quickly, as would not happen in the alternative route through western Canada) is that it could strengthen the hand of President Obama in his suite of sanctions against Iran, including a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. Our recent frack-mania allows our nation to resume oil production levels not seen for 15 years and thus strengthens our hand. Three weeks ago Iran admitted having problems selling oil due to U.S. and European sanctions; now the nation's currency is in free fall.

    One certainly hopes that tar sands will thrive mightily as a "psy-ops" against Iran and not as a chemical weapon against our climate, as Dr. James Hansen has sternly warned.

    Never bounded by his prior convictions about the climate, Romney crows that he would authorize the pipeline on day one and build it himself if need be (as if he in his wingtips could "John Wayne" his way around an oil field). It's all such a sham he-man rodeo.

    And no one mentioned the climate -- in spite of hundreds of thousands of petition signatures demanding the topic. Neither candidate pushed clean energy as the vote winner that poll after poll have shown it to be. Authors for DBL Investors in their study of green energy exclaim, "We all need to understand that green jobs are not the idle dreaming of a small group of partisan activists and insiders, but a source of livelihood for millions, literally in all parts of the country." The light shines in the darkness but the darkness of our politics has not understood it.

    Author's note: Want to support my work? Please "fan" me at Huffpost Denver, here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-butterfield). Thanks.

    -------------------

    Anne's previous NewEnergyNews columns:

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012)
  • Colorado's Elegant Solution to Fracking (April 23, 2012)
  • Shale Gas: From Geologic Bubble to Economic Bubble (March 15, 2012)
  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns

    -------------------

    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    Your intrepid reporter

    -------------------

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

    -------------------

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Tuesday, May 29, 2007

    NUCLEAR TO DIG SANDS?

    This bizarre idea of using nuclear energy to get oil out of the Canadian tar sands surfaces again. Or is this just a way for Alberta to get its own nuclear industry subsidized by the oil industry?

    Shell possible customer for atomic energy
    Renato Gandia, May 22, 2007 (Fort McMurray Today)

    WHO
    Royal Dutch Shell PLC subsidiary Sure Northern Energy Ltd.; Energy Alberta Corp., Wayne Henuset, president; Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.; Regional Issues Working Group, Jacob Irving, executive director.
    Alberta oil: Not exactly a well (click to enlarge)
    WHAT
    Sure North, holder of the most expensive oil sands lease ever, is reportedly considering using nuclear energy to generate the electricity necessary to develop oil out of the bitumen deposits.

    WHEN
    - Sure North took the lease last year.
    - Rumors about the use of nuclear energy electricity for oil development were unconfirmed on May 22.
    - Last week, an Energy Alberta open house won acceptance for the nuclear plan from all but 3 of 300 attendees.
    - Development of the Sure North lease is not expected until after 2010.

    WHERE
    - The leasehold is 100 kilometers northwest of Fort McMurray in Alberta.
    - The highly approving open house was in Whitecourt in central Alberta, where the nuclear reactor may be located. It may also be located in Peace River, an Alberta town closer to the oil fields.

    WHY
    - Rumors about the use of nuclear energy electricity came out of talks confirmed by Energy Alberta with the other companies.
    - Husky Energy confirms interest in partnering with Royal Dutch on the development of nuclear energy electricity to work the tar sands oil.
    - Natural gas is the primary energy used in working the hard to get oil out of the tar sands. Steam and electricity from natural gas plants drive the process at Syncrude Canada and Suncor Energy. But natural gas supplies may be dwindling.
    - Energy Alberta claims nuclear would be cheaper and would cut back greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
    - Development of the tar sands will require a lot of electricity.
    where oil sands are, where nuclear will be (click to enlarge)
    QUOTES
    - Henuset: “But we don’t have any contract with any oilsands company…We’re proposing to bring Candu Canadian technology, to become the lowest cost provider of energy for the oilsands producers in the region…”
    - Irving: “It’s not in the Regional Issues Working Group’s position to allow or disallow the use of specific energy source…Supply of natural gas is always an issue and individual companies look at their own ways of fixing the problem…”

    1 Comments:

    At 1:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    1) This $6.2 billion dollar estimate being tossed around... what cost estimate level is this? Have Alberta specific and location specific factors been taken into account? Since this number has been floated for months now - before a location was "picked"- I would suggest this number is subject to substantial upward revisions.

    2) What capacity (output) must be contracted for this facility to be eligable for financing? Perhaps over 90%? I'm sure someone in the Corporate Finance world would have a better understand than I about this. Last time I checked (which I haven't) Energy Alberta has no assets, and Hank Swartout doesn't have 1 billion to finance this, let alone 6.2 billion *cough*

    3) Why did members in Peace river support this project? Were there any "advanced" "meetings" with Energy Alberta?

    4) What is the safety record of the owners of Energy Alberta in their other businesses?

    5) Who will pay for any cost overruns? Since Energy Alberta has also claimed that tax payers will not pay for any of this.

    6) How much money has AECL already spent subsiding this company?

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home