twitter icon
twitter icon
rss icon
linkd in icon

A Canadian Energy Research Insititute economist thinks nuclear power could undercut the “dirty oil” hype

Reactors could contribute to an oil sands makeover

May 01, 2009
Subscribe Email This Post Print This Post Bookmark and Share

A four-fold increase in the penalty for carbon dioxide emissions will be necessary to make it worthwhile for companies to begin taking unaided action, McColl estimates. Current Canadian climate change policies, while still vague, suggest the carbon price will rise into the $60 range required to trigger cleanup investments in about 10 years.

The quadrupled emissions penalty is forecast to make investment attractive in “gasification” manufacturing of clean fuel and the next generation of atomic power plants, on top of CCS. Both additional approaches are expensive but projected to become competitive with the current cornerstone of thermal oil sands operations, natural gas, if the carbon price increases.

Technology is available to make synthetic gas from coal or charcoal-like coke left over by oil sands production, and dispose of carbon dioxide exhaust from the conversion process. Alberta’s initial package of subsidized emissions reduction projects includes a field trial of underground synthetic gas manufacturing in a Swan Hills coal deposit northwest of Edmonton.

Small, portable reactors are developing to make nuclear power a realistic option for a new source of electricity and heat in the oil sands, says McColl. He is an ardent advocate of atomic energy who has worked as a consultant on proposals for plants in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

His CERI team acknowledges that western Canadian communities, industry and governments are all wary of nuclear projects. “We recognize that the development path of these reactors would have to be slow and modest,” he says. The emissions cleanup scenario in Green Bitumen includes just enough use of the zero-emissions atomic source of heat and power by 2030 to whet industry and government appetites for more in the remote future.

“We can change the image of the oil sands,” McColl predicts. “But it’s going to take a long time. No individual party can do it on their own. It has to be a co-ordinated effort.”

Pages: 1 2 3

Issue Contents

Related Posts

Recent posts by Gordon Jaremko

Studying the intersection of oil, gas and wildlife in Alberta • February, 2011

A unique fund helps biologists map industrial impacts on natural settings

Top energy sector talent defies easy labels • January, 2011

There is more to executives than suits and salaries

NEB gives Mackenzie gas five years to flow • December, 2010

The national regulator approves northern pipeline with “sunset clause”

The other alternative energy: natural gas • December, 2010

How abundant, low-cost natural gas could rewrite the energy playbook

Suncor Energy Inc. begins work on an oil sands eyesore • December, 2010

A tailings pond cleanup strategy 40 years in the making

The key to oil-patch longevity? A bit of love • December, 2010

Reflections from Canadian Association of Drilling Engineers founding member Leroy Field

The myth of the oil curse is alive and well • December, 2010

Decrying fossil fuel wealth recalls the old chestnut of western alienation

Opinion on Canada’s energy sector is sharply divided • November, 2010

From well-head to wheel well, Canadians remain ambivalent

Comments

  • digital editions