Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Apr 23, 2018 12:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Dec 12, 2011 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 10, 2011 6:20 am
Posts: 10
Worst news I've heard all year. A devastating blow for the people of Alberta.

Bruce Power is no longer going forward with plans to build a nuclear power plant in northern Alberta, the Ontario-based energy company announced Monday.

“We’ve decided the new nuclear option in Alberta is not something our company will be progressing further,” Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce Power’s president and CEO, said in a news release. “I’d like to thank the many people in Peace Country who stood with us to investigate an option for Alberta’s energy future and for welcoming us into your community. I have no doubt there will come a day when nuclear will have a place in a balanced supply mix in Alberta.”



http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Nuc ... story.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 20, 2011 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 826
Location: Calgary, Alberta
That is a great shame, some CANDU EC6's would be a great complement to oil sands production in northern Alberta and save a lot of valuable natural gas at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 21, 2011 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 187
From what I read, the people in Alberta were opposed by a small margin. Although I don't know how deeply people thought about it. Do you live in Alberta? or Canada? Know any more?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 23, 2011 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 10, 2011 6:20 am
Posts: 10
SteveK9 wrote:
From what I read, the people in Alberta were opposed by a small margin. Although I don't know how deeply people thought about it. Do you live in Alberta? or Canada? Know any more?


I live in Edmonton Alberta (see my intro thread here in the Canada sub-forum). I am loathe to drag into this discussion people who have not volunteered their thoughts, but this came through the CNS-Alberta email list the day after the announcement.

I just gave an interview to QR77 in Calgary on Bruce Power's withdrawal. In
my mind, this was not a surpise. I was due to low natural gas prices as
well as the multiple refurbishments that BP is doing in Ontario. Nuclear is
not dead in Alberta because eventually gas prices will rise again, and the
refurbs will be complete in Ontario, and Bruce will need to look for areas
of expansion. The potential for SMR in the oil sands remains a possibility.

Duane Bratt, Ph.D
Chair & Associate Professor
Department of Policy Studies
Mount Royal University


As Dr. Bratt mentions, oil sands exploitation could be a "killer app" for SMRs. And if the oil companies were smart, they could come out of this at the end instead of being oil companies with no oil to sell, they could be nuclear companies with decades of experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2012 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 826
Location: Calgary, Alberta
AAron H. wrote:
As Dr. Bratt mentions, oil sands exploitation could be a "killer app" for SMRs.

Sort of, but if you do the math, you don't need a SMR in most cases, you need something much bigger. For example one Alberta site that I am familiar with is supposed to extract 72,000 bbl/day of bitumen at a steam oil ratio of 3:1. So that's 11,450 t of bitumen and 34,340 t of steam. The required required thermal energy from feedwater at 50C is 1.03 GW. That's something bigger than a SMR, or alternatively install a number of SMR's.

There are of course smaller and larger installations, so there's room for SMR's and bigger reactors also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2012 7:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5061
The NuScale design has a nice modular solution to that problem, a pool with modular reactors, 150 MWt each. Want more power, install more reactors in the pool. Up to 12 can be fitted in one pool (1800 MWt).

http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/05/passive-safety.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 03, 2012 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 23, 2010 6:51 pm
Posts: 123
Lindsay wrote:
That is a great shame, some CANDU EC6's would be a great complement to oil sands production in northern Alberta and save a lot of valuable natural gas at the same time.

The trouble is that natural gas isn't all that valuable right now, although the high depletion rates of shale gas fields mean that will change at some point.

As for nuclear process steam for bitumen extraction, what is needed is a reactor that is not only modular but also portable. Bitumen close to any initial reactor site will be depleted within a few years, and further extraction would require either moving the reactor or running kilometers long pipes that would have to carry steam and/or hot bitumen in temperatures as low as -40°C.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 03, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 12, 2011 2:24 pm
Posts: 91
Location: Taunusstein, Germany
According to this report using steam my not be necessary:
https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/p ... elsand.htm

If electricity can be generated with good efficiency this may be brought to moving sites via cables.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 19, 2012 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 08, 2011 10:01 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Austin Tx
How long do in-situ steam injection last at one location? Do they inject at one location for 5, 10, 20, or 30 years.
If you have to move the steam injection around I am not so sure that reactors are the best solution. How far can you pipe steam?

_________________
- ZeroPoint Energy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 25, 2012 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2227
Burghard wrote:
According to this report using steam my not be necessary:
https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/p ... elsand.htm

If electricity can be generated with good efficiency this may be brought to moving sites via cables.

Electric power is typically 30% 0f the heat. Steam could be more efficient in some cases. It could combine with some unsaturated hydrocarbons to produce thinner chemicals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 03, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 30, 2011 2:12 pm
Posts: 7
The thing about using the steam-froth process to remove bitumen from oilsands is that you essentially endup using an amount of energy that you would expect to use for a chemical process to conduct a physical separation. Also, not all oilsands are the same. Some are deeper than others. More importantly, some have more clay mixed in than others. These clays are the bane of operators, and result in the most toxic, difficult taillings.

But if you think that molten salts are awesome for nuclear power, check out how awesome ionic liquids are at extracting bitumen.

http://www.matse.psu.edu/news/ionicliquids

Though technology adoption is slow in the industry especially due to the massive scale of the operations, I expect it could be 10 years before this is scaled up and adopted. But it means no steam for bitumen extraction, and more importantly, no nasty taillings. It could be as big of a game changer to the oilsands as frac'ing has been to the gas industry.

So where do LFTRs fit into all this? I'd say that any small, cheap, portable and idiot-proof power source would be tremendously valuable up there. Regardless of the extraction technology. (And I am from Alberta, I've met people who work in Oilsands, and I can assure you, they are idiots....)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group