TAR SANDS: This sprawling oil enterprise in northern Alberta employs nearly 400-ton trucks the size of a two-story home to carry 400 tons worth of pay dirt carved out of the earth by electric-powered bucket shovels the size of a two-car garage.
Image: Courtesy of Suncor
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
How to Turn Tar Sands into Oil [Slide Show]
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
FORT MCMURRAY, Alberta—Where does the U.S. get the bulk of the imported petroleum to support its oil addiction? Contrary to popular belief, it's not Saudi Arabia—it's Canada, which supplies the U.S. with more than two million barrels of oil per day, or more than a quarter of all its imported oil. And more than half of that output comes from bitumen melted out of the buried sands of northeastern Alberta—a sprawling deposit of extra-heavy oil underlying more than 142,000 square kilometers, or an area roughly the size of Florida.
This Canadian province—only slightly smaller than Texas—exported more than $52 billion worth of crude oil in 2011 because it's "one of the few places in the world where you can actually mine oil," notes Cameron Brown, director of advocacy at the Alberta Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations.
View a slide show of the oil sands process.
If oil is the "devil's excrement" as a Venezuelan oil minister once complained, then bitumen is the worst of it. Bitumen is essentially tar, hence the appellation tar sands, and it requires roughly 12 barrels of water to separate one barrel of it from the sand, although only three of those barrels are consumed, thanks to recycling. That water also has to be hot to separate the clingy hydrocarbon—at least 50 degrees Celsius, which requires burning natural gas to heat it.
Even then, the mined bitumen is too tarry to flow, so it is chemically manipulated further with heat and pressure in a process known as "upgrading" to become yellowish crude oil, diesel, jet fuel or other typical hydrocarbon products. Or it is diluted with light hydrocarbon liquids to become pitch-black "dilbit" (for "diluted bitumen"), capable of traveling via pipeline to the U.S. This kind of extra-heavy crude oil from sandy deposits is not commercially developed anywhere else in the world, although other countries such as Venezuela, Russia and even the U.S. have similar resources.
And that's just for the tar sands close enough to the surface—no more than 80 meters deep—to be mined. For deeper deposits, volumes of superhot pressurized steam are pumped underground to melt out the bitumen so it can be sucked up to the surface by production wells running in parallel. Such so-called in situ production requires less water but far more energy to get the bitumen flowing, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions some 2.5 times higher than those from mining. Thus far, the majority of bitumen production has been via mining but, this year, in situ surpassed it as the primary production method—a trend likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
As it stands, oil sands projects either under construction or already approved will raise production above five million barrels per day, including ExxonMobil's Kearl Lake project, expected to start mining oil in 2013. "We have environmental impacts now, and these impacts are about to get a lot bigger," notes oil sands policy analyst Marc Huot of the Pembina Institute, an environmental group working for responsible development.
The biggest environmental impact may be all the energy required to extract the oil from the tar sands—the burning of the resulting fuels in vehicles notwithstanding. Some scientists, such as NASA climatologist James Hansen, are convinced that using such resources—he calls them "the dirty needle" of an oil addict—will mean "game-over for climate change." Oil sands are among the most greenhouse gas–intensive forms of petroleum to produce. "Things that don't make sense from a planetary perspective are being actively encouraged," Hansen notes. "As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest fuel we will burn them and not solve the problem."
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add CommentPembina Institute..Ha! Ha! Here in Alberta they are the equivalent of whackos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSci Am would gain credibility if they actually had so,e writers who were journalists.
Lonely troll. Appeal to spite or abusive fallacy. Good article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...it requires roughly 12 barrels of water to separate one barrel of it from the sand, although only three of those barrels are consumed, thanks to recycling."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease explain how H2O is "consumed". Evaporated H2O is not consumed! It merely enters the hydraulic cycle to fall as rain elsewhere. Maybe your very own tomato patch or perhaps the water reservoir, where you drink from. Water is almost never consumed unless broken into it's constituents H+O, through electrolysis or radiolysis (intense gamma irradiation will do it). A little actual science would be nice. GK
This environmental disaster is entirely the work of the greenies, achieved by demonising nuclear power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScienceproofreader- The quote from the Pembina Institute is that there is already an environmental impact, and it will be worse as production increases. How is that whacko? You can't deny there is an impact on the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarst- The water is consumed in the sense that fresh liquid water is used up. Water pumped from the ground for crops in the dessert isn't "consumed" either, but it is still a finite resource if you use it faster than it comes in. They aren't using consumed to mean broken down, but instead to mean no longer usable for other purposes.
"...but instead to mean no longer usable for other purposes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisH2O in the atmosphere is as useful as anywhere else. How do you think water is able to lift itself, to fill dam reservoirs, water crops, refill ground reservoirs. Surely you can understand that water is useful in all it's phases.
There is one way water becomes useless. When it precipitates out at the poles, where it can remain locked away, from the biosphere. Then it is no longer as useful. GK
"There is one way water becomes useless." ... contamination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This environmental disaster is entirely the work of the greenies, achieved by demonising nuclear power."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever helps you sleep at night.
"Consumed" may have been an inappropriate term, but we all, including you, know what the reference represented. You should spend more time attempting to refute AGW (which you have not been able to do in the past), and less time refuting grammar and choices of terminology. We all see you for what you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is one way water becomes useless." ... contamination."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimply FALSE! Put that contaminated water through the evaporation/rain process and it once again becomes sweet, clean, life giving.
If you can't wait for that... then put the contaminated water through a sand filter, mixed resin bed, then return the purified water to the environment. That is what applied science is all about. It's called "water treatment". Such water is purer than anything found in nature. Look it up! GK
GK:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are arguing about the wrong subject.
http://www.ted.com/talks/garth_lenz_images_of_beauty_and_devastation.html
Karst mead up on the tar sands tailings ponds. 50+ square miles of toxic water rife with heavy metals and a bevy of other nasty materials from the oil mining process. It's a growing problem that has no solution as of yet. lots of talk, but no technologies that have been shown to be able to make a dent in the mess. Here are some visuals:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.google.com/search?q=tar+sands+tailing+ponds&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hqzGUOOdBoLkqQHN94DACQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=768&bih=928
Absolutely correct. Even with the production of products from the tar sands, if nuclear power was used instead of burning fossil fuel for refining, there would be much less CO2 released per barrel refined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd nuclear steam for extraction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCanada's U of Ottawa Professor David LeBlanc has been trying to sell Big Oil on the value of a his DMSR nuke (thorium) reactor to provide steam at a fraction of the cost and environmental damage of natural gas in effect Nuking the Tar Sands.
With a paltry $two billion in investment diverted from the stupid fascists $10B's in wacky way out there never never land ethanol and carbon capture nonsense, within 5 years these machines would be Canada's major energy and industrial export. Canada's Supreme Leader for Life - Derharpenfuhrer having given in to his fascist stupidities and his Big Oil benefactors and destroyed Canada's AECL, maybe somebody who speaks fascist could maybe persuade the one or two members of Canada Fascist Party that can think or heaven forbid Big Oil itself into diverting a few resources that way.
Google "David LeBlanc - Molten Salt Reactor Designs, Options & Outlook"
His views or similar will likely prevail in the end. We can only condemn those who prevent proper scientific proposals to languish while billions are spent on pixy dust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is one place in the world that doesn't have to worry about a shortage of water it is where the oil sands are located.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this12. Jmogs
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10:52 PM 12/10/12 writes..
.....Karst mead up on the tar sands tailings ponds. 50+ square miles of toxic water rife with heavy metals and a bevy of other nasty materials from the oil mining process. It's a growing problem that has no solution as of yet. lots of talk, but no technologies that have been shown to be able to make a dent in the mess. Here are some visuals:.....
Jmogs what you are talking about _is_ the solution. The sediments in the ponds are allowed to settle, the water removed and recycled into the oil sands processing, with the residue processed and the site further restored and reclaimed back to a condition that is indistinguishable from the surrounding environment.(except that it is now free of hydrocarbon pollution)
The oil sands are one big, multi billion dollar environmental remediation project with the proof of it being those tailing ponds which for some reason seem to bother you.
They aren't putting bad stuff _into_ the ground. They are removing contaminates that have been there leaching into the water table for ages.
Oh, and that horrendously large area of 50 square miles is located in the middle of roughly 2 million square miles of boreal forest.
Northernguy...what remediation is going on? The ponds are growing, not shrinking. Those are just big wastes lakes, visible from space and so oily/toxic that they drown waterfowl that land there. Don't try to imply they are anything more than blight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this14. sethdiyal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to Carlyle
12:53 PM 12/11/12
If you want to know why your ideas aren't practiced in Canada just look at the language in your post on the subject.
None of the political parties in Canada want an expansion of nuclear power. None of the governments do. None of the environmental groups do. None of the citizens associations do. No cities do if it means being located in their city. Ditto for any neighbourhood. The government of British Columbia hasn't allowed uranium to be mined for decades because of the reasonable concern that it would be used somehow in a nuclear (shudder!!) process. (eewwww)
When you call the governments that don't agree with you ignorant fascists who have been bought off by the oil industry you are in effect saying the same thing about the vast majority of Canadians who agree with them.
That hardly seems like a good way to try and convince them of the merits of your beliefs.
When the vbelt on my car starts going things don't work so well. To fix it I have to remove quite a few fixtures around the belt itself to get at it. While the repair process is going on the car is not a pretty sight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hood is up, the belt is removed and things generally look a mess. But that is the solution to the problem because once the job is completed things are better than before I started.
The tailing ponds _are_ the solution. They are the remediation process. Being against tailing ponds is like being against sewage treatment plants because it concentrates sewage in one area.
The ponds are increasing in total size because they are increasing in number as the oil sands projects increase. The early ponds have been restored to the previous bog condition without the oil pollution that was present before the project. As more projects are developed more and more of the area is being reclaimed by the tailing ponds.
Regarding the argument that the oil-sand mining operations (along with the 'benefits' of the tailings ponds) are actually cleaning up the water and are the solution, I have a question. How is releasing volatile compounds and heavy metals locked away in the crust onto the surface and into the atmosphere a good thing? How could one say that making a concentrated mixture of environmental pollutants more diffuse is a good thing, and is the solution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this21. bsebadger 10:01 AM 12/12/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswonders how disturbing otherwise stable concentrations of pollutants can be a good thing.
Your reference to contaminates being locked away in the crust is not an accurate description of the local environment.
The oil sands are by definition located in a peat bog. One consequence of this is that subsurface materials are mobile, moving back and forth between normal variations in moisture due to seasonal and annual changes in precipitation.
What we regard as pollutants will eventually leach into naturally forming temporary and permanent ponds, lakes, streams and rivers.
It is in the nature of peat bogs that over very long periods of time they will eventually catch fire, burning for months if not years. Of course this process will release all manner of bad stuff into the atmosphere.
There is a widely held belief that there are no conditions that occur in nature that societies' deem undesirable. This belief presumes that if there exists an environmental condition that is threatening then it _must_ be man made.
A subsidiary belief system involves the premise that Canadians can not or will not ensure that oil sands operations leave conditions no more disturbed or disturbing than before commencement of the process.
Of course there is the unstated assumption that the oil sands ventures are somehow putting stuff _into_ the ground rather than taking something out of it.
That is why posters such as
23. moss boss in reply to northernguy 10:21 PM 12/12/12
entire contribution to any discussion of such issues consists of writing "Your assumptions are profoundly idiotic."
Thank-you Northernguy, for your most excellent explanation of the tailings settling ponds specific to the oil sands project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFolks, I know the images projected by some of the less astute bloggers, of these ponds, can appear quite shocking, for those who have no industrial experience. However, as Northernguy has so elegantly explained, it is all part of the decontamination process.
Many people don't realize it, but if there is any large industrial process plants in your area, then you most likely, live next door to such settling ponds. They are hidden from view by earthen mounds or high fencing screens.
In fact, municipal sewage treatment, employ the exact same technology and methodology.
Contaminated water held in holding ponds undergoes natural separation due to density differences between various contaminates. The less dense oils float to the surface, where they are continuously skimmed off for recovery. Heavier, more dense contaminates settle to the bottom. When the pond is decanted this contaminated sludge is removed and safely recovered and treated. This is a good thing, but it looks like hell.
A small price to pay, for the liberation of America, from the dictates of the oil sheiks. Thank-you Canada. GK
This article leaves a lot to be desired since many side comments are incorrect. It subscribes to the idea that CO2 is the cause of current warming. It is an attractive hypothesis but no one has proven it and it is not robust. It remains to be proven and consensus is meaningless. Moreover the earth experiences warming and cooling cycles, a few every thousand year, without benefit of CO2 increase or decrease, and we may simply be in one of those cycles. The US in particular is blessed with oil and gas energy and fresh water which will sustain us for 100s of years, enough to remain the dominant nation on the Earth. China will have great troubles because it has minimal fossil fuel and fresh water. Canada will become stronger by virtue of its energy. Israel is now finding oil and natural gas and can make fresh water. We will continue to use fossil fuel and to produce more CO2 whether we like it or not. The goal should be to learn how to cool those parts of the Earth that want to be cooler by for example partially blocking incident sunlight in areas that want to be cooler. The term geoengineering will become more and more part of our vocabulary. If we are truly warming it will save us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if it is worth the long term investment of drilling into geothermal hot pockets for energy to help extract the oil from the sands. Too bad we aren't Iceland where the energy is readily available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe part of the Native American Cree Tribe of Canada that lives downstream from the Tar Sand mines is having a big increase in cancers and other diseases which they say is because of the toxic chemicals in the rivers they depend on flowing from the mining area. Once again the Native people get oppressed and nature destroyed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your explanation. I wasn't familiar with the way peat bogs behave, and will now look this up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am surprised that this idea of 'oil sands mining having a secondary role as a cleanup operation' has not been widely circulated or discussed. Or I simply haven't been in tune with the research.
Again, thank you for your patient explanation- it is incentive enough for me to research this topic for myself.
27. txbodhi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10:07 PM 12/13/12
writes about his concern that there are elevated levels of cancer in selected groups of Cree living in the area. This belief has been propagated by a General Practitioner who is a resident of Fort Chipewyan. He claims that there are unusually high numbers of a particular rare cancer which he attributes to what he believes are unusually high levels of various chemicals in the drinking water.
A study by Alberta Health Dept. Cancer unit, which was reviewed by an international panel including aboriginal appointees, found that the g.p.'s diagnoses were in error. They found a slightly higher level of the biliary cancer in question but nothing abnormal. The Cree like all aboriginal living on reserves have higher cancer rates as well as higher rates of diabetes and other lifestyle related illnesses.
The local doctor found 6 cases of the rare cancer where only two would be expected (the population in question is less than a thousand) triple the normal rate. The review found that only three were correct diagnoses, well within the rate for such a small sample. Even though the doctor is not a cancer specialist and is known to be opposed to the oil sands his report received wide publicity. The subsequent review, by specialists, which acknowledged problems with the health of the band in question but not in relation to the oil sands was ignored by the media.
Those aboriginals living within the area of operations of the oil sands and who accept the related work offered to them are making between one to two hundred thousand dollars a year. Status Indians in Canada do not pay income tax.
Some aboriginal groups have opted to retain a modified hunter gather economy where such efforts are supplemented by the federal government's provision of some of the accoutrements of modern life. Fort Chipewyan is one such group so passing through there one might view it as relatively impoverished and oppressed. And yet, jobs paying very well indeed are left untouched.
I admire their commitment to their (misguided) sense of their cultural heritage with what we would regard as the negative outcomes such a stance entails. I certainly don't feel guilty about it. I don't feel compelled to do anything about it except ensure that meaningful highly paid alternatives are available.
I don't get the sense of the article, it seems to hop from subject to subject - it is as if it had been shortened to make it fit the available space by SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOverall it seems to be well done, but I can see from the arguments it has elicited that it did have some gaps and it mostly fuels the pre-conceived slant a particular reader has evolved prior to reading the article.
I would suggest that articles like this focus more on a particular issue, for example, what's the CO2 emission per energy unit delivered to the consumer for coal versus mined tar sands? I realize this is a very difficult figure to compute (I've been engaged in doing so in the past, and there are lots of variables one can tweak to make the process more or less CO2 intensive).
Such an article could also focus on potential CO2 emissions reduction strategies, such as the use of integrated gasifiers to upgrade the crude.
Finally, I would advice other readers to understand this subject is so complex most journalists are not well prepared nor properly educated to understand the nuances. Even college professors are sometimes at a loss to understand the full cycle implications.
Regarding water use, it's true that most of this water use is somewhat debatable, but if water is withdrawn from an aquifer and/or river, and rendered so that it's not potable or useable for irrigation, then it's used. And this can be the result of mixing it with salt or other contaminants to such an extent that it has to be re-injected in the ground, or breaking up the water molecules to obtain hydrogen for the upgrading process (upgrading involves breaking up the heavy oil molecules and attaching hydrogen to the "pieces" to make a lighter, more hydrogen rich product).
I hope this helps.
Contrary to what northernguy claims, Nuclear is about as popular in Canada as the Tar Sands, generally about 50% popularity and contrary to what northernguy claims, locations that have Nuclear Power plants are MORE favorable to Nuclear power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven after the relentless Big Oil funded Fukushima Disinformation campaign, 86% of citizens who lived close to Nuclear power plants in the USA were favorable to the plants. And Ontario with by far the majority of Nuclear Power plants in Canada, has the highest popularity of Nuclear in Canada as well, 54%. That fact completely destroys northernguy's entire argument. And Ontarians have a 63% support of Nuclear refurbishments. Again proving that northernguy was just making crap up.
In fact, what I have found in many Canadian news sites, is that the general public is APATHETIC to Nuclear and could certainly be convinced to be pro-nuclear by a currently non-existent advertising and education campaign. This would be contrary to the current money-no-object $billion disinformation campaign being launched against Nuclear, with unlimited funding from Big Oil/NG, Oiligarchs and Plutocrats who consider Nuclear their #1 enemy. You have your staunch Greenie opponents of Nuclear but they are a small minority, most people if they discovered that Nuclear is the ONLY viable alternative to fossil fuels, in particular over-priced Oil, would happily embrace Nuclear energy.
Tar Sands bitumen production is opposed by two to one in Quebec, so according to northernguy it must immediately be stopped. And in the haven for fracking Ohio, 72% of citizens are opposed to it. According to northernguy, fracking would immediately be stopped there because public opinion is OVERWHELMINGLY against it. In Ontario, in rural areas where Wind Farms are being built, public opinion is not just against the Farms it is pure, unremitting hatred of the outrage of imposing Wind Farms on them. In spite of that, Ontario is on one of the biggest Wind Farm building binges on this planet. And totally useless form of energy on top of that. According to northernguy, they should be immediately shutdown, due to local opposition. Not happening.
So the fact is there would be no problem using Nuclear Process Heat, Nuclear Electricity and Nuclear Hydrogen to Green the Tar Sands, if politicians would resist the Big Oil dollars that are stuffed in their pockets to oppose Nuclear. And if Greenie groups were taxed on the Big Oil cash that they get funded for being anti-nuclear. And Nuclear is far cheaper than using the Carbon Capture SCAM.
How long do you envision that process? Some of those ponds are a half century old. Stockpiling waste is not a solution. Nor is it remediation. Even the industry doesn't claim that...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The part of the Native American Cree Tribe of Canada that lives downstream from the Tar Sand mines is having a big increase in cancers and other diseases which they say is because of the toxic chemicals in the rivers they depend on flowing from the mining area."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest problem currently affecting Canadian northern aboriginal peoples is gasoline and solvent sniffing (and alcohol consumption). Do you not suppose that this may impact on their health?? How does monitored drinking water compare in magnitude? GK
31. dwbd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this08:45 PM 12/15/12 writes
that nuclear power has approx. fifty per cent popular support in Canada and that it is especially supported in those areas that already have nuclear power. This is true or at least it was in 2009. However that is not the issue. What is relevant to this discussion is the likelihood that _new_ nuclear power plants are likely to built.
Those parts of the country with legacy nuclear power are unlikely to find popular support to shut their existing nuclear power sources at unbelievable expense and replace it at even more expense. But Ontario's future power generation is planned to come from natural gas plants and, as even dwbd himself points out,more than any other jurisdiction in the world, wind power.
As for Quebec's sympathies or lack thereof for the operation of the oil sands, the province simply has no financial, social, political or legal say in the matter. However they do claim to have a great say about the pipelines that traverse their province. And in that field they insist that they can force the pipeline operators to keep importing more expensive middle east oil rather than allow cheaper oil sands product to be delivered to the refineries in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. (They can't really do much about Ontario refineries but they can impact the economics of reversing the pipeline flow.)
As for governments over riding popular opposition Ontario's Premier is stepping down in large part because of widespread opposition to his energy policies.
Any nuclear power project that is approved in Canada will be based on the fifty year old Candu technology. Period. No other nuclear technology will be seriously considered. Period. Thus any proposal will have to go through decades of arguments about which is the superior technical approach and why competing technologies (and especially Candu) are seen as a disaster. There would be multiple advertising and education campaigns, of the type that dwbd wishes for, each one denouncing the alternative technical approach. In fact, I'm sure dwbd would be in the forefront berating one and all as paid shills, ignorant fools, or at best, apathetic, all with regard to their position on some nuclear methodology.
My original point in the previous post was that anyone who thinks that the way to relieve concerns about the oil sands development projects is to plunk a nuclear power plant down on top of them just doesn't understand the situation on the ground in northern Alberta.
"..unlikely to find popular support to shut their existing nuclear power sources at unbelievable expense and replace it at even more expense.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonsense. The decommissioning cost is already paid for and the expense of replacing them is much cheaper than NG and Wind. And they haven't had public support for their NG or Wind. In fact major opposition to both. Downrate public outrage over the Wind.
"..Ontario's future power generation is planned to come from natural gas plants.."
Nope. They are planning on building two new reactors at Darlington, and additional Hydro as well as Gas, Wind & Nuclear Refurbs.
"..[Quebec] simply has no..say.."
Yep, they do. They are the dominant member of the federation and have a strong say in what the Federal Gov't does. The Federal gov't is promoting, subsidizing & facilitating the Tar Sands development.
"..Any nuclear power project that is approved in Canada will be based on the fifty year old Candu technology.."
Wrong. Ontario has already asked for and considering bids from Areva (EPR) and Westinghouse (AP1000). ACANDU is off the table thanks to Harper. So the CANDU bid will be the GenIII EC6, which is modern tech. Your modern auto is based on 50yr old tech. So? The EC6 is updated to modern standards with a state-of-the-art controls system, etc. And New Brunswick was negotiating a deal to install an Areva EPR to export power to the USA. And the Gov't of Saskatchewan is working with David Leblanc, developing the DMSR - Small Modular Molten Salt Reactor - perfect for Tar Sands applications.
"..the way to relieve concerns about the oil sands development projects is to plunk a nuclear power plant.."
Dumb statement. The idea is to use Nuclear Power to:
1) Reduce Bitumen production GHG emissions to below that of conventional Oil production - International Sanctions thereupon averted
2) Improve the economics of InSitu steam production, making it much more economical than using expensive, and severely limited NG.
3) Reduce the cost of producing Bitumen by having much cheaper Nuclear Electricity, Process Heat & Steam than using NG or Coal, there will be a severe supply crunch for NG within 10-15yrs which could in itself destroy the Tar Sands development. Also Nuclear H2 may be cheaper than NG -> H2.
4) Cheaper Energy from Nuclear makes better wastewater treatment & recycling and land reclamation more economical. In the end enviromental remediation is a question of economics. By improving the economics Nuclear will reduce the environmental impact of the Tar Sands development.
Yes. I think that nuclear power is not really that bad. The problem seem to be bad operation of nuclear facilities
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this