[Shodan]

Nukes, oil mix
Natural Resources minister says Alberta oilsands will soon be nuclear-powered

By ALAN FINDLAY, NATIONAL BUREAU

OTTAWA -- Nuclear power in the oilpatch is just a matter of time, according to Canada's Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.

Speaking to Sun Media from Victoria yesterday, Lunn said he's very keen to see a new partnership between Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and a private Alberta company to build a Candu-reactor to power oilsands extraction.

"It's not a question of if, it's a question of when, in my mind," said Lunn. "I think nuclear can play a very significant role in the oilsands. I'm very, very keen."

Having toured nuclear plants like Bruce Power's station on the shore of Lake Huron, Lunn said he believes nuclear power can help replace natural gas and other fossil fuels currently being burned to help extract bitumen from the oilsands.

"On this specific file, I've had discussions this week," said Lunn, declining to give more detail. "It's absolutely emission free. It's CO2 free."

Lunn's comments come as AECL and Energy Alberta Corporation pitch oilsands companies on the merits of nuclear power as production rapidly expands.

The concept has generally been given a chilly reception within industry. Groups such as the Canadian Heavy Oil Association have been skeptical in part because of the scope and multibillion-dollar cost of a nuclear project.

But officials from both the AECL and Energy Alberta say interest is growing.

A public opinion survey commissioned last year suggested only 40% of Albertans favoured the notion of building nuclear power, but another 30% were neutral to the idea.

The suggestion that 70% of Albertans aren't averse to nuclear power in their backyard has generated interest within industry.

"The interest level has peaked," said David McColl, in charge of business development for Energy Alberta.

One possibility being discussed is a nuclear plant that would heat steam for oil extraction and also power electricity generation, McColl said.

Energy Probe's Tom Adams said the lowering price of natural gas and innovative, non-nuclear projects in the works will take the shine off atomic projects in Wild Rose country.

"I think that the oilsands people are not nearly as desperate as they used to be," said Adams, who is an outspoken critic of nuclear power.

Sierra Club of Canada executive director Stephen Hazell criticized the AECL and Alberta Energy initiative for not being more active in ongoing provincial consultations on managing Alberta's growing oil and gas sector.

In a departmental memo obtained by Sun Media through an Access to Information request, Lunn is advised to keep a low profile on the issue of nuclear energy in Alberta because of its sensitivity.

Lunn said he had never seen the memo.

"I get memos I don't always agree with," he said.
_________________________________________________________________

If this gets the go-ahead, I wonder if nukes for Cal & Ed won't be that far behind? Hmmmm..........:shrug: Your opinions?

On a side note, here is an interesting website on one woman's adventure on her Kawasaki Ninja through the Chernobyl area. Incredible pics of the devistated town & reactor sarcophagus (she got fairly close to it too!). Be sure to check out all the links for the pics:

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/cherlinks.html

[Bigtime]

Nuke-u-lar power eh? I must admit I have been hearing more of this as of late, so it would suggest that it is in the collective mind of the peoples involved. However I don't really know enough about using it to aid in oil extraction to really have an opinion on it. I would guess I'm in the 30% bracket that is neutral to the idea, but would probably swing to pro if I found out more about it.

[Calgarian]

I think it is a good idea. Why burn cleaner natural gass to produce dirtier oil. Of course nuclear power will come with it's own baggage, but lets get the debate going.

[freeweed]

On a side note, here is an interesting website on one woman's adventure on her Kawasaki Ninja through the Chernobyl area. Incredible pics of the devistated town & reactor sarcophagus (she got fairly close to it too!):

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/cherlinks.html

Point of interest, that woman's story is almost entirely made up. It's not *quite* on the level of a hoax, but close. Yes, she saw the Chernobyl area. On an organized tour.

Kiddofspeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiddofspeed)

And yeah, it's a very side note - CANDU reactors are nothing at all like the Chernobyl setup, beyond the fact that they're both nuclear. A Chernobyl-style disaster is all but impossible in Canada. Interestingly enough, however, the Chernobyl site is positively TEEMING with wildlife. Turns out that some radioactive contamination, because we avoid it, is very beneficial for the environment. Weird eh?

[feepa]

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6982/thesimpsonsantennaballsjm5.jpg

I could be for this. Uranium is not that far away either... Uranium city!

[Bigtime]

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6982/thesimpsonsantennaballsjm5.jpg

Its three eyes gives it an advantage over other fish, with a taste that can't be beat! Yum!

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

The Oilsands will leave a large enough scar on Northern Alberta, there's no need to throw Nuclear into the mix. Short-term gain with long-term pain. Its bad for all future Albertans and Canadians.

[sync]

The Oilsands will leave a large enough scar on Northern Alberta, there's no need to throw Nuclear into the mix. Short-term gain with long-term pain. Its bad for all future Albertans and Canadians.

perhaps you should research nuclear power and coal power and decide which one is more damaging to the environment.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

The Oilsands will leave a large enough scar on Northern Alberta, there's no need to throw Nuclear into the mix. Short-term gain with long-term pain. Its bad for all future Albertans and Canadians.


Agreed, but the oil sandss can't keep wasting the nations natural gas supply. One could argue that the oilsands all together are a "Short-term gain with long-term pain".

[Claeren]

If this gets the go-ahead, I wonder if nukes for Cal & Ed won't be that far behind? Hmmmm..........:shrug: Your opinions?




:rolleyes:

Are you serious?

Because yeah, nuclear power DEFINITELY equals nukes! :sly:


Power production on the scale needed for the future of humanity in the near term is never pretty. Nuclear power is PART of that picture though - and in fact it may well be one of the less damaging parts of that picture.

Even windmills and solar panels have there downside, and many would argue a bigger downside then nuclear. For example, many solar panels are produced using large amounts of that 'evil' nuclear power!! And they use so much that the amount used takes years to reproduce form the panel itself....


Claeren.

[Boris2k7]

The "nation's" natural gas supply... LOL... feeling a little entitled are we?

Newayz, so long as the waste is properly handled, nuclear power is the lesser of two evils compared to burning fossil fuels. I'm all for it (not to mention that some nuclear power would help to insulate our province and energy industry from flucuating prices)

[Doug]

The next generation of oil sands such as OPTI do not use natural gas. Instead they gasify the tar sands themselves as both a heat source and hydrogen supply.

Besides the fact that CANDU's have terrible operational records (look at how many or mothballed in Ontario), the other problem is the inefficiency of distributing steam over long distances. Gas fired steam plants can be located adjacent to bitumen extract and upgrade sites.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

The "nation's" natural gas supply... LOL... feeling a little entitled are we?


I'm sorry, I didn't realize all of the natural gas that was coming out of the ground of your province and adjacent provinces and territories was only for a small percentage to get rich off of when it used to be used solely as a clean source of heating and fuel for other parts of the country. In 20-30 years when Alberta is facing water crisis don't be calling Manitoba’s; Ontario's, Quebec's, B.C’s, or the Territories fresh water a national resource. Last I checked Alberta was a component of the nation of Canada. Entitled, yes we all, why do you suppose they are discussing making the move to nuclear power? Heh!?

[Bigtime]

:Even windmills and solar panels have there downside,

I've heard similar, I believe there are even some studies and theories about Wind Farms effects on wind patterns. Some think it could harm global weather patterns by disrupting the flows.

There is also the asthetic value, when I went back to Maui this summer I didn't like looking over to the North mountain and seeing a farm of about 12 windmills on the hill. Keep in mind I could see these from the Southwest corner of the island as well!

Of course I still believe a balanced approach is best between all forms until we find some sort of 'Deus Ex Machina' power source to make all our worries just go away!

[Doug]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize all of the natural gas that was coming out of the ground of your province and adjacent provinces and territories was only for a small percentage to get rich off of when it used to be used solely as a clean source of heating and fuel for other parts of the country. In 20-30 years when Alberta is facing water crisis don't be calling Manitoba’s; Ontario's, Quebec's, B.C’s, or the Territories fresh water a national resource. Last I checked Alberta was a component of the nation of Canada. Entitled, yes we all, why do you suppose they are discussing making the move to nuclear power? Heh!?

Only southern Alberta may face a water crisis - the north has plenty of water. Since agriculture consumes ~80% of the water in the south, there is plenty of opportunity for conservation and reallocation.

[freeweed]

There is also the asthetic value, when I went back to Maui this summer I didn't like looking over to the North mountain and seeing a farm of about 12 windmills on the hill. Keep in mind I could see these from the Southwest corner of the island as well!

Sometimes people make me feel like a leftist hippie.

I find the sight of a modern windfarm to be one of the most asthetically pleasing things on Earth. Modern technology producing clean power, quietly (compared to any other type of power generation, anyway), without belching a bunch of crap into the air or flooding square kilometers of nature.

The only way a windmill could "harm the view" is if you take the perspective of "all human development is bad, period". Sure, if we all lived in caves and had no electricity, they would be a blight on the landscape. Until such time, I rather enjoy seeing such elegance :)

[Claeren]

Besides the fact that CANDU's have terrible operational records (look at how many or mothballed in Ontario), the other problem is the inefficiency of distributing steam over long distances. Gas fired steam plants can be located adjacent to bitumen extract and upgrade sites.


I certainly agree that Canada has a self-inflated sense of its nuclear prowess and that other nuclear technologies are likely better today then CANDU's are.

Claeren.

[Claeren]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize all of the natural gas that was coming out of the ground of your province and adjacent provinces and territories was only for a small percentage to get rich off of when it used to be used solely as a clean source of heating and fuel for other parts of the country. In 20-30 years when Alberta is facing water crisis don't be calling Manitoba’s; Ontario's, Quebec's, B.C’s, or the Territories fresh water a national resource. Last I checked Alberta was a component of the nation of Canada. Entitled, yes we all, why do you suppose they are discussing making the move to nuclear power? Heh!?

Isn't it the property of whomever pays most for it?

Do you not use natural gas AND oil based products? Ultimately is it not YOU, as the consumer of various products, that dictates the price that companies (the same companies that provide YOU services and products) can pay for the balance of pricing between natural gas and oil?



Claeren.

[Xelebes]

For the most part, aren't windmills white?

They're like land doves!

~_~

[Boris2k7]

Sometimes people make me feel like a leftist hippie.

I find the sight of a modern windfarm to be one of the most asthetically pleasing things on Earth. Modern technology producing clean power, quietly (compared to any other type of power generation, anyway), without belching a bunch of crap into the air or flooding square kilometers of nature.

The only way a windmill could "harm the view" is if you take the perspective of "all human development is bad, period". Sure, if we all lived in caves and had no electricity, they would be a blight on the landscape. Until such time, I rather enjoy seeing such elegance :)

Indeed, I find wind farms fascinating things to look at. But even just a windmill here or there around Calgary would really liven up the landscape a bit... provided you have enough to put them in safely without chopping up single family houses... but would that really be a bad thing? :cool:

[drew]

The "nation's" natural gas supply... LOL... feeling a little entitled are we?


Wow - arrogance defined. Somebody needs a big piece of humble pie.

CANDU reactors are certainly the least flashy nuclear design out there, but they are also the safest and most "bulletproof" design too. They are basically the brick sh*t-house of nuclear.

I say go for it. Countries like France have a high percentage of their power coming from Nuclear, and they are getting along just fine. It beats burning coal.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

perhaps you should research nuclear power and coal power and decide which one is more damaging to the environment.

If you want to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, go ahead. Yes, Nuclear may be 'cleaner' than Coal, and has no CO2 emissions, but we are determining the fate of generations to come, tens of thousands of years from now. What a legacy we would leave if the only remnants of our 21st century, ten thousand years from now, hell, even a thousand years, is our contaminated radiation facilities and storage sites. Just because I don't think Nuclear is the way to go, doesn't mean I think Coal is, so don't put words in my mouth to make your point feel valid, but if thats what you need to sleep at night...go ahead.

There are way to many other options that should be explored. Most of them need refining, or even pilot projects, but they can't be ignored. Between, Wind, Solar, Wave, Tidal, Biomass and Geo-thermal, we must be able to find and refine energy sources the planet can live with. Will any one of these options feed our thirst for energy...probably not...but combined, it adds up in a hurry.

[Boris2k7]

Well, you needed to be more clear about other options than coal. That is the status quo along with natural gas so it was a reasonable assumption on sync's part.

And none of those options you listed sound like they have any potential for the oilsands. They simply don't generate enough energy for the very energy intensive processes of the oil sands (though I am certainly no expert). How many wind farms would you have to build for a single plant? How deep into the earth would you have to drill for the Geothermal? Wave? Tidal?

Nuclear energy, in contrast to methods currently in use, is very much a less evil option. The only better I can think of would be fusion, but if we had that we wouldn't need to do all this in the first place...

[Calgarian]

Nuclear has it's ups and downs, but i think i beats having Acid Rain in northern Alberta and Sask.

[Boris2k7]

Wow - arrogance defined. Somebody needs a big piece of humble pie.

It's a matter of jurisdiction. A person in Ontario has no basis for saying that the oil sands are something that is theirs as well, as much as someone in Alberta claiming Saskatchewan's Uranium as our own.

It's an old argument. But there is always that feeling that people in Ontario think they own the damn country, or are at least entitled to because of their population. Go play in your own backyards kids...

[Doug]

Indeed, I find wind farms fascinating things to look at. But even just a windmill here or there around Calgary would really liven up the landscape a bit... provided you have enough to put them in safely without chopping up single family houses... but would that really be a bad thing? :cool:

I think it would be great to site some wind farms through Calgary, say a few clusters on Nose Hill (around the exisiting parking lots so no new access roads would be required, or in area out of site from residential areas), the top of COP etc.

[Doug]

Nuclear has it's ups and downs, but i think i beats having Acid Rain in northern Alberta and Sask.

The SO2 recovery on tar sands and coal fired power plants is AB is high and getting higher. Acid rain is a relatively minor problem and is already being addressed. CO2 production and consumption of valuable natural gas reserves that could be exported to the US are the bigger issues.

Also note that most of the steam plants at tar sands plants cogenerate electricity for the provincial grid.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Well, you needed to be more clear about other options than coal. That is the status quo along with natural gas so it was a reasonable assumption on sync's part.

And none of those options you listed sound like they have any potential for the oilsands. They simply don't generate enough energy for the very energy intensive processes of the oil sands (though I am certainly no expert). How many wind farms would you have to build for a single plant? How deep into the earth would you have to drill for the Geothermal? Wave? Tidal?

Nuclear energy, in contrast to methods currently in use, is very much a less evil option. The only better I can think of would be fusion, but if we had that we wouldn't need to do all this in the first place...

I'm no expert either, and if I could give more info on alternative energy sources, I would. I just don't like going to Nuclear power just because it might be the least evil of the energy forms we have. Energy is a, mostly, worldwide concern, and if we can address the issue on a large scale, all these smaller safe and green forms of energy production can add up. If we look only within the borders of Alberta, and specifically the Oilsands, then maybe Nuclear is the only option. I'm from New Brunswick, where we have the Point Lepreau Nuclear Reactor. With cost run-ups, massive upgrading costs, it's hard to see your tax dollars funding a sink hole. You think the residents around the reactor, and as far away as Saint John feel safe knowing there is a reactor nearby? It may not be on their front burner, but it's always on the back.

[mersar]

A lot of these issues with cost overruns and time delays are historical. I believe that every CANDU thats been built in the past decade has been completed on time and on budget for the most part. And even then, CANDU is not what AECL wants to build anymore. And not what Energy Alberta (who is spearheading one of the proposals) wants either. They're wanting to build an ACR reactor instead, which is the next generation of the CANDU line.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

Well that's good to know, but some studies have also shown Alberta and Saskatewan may be facing one of the worst droughts in history turning much of the west into a desert landscape thanks to changing weather patterns. Also factor in the population growth and things could become pretty bad. I guess it all depends on which studies you read and who you want to believe.

Anyway my point is it's good to hear talk about using other resources to extract the oil other then natural gas.


http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2003/1016/news2.htm

http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/Independent_News/Environment/Predicted_water_crises_looming_for__the_Prairies_of_Alberta_200604036944/



http://www.planetizen.com/node/19310

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7454

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/29529;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060403/prairies_water_060403?s_name=&no_ads=

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

Wow - arrogance defined. Somebody needs a big piece of humble pie.


So Alberta is not part of Canada? And those resources don't belong to all of us as a nation? Wow !

Do you not use natural gas AND oil based products? Ultimately is it not YOU, as the consumer of various products, that dictates the price that companies (the same companies that provide YOU services and products) can pay for the balance of pricing between natural gas and oil?


Huh, what does that have to do with wasting natural gas?

Only southern Alberta may face a water crisis - the north has plenty of water. Since agriculture consumes ~80% of the water in the south, there is plenty of opportunity for conservation and reallocation.

Well that's good to know, but some studies have also shown Alberta and Saskatewan may be facing one of the worst droughts in history turning much of the west into a desert landscape thanks to changing weather patterns. Also factor in the population growth and things could become pretty bad. I guess it all depends on which studies you read and who you want to believe.

Anyway my point is it's good to hear talk about using other resources to extract the oil other then natural gas.


http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2003/1016/news2.htm

http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/Independent_News/Environment/Predicted_water_crises_looming_for__the_Prairies_of_Alberta_200604036944/



http://www.planetizen.com/node/19310

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7454

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/29529;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060403/prairies_water_060403?s_name=&no_ads=

[cornholio]

If you want to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, go ahead. Yes, Nuclear may be 'cleaner' than Coal, and has no CO2 emissions, but we are determining the fate of generations to come, tens of thousands of years from now. What a legacy we would leave if the only remnants of our 21st century, ten thousand years from now, hell, even a thousand years, is our contaminated radiation facilities and storage sites. Just because I don't think Nuclear is the way to go, doesn't mean I think Coal is, so don't put words in my mouth to make your point feel valid, but if thats what you need to sleep at night...go ahead.

There are way to many other options that should be explored. Most of them need refining, or even pilot projects, but they can't be ignored. Between, Wind, Solar, Wave, Tidal, Biomass and Geo-thermal, we must be able to find and refine energy sources the planet can live with. Will any one of these options feed our thirst for energy...probably not...but combined, it adds up in a hurry.


Wind and Solar can only supply something like 10% to 20%max of anyones energy needs for obvious reasons(they are not always runing at capacity). Wave and tidal are great though not a option for Alberta...actualy there are studies for a wave plant by norther Vancouver island. Geo thermal also is not a option for Alberta since there are no known sources, though BC has some great potential with a couple studied sites around Pemberton (Meagher creek, Peble creek) and a more chalenging place north of Squamish and one site north of Terrace. I must add that geothermal is not completly clean and produces something like 1/10th the CO2 emisons of coal plants. Biomass is also great but doesnt have huge enrgy potential and also isnt completly clean, though its beter the coal or gas. So at the moment nuclear is a needed clean source if you want to go clean otherwise you will never be able to meat all the energy needs with out using coal and gas. That is until we get something like fusion reactors, then we will have cheap, safe, clean and efficient power.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Wind and Solar can only supply something like 10% to 20%max of anyones energy needs for obvious reasons(they are not always runing at capacity). Wave and tidal are great though not a option for Alberta...actualy there are studies for a wave plant by norther Vancouver island. Geo thermal also is not a option for Alberta since there are no known sources, though BC has some great potential with a couple studied sites around Pemberton (Meagher creek, Peble creek) and a more chalenging place north of Squamish and one site north of Terrace. I must add that geothermal is not completly clean and produces something like 1/10th the CO2 emisons of coal plants. Biomass is also great but doesnt have huge enrgy potential and also isnt completly clean, though its beter the coal or gas. So at the moment nuclear is a needed clean source if you want to go clean otherwise you will never be able to meat all the energy needs with out using coal and gas. That is until we get something like fusion reactors, then we will have cheap, safe, clean and efficient power.

I agree, most of these options will not make up the difference in energy demand, but, a little here, a little there, and it adds up in a hurry. whats greater 1+1+1+1+1 or 5?

[Xelebes]

So Alberta is not part of Canada? And those resources don't belong to all of us as a nation? Wow !



When the constitution was signed, it was explicitly written that natural resources were a provincial jurisdiction and not federal jurisdiction. Of course, you could snub the constitution just like what we did with the Canadian Health Act.

[m0nkyman]

When the constitution was signed, it was explicitly written that natural resources were a provincial jurisdiction and not federal jurisdiction. Of course, you could snub the constitution just like what we did with the Canadian Health Act.

Just as a reminder for those who haven't actually read our constitution:
n each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
1) {...} 2) Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
3) The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
4) The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
5) The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
6) The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
7) The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
8) Municipal Institutions in the Province.
9) Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
10) Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province;
(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country;
(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after the Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
11) The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
12) The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
13) Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
14) The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
15) The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this section.
16) Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.
17) Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy.

[Canadian Mind]

Another thing about Nuclear oilsands I read about back in the summer; By injecting spend nuclear material into the sands themselves, the radiation and chemicals in the spend uranium somehow fucks with the chemistry to create both hydrogen and crude. It also lowers overall radioactive activity, and theoretically none of the radiation would be present in the extracted material. It would all be about 500-1000 feet underground.

I can't remember the article, but I found it on the CKA forums just before I joined up here. The thread which contains it was some 50 pages long the last time I looked at it in august. If you want to waste about a day trying to find it, go ahead.

[Hardhatdan]

You would think with ever increasing demand for "clean" electricity that they would figure out what to do with radioactive waste. Because in all reality, nuclear plants are by far the option there is for finding a reliable emissions free source.

[Canadian Mind]

radiaactive waste can be dealt with the same way it is naturally. It ultimately gives off the same amount of radiation as natural deposits or uranium decaying into lead. Just dig a big hole about 8 miles deep and drop it into the magma. there it can ultimately give off the same amount of radiation as the uranium would have. its just that the uranium takes so much longer to decay that we don't notice its radioactivity as much.

[Boris2k7]

LOL, you want an example about how far back this battle over resources goes between Alberta and Ottawa? Here's a cartoon from September 2, 1905:

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8554/na305516xa5.jpg

Yeah, we've been fighting you Eastern Bastards (jk) over this since the province was formed.

Here's another amusing one from April 25, 1914
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/3408/na305523sk4.jpg

July 26, 1916
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/9929/na305525cp9.jpg

July 25, 1916
This one might be the most relevant to this era. We were doing it 90 years ago and we're doing it again... breaking our bonds!
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/7140/na305526nh1.jpg

Newayz, those are really getting off topic. But it's interesting to note that Western Alienation has ALWAYS been an issue in Alberta. Frankly, I'm surprised that we have never seperated...

[freeweed]

Boris, those cartoons just made my day. :tup:

After trying to explain to a bunch of twentysomethings that western alienation didn't just start with Trudeau and the NEP, it's nice to have proof that my grandparents weren't hallucinating when they'd tell me stories of the "good old days".

I think these same people believe that racial tensions in the USA started off when Tupac was murdered. :haha:

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

LOL, you want an example about how far back this battle over resources goes between Alberta and Ottawa? Here's a cartoon from September 2, 1905:

Newayz, those are really getting off topic. But it's interesting to note that Western Alienation has ALWAYS been an issue in Alberta. Frankly, I'm surprised that we have never seperated...

Would have been tough when your populace at the turn of the century sat at around 70,000. Alberta would do well if it separated right now, but I'd hate to be one of your great great grandchildren growing up in a land depleted of its resources with a destroyed landscape and possible epic water shortage. But hey, what do you all care, you'll be long gone by then, enjoy your greed. Some legacy.

[Lobstick]

^
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/smog_cntower050625.jpg

[Doug]

http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/sewage_grades_summary.pdf

[m0nkyman]

enjoy your greed. .

This from Ontario.:tup:

:rolleyes:

[Boris2k7]

Guess what? Iiiiiiiit's BAAAAACK!


Calgary firm seeks OK for nuclear reactor in Alberta
Jason Fekete, Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, May 04, 2007

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4267/new20melaw8.jpg
Energy Minister Mel Knight
CanWest News Service

Alberta could soon enter the nuclear era.

The nuclear power industry is looking to build a $6.2-billion Candu reactor in north-central Alberta, and delivered a presentation Thursday to the Stelmach government about an atomic alternative in the province.

Opposition parties said the proposal reeks of a backroom deal that's left Albertans in the dark about an important issue.

Senior brass from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and Calgary-based Energy Alberta Corp. met with the Tory caucus in Edmonton, and later indicated they are planning a 2,200 megawatt Candu twin reactor -- the most powerful of its kind in Canada -- likely near Whitecourt or a second, unnamed, community west of Edmonton.

"We're proposing to build a nuclear power plant in the province of Alberta," said Energy Alberta president Wayne Henuset.

"It's for future generation needs in the province of Alberta and it's for electricity," Henuset said.

Energy Alberta will file an application June 15 to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, seeking one of five licences it needs, to build a twin reactor in the province to generate electricity and use the heat generated to help extract bitumen in the oilsands.

The meeting with the Stelmach government came on the eve of the Progressive Conservative convention this weekend in Edmonton, where party faithful will vote on a resolution asking the government to form a committee that would make recommendations on using nuclear power in the oilsands.

Energy Alberta is now going out to the communities to see which will volunteer support for a nuclear plant. Municipal leaders from Whitecourt are expected to tour a Candu (Canadian deuterium uranium) reactor in Eastern Canada within days, with officials from the other community to follow suit later this month.

The plant would be privately financed by Energy Alberta -- costing taxpayers not a penny -- and built by AECL, Henuset said.

He said a major oil and gas company has already indicated it wants the electricity.

It's believed it would take eight to 10 years before a reactor could be up and running, consisting of four to five years for regulatory approval and another four to five years for construction.

The companies and government were quick to note that no official proposal has yet been submitted to the government.

However, Energy Minister Mel Knight said caucus was eager to learn more about nuclear power in advance of Saturday's vote on the party resolution.

"I am completely open with respect to all forms of energy for the province of Alberta," Knight said, although he maintained there was no direct sales pitch delivered to caucus.

"Members thought the best way to have that open discussion this weekend would be to have themselves a bit informed."

The minister noted the province's energy demand is growing by 300 to 400 megawatts a year, and said alternatives for meeting that demand need to be considered.

Eighteen Candu reactors were in service in Canada last year, Most of them are in Ontario, where they generate about half of the province's electricity.

Jack Scott, western vice-president for AECL, argued that public backing is vital if any project is to go ahead.

"We don't have anything until we actually have community support," he said. "Once we have community support, then we can follow through."

Whitecourt already appears to be on board.

George VanderBurg, the MLA for the area, said Whitecourt's forest industry uses immense amounts of power and, along with the community, could benefit greatly from a nuclear plant that could produce more than 1,000 jobs.

"The community is looking at this as an economic development opportunity," VanderBurg said. "What can you do with a power plant in your back door that creates excess heat and excess power? It allows you to attract other industrial users."

However, the Alberta Liberals said they're skeptical about nuclear power in Alberta, while environmental groups are fiercely opposed to it, suggesting it's downright radioactive.

"It looks more and more like the Tory government has let the nuclear genie out of the bottle without ever consulting with Albertans," said Liberal Leader Kevin Taft.

Officials with the Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, argue concerns about how to dispose of nuclear waste outweigh the potential benefits of a reactor, such as an increased electricity supply and a reduction in greenhouse gases emitted, compared to coal-fired plants.

jfekete@theherald.canwest.com

[CanadianCentaur]

I've known that the idea of using nuclear energy to meet the demands of the oil and gas industry in Alberta's not that new, but damn! I had no idea they were getting this serious about getting a nuclear power plant built in Alberta.

Whitecourt bids for nuclear plant

Upstart Calgary firm prepares to file applications for $6.2-billion Candu project

Jason Markusoff, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Friday, May 04, 2007

EDMONTON - An upstart Calgary energy firm is thrusting Alberta headlong into the nuclear debate, with plans to apply next month to build a $6.2-billion twin reactor in northern Alberta that would become the largest -- and most controversial -- power plant in the province.

Energy Alberta Corp. is in talks with the town of Whitecourt and at least two other communities as potential sites of the mammoth 2,200-megawatt facility designed to meet the ravenous electricity needs of Alberta's oil sector, Wayne Henuset, the company's president, said Thursday.

It has teamed up with Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., the federal Crown corporation which makes the Candu reactor, and intends to file site applications with Canada's federal nuclear regulator on June 15.

Henuset said the reactors could begin operating as early as 2016.

Energy Alberta has also stepped up its promotional campaign in Alberta, making a private presentation with AECL to Alberta Conservative MLAs Thursday. This weekend, it will fly Whitecourt's mayor and other local leaders to visit a Candu reactor in New Brunswick.

"The communities are helping us decide which ones want the facility, and that's where we are right now," Henuset said, outside a Tory caucus meeting.

The Tories could also take a serious step forward on going nuclear at their annual convention Saturday, when party members vote on a resolution to set up a committee to hold public consultations and study nuclear energy.

Energy Minister Mel Knight and nuclear proponents said the presentation was only an information session.

"There was no sales pitch," Knight said.

While the minister said nuclear is just one possible new energy source alongside hydroelectricity and biomass, he noted that a report from the United-Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change due out today is expected to recommend using nuclear power to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"When that body declares that this is perhaps a way forward for the world, we can't put on blinders and just pretend it's not happening," Knight said.

Liberal Leader Kevin Taft expressed alarm that Energy Alberta is already at the application stage, before the provincial government has gauged Albertans' comfort level with having Western Canada's first reactor.

"It feels like the Tories have let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, and not bothered to tell the public about it," said Taft, who said he's highly skeptical of the nuclear option.

Energy Alberta's applications to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will propose two possible sites, although only one would actually be built, Henuset said. He expects environmental and technical approvals to take about five years, and insisted his firm will raise money through private equity rather than government cash.

Whitecourt, about 180 kilometres northwest of Edmonton, already has a heavy forestry and paper industry and would embrace a plant on its doorstep, the local MLA said.

Under the plan, AECL would build in Alberta a pair of its new "advanced" Candu reactors. The project would dwarf any other electrical plant in Alberta.

Henuset, who's worked in petroleum services and liquor retailing, formed Energy Alberta in 2004 expressly to construct a nuclear plant in Alberta. Veteran oil-patch entrepreneur Hank Swartout came on later as a fellow director, and AECL signed on last fall. This spring, the firm signed former Calgary Sun publisher Guy Huntingford to do public relations.

"I saw them at Earth Day celebrations, for God's sake," quipped NDP environment critic David Eggen. "They're trying to soften up the public. But people have reason to be skeptical."

"What community could host 1,000 workers in 10 years and plan for it? Well, Whitecourt's a perfect community," George VanderBurg said.

[Coldrsx]

from the Edmonton Journal...HAHAHAH

Poll


A Calgary company wants to build a nuclear reactor to serve the power needs of the oilsands. Where should it be built?

Whitecourt
15.48 %

Fort McMurray
35.48 %

Calgary
25.81 %

South Edmonton Common
23.23 %

[lubicon]

Senior brass from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and Calgary-based Energy Alberta Corp. met with the Tory caucus in Edmonton, and later indicated they are planning a 2,200 megawatt Candu twin reactor -- the most powerful of its kind in Canada -- likely near Whitecourt or a second, unnamed, community west of Edmonton.



WTF??? Whitecourt???

I think there may be some merit in nuclear power for the oilsands but why on earth would they pick Whitecourt (other than the fact that it is an armpit of a town) or anywhere west of Edmonton. They will have to build one mother of a powerline to get the power up to Ft Mac, unless they plan on using it to power the upgraders being built NW of Edmonton. Even at that WHitecourt makes no sense to me. The thing belongs up in Ft Mac near the resources they will help extract.

There is a hell of a battle over a 500MW power line from Edmonton to Calgary, I can just imagine what a 2200MW line would look like. Then again there are essentially no people along the corridor it would have to take to Ft Mac.

[Coldrsx]

^bingo...cutting out transmission lines saves a crapload.

[Kevin_foster]

but I'd hate to be one of your great great grandchildren growing up in a land depleted of its resources with a destroyed landscape and possible epic water shortage. But hey, what do you all care, you'll be long gone by then, enjoy your greed. Some legacy.

Oh man, I understand your viewpoint; but the fearmongering that has gone on in the past 10 years - and those who have soaked it up like sponges - regarding the state of our environment - makes it seem like we are living in some sort of contaminated, mercury filled polluted slime pit of a province - when in REALITY Alberta still remains very clean, natural, beautiful and full of resource, including water.

The majority of water loss is in the south. The exploration sector that sucks water is mostly in the north (drilling and filling) - & MAJOR steps have been taken to reduce water consumption (recycling, reusing etc.) and land destruction. I'm not a geologist, but I've heard over and over that the majority of water loss in (SouthEast) Alberta is not due to industry, but due to climate and weather patterns.

Anyways, going back to footprints - I have many (thousands??) of remediation & reclamation contractors as clients - and I have a very very good idea of what goes on, the good and the bad, and I can tell you that alot of good is happening up there. Old lease, access roads, drilling sites, and camp areas are reclaimed to 99% of what they were before humans entered.

(Things that are visible, positive and make me feel warm and fuzzy inside :P )

IE. Ever heard of a 200 man camp picking up and leaving a site within 24 hours - simply because they encounter the years first caribou sighting? As to allow the caribou migration to occur naturally? (just an example, and that is a law) - the laws up there regarding environmental impact are so very tight; it's a wonder that NONE of that makes the news??

Oh, and need I mention the performance of Ontario? Certain set of world class lakes? Smog? The hundreds (upon hundreds)of Environmental claims I've seen come across my desk?

It all sucks. I'm somewhat of a tree-hugger myself and love to see advancement as far as reducing ones footprint, reusing resources and finding new ways to cut out global harm - but I do realize that it's the cost of human activity. It's not just Alberta, so if we want to take a step forward and build a power plant that will increase efforts to reduce environmental impact; then great.

[CanadianCentaur]

WTF??? Whitecourt???

I think there may be some merit in nuclear power for the oilsands but why on earth would they pick Whitecourt (other than the fact that it is an armpit of a town) or anywhere west of Edmonton. They will have to build one mother of a powerline to get the power up to Ft Mac, unless they plan on using it to power the upgraders being built NW of Edmonton. Even at that WHitecourt makes no sense to me. The thing belongs up in Ft Mac near the resources they will help extract.

There is a hell of a battle over a 500MW power line from Edmonton to Calgary, I can just imagine what a 2200MW line would look like. Then again there are essentially no people along the corridor it would have to take to Ft Mac.

Swan Hills has a large toxic waste centre, and is not that far from Whitecourt. I wonder if that's why they chose Whitecourt of all places?

[korzym]

If they decide to build this nuclear plant, they should not use centrifuge technology but laser isotope excitation. An Australian company has developed this technology and has backing by General Electric and the US government. It's about 3 years away from market.

The positives about this technology are that it requires substantially smaller capital costs, is more efficient [attains excitation faster on smaller amounts of uranium]

http://www.silex.com.au/

I'm not a scientist, I found out about this technology as this company is starting to circulate in the investment community.

[freeweed]

Semi-related, Global had a big story on this today, plus an interview with Klein.

It made me chuckle every time Klein said "Nu-cu-lar". :jester:

[Xelebes]

To be honest, nucular ends up flowing off our tongues easier than nu-clear.

[Champion3]

Lloyd Snelgrove was on QR77 tonight and he was also pronouncing it wrong. What's with these people? Can't anybody read?

(As an aside, I get equally upset when somebody pronounces Lloydminster as "Lloydminister.")

[jawagord]

WTF??? Whitecourt???

I think there may be some merit in nuclear power for the oilsands but why on earth would they pick Whitecourt (other than the fact that it is an armpit of a town) or anywhere west of Edmonton. They will have to build one mother of a powerline to get the power up to Ft Mac, unless they plan on using it to power the upgraders being built NW of Edmonton. Even at that WHitecourt makes no sense to me. The thing belongs up in Ft Mac near the resources they will help extract.

There is a hell of a battle over a 500MW power line from Edmonton to Calgary, I can just imagine what a 2200MW line would look like. Then again there are essentially no people along the corridor it would have to take to Ft Mac.

You have the moniker Lubicon but don't know that Alberta's heavy oil deposits extend from Cold Lake to Grande Praire to Ft. Mac, including under Lubicon claimed land? FYI - there are plenty of heavy oil deposits in NW Alberta that could use the electric power from the plant for SAGD and the low grade steam from the plant could be used by local Whitecourt industries.

[Xelebes]

Lloyd Snelgrove was on QR77 tonight and he was also pronouncing it wrong. What's with these people? Can't anybody read?

(As an aside, I get equally upset when somebody pronounces Lloydminster as "Lloydminister.")

I get annoyed when the double-l isn't enunciated either.

:sly:

[freeweed]

I get annoyed when the double-l isn't enunciated either.

:sly:

There's a world of difference between a word not being pronounced phonetically (knife, anyone?) and mis-pronunciation due to a lack of preciseness.

"Nucular" is how the uneducated masses used to pronounce it. These days, it's how the rednecks from Texas pronounce it.

It's easier to type "u" than "you", but you're (ur?) still an idiot for doing it. Especially when you're a public figure - or worse, "leader of the free world". These people are in theory educated. :haha:

[Xelebes]

Actually, there isn't much difference. Are you going to rag on a UK Prime Minister for saying Wart instead of What?

[fortroad]

^ I think they Should incorporate this into a Oil Sands Facility so that it will then include Petroleum Crackers, Hydrogen reformers and a Nuclear power plant. Imagine terror threat that would be.

[ssiguy]

Nucleur power plants need access to large water lakes so I don't know how Ed/Cal could be considered.

I think nucleur is a great idea. Ya expensive for capital costs but if it helps clean up the atmoshere then count me in. It is a very safe technology.

Wind and solar power may make us feel all cozy inside but they are not options. Anyone who think Alberta can live on these technologies needs a therapist. Nucleur will only increase in its use worldwide and to me that's a really good thing. Ya, coal is much cleaner than it use to be but its still an emitter of green-house gases. Its yesterdays technology.
I rather live a km from a nucleur plant than a coal plant anyday of the week. Infact I would NEVER live within a km of a coal plant...........I value my ability to breath air.

[Hardhatdan]

Nucleur power plants need access to large water lakes so I don't know how Ed/Cal could be considered.

I think nucleur is a great idea. Ya expensive for capital costs but if it helps clean up the atmoshere then count me in. It is a very safe technology.

Wind and solar power may make us feel all cozy inside but they are not options. Anyone who think Alberta can live on these technologies needs a therapist. Nucleur will only increase in its use worldwide and to me that's a really good thing. Ya, coal is much cleaner than it use to be but its still an emitter of green-house gases. Its yesterdays technology.
I rather live a km from a nucleur plant than a coal plant anyday of the week. Infact I would NEVER live within a km of a coal plant...........I value my ability to breath air.
Syncrude has one of the largest man made lakes around. Their tailings pond...oh they got water.

[asher11]

The "nation's" natural gas supply... LOL... feeling a little entitled are we?



That's rich! You talk like you own it yourself. As far as I'm aware, the oil companies own it and are getting all the profits and pass along the profits to the shareholders of which WhistlerinMuskoka may or may not be one. Sure the province gets some royalties but in the end it all works for the corporations.

As for the water, all the Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario have banded together to keep it in the watershed so it won't be going anywhere. BTW, water is not a going to be treated as a "commodity" -- that is the important distinction between it and oil.

Anyway, if Alberta profits so much from its resources why does a liter of gas cost more there than here or, worse, more than it costs in the US. Who's owning who in this equation? Maybe Chavez in Venezuela is right in claiming ownership of his country's resources. You might want your new premier to nationalize the province's resources completely and kick out all the greedy corporations so you can keep it all to yourselves cause right now the people own dick - see how that flies as far as the constitution is concerned. Didn't think so.

[Boris2k7]

LOL, how foolish. Constitutionally, Alberta has control over the use of its natural resources, and benefits from royalties (because the companies are more or less paying rent for the right to use the resources, they don't own them). We don't need low gas prices to benefit, as the government gets more revenues to spend on needed infrastructure or social programs that otherwise would be paid through my taxes. Or is how you measure a place's prosperity by how many dollars are in your pocket? In any case, you don't have much of an argument.

[m0nkyman]

Anyway, if Alberta profits so much from its resources why does a liter of gas cost more there than here or, worse, more than it costs in the US.
Taxes.

[freeweed]

As for the water, all the Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario have banded together to keep it in the watershed so it won't be going anywhere. BTW, water is not a going to be treated as a "commodity" -- that is the important distinction between it and oil.

Interesting that we as a socitey have decided to commoditize a non-renewable resource, and not the renewable one. You'd almost think it would be the other way around.

[freeweed]

Actually, there isn't much difference. Are you going to rag on a UK Prime Minister for saying Wart instead of What?

Accents and dialects are very different than illiteracy. I'm sorry for you if you don't see this.

For the record, I'd rag on any politician who says "psghetti", "irregardless", "for all intensive purposes", or any of a thousand mis-pronunciations that make a person sound like an 8 year old.

"I'm pretty sure it's Specific Time, Brian." :haha:

[The Kid]

That's rich! You talk like you own it yourself. As far as I'm aware, the oil companies own it and are getting all the profits and pass along the profits to the shareholders of which WhistlerinMuskoka may or may not be one. Sure the province gets some royalties but in the end it all works for the corporations.

As for the water, all the Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario have banded together to keep it in the watershed so it won't be going anywhere. BTW, water is not a going to be treated as a "commodity" -- that is the important distinction between it and oil.

Anyway, if Alberta profits so much from its resources why does a liter of gas cost more there than here or, worse, more than it costs in the US. Who's owning who in this equation? Maybe Chavez in Venezuela is right in claiming ownership of his country's resources. You might want your new premier to nationalize the province's resources completely and kick out all the greedy corporations so you can keep it all to yourselves cause right now the people own dick - see how that flies as far as the constitution is concerned. Didn't think so.

Dude, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

[Boris2k7]

Alberta county pulls nuclear support

Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, August 09, 2007

EDMONTON - An Alberta county government has retracted its support for a planned nuclear power plant.

More public consultation is needed before Woodlands County can commit to the plant proposal, said the county's mayor, Jim Rennie. He also suggested the issue could come to a plebiscite.

"Maybe a plebiscite is the best way to go because at the end, you know that a clear majority is (either) for it, or not," Rennie said.

"If they're not, then it's not right for us. If the majority is yes, let's forge ahead and we don't have to keep revisiting the issue."

In May, Calgary-based Energy Alberta Corp. expressed interest in building two nuclear reactors worth $6.2 billion at Whitecourt and Peace River, 450 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

The council for Woodlands County -- near the town of Whitecourt, 200 kilometres northwest of Edmonton -- sent an initial letter of support for the project to Energy Alberta in July, causing a stir among local residents who said they wanted more information.

Nuclear power engineering firms increasingly are interested in using atomic energy in Alberta's oilsands industry to reduce dependence on natural gas.

Right now, oilsands operators in the area of Fort McMurray use about 1,000 million cubic feet per day of natural gas for their steam-assisted gravity drainage operations, fire co-generation plants, mining operations and upgraders.

That figure is expected to more than double by 2015, according to the National Energy Board.

In May, Whitecourt Mayor Trevor Thain said the project would be good for the local economy and for the environment, because it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Woodlands County now plans to hold a series of public information sessions in the coming months about the project, Rennie said.

Alberta currently has no nuclear plants.

[Shodan]

Nuclear plant plan draws fire
Environmentalists question impact on area land and water; company touts 'clean, safe, reliable' power

Jamie Hall
The Edmonton Journal; With files from the Calgary Herald

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

EDMONTON - Energy Alberta Corporation has chosen Peace River as the site of a proposed nuclear power plant.

The Calgary-based company Monday filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build a pair of twin-unit Candu reactors on private land adjacent to Lac Cardinal, 30 kilometres west of the town.

The move ends months of speculation about the intended site of the corporation's $6.2-billion nuclear power plant, which was said to be between Peace River and Whitecourt.

Energy Alberta president and co-chair Wayne Henuset says the decision marks "a historic moment for Canada, for Alberta and for the nuclear power industry" and touted the benefits of "clean, safe, reliable nuclear power."

Ontario currently operates five of the Candu 6 reactors, which AECL said were some of the top-performing units in the world last year, with greater than 95 per cent capacity factor rankings.

But environmentalists gave short shrift to the claims, expressing worries over impacts a reactor might have on the area's land and water.

"The nuclear power industry has a long history of over-promising and under-delivering, so I'm skeptical," said Marlo Reynolds, executive director of the Drayton Valley-based Pembina Institute.

"I'm still not convinced there's a need for nuclear power given all the other resources we have here in Alberta."

The institute won't support any form of government financial support for the project and Reynolds said all environmental impacts must be fully accounted for in the final cost of the facility.

"That business case has never been made clear... once you factor in the full environmental cost I don't believe nuclear power competes."

David Schindler has serious concerns, too.

"There are huge issues involved in building this," says Schindler, a professor of ecology at the University of

Alberta who teaches environmental decision-making, "and one of them is reactor safety.

"I would want to know where the waste is going to be stored, how it's going to get there and what the use of the power is supposed to be for.

"(Nuclear power plants) use a lot of cooling water, so I guess this is one reason for putting it in Peace River, so they can get water from the Peace. The needs are around a cubic metre a second, so it's like a small oilsands plant."

Elena Schacherl insists the proposed plant is "a far different beast" than the existing Candu reactors currently in Canada, which are located in Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec.

"They're approximately half the size of just one of the (twin reactors) that are being proposed," says Schacherl, who represents Concerned Citizens Advocating Use of Sustainable Energy.

"What's being proposed has never been built before."

She fears the plant will get "fast-tracked" before "the other side" can fully air its arguments in front of an environmental assessment panel.

Henuset said the Peace River region was chosen because of its demonstrated support from the community, the existence of essential infrastructure and support services, and technical feasibility.

Lorne Mann, the mayor of the Town of Peace River, says the plant would bring economic stability to the region.

"Today's announcement ... has given our region an opportunity for a more vibrant, exciting and sustainable future," said Mann.

The corporation has partnered with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the federal Crown corporation and maker of Candu reactors.

Initially, Energy Alberta plans to build one twin-unit ACR-1000 that will produce 2,200 megawatts of electricity with a targeted in-service date of early 2017.

"Building a nuclear power facility is a long and rigorous process," said Henuset. "This is the beginning of a public and regulatory process that will include environmental, health and safety assessments."

Press conferences will be held in Calgary, Peace River and Whitecourt today to provide more details about the project.

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

[Harrison]

I'd take nuclear energy over dirty coal any day! Good for Alberta!

[lubicon]

Nuclear plant plan draws fire
Environmentalists question impact on area land and water; company touts 'clean, safe, reliable' power

Jamie Hall
The Edmonton Journal; With files from the Calgary Herald

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

EDMONTON - Energy Alberta Corporation has chosen Peace River as the site of a proposed nuclear power plant.

The Calgary-based company Monday filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build a pair of twin-unit Candu reactors on private land adjacent to Lac Cardinal, 30 kilometres west of the town.

The move ends months of speculation about the intended site of the corporation's $6.2-billion nuclear power plant, which was said to be between Peace River and Whitecourt.

Energy Alberta president and co-chair Wayne Henuset says the decision marks "a historic moment for Canada, for Alberta and for the nuclear power industry" and touted the benefits of "clean, safe, reliable nuclear power."

Ontario currently operates five of the Candu 6 reactors, which AECL said were some of the top-performing units in the world last year, with greater than 95 per cent capacity factor rankings.

But environmentalists gave short shrift to the claims, expressing worries over impacts a reactor might have on the area's land and water.

"The nuclear power industry has a long history of over-promising and under-delivering, so I'm skeptical," said Marlo Reynolds, executive director of the Drayton Valley-based Pembina Institute.

"I'm still not convinced there's a need for nuclear power given all the other resources we have here in Alberta."

The institute won't support any form of government financial support for the project and Reynolds said all environmental impacts must be fully accounted for in the final cost of the facility.

"That business case has never been made clear... once you factor in the full environmental cost I don't believe nuclear power competes."

David Schindler has serious concerns, too.

"There are huge issues involved in building this," says Schindler, a professor of ecology at the University of

Alberta who teaches environmental decision-making, "and one of them is reactor safety.

"I would want to know where the waste is going to be stored, how it's going to get there and what the use of the power is supposed to be for.

"(Nuclear power plants) use a lot of cooling water, so I guess this is one reason for putting it in Peace River, so they can get water from the Peace. The needs are around a cubic metre a second, so it's like a small oilsands plant."
Elena Schacherl insists the proposed plant is "a far different beast" than the existing Candu reactors currently in Canada, which are located in Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec.

"They're approximately half the size of just one of the (twin reactors) that are being proposed," says Schacherl, who represents Concerned Citizens Advocating Use of Sustainable Energy.

"What's being proposed has never been built before."

She fears the plant will get "fast-tracked" before "the other side" can fully air its arguments in front of an environmental assessment panel.

Henuset said the Peace River region was chosen because of its demonstrated support from the community, the existence of essential infrastructure and support services, and technical feasibility.

Lorne Mann, the mayor of the Town of Peace River, says the plant would bring economic stability to the region.

"Today's announcement ... has given our region an opportunity for a more vibrant, exciting and sustainable future," said Mann.

The corporation has partnered with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the federal Crown corporation and maker of Candu reactors.

Initially, Energy Alberta plans to build one twin-unit ACR-1000 that will produce 2,200 megawatts of electricity with a targeted in-service date of early 2017.

"Building a nuclear power facility is a long and rigorous process," said Henuset. "This is the beginning of a public and regulatory process that will include environmental, health and safety assessments."

Press conferences will be held in Calgary, Peace River and Whitecourt today to provide more details about the project.

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

As a guy who grew up in Peace River I am thrilled to hear this, but am a little baffled by the proposed location of the plant. Lac Cardinal is actually closer to the town of Grimshaw and is about 30km west of the Town of Peace River (and the river itself). Not sure why they would propose this location as it is quite a distance from the river which would presumably be the source of water for the project.

[The Geographer]

The next generation of oil sands such as OPTI do not use natural gas. Instead they gasify the tar sands themselves as both a heat source and hydrogen supply.

Besides the fact that CANDU's have terrible operational records (look at how many or mothballed in Ontario), the other problem is the inefficiency of distributing steam over long distances. Gas fired steam plants can be located adjacent to bitumen extract and upgrade sites.

I believe they are talking about building a next generation of reactors, not CANDUs in the traditional sense.

[Arch26]

As a guy who grew up in Peace River I am thrilled to hear this, but am a little baffled by the proposed location of the plant. Lac Cardinal is actually closer to the town of Grimshaw and is about 30km west of the Town of Peace River (and the river itself). Not sure why they would propose this location as it is quite a distance from the river which would presumably be the source of water for the project.

Placing nuclear reactors near major bodies of water, especially those which provide drinking water goes under the category of "highly inadvisable" or possibly, "retarded". Water for steam can be piped.

[Ruckus]

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2637/newsqd4.jpg

Damn those Albertans and their nuclear energy! :tup:

[Wooster]

Why don't we get the French to build us some Nuclear power. They know how it is done.

[mersar]

I believe they are talking about building a next generation of reactors, not CANDUs in the traditional sense.

Correct, as it mentioned they want to build a set of ACR's (Advanced CANDU Reactor). The traditional style CANDU 6's are being phased out, and if the 2017 timeline that they mention is held to we'd probably have the second or third operating ACR in the world (the first being likely in Ontario where they've been doing work already towards a new reactor for a few years from what I understand)

[Boris2k7]

Proposed nuclear plant would feed grid, not oilsands
Calgary Herald; with files from Reuters
Published: Wednesday, September 19, 2007

In a major reversal of stance, Calgary-based private developer Energy Alberta Corp. announced on Tuesday that output from its proposed nuclear power plant in northern Alberta will be mainly sold to the province's power grid, rather than for use in the oilsands industry.

"(At first) we were going after the oilsands, but then diverted away," Wayne Henuset, president and co-chairman of Energy Alberta, said. "The steam we can potentially deliver from the reactors will be more than what oilsands operators can take. We are now thus developing our facility for supply to the power grid."

Henuset did not divulge details on the volume of steam that will be required for a steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) project, but as a rule of thumb between 2.5-to-four barrels of steam is needed to produce a barrel of bitumen.

"It is called SOR (steam-oil-ratio) and in an energy-intensive project consumption can be higher than four barrels," explained Justin Bouchard, oil and gas analyst with Raymond James.

SOR is a parameter used to monitor the efficiency of oil production processes based on steam injection and is commonly the volume of steam required to produce one unit volume of oil.

There are two other reasons as well for Energy Alberta to divert its attention away from the oilsands patch. The first is efficiency concerns of transporting steam over long distances and the second covers the time period of start-up.

Energy Alberta proposes to build twin advanced CANDU reactors (ACR) of 2,200 mega watts capacity at Peace River, about 400 kilometres away from Fort McMurray -- the heartland of SAGD projects. The reactors are targeted for start-up by 2017 and by that time a vast majority of the proposed bitumen mining and extraction projects would already have been in production.

In response to a query if Energy Alberta was closing its doors for supplies to the oilsands sector, Henuset replied that at this time options would be left open.

"We will be keeping an eye on power demand for new upgraders planned to be built in Scotford, Strathcona and the Edmonton area," he said, adding that Energy Alberta would be better off focusing its attention on the growing demand for power in the province.

"AESO (Alberta Electric System Operator) has forecast a 4,000-MW growth in demand by 2015. There are various options in hand for us . . . power-to-steam, power-to-grid and power-to-hydrogen, but right now our focus will be on (supply to) the grid and we are starting our co-operation in that direction," Henuset said.

Stating that Energy Alberta is in talks with eight large prospective buyers -- a mix of utility firms, manufacturing firms and oil companies, he, however, stopped short of making a firm commitment on offtake.

"We will like to keep the market open at this time," Henuset said. "But, we hope to zero in on the first offtake deal in 18 months."

Leslie Panek, senior vice-president of Western Canada for U.K. engineering firm Amec, said that from an industrial perspective it made little difference if nuclear power was sold to oilsands operators or for general use in the province. "It will be prudent to look at all available energy options," he said.

Meanwhile, Henuset also said that "near" zero emissions let off by its nuclear power plant could prevent cash flowing to Ottawa in the form of carbon taxes.

"Alberta has become the top emitter among Canadian provinces due to its oil and gas production and rush to develop oilsands," he told reporters. "Ontario and Quebec get most of their electricity from nuclear and hydro sources, which do not emit carbon. So, if they want a transfer of wealth, they call it whatever they want, but they are going to come after our wealth in Alberta."

[ArtRambo]

I call it new clear because it doesn't emit smoke. This is just posturing to counter the anti-waming crowd, we have so much fossil fuel here, why do we need nuclear energy. We do need to crack down on eco-terrorists and destroy their training camps, how many Albertans are against the tar sands.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070607/bootcamp_activists_070606/20070607?hub=SciTech

[The Kid]

I call it new clear because it doesn't emit smoke. This is just posturing to counter the anti-waming crowd, we have so much fossil fuel here, why do we need nuclear energy. We do need to crack down on eco-terrorists and destroy their training camps, how many Albertans are against the tar sands.

What the hell are you talking about????

[Shodan]

French nuclear power giant proposes Whitecourt plant
Town's mayor welcomes project with 'open arms'

Gordon Jaremko
The Edmonton Journal

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

EDMONTON - There's international competition to build Alberta's first atomic power station as France's nuclear energy conglomerate courted support Monday for a plant site at Whitecourt.

Eager official encouragement greeted Areva Canada president Armand Laferrere, who trekked to the town 150 kilometres northwest of Edmonton armed with plans freshly approved by the Paris head office of his firm's parent company.

"We think it would be a great thing for our community," Whitecourt Mayor Trevor Thain said.

He predicted at least 75 per cent of local voters will back an atomic power project in a civic referendum that he plans to hold as development plans firm up in the future.

"We welcome with open arms help to diversify our economy," Thain said as his town council staged a public information meeting to learn about the French brand of atomic power.

"It's a great place to do business," Laferrere said, describing the invitation to try a project in northern Alberta as a refreshing change from initial fear and resistance Areva ran into elsewhere in building its global chain of 98 atomic power stations.

"This is a sufficiently rare event in the nuclear power industry that we should show appreciation," Laferrere said.

The Whitecourt public meeting followed months of quiet overtures by the French company to Alberta communities, provincial officials, electric utilities and construction companies.

Areva's arrival spells competition for a $6.2-billion proposal announced in August for a site near Peace River, 500 kilometres northwest of Edmonton, by Energy Alberta and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Unlike its rivals, Areva made no initial claim to have an undisclosed buyer lined up for most of its proposed electricity output. Energy Alberta later dropped the claim after no taker stepped forward, admitting it is still trying to find customers.

"We want things to be clear. We have nothing to hide," Laferrere said.

Private talks are underway with Alberta companies that will remain anonymous under confidentiality agreements, he said.

Discussions have also been held with provincial officials including Energy Minister Mel Knight, Laferrere said. Further talks are also planned with an atomic power committee created by the last convention of the ruling Conservative party, the French executive added.

No commitments have been made by the province's political leaders except to stay neutral on the developing project competition, and that means "we've had a good reception from the government," Laferrere said.

"They want the marketplace to come up with a project before taking a stance. That's a very good approach -- saying 'you prove to us this can be done and then we'll talk,' " he said.

An Areva atomic power project at Whitecourt would employ up to 2,500 construction workers for about four years, then create 330 to 350 permanent jobs operating the plant for 60 years, Laferrere said.

"There is a certain amount of job security," he said, alluding to northern Alberta's reliance on notoriously cyclical oil, gas, farming and forest products.

The more advanced French atomic energy technology cuts production costs and radioactive waste, Laferrere added. Areva also builds power lines and operates in nuclear waste disposal.

He set no target dates for building a Whitecourt plant. Cost over-runs and delays plaguing an Areva project under construction in Finland are teaching the firm lessons that would be followed in Alberta, Laferrere said.

Alberta electricity demand growth forecasts show there is potential to build four atomic power stations with room left over for expansion by the province's current network of coal- and gas-fired plants plus new renewable energy sites such as windmill farms, Laferrere said.

A number of sites are available around Whitecourt, as close as only five kilometres from town or up to 20 kilometres away, Thain said.

"No matter where you put it you wouldn't be able to see it. We're surrounded by woods," the mayor said.

Provincial government co-operation would eventually be needed to secure the site because all the eligible locations are on provincially owned Crown land, Thain added.

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

[Boris2k7]

Alberta needs six reactors: company
Areva ponders twin plants to meet shortfall
Ashok Dutta, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007

A top official of French engineering giant, Areva Canada, said he believes there is room for up to six nuclear reactors in Alberta in the not-too-distant future, to keep pace with the growing demand for power.

Energy Alberta Corp. has already proposed to build two reactors in the province. But according to the French firm, there will be room for four more.

"There is a case for two twin reactors of capacity about 4,500 megawatts in the post-2020 period, in case the province decides to make nuclear power 50 per cent of its total energy mix," Armand Laferrere, president of Areva Canada, told the Herald on the sidelines of an industry conference in Calgary Monday.

"Alberta faces the highest growth in electricity demand in North America and it is estimated the province will need another 10,000 megawatts by then (post-2020)."

In late August, privately held Energy Alberta Corp. filed an initial set of documents to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, seeking to build a 2,200-megawatt twin reactor in Peace River.

Guy Huntingford, Energy Alberta's spokesman, says there is possibility for two more reactors.

"Coal and gas power plants are coming off-line and AESO (Alberta Electricity Systems Operator) has indicated there will be need for about 4,000 megawatts of new baseload power," he said.

Areva would be the second company to throw its hat into the ring of the prospects of building nuclear plants in the province.

Laferrere indicated a recent "fact-finding" and "education" mission to Whitecourt and Peace River left him feeling optimistic.

"There is an interest in the community and they already have a good knowledge of nuclear power," he said, adding: "We are talking to investors who will have the capability to operate and also sign power off-take deals."

Responding to a query whether government subsidy would have to be an essential factor for building a nuclear power plant in Alberta's de-regulated electricity market, he replied: "We will welcome it, but nuclear plants can be competitive."

The estimated cost of generation of nuclear power with 80 per cent loan guarantees is $40 per megawatt-hour, while for combined-cycle natural gas at a price of $6 per million British Thermal Unit is $57 per megawatt-hour. For pulverized coal, Laferrere put the figure at $49 and for nuclear power without any subsidies, $60.

"Fifty new plants are likely to be built or ordered in the U.S. before 2030, primarily due to the recent regulatory changes. In Canada, we will probably see eight to 10, with Ontario taking the lead, followed by Alberta," he said.

Laferrere felt the project to add new capacity at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick will depend to a great extent on power off-take deals with customers in New England.

"Nuclear power is back on the menu for 20 countries as a potential baseload generator," said the U.K.-based Research and Markets Ltd. in its report on Monday.

"Many industrialized nations are facing a shortfall in baseload power as existing fossil fuel and nuclear fleets reach the end of their lives. Environmental awareness is giving nuclear a new impetus, but there are many uncertainties about the economics and future of nuclear energy," it added.

Further, nuclear power has been be-devilled by political perceptions and are now being subjected to close scrutiny.

On the upside, environmental fight against fossil fuel is heating up and questions are being asked about what renewables will be able to achieve.

Admitting that nuclear power plants are expensive to build, Laferrere pointed out improved designs may reduce costs.

G-III (third generation) plus reactors will reduce cost by 10 per cent per kilo watt-hour, besides offer enhanced safety measures, he said. At the same time, research and development work has started on G-IV as well.

"Nuclear power plants have long lead times from concept to grid and decisions are urgent now. The public perception of nuclear power is not a positive one, but in some 'anti' countries, like Finland, the public has turned around. Coal has already rebounded and nuclear may well do the same," said the Research and Markets Ltd. report.

Paul Clark, president of Rilpey Canyon Resources, said coal gasification projects are booming in China.

"In Alberta, the upgrader being built by Nexen Inc. and OPTI Canada is gasifying their own asphaletene (bottom of the barrel hydrocarbon) to produce hydrogen and power," he said. "That will be for their own use, with little remaining for supply to the grid. But, amongst the other upgraders to be built in the province the indication is they will not find it economical to generate power and will thus rely on (external) suppliers."

adutta@theherald.canwest.com

[Boris2k7]

One on One With Mister Nuclear
Ashok Dutta, Calgary Herald
Published: Sunday, December 09, 2007

When Energy Alberta, a private company bankrolled by former oilpatch veteran Hank Swartout and well-known local entrepreneur Wayne Henuset announced it was planning to seek approval to build a nuclear power plant in the north of the province last year, Albertans were stunned.

And somewhat disbelieving.

Then last month when Energy Alberta sold all its concessions to Ontario-based Bruce Power, Albertans were equally surprised -- and more than a tad nonplussed.

Bruce Power is Canada's first privately held nuclear generating company and the source of more than 20 per cent of Ontario's electricity.

The company's brazen entrance into the province now has Albertans pondering the suddenly very real possibility of "going nuclear."

The first nuclear power station may not start generation before 2017, but there is no denying that Alberta's fledgling nuclear initiative has now gained more credibility.

The next three years will be critical as an application for environmental assessment will be filed and a major effort initiated to create awareness in the Peace River area, where the company intends to locate the project.

Peace River Mayor Iris Callioux believes at least 50 per cent of the residents will lean in favour of nuclear power, while 30 per cent seek more information and the remaining 20 per cent will be opposed.

Bruce Power's president and chief executive Duncan Hawthorne spoke to the Herald.


Q: When did Bruce Power start to look at Alberta to develop nuclear power and why?
A: We have been looking across Canada for a while. Previously, we looked at New Brunswick and now we see Alberta as a growing market. Along with an (anticipated) big surge in demand for power in the province, issues related to climate change are also cropping up. A major solution could be nuclear power.


Q: What is the genesis of the agreement with Energy Alberta and how did it all start?
A: Energy Alberta took the first step of starting a debate about nuclear power in the province. They found a community and also a site location. Put simply, they created an environment. However, they realized that they could progress to only a certain stage. They had either to look for an operator and partner on the proposed development or sell it. With our capabilities, Bruce Power saw an opportunity to be both an operator and an investor. We have our own experience and the strategy we plan to pursue will be different.


Q: What are the next steps and what are challenges you are likely to face?
A: We still see the need to educate the public in Alberta and especially the community in the Peace River Valley. Our next steps will be to educate and engage and also file a formal environment impact application. At the same time, we will also need to work on the project description. We hope to complete these by early 2008. As for challenges, I would rather term it as activities. The work we need to do will range from project economics, site suitability and several related issues. There is a great potential at the site.


Q: Energy Alberta has said it will cost $6.2 billion to install 2,200-megawatt capacity. Are you going to take a fresh look at the cost and capacity?
A: I am aware there is a budget number out there, but we will have to take a look at that. We will also have to review the (proposed) capacity. Our aim will be to determine a right size and how much the market can take.


Q: Are you expecting resistance or co-operation from the community in Peace River?
A: At this stage, I see a lot of interest and also a lot of questions. Our expectation is that some of the answers we give to the questions will generate greater support. I do not expect unanimous support from the community.


Q: What kind of help would you expect from the provincial government and what are the messages that are coming through from Edmonton?
A: We haven't engaged the provincial government as yet. The government is open-minded and will support our initiative. There is an understanding that Edmonton will play its role.


Q: Why did you buy in your way through to enter the province, when you could have done it on your own?
A: It was all about time. If we had to start from scratch, it would take six to nine months to create a base. With the deal, we stepped onto a platform.


Q: What does Alberta as a province have to learn from Ontario, which has had nuclear power for over 30 years now?
A: The operational performance of nuclear reactors and good safety performance record in Ontario should reassure people. At this point, nuclear power accounts for 30 per cent of Ontario's total power needs and this should instill confidence in users.


Q: One of the new things you are looking at is converting electricity during off peak hours into hydrogen. What precisely do you mean by it and what will be the benefits?
A: We will use the excess capacity to produce hydrogen. It could be used to fuel hydrogen vehicles and in Alberta it will find applications in the oilsands industry. Our aim will be develop something beyond just power.


Q: Who will be the potential customers from your Peace River plant?
A: Identifying customers is part of our fact-finding mission. There are some who need hydrogen, some who need power and some who may need both. We will do an analysis of the market. At this stage I am not concerned that I do not have a customer, as I do not have a product as yet.


adutta@theherald.canwest.com

© The Calgary Herald 2007

[CanadianCentaur]

I'm not surprised that the prospect of having nuclear power plants would be so exciting to people in Peace River and Whitecourt. Both these towns have relied to a large degree on forestry as an economic mainstay, because look at how much the forestry industry's tanking in BC now. Not to mention how stagnant PR's been in growth compared to some other communities in the Peace Region.

I'd imagine that they'd have very, very strict regulations on nuclear power plant maintenance, probably far stricter than, say, coal power plants. Otherwise Canada might have had a nuclear accident similar to Three Mile Island or Chernobyl (that fortunately is extremely rare, but then again, the Russians weren't quite so as careful as their Western counterparts - there was also probably a major nuclear accident maybe even worse than Chernobyl in the late 1950s in western Siberia), years ago.

I do have some misgivings myself about nuclear energy, but not a whole lot. I only hope that they keep maintenance standards high enough that we never, ever have to see anything go seriously wrong.

[Boris2k7]

Now HERE we have a REAAAL stretch. Nuclear reactors = Nuclear weapons! :laugh:

Nuclear power called 'too risky'
Expert opposes reactors, citing high cost, waste
Dina O'Meara, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Nuclear energy appears to offer an appealing alternative to a world caught between meeting an ever-increasing demand for power and acknowledging the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuel.

Recent interest in building two nuclear reactors in northwestern Alberta has heated up the issue across the province.

Supporters point toward nuclear power stations generating huge amounts of power with a minimum amount of carbon dioxide emissions, one of the culprits blamed for accelerated climate change.

But Dr. Gordon Edwards, a physicist and mathematics professor at Montreal's Vanier College, disputes nuclear's claim of clean energy, and has been doing so for more than 30 years.

Since founding the Canadian Coalition of Nuclear Responsibility in 1975, Edwards has become one of Canada's foremost nuclear critics. He has worked as a consultant with the auditor general of Canada, the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, and the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs, Sitting Task Force for Radioactive Waste.

In an editorial board meeting with the Herald, Edwards argued nuclear energy is toxic from the front end of uranium mining, to the last chapter of disposal of nuclear waste, and added there hasn't been a cost-effective nuclear power station ever built in Canada.

Most importantly for the grandfather of eight, any increase in nuclear reactors increases the amount of weapons-grade plutonium and the possibility of nuclear terrorism. The following presents his views on nuclear power.

Q: With climate change at the forefront of a concerned public's agenda, what is your main concern about nuclear power today?

A: I think we've got to get off these habitual hobby horses we've been on. It turns out that fossil fuels are very damaging to the Earth's environment as we know through global warming, and that's a very serious problem.

But nuclear power also poses a very special threat to the human race because of the spread of nuclear weapons, and unfortunately they are inseparable. The reason they are inseparable is because the only two fuels for nuclear reactors are enriched uranium -- they are now doing away with the natural uranium -- or plutonium. Both of those are the key elements of atomic bombs.

Inevitably, as you spread nuclear power, you spread the capability of making these atomic bombs, and they are going to be made. That's my number one objection to nuclear power.

Q: But organizations like the Canadian Nuclear Association have argued the plutonium used in CANDU reactors isn't weapons-grade.

A: That is based on a misunderstanding of plutonium 240, and it's a very dangerous myth. The problem is plutonium 239 is what's called weapons-grade plutonium. When you leave the fuel in the reactor for a long time, you get an ingrowth of up to 40 per cent of plutonium 240, and the industry thinks that material is not suitable for bombs.
The misunderstanding is based on the fact that if you had your druthers between pure plutonium 239 or plutonium 239 with a mixture of plutonium 240, you'd rather go for the pure. That's a matter of preference rather than a matter of impossibility, and saying that it is unsuitable for weapons is extremely dangerous.

Q: You mentioned how refurbishment costs for Ontario Hydro's Pickering nuclear power stations more than tripled from original estimates of $800 million for four reactors to around $2.5 billion for two units because of safety and maintenance problems. What kind of cost issues do you see for Alberta?

A: This is really an important consideration for Albertans -- what is the ultimate cost of this? If you are going to be building nuclear reactors, you're going to be committing a certain portion of Alberta being a nuclear waste dump because nobody else will likely take the waste.

Dealing with nuclear waste is a provincial issue, not a federal one. That means (the province) would have to spend a lot of money on things like security, monitoring and develop expertise within the government to be able to deal with the radiation contamination problems after the plant is finished its useful lifetime.

Consequently, one of the considerations the government of Alberta has to have is that this is not just business as usual. You have to look ahead and say that the siting of the plant is probably going to be where the waste is going to be, too. And, therefore, you have to qualify it for not only a nuclear reactor, but for siting a radioactive waste dump.

Q: Have there been studies that compare nuclear power costs to other generation, such as coal or natural gas?

A: It's the only energy technology which has a high capital cost at both ends. That is, it has a very high capital cost to build the plant to begin with and then a very high capital cost at the end to dismantle it. And we don't know how much it's going to cost to dismantle one.

Every significant study that I have looked at says nuclear is a marginal contributor to energy sources. The one that's really substantial is energy conservation and energy efficiency and renewables. That's what really makes big inroads. Nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and, I think, ultimately too risky.

Q: What is your message to Albertans who are watching the push for nuclear power grow in the province?

A: My message is 'don't just listen to the salesman.' Listen to people who have had experience with the industry, check everybody's claims, don't take anybody's word for granted -- don't take my word for granted, don't take the industry's word for granted.

I think Albertans should be concerned about having a white elephant. Not only a white elephant, but a dangerous and expensive white elephant. Nobody has been able to identify a concrete customer for these nuclear reactors. I believe what's happening here is that a desperate industry is trying to stampede Albertans into building reactors because what the main object here is to sell reactors, not to solve energy problems.

domeara@theherald.canwest.com

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

^ Haha

Economics go out the window as a public consideration since a private firm is building it.

Waste isn't an issue unless you oppose putting the stuff in the ground in the Canadian shield as is the currently plan (which is fully funded by the nuclear operators)

Weapons could be seen as an issue, but really? The best way to get rid of the stockpile of weapons grade materials is to use it as fuel in reactors, rendering it exceedingly difficult and expensive to retrieve the 'weapon' bits.

"Every significant study that I have looked at says nuclear is a marginal contributor to energy sources. " - and I wonder if France would agree with you?

[freeweed]

Boris, you're just trying to help the terrorists win. :jester:

[noodlenoodle]

Why are the emissions & byproducts for nuclear power a provincial responsibility, while the emissions and byproducts for other non-renewable methods of power generation fall to the operators? Would the cost benefits of nuclear power be present if they were responsible for their own actions and cleaning up their own mess?

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Why are the emissions & byproducts for nuclear power a provincial responsibility, while the emissions and byproducts for other non-renewable methods of power generation fall to the operators? Would the cost benefits of nuclear power be present if they were responsible for their own actions and cleaning up their own mess?

No regular emission or byproduct of a nuclear power plant is government responsibility. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is a company run by a consortium of all the nuclear operators in the country (AECL, Ontario Hydro, Hydro Quebec, NB Hydro). The NWMO under the authority of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act is charged with finding a long term solution for waste. The NWMO is funded by industry funds that total around $3.3 billion dollars.

They are responsible for everything except the cost of a major accident, which is insured by the federal government. Hydro dams similarly are insured by the federal or provincial governments against catastrophic accidents.

[noodlenoodle]

NB Hydro, Quebec Hydro, Ontario Power Generation and AECL are all Crown corporations though, so that $3.3 billion in "industry" funds is $3.3 billion in Crown funds.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

NB Hydro, Quebec Hydro, Ontario Power Generation and AECL are all Crown corporations though, so that $3.3 billion in "industry" funds is $3.3 billion in Crown funds.
These funds are not generated through taxation, so it isn't 't taxpayers or 'provincial responsibility'.

In Alberta, any reactors built would not be owned by any government, so this argument is moot anyways.

[graupner]

That is so depressive, build nuclear reactors to produce oil!!

These reactors could be used to supply electric cars with energy. What a total waste of ressources and money.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

That is so depressive, build nuclear reactors to produce oil!!

These reactors could be used to supply electric cars with energy. What a total waste of ressources and money.

We do not know what these reactors will supply power for. They will put power onto Alberta's grid, which is a market based system where people can use the power they buy for whatever they want.

Both Enmax and Epcor right now are planning new coal power plants, perhaps this is why Areva and Bruce think there is the market to supply at least 4 reactors. The 'un-named customers' could be for all we know us, sitting at our computers which I would be happy with aswell.

Anything that will help reduce the province's GHG emissions is good.

The oil is going to be produced, the question is what methods are used to produce it. If you don't like oil I challenge you to stop using plastics!

Whether the nuclear power goes to run the computers, offices, and light the homes in Calgary and Edmonton of the project engineers, or goes to replace replace natural gas doesn't really matter much.

[noodlenoodle]

I don't think ENMAX would be getting into coal at this stage of the game. They've got no internal experience running baseload generation. All of their current generation is run-of-river hydro and wind.

TransAlta and EPCOR are building a plant as we speak, and EPCOR is working on gasification for the next generation of coal facilities @ Genesee As it stands, however, Genesee 3 and Keephills 4 are both supercritical coal plants. Dodds-Roundhill will perhaps be the first coal gasification plant to come online, but the power output would not be for general grid use, but for the creation of hydrogen for industrial purposes.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

I don't think ENMAX would be getting into coal at this stage of the game. They've got no internal experience running baseload generation. All of their current generation is run-of-river hydro and wind.

TransAlta and EPCOR are building a plant as we speak, and EPCOR is working on gasification for the next generation of coal facilities @ Genesee As it stands, however, Genesee 3 and Keephills 4 are both supercritical coal plants. Dodds-Roundhill will perhaps be the first coal gasification plant to come online, but the power output would not be for general grid use, but for the creation of hydrogen for industrial purposes.

ENMAX announces 1200 MW Power Station

For Immediate Release
Calgary
19 Apr 2007
ENMAX Energy today announced its intention to build a major generation plant in southern Alberta to serve its growing customer base. The new power plant will provide enough electricity for about two thirds of Calgary’s requirements. It will be using the best available gas technology and would produce 50% less CO2 than current coal plants.

In a statement released today, Gary Holden, CEO of ENMAX Energy said:

“We need to secure lower cost sources of new electricity for our EasyMax customers when they come to renew their contracts. We have a responsibility to continue to seek the best overall resources for our customer base.

Our vision is that our customers will have access to state-of-the-art, environmentally sensitive generation across the province that will optimize existing infrastructure.This plant will become the template for future plants in Alberta because it is cleaner and can be located closer to customers.

Alberta will need additional capacity of up to 3,800 MWs during the next 10 years and ENMAX is hopeful that most of it will be either wind, hydro or clean burning fuel situated close to the customer, such as this plant.

The first phase of the plant can be built within three years, subject to finalizing construction contracts and regulatory matters. Fortunately this technology can be built quickly as most of the equipment is off-the-shelf. Location for the plant is confidential as alternatives are currently being evaluated.

This project will present solutions to several existing Alberta system issues:

1. It will help firm up the southern transmission grid, which will contribute greatly to the development of additional wind farms, by assisting in overcoming the challenge of intermittent production.

2. It will open the door for greater export capacity and more wind generation overall.

3. It will have a dramatic impact in reducing electricity line losses, bringing benefits to all Albertans.

4. It will go a long way to meeting the Province’s CO2 intensity targets for the electricity sector.

Our long term plan is to have 100% of our customers’ needs matched by renewable energy, cogeneration or the best available clean coal or gas technology by the time current power purchase agreements are terminated. This project is a very important step in that direction.

In light of this announcement and in view of the ongoing proceedings in the proposed 500kv line between Edmonton and Calgary, we want to take this opportunity to clarify our position with respect to the 500 kV line. We agree the line will enhance system reliability and its development is consistent with the requirements of the Transmission Regulation. We are therefore fully supportive of the 500kv facility currently under review, and recognize the need for its construction. We will be very happy to see this plant and the North-South transmission line working together for system security in the Southern part of Alberta."

ENMAX Energy Corporation, a subsidiary of ENMAX Corporation, is Alberta’s leading competitive electricity retailer. In addition to electricity, ENMAX Energy provides natural gas, renewable energy and value-added services to residential, commercial and industrial customers throughout Alberta. ENMAX Energy contracts low-cost reliable electricity from the Keephills and Battle River coal-fired plants and meets peak demand through a long term agreement with the natural gas fired Calgary Energy Centre. Through a subsidiary, it is one of Alberta’s largest investors in renewable energy with 50 per cent ownership of the McBride Lake Wind Farm and 100 per cent ownership of the Taber Wind Farm. ENMAX Energy has the largest green power marketing program of its kind in Canada and in 2006, received the Consumer Champion Award for its ground-breaking EasyMaxTM program. For more information, visit our website at enmaxenergy.com.

You can choose any retailer listed at www.ucahelps.gov.ab.ca or at 310-4822. Electricity delivery to your home or business isn't affected by your choice of retailer.

- 30 -

For more information, contact
Peter Hunt
VP, Public Affairs
ENMAX
689-6150

ENMAX 1200 MW Plant Proceeds with Site and Technology Evaluation

For Immediate Release
Calgary
31 May 2007
ENMAX Corporation is pleased to announce that Hatch/Sargent & Lundy (HSL) have been appointed to complete the preliminary engineering phase for ENMAX’s 1200MW Power Plant.

“We intend to conclude this important phase by the end of this year”, commented ENMAX President and CEO Gary Holden. “We need to ensure that our selected site and chosen generation equipment follow a rigorous series of evaluations to assure that we realize the most effective economic and environmental solution. We are confident that HSL brings the level of experience and resources that a project this size will demand and we look forward to working closely with their team”.

The agreement, signed May 23, 2007, assigns responsibility for evaluating site and technology options for the power plant. This work will enable a move towards the engineering and environmental permitting phase. The plant is expected to be on-line in the latter half of 2010 and is expected to have an engineering and construction period of 30 to 36 months.

HSL represents a strategic alliance of two highly respected consulting engineering and project management firms with special expertise in the energy industry, who have joined forces in a strategic alliance to work with ENMAX on this project.

ENMAX Corporation and its predecessors have provided Albertans with safe and reliable electricity for 100 years. ENMAX provides electricity, natural gas, renewable energy and value-added services to more than 500,000 residential, commercial and industrial customer accounts in Alberta through its subsidiary companies. ENMAX Energy contracts low-cost reliable electricity from the Keephills and Battle River coal-fired plants and meets peak demand through a long term agreement with the natural gas fired Calgary Energy Centre. Through a subsidiary, it is one of Alberta’s largest investors in renewable energy with 50 per cent ownership of the McBride Lake Wind Farm and 100 per cent ownership of the Taber Wind Farm. ENMAX Energy has the largest green power marketing program of its kind in Canada and in 2006, received the Consumer Champion Award for its ground-breaking EasyMax® program. For more information, visit our website at enmax.com.

- 30 -

For more information, contact
Peter Hunt
VP, Public Affairs
ENMAX Corporation
689-6150

During the run up to the municipal election I called Enmax and played phone tag with the press office for awhile. At that time, the press officer told be that 'best available gas technology' was some kind of clean coal process they were investigating.

We tried to make it an issue during the election since Bronconnier had promised to consult Calgarians about the future of Enmax, and any changes to its business model. He even claimed that he made Enmax more accountable in his election brochure. The press didn't bite.

Also note the electricity consumption forecasts. Even without using nuclear for oilsands the province could absorb four reactors.

[Boris2k7]

Minister defends firing of nuclear safety boss
Lunn cites 'lack of leadership'
Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, January 17, 2008

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn is defending his decision to fire Linda Keen, the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, blaming her for provoking an international medical crisis that could have meant "life or death" for thousands of patients waiting for essential treatment and procedures.

The embattled cabinet minister made the comments on Wednesday morning in front of members of Parliament who summoned him to a special hearing to explain his actions that led to a partisan battle and emergency legislation last month over restarting a nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ont., near Ottawa.

"The manner in which the president exercised her executive role, in particular her lack of leadership during the extended shutdown of the NRU reactor at Chalk River, does not meet the very high standards of conduct that the government and Canadians expect from public office holders who are responsible for the executive management of institutions charged with safeguarding the health and safety of all Canadians," Lunn said, reading from a prepared statement.

Keen was fired late Tuesday night as president, although she remains a full-time commission member.

The firing follows a month of increasingly bitter and politicized rancour between Canada's nuclear watchdog and the country's primary nuclear operator, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

The government has named Michael Binder, currently an assistant deputy minister within the Department of Industry, as interim president of the nuclear safety commission.

The Harper government directly blamed Keen for unnecessarily imposing November's closing of the Chalk River nuclear reactor and the resulting domestic shortage of life-saving medical isotopes for cancer and cardiac diagnosis and other treatment.

[Boris2k7]

Documents show history of problems
Managerial and systemic 'deficiencies' at AECL go back more than a decade, say Auditor-General's reports

JESSICA LEEDER
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 17, 2008 at 4:15 AM EST

Canada's Auditor-General repeatedly raised red flags over internal management issues at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. under previous Liberal governments, according to newly released documents.

The reports, made public for the first time yesterday, were generated by the auditor's special examinations of the nuclear facility in 1998 and 2002. They show that a cluster of systemic "deficiencies" have plagued AECL for more than a decade - a time span during which both the Liberals and Conservatives were in office.

The release of the two audits came nearly a week after AECL bowed to pressure from the opposition Liberals, who began demanding the corporation publicize the Auditor-General's 2007 special examination report after the company caused an international uproar by unexpectedly shutting down one of its nuclear reactors due to safety concerns.

The shutdown, at the company's Chalk River, Ont., site, began in late November when Canada's independent nuclear regulator deemed it vulnerable to earthquakes. The stoppage lasted about four weeks - it ended when Parliament passed legislation overruling the regulator, ordering the restart of the reactor - and resulted in a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes (the Chalk River facility is one of the world's leading producers of isotopes used for therapy and diagnosis of several diseases).

Dale Coffin, a spokesman for Mississauga-based AECL, said yesterday the company decided to release the new audits because "it was felt that it was necessary to add context to the 2007 Auditor-General reports."

"It obviously has become a focus of attention," he said. But Mr. Coffin warned against reading too much into the reports.

"A special examination is a snapshot in time," he said. "It's what's going on that year."

Still, both reports hint that the corporation has had years of difficult dealings with the government, which by law is required to approve AECL's annual corporate plans. The 1998 report flags the fact that, for unspecified reasons, AECL did not have a corporate plan approved for at least three years.

"The lack of government approval of a Corporate Plan for three years is extraordinary," the report said. It describes AECL's relationship with government officials as "contentious" and said that "makes it difficult for the Corporation to plan and manage its affairs over the long term."

In the 2002 report, federal officials are quoted as saying AECL officials were perceived to be "reactive" or "defensive."

The 1998 report also forecast troubles with the aging Chalk River reactor, which at the time required the company to set aside least $10-million a year for refurbishments. Much of that went to cover "urgent work, such as safety issues, and matters that could interrupt business operations," the report said, adding, "Significant deferred maintenance remains."

At the time, Liberal MP Ralph Goodale was responsible for overseeing AECL as minister of natural resources. The Auditor-General's report said a copy of the document was delivered to the minister's office for review. However, it is unclear whether Mr. Goodale made any attempts to improve relations with AECL or aid in its long-term planning problems.

Yesterday, a spokesman for Mr. Goodale said he declined to comment on the issue "for the simple reason that this goes back 10 years," the spokesman said. "He doesn't remember."

[Boris2k7]

TransCanada considers nuclear plant for Alberta
Company says project at least five years away
Shaun Polczer, Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008

TransCanada Corp. would consider building a nuclear power plant in Alberta, but the company's chief executive said it wouldn't happen any time soon.

Building a nuclear power plant in the province "would rank very high in terms of interest," Hal Kvisle said Tuesday.

"But it wouldn't rank particularly high in terms of going ahead within five years."

Kvisle said the Alberta electricity market is too small and needs to be connected to more "liquid" outlets such as the United States before TransCanada would consider building a nuclear facility.

"It's more than five years out," he added.

Meanwhile, TransCanada credited better pipeline earnings and lower taxes for higher fourth-quarter profits.

The company said it made $377 million, or 70 cents a share, an increase of 27 per cent on a per share basis compared with 2006. Canadian tax changes added about $56 million to the total.

Full-year earnings topped $1.1 billion, or $2.09 per share, compared with $925 million, or $1.90 per share, in 2006.

The strong result prompted the company to increase its dividend by six per cent to 36 cents a share.

TransCanada, which is known primarily for its natural gas transportation and distribution, operates the longest natural gas pipeline in the world.

It is also involved in electricity generation and is currently spearheading the Bruce nuclear power refurbishment in Ontario.

On Tuesday, the company hiked its estimate for completing the project to $3 billion from $2.75 billion and warned there could be more cost overruns to come.

In addition, TransCanada said Bruce earnings were lower than expected, offsetting gains in its other business segments.

Daniel Shteyn, an infrastructure analyst with Desjardins Securities in Montreal, said TransCanada's Bruce troubles overshadowed what was otherwise a blowout quarter.

"The one dark cloud is what's happened at Bruce, that's an area of worry," he said in an interview. "Otherwise, their other businesses are solid. TransCanada delivered, and I think that counts for something."

TransCanada is pushing ahead with an ambitious slate of capital projects that include the Keystone heavy oil pipeline to the United States and in November submitted an application to build the Alaska pipeline.

Kvisle said the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline to the Beaufort Sea remains bogged down in at least 12 to 15 months of regulatory red tape.

Discussions with producers, aboriginal groups and the federal government on fiscal terms for the project are continuing, he added.

"We're working to break the log-jam," he said. "We'd be interested in seeing some kind of breakthrough within the next six months."

TransCanada shares gained 88 cents on the Toronto Stock Exchange Tuesday to close at $38.88 on brisk volume of 1.4 million units. The stock is within striking distance of it 52-week high-water mark of $40.97.

spolczer@theherald.canwest.com

[Deepstar]

That is so depressive, build nuclear reactors to produce oil!!

These reactors could be used to supply electric cars with energy. What a total waste of ressources and money.

It's not going to be used just to produce oil. Electricity, as you know can be used for a multitude of purposes.

[Boris2k7]

Pressure builds for nuclear Alberta
Charles Frank, Calgary Herald
Published: Saturday, February 02, 2008

I felt like I should be humming Feist's catchy little ditty 1234 after hearing TransCanada Corp. chief executive Hal Kvisle say his company is thinking about building a nuclear power plant in Alberta.

Who'll be next?

So far we've got French nuclear giant Areva, Ontario energy colossus Bruce Power and now pipeliner extraordinaire TransCanada all musing about nuclear power becoming a reality in our province.

TransCanada is, of course, already knee deep in the nuclear business, thanks to its investment interest in Bruce Power's Ontario operations, so really we shouldn't be surprised that Kvisle sees us as a nuclear destination -- albeit not for at least five years.

If you're wondering, we've got local entrepreneur Wayne Henuset to thank for all this.

He got the ball rolling last year by shocking Albertans with the announcement that his closely held company,

Energy Alberta, was intent on building not one but two nuclear power plants in northern Alberta in conjunction with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Almost as surprising was the relatively warm reception accorded the proposal by Peace River area residents and elected officials, who were anything but nonplussed at the thought of nuclear-powered generators whirring away in their backyard.

In fact, the prospect of more full-time jobs, not to mention years of construction work, had much of the region's populace in an expansive -- and welcoming -- mood for much of last summer.

Obviously, not everyone is onside -- in the Peace, or elsewhere in the province. And I've already had more than a few e-mails from concerned citizens. Few issues are environmentally, politically and emotionally more divisive than nuclear energy.

And if you thought all the commotion during the EUB hearings into building a new north-south power line was something else, brace yourself. The nuclear debate is going to make that commotion look like a playground squabble.

Which is one of the reasons it will be a long, long way from talking about building a nuclear plant in our province to winning a permit, to breaking ground.

That said, the initial reception given the idea was unequivocally warmer than most of us would have imagined.

Ironically, after laying the groundwork, Henuset and partner Hank Swartout sold their interests to Bruce Power, the country's biggest provider of nuclear energy and a company, it turns out, that had been eyeing a foray into the Alberta market for some time.

Not to be outdone, Areva Canada president Armand Laferrere made a whirlwind trip to the province to let Albertans know his company -- the world's biggest provider of nuclear plants -- would be more than interested in bringing us into the nuclear age.

Again, interest in what Laferrere had to say was palpable.

Clearly, Henuset and Swartout saw something the rest of us didn't because corporate heavyweights such as Areva, Bruce and TransCanada aren't given to wasting their time -- or money -- on projects that aren't going to pan out.

(OK, perhaps that's true for Areva and Bruce. TransCanada, as we all know, continues to believe it can make both the Alaska pipeline and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline projects into something more than northern pipe dreams. But that's a topic for another day.)

Just where the Alberta government stands on this issue remains a little fuzzy. Former premier Ralph Klein spoke for a lot of people when he soundly dismissed the idea when it was first broached. Now with the province on the verge of an election, getting the current Tories' position on nuclear power might prove especially illuminating.

As for the feds, Energy Minister Gary Lunn is on record as backing the proliferation of nuclear power as a way of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions -- although at the end of the day, his sentiments will have little impact over whether we here in Alberta go nuclear.

What it all comes down to is, like it or not, we continue to inch toward a showdown over nuclear power.

This isn't the first time we've made that observation.

But with development of the province's oilsands showing no signs of abating (Suncor gave the green light to a $20-billion expansion this week, all but signalling it will be business as usual at the oilsands, in spite of the provincial government's ham-handed efforts to overhaul royalty rates) and federal interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the uptick, there is little doubt that the pressure to go nuclear will continue to build.

cfrank@theherald.canwest.com