As usual the purveyors of privatization really are state capitalists. The Fraser Institute report calls for more use of private nuclear power plants - with government covering insurance, risk-management and startup costs - to reduce emissions and offset the use of gas to power oilsands facilities.
Yep you and I pay for private nuke plants we take the risk we cover all the initial expenses and get nothing for it. Why not just build em ourselves. But that begs the question why do we need nuke plants in the tar sands.
Dinning says its because gas is too expensive. Yeah but nuke plants use too much water, which already is a problem with the Tar Sands. They will use steam injection to remove the tar from the sands. Such steam injection uses more water than conventional strip mining and its heat extraction processes.
Shell's process involves drilling into the shale and using electric heaters to bake the rock to 700 degrees Fahrenheit, which releases oil and gas at the molecular level so it can be pumped to the surface. The company has been researching and testing this method for 20 years and believes it could be profitable even if the price of crude oil fell to $30 a barrel. Chevron's process, so far tried only on paper, uses carbon dioxide, possibly aided by propellants and explosives, to break the rock underground and then pump in heated carbon dioxide to free up the oil. Energy Independence, Our Shale Deposits, Making OPEC Obsolete
Radioactive waste also needs to be processed. This is more of a problem than a solution. The real solution is to slow down development of the tar sands to meet the environmental and community needs of Northerners. But that won't happen in Alberta since we are governed by the interests of Dallas and Houston whose head offices are in Calgary.
Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
peak-oil, Tarsands, water, Pembina, Klein, oil, nukes, nuclear, gas, water, drought, Alberta, Canada