Alberta Research Council and U.S. energy department sign nuclear agreement
Sun, 2008-03-30 13:20
#1
scott
Alberta Research Council and U.S. energy department sign nuclear agreement
Sun, 2008-03-30 13:20
#2
scott
quote:
In light of today's announcement (see below): are there any fools left in Alberta that believe that this whole scheme WASN'T preplanned to start with?Alberta Energy Corporation - dummy company to soften Albertans to nuclear power, since it was two Albertan's idea.
Altalink - SNC Lavalin power lines - ram them through before the nuclear power agenda hits the fan, and Albertans see how they are going to be used to supply nuclear power to the USA (because they can't get new plants approved in USA - too many people).
Bruce Power and TransCanada Pipeline - scheming the whole time to use radio-active products from the reactors to develop TarSands, refine and ship their product. Meanwhile, turning the air we breath into a toxic soup.
[url=http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/local/story.html?id=c6c16040-... Journal: Partners to study nuclear role in oilsands[/url]
quote:
Use of atomic power for oilsands development will be investigated by a research partnership, announced today, between the Alberta and United States governments.The Alberta Research Council and the U.S. energy department's main nuclear laboratory in Idaho signed an agreement calling for work on potential bitumen belt applications of electricity, heat and chemical byproducts from reactors proposed north of Edmonton.
"This is a marriage made in heaven," said Idaho laboratory associate director Bill Rogers. Although no budget for the collaboration was announced, he said potentially all his operation's 3,800 scientists can be drafted into the Alberta project.
[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: scott ]
Mon, 2008-03-31 05:53
#3
Scott, could you revisit your link? I went to read the full article, but the link goes to a picture and not the article.
Mon, 2008-03-31 09:51
#4
scott
Sorry about that. Fixed now. The first set of quotes is from an email, the second set is from the Edmonton Journal article.
Tue, 2008-04-01 08:46
#5
Thanks Scott.
Always torn on this issue. A huge amount of oil sand emmissions ultimately come from using natural gas as the primary heat and electricity source (At about the same rate as the city of Calgary and it's 1 million population goes through daily). If you are solely interested in CO2 emmissions, this seems like a fantastic idea.
Of course, the nuclear option introduces it's own issues and challenges. Are the nuke challenges worse than the CO2 emissions? Nuclear technologies have improved like anything else over the past years, so it's worth investigating at very least.
Forcing oil producers to capture and store CO2 is the alternative to compare it to.
Wed, 2008-04-02 10:35
#6
quote:
Forcing oil producers to capture and store CO2 is the alternative to compare it to.
Producing and using less oil is the only viable alternative, either voluntarily or through lack of easily exploitable oil deposits. And water supplies are a limiting factor for both tar sands production and nuclear power.
Wed, 2008-04-02 10:43
#7
Wait... Did you just say using less oil is 'viable'? [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-04-30 06:49
#8
scott
Well this story seems to have sunk like a stone. Has anyone heard of any follow up?