Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach thinks that the Americans will approve the Keystone pipeline without a hitch.

================

Unfortunately the sad thing is he is probably right. As long as America needs oil, the tar sands will keep on going, especially since it looks like Israel and the USA are hell bent on starting a war with Syria and Iran...

Oil interests trump environment interests

That's the sad part in all this. The Alberta government is complict and the people of Alberta should get the truth but never will. Oil interests dominate there and they (Albertans) have this sense that it's all about Free Enterprise. They take some perveted pride in being Canada's Texas. Wake up people, it's all about money!

Plankton, Base of Ocean Food Web, in Big Decline

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=130007CLSUD4

The desparation behind the Alberta (and Harper) governments promotion of the Tar Sands only reflects the deliberate de-industrialization of Canada by a succession of governments, and Mulroney's signing of the FTA only put the fait accompli to it, and the increasing dependence of Canada on the wholesale exports of primary resources.

We should be turfed out of the G8/G20...........

Andrew Nikiforuk should be

Andrew Nikiforuk should be more careful, as he could be arrested for calling the Tar Sands, Tar Sands.

In any case, the long and short of it is that WEALTH CAN NOT BE CREATED, ONLY TAKEN FROM OTHERS, THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE FUTURE"

I'm glad to be old and have no future and hope there's no such thing as reincarnation, because already the present and even more the future generations will pay a heavy price for these "wealth and growth creating" criminal idiocies.

Ed Deak

Who really pays the cost?

It really is sad that on some levels government & business can't function without deceit. This certainly is not the first time that deception has been used to further an unjust business cause. Asbestos is a good example of industry running wild, with gov't support.

Until society is willing to admit that we need to remind ourselves that ethics is an essential ingredient in the aspect of everyday life and business, nothing will change for the better,society must be willing to put emphasis on ethical behaviour and build on honesty and deny unethical attitudes.

Change the people and you change the world!

Clean it up, keep the jobs!

Many of my fellow Albertans and many workers from the Maritimes and BC would not be able to feed their families without the work they are doing in the Oil Sands. Yes, it needs to be made as environmentally friendly as possible, but we need the jobs!

The Dirty Picture

It is really bad is a certain as media holds story close to its pocket books, or at least that is my feel for the story that isn't being told. As how can major media such as CNN and Global put the story of a major midwest spill on the back burner as there is another story to be told. What happens let say if there will be another spill and there will be I can see it happening on the Coast if governemnt goes ahead with its Gateway plans. What do you think American's are going to feel then and China well why bother as the Pacific Coast will not be the picture of beauty it is now.

Many people will not be eating because of the Oil Sands

Get it right, the oil is going to kill more of the food supply than it is worth along with the acid rain that has killed off prairie crops and wildlife and fish. And that is not even getting into the health risks of food that is contaminated by the oil. And all this to ensure that soldiers can get out there and kill off the so called enemy and mean while the oil is a pretty good enemy to start.

From the Government of Alberta

Mr. Nikiforuk points out that a dozen different scientific studies have reached a dozen different numbers on GHG emissions from crude oil pathways.

He can find studies to promote his statements, I have studies to support mine. He can say emissions from oil sands are three times higher, I can say they’re 10% higher. As Simon Dyer of the Pembina said last week: “Both statements are true.”

The bottom line is that emissions from oil sands are higher than emissions from an average of conventional crude sources. It’s the responsibility of industry and this Government to address that, and it’s happening: A 39% reduction in emissions per barrel since 1990. That will continue.

By the way, all large GHG emitters in Canada report their facility-by-facility emissions to government, and those are online at the searchable Environment Canada GHG Online Database.

- David Sands, Public Affairs Bureau, Government of Alberta

Addiction

The problem with addiction, whether to painkillers or fuel sources, is that it twists your perception of reality.

Alberta's addiction to oil revenue and contemporary society's addiction to oil's efficiency and its infrastructure's convenience as an energy source create compelling impetus to perceive oil as "not so bad".

The trouble is, it is bad. Climate change is the longest range catastrophe emerging from carbon fuels, but even in the short term, perversion of democracy by the special interest needs of the oil and coal industries is destroying our country in the same way that it is destroying America.

Addictions can be beaten, but not without the willing intensive participation of the addicted.

The Independent Petro-State of Alberta...

"Unfortunately the sad thing is he is probably right. As long as America needs oil, the tar sands will keep on going, especially since it looks like Israel and the USA are hell bent on starting a war with Syria and Iran..." Canadian Latitude.

Much in agreement with this view (and that of GWest immediately above here.) the independent petro-state of Alberta, as does the entire country and the status quo political and economic system still, will do the US Empire bidding.

I am likewise of the view tendency that it MAY well be possible one day, to environmentally "relatively" safely extract this huge "potential" oil resource. But while this MAY one day be, it is my greater anxiety that this should be made available to the use of the Canadian nation(s) and our long term viability in a world of increasing oil scarcity that is taking shape.

Similarly, while there may also be some other resource sharing/export trading potential in our vast, and abroad coveted sea to sea area, our resource base first needs to all be brought under our own full control and ownership, ending foreign US, Chinese and other ownership influence over its use,... a determination of our own full national development ambition and need done, and then, with the long term Canadian national interest in mind, proceed. This has not been and will not be done by the status quo political and economic sensibility however, because we still have a quasi-colonial regime and economy mind-set in place and controlling virtually all the various level governments of Canada, and these other national interest sets want our oil and other resources. There is no "private sector" or national WILL to challenge this left-over "colonial relationship" which we have allowed too long with the past, existing and emerging "other" Empire interests in the world.

This needs to change. It needs to change fast. Or if it does not, it is all moot and so much pissing into the wind: Control of our resources base AND environment will be irretrievably lost to us and alienated to those various "other" interest sets whom our own traitorous Empire Loyalists serve.

There is a real and much larger interest here to that of the Independent Petro-State of Alberta, and the as much foreign as national "private corporate sector" interests there, and across the land who control policy AND the levers of the economy. They will not be lightly challenged for power either.

A "civil" struggle for influence, control and power within Canada, between the forces for the national interest versus the old colonial US Empire Loyalist, foreign serving interest, needs to take shape and be fought out in this country. And it may... as the US Empire collapses and implodes on its own internal contradictions, but is not yet fully apparent or certain. (Though the early warning signs of this latter possibility are there, if you are paying attention to what is really happening internally, in Amerika, as we speak.)

Enbridge Has Evidently Killed the Kalamazoo River

http://money.canoe.ca/money/business/canada/archives/2010/07/20100729-180200.html

Would it make any difference, do ya think, if CEOs such as Pat Daniel of Enbridge, were required to sign an unconditional agreement that they must (and for all time spent on this earth) immerse themselves personally in each and every company spill?

The forces of perversity...

"Change the people and you change the world!" Noggy.

More accurately Noggy, I think that neither one can be entirely done without the other. It is more likely to be, if it is going to occur at all, that in the course of a struggle necessity to change the world, people will themselve as well be changed.

Whatever forces, natural or otherwise, are at work shaping the universe, our world and us, are of a kind of perversity. They inter-connected everything, so that nothing can be done in complete isolation from the other... except in our minds. :-)

Syncrude and Suncor

These two plants in Fort McMurray or more accurately 1 hour north of Ft. Mac, Syncrude and Suncor must provide their data as their strip mining operations and upgrading facilties are the largest in Fort Mac.

During upgrading two hydrocarbon components are produced or at least two major components....naptha and diesel...Suncor has a road in its upgrading facility called "Diesel Alley". If anyone has ever used one of those pump up tanks fitted to a Coleman campstove they will know what naptha is. During upgrading upsets are common meaning the multiple flare stacks on both Syncrude's and Suncor's sites light up like a birthday cake for someone turning 65!

When the weather gets warmer, usually in June, and the sun begins to beat down on the stripped off boreal forest, now a barren tar pit landscape, the tortured land begins to release a variety of nasty GHG emissions creating a dense and toxic haze over the Athabasca River Valley.

It is something to behold and something a movie or film can only give you a glimpse of.

Keep up the good work Andrew and someday focus some attention on NE BC, BC's own little backyard secret.

@pwlg

“The air quality in the Fort McMurray area is the same or better than in Calgary or Edmonton.” – Pembina Institute, Oil Sands Fever, November, 2005, page 47.

“There is little or no pattern to the changes in concentrations of various air pollutants across the oil sands region over the past 10 years.” – University of Alberta School of Public Health, April 2010. The full report is here: http://www.phs.ualberta.ca/reports.cfm

Live, current and historical air quality monitoring in the area, here: http://wbea.org/content/view/56/111/

- David Sands, Public Affairs Bureau, Government of Alberta

Oilsands

Just remeber all you watermelons in Lotus Land, The amount of land development in the oilsands is significantly less than the land destroyed by hydro development in BC which a majority of the power is sent to the US. In addition the pollution through methane emission etc greated by hydro development in BC is also significantly less in the oilsands. So before worry about someone else why do not look in your own back yard.
By the way you might want to treat the wastewater generated by Victoria that is continually dumped into the ocean.

Arguing with irrantionality... rellum

You won't find many here, on this Lotus Land web site at least, defending much of the watershed storage/hydro power and other resource development that has gone on of recent years, much at least primarily for the benefit of US and other foreign economic/industrial developments. With the central point still being, much of what passes for economic and jobs development here, in the entire country, including the Petro-State of Alberta AND BC, involves very much our serving up our natural resources for the US Empire and other foreign economic development and wellbeing. To which we are now tied in a North Amerikan Union, and in other treaty and agreement ways globally, to such a degree, it is going to take a major, perhaps even dangerous struggle to change. But which nonetheless needs to be undertaken, in our own national survival interest.

Because BC essentially does the same thing as Alberta is NOT a rational, but irrational argument, and a cheap attempt to deflect responsibility. It serves no good purpose. By which none here are fooled by rellum or other US Empire Loyalist defenders of the status quo in this country. My view.

Coyoteman

You have voiced my thoughts completedeflecting responsibility is the name of the game.
Lets look at Arnie and Calif - blame Alberta oilsands, never mention about their own oilsands and the pollution greated by LA and Area which is bigger than Alberta oilsands in land mass
Ontario blame Alberta oilsands but do not mention anything about dumping billions of litres of raw seage into the great lakes, the massive killing of birds/bats etc at Wiolfe Island and so and so and so.
BC already mentioned in my first comment.
It is easier to deflect and jump on the socalled environmental band wagon because you do not have to pay to clean up your own mess. Make it look like some else is the only evil.
So yes you are totally correct when the watermelons etc deflect responsibility.

oil is a slick and slippery business

Coyoteman, I hope your wrong about the transition that favours "dangerous struggle", although I am not 100% sure what will be a favourable catalyst for change. I just hope the transition will be influenced by wisdom and not brawn or abrupt necessity

Those who wish to manipulate the public use powerful persuasion techniques and/or deceit. Advertising uses our emotions to convince us to buy something. If you want to keep your family safe while driving you should buy a Volvo.

I have spent many hours researching, developing and presenting cultural & natural educational programs for the public, which included time in a BC provincial park. I had many opportunities to teach others and myself about the interconnectedness of all things, one of my fond memories.

I just hope all the good people hear at The Tyee and everywhere will find it within themselves to work together to foster a positive change that is so desperately needed, coyoteman I think its great how you look into all the different nooks and crannies of the human condition, like a number of others here you give people something to think about.

some other facts

Very clever attempt at stats my friend from the Alberta Government. You must have a service that tells you when something is being posted on the internet about the Tar Sands.

I am wondering if the good fellow from the AB gov't has ever lived in Fort Mac or better yet, worked at one of the sites I wrote about. I have.

You say the air quality hasn't changed in ten years...well, both Suncor and Syncrude started their operations in the '70's...emissions were reduced, or at some were, in 1990. However, I am talking about the hazy fog on a warm morning that covers the Athabasca Valley around these two open pit mine sites adjacent to the river...or perhaps one needs to count the emissions coming from all the workers who daily fill a four lane highway and travels as fast as Hwy 1 in the Metro Vancouver area.

While we are finding a 'study' by Pembina Institute, which by the way has received funding by Suncor and Syncrude, Pollution Watch 2007 stated that Suncor had the 6th highest greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2009/04/02/8984616.html

Suncor was fined at its Firebag operation for failing to install pollution control equipment. ($675,000)

@David Sands

Apart from the excellent points made by pwlg with reference to your own bought and paid for contributions above here and the obvious attempt by you and your employers to obfuscate and dissemble relative to the issue of the air quality effects of TAR SANDS processing in the area around extraction and processing facilities near Ft MacMurray, one might also point readers to the following: Canada’s Bitumen Industry Under CO2 Constraints by Chan, G., J.M. Reilly, S. Paltsev, and Y.-H. Chen (January) from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The interesting conclusion of the report being that, under effective CO2 controls and restraints, there WOULD NO LONGER BE A TAR SANDS EXTRACTION INDUSTRY AT ALL.

It would NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.

Nuclear Energy & Big Oil's Tar Sand Dilemma

The great irony of all this is that the only salvation for the Tar Sands is to use Nuclear Energy to supply the Electricity & Heat to process Bitumen. And this is in spite of the fact, that Big Oil has focused on Nuclear Energy as it's #1 enemy, and pulled out all stops to block its expansion. Bait-and-Switch. Big Oil/NG knows that it will never win the Public Relations battle on its own merit. So instead it uses its influence to promote WHACKY alternatives like Wind, Solar Energy & Carbon Sequestration and actively seeks to block any REALISTIC alternatives to its Energy Hegemony – mainly by suppressing Nuclear Energy.

Even Environmental Organizations, such as the Pembina Institute, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned non-Scientists have eagerly fed from the petroleum trough. Talk about a deal with the Devil.

A Hyperion Nuclear Reactor, would be perfect to supply Process Heat for the Tar Sands. Zero CO2 emissions and $32M for 70MWth = $460/kwth or 0.5 cents per kwhth compared with NG @ 1.6 cents per kwhth add another 1 cent for the pipeline infrastructure = 2.6 cents per kwhth. About 5 times more expensive than Nuclear, even at today’s temporarily low NG price. And Nuclear is ZERO CO2 Emissions. And Canada had the Slowpoke III reactors which could have been used in the Tar Sands until Big Oil owned politicians had that kiboshed.

Amazing all the hype about the Tar Sands, when the Uranium mines next door in Northern Sask produce double the Energy of the Tar Sands, burnt in the exceedingly low efficiency, once through LWR, with no fuel reprocessing. Burn it in a High Burn Reactor like an IFR, and that would be 200X more energy production than the Tar Sands.

Go on Google Earth, and take a look at the area north of Fort McMurray (75% of North America’s and 97% of Canada’s Oil Reserves are right there), at a resolution of about 1 km per cm, and check out the torn up Earth and Environmental Destruction.

Now do the same to McArthur River in Northern Saskatchewan, and compare the environmental damage - at 1 km per cm you will have a hard time seeing any sign of the Northern Saskatchewan Uranium mines.

It would NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE

"It would NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE."
This is a statement that will work for almost any project you can imagine. Since our economists and governments create money whenever it is advantageous to do so, projects come and go depending on how advantageous they are to the investors and their friends in government.
WRT the tar sands, "It would NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE' if a true costing were in place. The foulest smell I ever encountered was at a tailings pond in Fort MacMurray. When I visited the tar sands, one of the plants was closed due to environmental concerns and so we visited the other plant. An incredible amount of energy is required to remove the tar sands from the Earth, then it must be treated before it is shipped it worked on. Then it again is shipped or refined into oil to be used. A lot of energy is consumed and a lot of waste is released for this fuel.
When I visited, it was thought that this was the bottom line for petroleum based fuel, i.e. there is no more after this. This is the end of the line.
This was almost 30 years ago and here we are. Let's get our sh*t together and start using none-fossil, renewable fuel sources now.

Renewable Energy will not replace Oil

North of Hope, you have made yourself a stooge of Big Oil by subscribing to their Renewable Energy SCAM. BP has long been a big promoter of Renewables - except Hydro - the only Renewable that is economical.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7046901

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/A/ALL_UK_heathrow_ADS.pdf

And here again is BP touting and OWNING Wind Farms:

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7062289

British Petroleum dumps an unprecedented $500 million to University of California for the Biofuel Research Scam:

http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/

Again, BP touting all the SCAMS, H2, Biofuels, CCS, Solar & Wind:

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9025016&contentId=7047542

To understand why Renewable Energy WILL NOT replace Oil, read the analysis here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/14/zca2020/

http://bravenewclimate.com/category/tcase-series/

limiting factors

‘Renewables’ may not replace oil, but neither will nuked tar sands.

Syncrude production is rate limited, not resource (bitumen) limited. The factors that determine the flow rate of syncrude have more to do with environmental constraints like the availability of water, environmental destruction and the upgrading process that converts bitumen to synthetic crude through hydrogenation.

The folks that chart the production of conventional oil figure that production from the tar sands will fail to keep up with the rate of decrease in production from conventional oil suppliers.

Though there’s no doubt nuclear will impact future energy production, its impact on tar sands production will be minimal. At best it will reduce the need for natural gas and cut the amount of CO2 production.

But why use nuclear, which is supposedly clean, to produce dirty transportation fuel?

Nuclear operator, Bruce Power, is asking the same question. They’ve applied to build four nukes in Alberta's Peace Country to supply residential power.

http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id27093

Nuclear will make Tar Sands Oil = to conventional Oil

KWD, you are correct, tar sands Oil production is severely limited by various bottlenecks and using Nuclear Process Energy will not alleviate that.

The point I was making, is that the ONLY way to make Tar Sands Oil a GHG emitter on par with conventional Oil sources is to use Nuclear Process Heat & Nuclear Electricity (or Hydro). And contrary to what you said - it WILL achieve that. That at least may allow it to be exported to the USA.

As for why use Nuclear, which is indeed clean, to produce dirty transportation fuel? Because even in a Nuclear Economy we will need chemical fuels for many forms of transport, such as aircraft, short distance shipping, long distance trucking. And chemical feedstock. Otherwise I highly support a switch to Nuclear Electricity powered vehicles - where practical.

It is possible, although more expensive, to make Carbon Neutral chemical feedstock and transportation fuels from clean Nuclear Electricity, Water + atmospheric CO2 -> Methanol -> synthetic diesel etc.

It is also more practical & cheaper to convert NG into Methanol and burn that in extreme efficiency Methanol Engines, than to use Tar Sands Oil. I'm all for that. But Big Oil is blocking Methanol as a fuel (with help from Ethanol Agro-corporations).

It costs 3.1 cents per liter to convert NG into Methanol in large facilities. And Methanol burns cleanly at double the efficiency of Gasoline in converted engines. Best of all in series hybrids where you will have Methanol at 1/2 the Energy Density of Gasoline X double the ICEngine efficiency X double the efficiency of the Series Hybrid = twice the mileage on Methanol than on Gasoline, at a cost of about 12 cents per liter to produce, including the NG feedstock current cost.

CO2 problems will remain

As far as I know using nuclear will not bypass the hydrogenation process. Last time I checked one barrel of syncrude requires about 25 cubic meters of natural gas.

Upgrading requires a hydrogen source, and CO2 is a byproduct of hydrogen generation. The amount of CO2 produced is not insignificant.

CO2 will be reduced to the level of conventional Oil Production

That 25 cubic meters of NG is mostly for Electricity & Steam (process heat). I'm not sure how much steam reformed NG goes into H2 production, but it will be much less than the former. H2 can also be made by electroysis of water via Nuclear Electricity, and some GenIV reactors, like the LIFTR, HTGR, PBMR can use the thermochemical Sulphur-Iodine cycle to produce H2 from water.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf116_processheat.html

"...At present a lot of natural gas is used - up to 30 cubic metres per barrel of oil...In fact, Canadian natural gas is inadequate to supply the anticipated expansion in oil sands output and its use has major CO2 implications which are creating public concern - about 20% of the energy in the oil is required to produce it and about 80kg of CO2 per barrel is released...is used as an energy source to make steam to liquefy the bitumen, enabling its separation, and to generate electricity for mining and treatment...that a single CANDU 6 reactor (about 1800 MWt) configured to produce 75% steam and 25% electricity would replace 6 million cubic metres per day of natural gas and support production of 175-200,000 barrels per day of oil. It would also save the emission of 3.3 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Other figures from PBMR confirm that each 100 MWt will enable production of 10,000 barrels per day..."

The horns of the dillemma I...

“But why use nuclear, which is supposedly clean, to produce dirty transportation fuel?
Nuclear operator, Bruce Power, is asking the same question. They’ve applied to build four nukes in Alberta's Peace Country to supply residential power.”poses KWD.

Which is really the horns of the human dilemma, isn’t it? At existing and anticipated growth rates in resource extraction, production and consumption, there are serious problems with all the energy models of nuclear, wind and solar that we look at, or combinations thereof.

Nuclear, which I personally now think, of all the bad choices, holds out the greatest “clean energy” possibility for the future, has its safe use and waste disposal issues. Wind generation has its prospects, on the scale perceived, of a colossal visual blight on the landscape and the destruction of large numbers of birds, for starters, while solar, depending on the size and acreage scale of panels we are talking has its visual and production limitations as well.

Which keeps bring us back ever again, in my perceptions, to this issue of the sheer mass/quantity of any energy solutions required to meet existing and anticipated human population needs. For example, as any dieter even knows, it is not only the fat and sugar content , assuming you halve those levels, that is alone the problem. If you then double your portions, you’ve again defeated the intent. So, the point being, it is not fossil fuel use per se even, in and of itself that is the problem, or any other reasonable energy model, but the sheer mass of use of it that was unleashed by the Industrial Revolution of capitalism, and the explosion of human populations and resource consumption that has gone on since… and continues unslackening. (And I don’t give a rat’s ass who has greater or lesser population densities per land area. That is a separate issue altogether,.)

Continued next post...

The horns of the dilemma 2...

From previous post...

The problem remains, again in my “think” of it, that we still need to deal with the issue of a human species economic model ideal, that is still capitalism of one form or another, with its precariously competitive dynamic, and resulting endless growth needs in production, cheap labour and consumption. In the end, it is this critical element that will still defeat any new “energy paradigm” you eventually create, so long as it contains this socio-economic model as its beating heart, ever doubling our portion size as a species
.
We are yet to find, or at least install in effective place, an alternative socio-economic model that can even better, with more egalitarian compassion, meet human needs across the planet, and yet remain sustainably "stable" without falling into economic collapse -, as the current capitalist model does, if there are not ever and ever greater inputs and outputs, and consumption.

It seems to me, we are still in our relative species infancy, or at least “juvenile” stage of development, with the need for facing up to the realities of adulthood fast pressing in upon us.

There are no “easy” choices out there known to me, at least not yet. So it seems to me, we are going to, in the end, be forced by circumstance and natural disaster, to take the choice with the greatest chance of long term success. And that involves the unreasonable expectations of our human mass and our existing rapacious socio-economic system. After that, you can make it as more or less democratic as you want. (I favour the “more”, clearly.)

are we fooling ourselves?

“Which keeps bring us back ever again, in my perceptions, to this issue of the sheer mass/quantity of any energy solutions required to meet existing and anticipated human population needs.”

Exactly. Undermining the benefits of nuclear and its impact on CO2 reduction is the fact that the push for nuclear is based on the idea that we can carry on with business as usual. And I wonder if we aren’t fooling ourselves. For example, consider the water demands if the tar pits go nuclear.

According to the National Energy Board the tar pits presently use about 2 billion cubic feet of NG per day … and that will increase as demand increases. If a single CANDU 6 will provide the equivalent of approx 162 million cubic feet per day that means the present tar pit demand would require 12 CANDUs.

However, if we base nuclear requirements on present bitumen output (1.5 million barrels per day), and the fact each CANDU will support 175 - 200,000 barrels of oil per day, we end up with an initial requirement of 7.5 reactors. (based on the info provided by YCSTS)

In any event, whether it’s 7 or 12, CANDUs require large bodies of water, i.e. lakes, rivers or oceans, to control excess heat energy. Aside from the 2.5 – 4 barrels of processing water already required for each barrel of oil … about 6 million barrels of water per day … where will the excess-heat cooling water for 7 or 12 reactors come from? Will the reactors create a thermal pollution problem? Perhaps YCSTS has some answers.

Nuclear will reduce the Environmental Impact of the Tar Sands.

Yes, 7-12 CANDU 6, or 3-6 ACANDUs.

The use of Nuclear Process Energy should be similar for water consumption as the current use of NG. NG electricity plants require water for cooling, just as the NPPs will for the electricity generating steam turbines. Wastewater from the Tar Sands effluent could be used.

For Steam production, you are just dumping the Steam to the Process Plant, so no cooling is needed, except whatever cooling is done at the Process Plant - which will be no different with Nuclear steam than NG heated steam. Except NO CO2 production.

Undoubtedly, processing all that Bitumen is a severe burden on the environment, Nuclear will eliminate the CO2 burden, and the burden of thousands of km's of NG pipeline, and NG fracking & methane pollution. And huge NG fracking water requirements & water pollution.

Going Nuclear is NOT BAU. Going Nuclear is a major component of RATIONAL ENERGY POLICY. The BAU is Energy Policy written for Vested Interests with no consideration of science, the environment or economic viability. In Canada, our Energy Policy is written in the Boardrooms of Big Oil. Unbelievably, our corrupt federal gov’t has announced it intends to replace Coal Electricity production with NG Electricity production. An incredibly stupid decision, which will cost Canadians dearly. And CBC does not even publish the story online, so nobody can critique it.

The World is facing many serious problems, over the next century. Adding Energy Shortage & high Energy Prices will WORSEN not alleviate these problems. Cheap Energy will seriously mitigate coming problems like:

1) Water shortages
2) Food shortages
3) Mineral shortages
4) Oil & Water wars
5) Lack of quality education
6) Lack of Health Care
7) Control of Infectious Disease
8) Poverty & economic deprivation

Control of Population Growth is desirable, not needless Energy Consumption restriction. Nuclear is easily capable of supplying the entire Earth's population with Energy as much as Canadians consume, which would be met with 355 gms of Uranium or Thorium per person-lifetime. The argument is that when poverty stricken populations gain wealth their population growth drops to zero, as it has in Western countries (except for immigration).

STABILITY...

"Control of Population Growth is desirable, not needless Energy Consumption restriction. Nuclear is easily capable of supplying the entire Earth's population with Energy as much as Canadians consume, which would be met with 355 gms of Uranium or Thorium per person-lifetime. The argument is that when poverty stricken populations gain wealth their population growth drops to zero, as it has in Western countries (except for immigration)." writes YCSTS.

I much find your and KWDs comment contributions here, extremely useful, YCSTS... to myself at least. :-) While concerns about "the problems" around nuclear, in my view, remain valid, I must admit, I otherwise tend to view the nuclear argument as valid... re its clean energy "potential" COMPARED to all other options. (Though I have no quibble with the "green energy mix" theory either, with nuclear likely being the main workhorse. Which is what is most likely going to emerge, over the short run.)

And your concluding observation as well, I think, is demonstrably correct: "...that when poverty stricken populations gain wealth their population growth drops to zero, as it has in Western countries (except for immigration)."

But with which, I would point out, the underpinning socio-economic model of the present is already having difficulty. Being the reason for current immigrant population growth dependency, to maintain the growths in cheap labour and consumption so critical to capitalism, in an effort to offset the natural decline to zero of relatively "better off" populations. Which immigration still hasn't been enough to offset the development of crises within the system, and resort to financial system fraud as a substitute for real "wealth creation". (The validity of Fait LyX's arguments still accepted.) And may be at least "part" of the reason underlying the ruling class "policy drive" within current capitalism, to recreate "poverty" conditions within its own hereto "advanced" working class. It is an instinct resort attempt to return to an earlier, more hay day time, when the system was still in its ascendancy.

In any case, this seeming "natural" development of a zero population growth that comes to relatively more educated and economically secure populations, even decline in some parts of the world, I accept the desirability of. What is needed to secure and stabilize this tendency however, is an underpinning socio-economic system likewise capable of "stability", that itself can accept zero growth, even some retreat in expectations and demand upon the natural environment, without ever falling into crises and decline in the quality of people's lives. (Which likely means, in my analysis, a need to be prepared to challenge the "private wealth" expectations of a ruling class to whom it is their entire raison d'etre.)

In any case, a very useful discussion for me. Not being an "energy expert", by any stretch of the imagination. :-)

@ YCSTS

You say, "Renewable Energy will not replace Oil
North of Hope, you have made yourself a stooge of Big Oil by subscribing to their Renewable Energy SCAM. BP has long been a big promoter of Renewable - except Hydro - the only Renewable that is economical."
The fact that some big oil companies recognize the value of renewable energy does not make me a stooge for big oil. In fact if any one is a stooge it is you who is a stooge for the nuclear power industry.

First of all nuclear power is fraught with dangers. It is expensive to produce and its waste material is still very dangerous and we do not have a good solution to handle it. Even if those problems are solved it still has a limited lifeline as radioactive fuel will run out.
The best solution is renewable energy sources. Read the article from Scientific American, "A Plan for a Sustainable Future" from their Nov. 2009 issue. You will read how we can meet our energy needs from wind, water and solar power.

If you don't like renewable energy because big oil is getting involved, then nationalize this production the way BC has handled hydro before Campbell became premier.

BC and Canada should be self sufficient and sustainable in energy as well. We have to look at how we are going to get our energy. We must do a complete and thorough study of all ways we can generate energy, whether it be hydro, coal, solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear, wood, biofuels, gas or any other source of energy. All methods must be examined in public and these results must be made public. Only after such a study can we use an energy source. We must do this so our energy sources are sustainable and not harmful to the environment.

For example, with the Site C Dam project, we would look at the need, if any, the costs to the environment, people displaced, farmland lost, loss of a carbon sink, water use downstream and the generation of energy without producing GHG’s.

No undertaking such as mining, housing developments, highways, etc. can be done without an environmental and sustainability analysis. We must be careful not to remove too many plants or trees, as we need them to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Other wastes must be recycled rather than thrown into landfills or oceans. Recycling must become a major activity in our sustainable culture.
We must develop a national and provincial energy and food plans that are sustainable so we can look forward and know we can have a healthy life for future generations.

Renewable Energy will not replace Fossil Fuels

Big Oil/NG is obviously promoting New Renewable Energy because it WILL NOT reduce Oil/NG consumption. Notice they do not promote Hydro, the one practical (though severely limited) Renewable Energy. As-a-matter-of-fact Wind & Solar will increase NG consumption. Because the system Solar/Wind/NG will replace baseload Nuclear & Coal. 80-90% of the total Solar/Wind/NG system energy will come from the NG. And the cycling inefficiencies in that NG will cause as much extra NG to be burnt as the Wind & Solar would theoretically have avoided.

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/

Emissions INCREASE, due to Wind Energy in Colorado:

http://ipams.org/wp-content/uploads/BENTEKStudy_How_Less_Became_More.pdf

That Jacobson Plan you quote was thoroughly demolished in the comments. As well as that 2nd article you quote. Read them. Scientific American is a well known mouthpiece for Shell Oil, sometimes called Shell American.

Here's a similar plan, but for Australia. The best Renewable Energy location on Earth (that is except for Hydro). The plan is analyzed here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/14/zca2020/

Completely Shredded in the Analysis. So North of Hope if you can find any Rational Errors in that analysis, they will be happy to here from you.

YCSTS - Renewable Energy

All fossil fuels are quite limited. There is only so much of them in the ground. If we haven't reached peak oil, then we will soon. Look at the new fossil fuels we are now extracting. They are coming from the Tar Sands and coal beds. These are very expensive and require huge amounts of energy to extract. And they have very poisonous by-products from their production.
Read the article from Scientific American, "A Plan for a Sustainable Future" from their Nov. 2009 issue. You may have to go to the library to read it as I don't have an address that you can access.
We must use renewable energy because the others are running out. If we don't, it will be back to the caves and other pre-industrial age living for all of us.

North of Hope - Nuclear Energy is the only Hope for the North

I agree with you on Fossil Fuels. But you need to educate yourself on Renewable Energy. Mainly Wind & Solar - the much hyped up replacements for Fossil Fuels. Geothermal & Hydro are economical in good locations, but are severely limited in practical use. I once believed in the Renewables until I did Hard Research and WORKED THE NUMBERS - and I'm afraid that Wind & Solar energy are a dangerous, devious SCAM, which only serves to preserve the Hegemony of Fossil Fuels.

All you need to know about Jacobson's Plan is here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

Read the comments, which completely demolish the plan.

There is an alternative to Fossil Fuels and that is Nuclear Energy. The Only Alternative.

For your information, a few good links:

Ted Rockwell - Energy Facts Report:

http://tedrockwell.typepad.com/

The Nuclear Energy Option by Bernard Cohen:

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html

Bill Hannahan, Things Everyone should know about Energy:

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/energy_facts.htm

BraveNewClimate Tcase series gives a good analysis of the harsh Realities of the Renewables Options - they actually do work the numbers:

http://bravenewclimate.com/category/tcase-series/

Personally, I think Canada should develop the LIFTR, and we have a great Nuclear Engineer proponent, David Leblanc of University of Ottawa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0tUDJ35So

LIFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/LFTRGoogleTalk_Bonometti.ppt

Subcritical Accelerator based Reactor burns Nuclear Waste:

http://csis.org/files/attachments/091007_chang_virginia_tech.pdf

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/molten-salt-based-accelerator-driven.html

The IFR, Integral Fast Reactor:

http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm

The Traveling Wave Reactor:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/TerraPowerGilleland.pdf

http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/AimHigh.pdf

you say, "I'm afraid that

you say, "I'm afraid that Wind & Solar energy are a dangerous, devious SCAM, which only serves to preserve the Hegemony of Fossil Fuels." You supply several addresses that are non sequitors wrt renewable energy. Some of the articles make no sense. Perhaps rather than listing a series of connections , you could make a case to show how nuclear energy is renewable and sustainable. The sources I listed are, your's is not as there is a limited amount of of material that is reasonably fissionable and it will run out fairly quickly.