I received this information from a Northern Alberta resident. It is a modification of an old idea. In the past, some geologists et al. thought we should detinate nuclear bombs in the tar sands to develop the oil. Now, they have decided it is best to use the end-product, nuclear waste, to heat the formations....
This could become one of Alberta's first "Land Assembly Project Areas" under Bill 19. you know, for the good of the people.....
[start]
The technology for producing hydrocarbons from oil sand and heavy oil is well known in the industry and does not form a part of this inventive concept. This invention proposes a method of heating in situ a block of heavy oil or oil sand in Alberta with nuclear waste to a temperature sufficient to mobilize the viscous oil so that it can be recovered at a production well. In one embodiment it maximizes the energy return from nuclear waste by producing Alberta’s unconventional oil deposits. In certain embodiments it provides a politically acceptable venue for the disposition of global weapons plutonium inventories. In certain embodiments it irreversibly removes plutonium from use in nuclear weapons. In certain embodiments it provides an economically viable solution to the proliferation threat posed by plutonium separated from commercial SNF. In certain embodiments it provides a safe, secure, method of storing nuclear waste either temporarily or permanently.
A recently published study notes the unprecedented capacity of bitumen to sequester radioactive materials and much of Canada’s bitumen is found beneath a capping shale formation that would preclude either hydrocarbons or radionuclides from migrating to the surface. http://www.nuclearhydrocarbons.com/Canada.htm
To: nuclear@aenweb.ca
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:19 AM
Subject: Reason behind nuclear in Alberta
It very much appears as though world nuclear waste could find a home in Alberta’s tarsands if this information is taken at face value.
It would also prove that the actual electricity generated is most likely destined for export to the US rather than Alberta.
I have included a few interesting points made in the document.
Alberta has released a new branding statement; Why did they not choose “ALBERTA IS ADDICTED TO OIL” ?????
Denis Sauvageau
http://www.nuclearhydrocarbons.com/ExectiveSummary.htm
The Method
“ The Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method, Canadian patent application 2,638,179, is a method for the temporary or permanent storage of nuclear waste materials comprising the placing of waste materials into one or more repositories or boreholes constructed into an unconventional oil formation. The thermal flux of the waste materials fracture the formation, alters the chemical and/or physical properties of hydrocarbon material within the subterranean formation to allow removal of the altered material. A mixture of hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and/or other formation fluids are produced from the formation. The radioactivity of high-level radioactive waste affords proliferation resistance to plutonium placed in the periphery of the repository or the deepest portion of a borehole.”
“The problem of storage of nuclear waste products from both military and civilian sources is presently becoming so acute that further progress, particularly in the field of development of nuclear energy, is threatened. The United States is in gridlock regarding nuclear waste management. Existing nuclear power plants have become de facto long-term storage sites using facilities, which were designed only to temporarily house such materials. The lack of a publicly acceptable solution to the problem of nuclear waste impedes the potential of nuclear power to address what many consider is an emerging energy crisis in the United States. There are three main problems associated with nuclear waste; radioactivity, heat and the weapons potential of plutonium in the waste.”
“Radiation from spent nuclear fuel (SNF) can cause serious harm or death thus it is important this radiation be isolated from the biophere. High-level radioactive waste (HLW) from nuclear reactors may contain plutonium. Ordinarily, this plutonium is reactor-grade plutonium (RGP), containing a mixture of plutonium-239 (highly suitable for building nuclear weapons), plutonium-240 (an undesirable contaminant and highly radioactive), plutonium-241, and plutonium-238. These isotopes are difficult to separate but it is generally agreed RGP can produce a highly destructive explosion.”
“decreasing the radioactivity of the waste and making the plutonium easier to access.”
“Current reprocessing art has not progressed much beyond the methods that have caused past environmental damage and would likely cause considerable further damage if implemented.”
“Every country that has embarked on commercial reprocessing has accumulated a huge stockpile of separated plutonium. Plutonium separation by the civilian reprocessing industry has gotten so far ahead of plutonium recycling that the world stockpile of separated civilian plutonium has reached 330 tons and is still growing. Using the IAEA’s conservative assumption that 8 kilograms is required to produce a first-generation nuclear bomb, this material represents more than 30,000 bomb equivalents—an enormous potential threat.”
“As explained above Hardin, E.L., et al. report the “Radioactive decay of high-level nuclear waste emplaced in a Yucca Mountain repository will produce an initial heat flux on the order of 30 to 50 times the heat flux in the Geysers geothermal reservoir in California.”According to The California Energy Commission, Geothermal Energy in California website, in 2007 California produced 13,000 gigawatt-hours of geothermal energy. Assuming the conservative estimate of 30 times this amount of heat flux for U.S. nuclear waste, approximately 390,000 gigawatt-hours of energy is produced annually by U.S. waste, which is approximately half the total annual output of operating U.S. reactors. The fuel oil equivalent of 1 gigawatt-hour [GW*h] is 563.990352583 barrels U.S., so 390,000 gigawatt-hours is the equal of roughly 220,000,000 barrels of oil (US). According to Shell, 3 units of shale oil can be produced for every unit of energy input with its ICP so the initial heat flux of America’s spent fuel has the potential to produce approximately 660,000,000 barrels of oil. It would take over 1200 years to produce the estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation 6 at that rate or 336 years using the total current inventory of spent fuel or less considering an additional 133,000,000 barrels of oil could be produced annually by the 10,500 MTIHM annual addition to the global spent fuel inventory.”
“Given the 5.2/1 EROI for Alberta’s oil sands its 300 billion recoverable barrels of bitumen could be recovered in 75 years using the total current inventory of spent fuel.” [end]
This could become one of Alberta's first "Land Assembly Project Areas" under Bill 19. you know, for the good of the people.....
[start]
The technology for producing hydrocarbons from oil sand and heavy oil is well known in the industry and does not form a part of this inventive concept. This invention proposes a method of heating in situ a block of heavy oil or oil sand in Alberta with nuclear waste to a temperature sufficient to mobilize the viscous oil so that it can be recovered at a production well. In one embodiment it maximizes the energy return from nuclear waste by producing Alberta’s unconventional oil deposits. In certain embodiments it provides a politically acceptable venue for the disposition of global weapons plutonium inventories. In certain embodiments it irreversibly removes plutonium from use in nuclear weapons. In certain embodiments it provides an economically viable solution to the proliferation threat posed by plutonium separated from commercial SNF. In certain embodiments it provides a safe, secure, method of storing nuclear waste either temporarily or permanently.
A recently published study notes the unprecedented capacity of bitumen to sequester radioactive materials and much of Canada’s bitumen is found beneath a capping shale formation that would preclude either hydrocarbons or radionuclides from migrating to the surface. http://www.nuclearhydrocarbons.com/Canada.htm
To: nuclear@aenweb.ca
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:19 AM
Subject: Reason behind nuclear in Alberta
It very much appears as though world nuclear waste could find a home in Alberta’s tarsands if this information is taken at face value.
It would also prove that the actual electricity generated is most likely destined for export to the US rather than Alberta.
I have included a few interesting points made in the document.
Alberta has released a new branding statement; Why did they not choose “ALBERTA IS ADDICTED TO OIL” ?????
Denis Sauvageau
http://www.nuclearhydrocarbons.com/ExectiveSummary.htm
The Method
“ The Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method, Canadian patent application 2,638,179, is a method for the temporary or permanent storage of nuclear waste materials comprising the placing of waste materials into one or more repositories or boreholes constructed into an unconventional oil formation. The thermal flux of the waste materials fracture the formation, alters the chemical and/or physical properties of hydrocarbon material within the subterranean formation to allow removal of the altered material. A mixture of hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and/or other formation fluids are produced from the formation. The radioactivity of high-level radioactive waste affords proliferation resistance to plutonium placed in the periphery of the repository or the deepest portion of a borehole.”
“The problem of storage of nuclear waste products from both military and civilian sources is presently becoming so acute that further progress, particularly in the field of development of nuclear energy, is threatened. The United States is in gridlock regarding nuclear waste management. Existing nuclear power plants have become de facto long-term storage sites using facilities, which were designed only to temporarily house such materials. The lack of a publicly acceptable solution to the problem of nuclear waste impedes the potential of nuclear power to address what many consider is an emerging energy crisis in the United States. There are three main problems associated with nuclear waste; radioactivity, heat and the weapons potential of plutonium in the waste.”
“Radiation from spent nuclear fuel (SNF) can cause serious harm or death thus it is important this radiation be isolated from the biophere. High-level radioactive waste (HLW) from nuclear reactors may contain plutonium. Ordinarily, this plutonium is reactor-grade plutonium (RGP), containing a mixture of plutonium-239 (highly suitable for building nuclear weapons), plutonium-240 (an undesirable contaminant and highly radioactive), plutonium-241, and plutonium-238. These isotopes are difficult to separate but it is generally agreed RGP can produce a highly destructive explosion.”
“decreasing the radioactivity of the waste and making the plutonium easier to access.”
“Current reprocessing art has not progressed much beyond the methods that have caused past environmental damage and would likely cause considerable further damage if implemented.”
“Every country that has embarked on commercial reprocessing has accumulated a huge stockpile of separated plutonium. Plutonium separation by the civilian reprocessing industry has gotten so far ahead of plutonium recycling that the world stockpile of separated civilian plutonium has reached 330 tons and is still growing. Using the IAEA’s conservative assumption that 8 kilograms is required to produce a first-generation nuclear bomb, this material represents more than 30,000 bomb equivalents—an enormous potential threat.”
“As explained above Hardin, E.L., et al. report the “Radioactive decay of high-level nuclear waste emplaced in a Yucca Mountain repository will produce an initial heat flux on the order of 30 to 50 times the heat flux in the Geysers geothermal reservoir in California.”According to The California Energy Commission, Geothermal Energy in California website, in 2007 California produced 13,000 gigawatt-hours of geothermal energy. Assuming the conservative estimate of 30 times this amount of heat flux for U.S. nuclear waste, approximately 390,000 gigawatt-hours of energy is produced annually by U.S. waste, which is approximately half the total annual output of operating U.S. reactors. The fuel oil equivalent of 1 gigawatt-hour [GW*h] is 563.990352583 barrels U.S., so 390,000 gigawatt-hours is the equal of roughly 220,000,000 barrels of oil (US). According to Shell, 3 units of shale oil can be produced for every unit of energy input with its ICP so the initial heat flux of America’s spent fuel has the potential to produce approximately 660,000,000 barrels of oil. It would take over 1200 years to produce the estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation 6 at that rate or 336 years using the total current inventory of spent fuel or less considering an additional 133,000,000 barrels of oil could be produced annually by the 10,500 MTIHM annual addition to the global spent fuel inventory.”
“Given the 5.2/1 EROI for Alberta’s oil sands its 300 billion recoverable barrels of bitumen could be recovered in 75 years using the total current inventory of spent fuel.” [end]