As Alberta grapples with the climate crisis and the need to reduce carbon emissions, it may look to replace the role of fossil fuels in its electricity grid with another controversial energy source — nuclear.
Calgary-based company Energy Alberta, which was involved in a previous attempt to bring nuclear power to the province, has been quietly working on a new proposal since late last year, including meeting with Premier Danielle Smith and other officials.
Scott Henuset, president and CEO of Energy Alberta, told CBC News that the project details are still being finalized, but that the company’s plan is to build a nuclear power plant with two — and eventually as many as five — Candu reactors in Alberta’s Peace Region, about 400 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.
A specific site has not yet been chosen, and the company is evaluating multiple locations about 25 kilometres north of the town of Peace River. The reactors would have a lifespan of 60 to 70 years, and the total power plant would be licensed for a maximum output of 4,800 megawatts. (Alberta’s largest natural gas-fired power plant, the Genesee Generating Station, can produce about 1,300 megawatts.)
Nuclear power shouldn’t be controversial, we have fuel reinrichment technologies now that can eliminate long term waste and a regular operation Nuclear plant produces significantly less community radiation than a coal power plant a fraction of the capacity.
Five bucks says that this has nothing to do with general energy for the grid and everything to do with powering the fossil fuel extraction and processing industry in that region.
I recall ideas about using Advanced CANDU reactors to generate steam for SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) a long time ago, found this paper from 2003
it may look to replace the role of fossil fuels in its electricity grid with another controversial energy source — nuclear
I wouldn’t be so sure about the “replace” part. Refining oil sands is an energy-intensive process. Couldn’t the nuclear power wind up going to that? I thought they were even advocating for this.
Yeah, I think the current situation is they have to burn a certain amount of fuel to refine the bitumen, and then of course the oil itself is eventually burned by the end user. So it’s a carbon emissions double whammy. Not a good look. But if nuclear steps in to handle the refining part, they may be able to sell more oil by trading on a “clean” image? Or something. I have trouble getting into that mind set.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Nuclear power shouldn’t be controversial, we have fuel reinrichment technologies now that can eliminate long term waste and a regular operation Nuclear plant produces significantly less community radiation than a coal power plant a fraction of the capacity.
Five bucks says that this has nothing to do with general energy for the grid and everything to do with powering the fossil fuel extraction and processing industry in that region.
I recall ideas about using Advanced CANDU reactors to generate steam for SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) a long time ago, found this paper from 2003
What’s old is (potentially) new I guess.
I wouldn’t be so sure about the “replace” part. Refining oil sands is an energy-intensive process. Couldn’t the nuclear power wind up going to that? I thought they were even advocating for this.
I guess they mean replace what they are going to use anyways. Lol. I imagine they are choosing between this and other, more apocalyptic fuels.
Yeah, I think the current situation is they have to burn a certain amount of fuel to refine the bitumen, and then of course the oil itself is eventually burned by the end user. So it’s a carbon emissions double whammy. Not a good look. But if nuclear steps in to handle the refining part, they may be able to sell more oil by trading on a “clean” image? Or something. I have trouble getting into that mind set.