Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 20, 2018 7:45 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Jul 19, 2011 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 823
Location: Calgary, Alberta
I beleive that the following is quite rational but may never happen because some people oppose any kind of development. Jaro points to some of that opposition below.
jaro wrote:
Hydo Quebec also wishes that people in Vermont and New Hampshire were "more reasonable", so that more power from our dams could be sold to the New England states.....

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/924024-196/northern-pass-nh-power-play.html

....HQ claims its going to reduce fossil fuel use in the US.
In fact, the antinukes are counting on HQ to offset the shutdown of Vermont Yankee and Indian Point NPPs.
But I guess dependence on HQ hydro isn't as bad as dependence on Russian gas in western Europe :lol:

Not that I live there, but I really like Canada, it's a great place full of great people. One thing that do wonder about especially after reading about some of HQ's developments and grid etc. Why not build a two or three large DC ties into the US, sell them carbon free hydro electricity, sell them 10 GWe base load or something close to it as carbon free hydro at 'outrageously high renewable prices' and then build 10 GWe of nuclear to meet the demands of HQ's local customers offsetting the southbound exports to the US cousins.

Give the punters what they want, electricity from renewable low carbon sources. What else you might do to meet local demand is matter for the good people of Canada. If communities in the US want to shutdown their own plants for whatever reason then let them and make a buck (or a looney) while you are at it.

Canada has CANDU technology, it has some of the richest uranium deposits in the entire world and the total tonnage of Canadian uranium and thorium resources is huge. It also seems to have some sensible plans for the long term storage of nuclear waste that some other nuclear powers are still working on. Why not use those Canadian assets to make money for Canadians in a smart vertically integrated way? It could be the perfect springboard into commercial LFTR or just simply a good old fashion money printing machine (not to be confused with the US federal money printing, so-called quantative easing see this link for QE definition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k) .

Something tells me that there is perhaps a long list of reasons why this concept is unlikely to work, but I'd like to understand those if possible with assistance of people who know the place a lot better than I do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 19, 2011 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3065
The anti-nukes are just as active above the border. Think back to the fuss made when an old steam generator was to be shipped for cleaning and recycling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 05, 2011 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 823
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Lars wrote:
The anti-nukes are just as active above the border. Think back to the fuss made when an old steam generator was to be shipped for cleaning and recycling.

Well ok then, if the good people of eastern Canada aren't so keen, maybe we should look to Alberta to give it a go, they seem like a pretty pragmatic lot. They could shutdown a number of their stinky old coal plants, apply nuclear heat to oil sands extraction, use some of that brilliant high grade uranium ore out of northern Saskatchewan, make it an all Canadian effort.

One could do a deal with BC Hydro sell some or all of their 11,000 MW of hydro capacity into nice clean green California at high prices and back-fill that capacity with nukes out of Alberta.

I can foresee two problems, there are probably any number of anti-nuclear folks in BC AND one would have to build some serious transmission capacity to make work well in real time. That transmission capacity build creates vulnerabilities and adds to the overall cost of implementation. If Alberta keep adding cogen plants to go with the oil sands projects, the will need to expand the transmission system anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 05, 2011 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3065
Unfortunately for Alberta, (and Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee, and lots of other places) they live under a federal system so the folks on the eastern coast can still bottle things up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 05, 2011 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1947
Location: Montreal
Lars wrote:
Unfortunately for Alberta, (and Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee, and lots of other places) they live under a federal system so the folks on the eastern coast can still bottle things up.

No. This is a complete misunderstanding of the actual situation in Canada.
The current (conservative) federal government in Ottawa has its support base in western Canada - especially Alberta (although, inexplicably, Ontario also voted strongly for them in the last election).
As such, it strongly favours western fossil fuel development, while at the same time working to dismantle Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the developers & builders of CANDU reactors, world-wide.

Alberta electricity pie-chart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 05, 2011 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
It must be nice to be so energy rich that you can thumb your nose at some of the sources. No such luck for energy hungry East and South Asians. Indians, according to a recent survey, are most pro-nuclear. Chinese are building most reactors, like everything else.They also built their Three Gorges Dam.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 05, 2011 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 823
Location: Calgary, Alberta
jaro wrote:
..., while at the same time working to dismantle Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the developers & builders of CANDU reactors, world-wide.

What is the deal with AECL? the CANDU looks like a real winner, all the hard work has been done to get to the CANDU 6e and arguably beyond. Canada seems to have a plan for SNF unlike some other countries, no enrichment hassles and yet rather than selling and building reactors, AECL seem to lurch from one crisis to the next or at least one headline to the next.

Is that mostly a political/media thing or are there also some significant competency/management issues at AECL?

If you are not free to answer candidly for any reason, I understand, one needs to watch one's p's and q's in public fora like these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 06, 2011 3:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 14, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 379
My understanding is that the CANDU 6e isn't selling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 06, 2011 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 823
Location: Calgary, Alberta
My understanding is that AECL aren't selling anything and I don't understand why.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 06, 2011 8:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1947
Location: Montreal
Lindsay wrote:
My understanding is that AECL aren't selling anything and I don't understand why.

Its because of the sale that's been dragging on for the last two years: The federal gov't said it wanted to avoid any new commitments while the process is on-going, leaving it to the new owner, SNC-Lavalin, to do what they like (which for now involves getting rid of nearly half the employees, in a rather haphazard way -- although they are required to respect union seniority lists).
In any event, the individual politicians in the gov't are no fans of Canadian nuclear know-how & technology (some of that being justifiable, in a kind of "perfect storm" of bad projects in recent years...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 14, 2011 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 15, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 40
Location: Pickering, Ontario
jagdish wrote:
It must be nice to be so energy rich that you can thumb your nose at some of the sources. No such luck for energy hungry East and South Asians. Indians, according to a recent survey, are most pro-nuclear. Chinese are building most reactors, like everything else.They also built their Three Gorges Dam.


You wouldn't know we were so energy rich by looking at the price Canadians pay for energy. The US is afraid of reaching $4/gallon gas, we've been around $4.50/gallon for a couple years. The US imports more oil from Canada than anywhere else.

We developed CANDU to avoid having to have uranium enriched by the US, but we won't build an oil refinery so that we can be completely energy independent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 12, 2011 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5048
gcarlin wrote:
jagdish wrote:
It must be nice to be so energy rich that you can thumb your nose at some of the sources. No such luck for energy hungry East and South Asians. Indians, according to a recent survey, are most pro-nuclear. Chinese are building most reactors, like everything else.They also built their Three Gorges Dam.


You wouldn't know we were so energy rich by looking at the price Canadians pay for energy. The US is afraid of reaching $4/gallon gas, we've been around $4.50/gallon for a couple years. The US imports more oil from Canada than anywhere else.

We developed CANDU to avoid having to have uranium enriched by the US, but we won't build an oil refinery so that we can be completely energy independent.


I pay >$7/gallon. 2/3 is taxes. It sure doesn't stop people from driving cars. They just grumble more, and then fill up. Inelastic goods, the economists call it. Next year they'll drive more than this year, just like last year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 13, 2011 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
In India, it is so costly that it has become a major political issue. And incomes are a fraction of those in Europe. However, I agree that dams fail with alarming regularity with huge loss of life. Nuclear is much cheaper in life costs.
Japanese earthquake and tsunami caused many more lives lost through dam failures. Fukushima has only been a financial disaster besides the electric generation loss.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group