That is a big backhoe!
While crude is pumped from the ground, oil sands must be mined and bitumen separated from the sand and water, then upgraded and refined. Petroleum companies are eyeing nuclear power to feed burgeoning oil production in Canada’s oil patch.
At an estimated 173 billion barrels, Canada’s oil sands rank second behind Saudi Arabia in petroleum reserves. However, due to high extraction costs, the deposits were long neglected, except by local companies.
Extraction from oil sands not only requires heat, the typical use of natural gas adds to the carbon burden of the process.
But with wide fluctuations in natural gas prices and pressure from the government and environmentalists to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, some petroleum companies are contemplating switching to cleaner and stable nuclear energy to fuel the oil sands boom.
Of note, neighboring Saskatchewan province is one of the top producers of uranium in the world.
Armand Laferrere, president of Areva Canada, said, “The most likely scenario is that several oil companies each needing a few hundred megawatts join together – tapping into one nuclear plant”.
You could end up with low-emissions production from the oil sands – using nuclear power generated nearby to lower the cost of production.
Oh, for people who haven’t read Heinlein:
TANSTAAFL: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Matt: Misanthropic Scott summarized it well. DDT has disastrous effects on some species, I would add that without them the food chain is broken. You research is selective so that you will only find out what will support your conclusions. What a well educated person would do is to go to a general source of information on the chemical rather than a self selecting Internet search. In this way you are obtaining information about the chemical, not getting the research that the troglodytes think is agreeable. People with agendas know about Google and so do what it takes to make the hit count high on articles that support their position. Not that you care, you’re just another reactionary trying to cling to what you can after your little tin god Bush started rusting.
25—Thats not what I got when I googled “health effects of DDT:” Please post what you googled to get that slanted website?
And I do think slanted websites have their worth and should be part of anyone’s analysis. Just don’t lie about it.
30–Great post. I think you might be hung up on your handle? The fact is to be accurate and fair you should have said “I agree with you and would add – – – ” and later “rather than truly contradicting them” you show another quibble to the negative. You didn’t contradict at all, no truly about it. With this much love on display, maybe you should modify your handle. I’ll leave that to your displayed good sense.
26:
I agree completely. I think it’s a good thing that DDT is no longer in widespread use. I can handle a few spots on my apples to avoid sticking something bad into the environment. It should NOT, however, be banned from use in places where a lot of lives would be saved by it. I have a hard time believing much damage would be done if Africans were allowed to spray it in their homes and around their towns and villages.
32:
The point of posting the two URLs was to simply demonstrate that there is much more to the story than some people would have you believe. It was hardly presented as extensive research (although I do believe the CDC is pretty thorough and objective).
The fact that you automatically assume that I’m somehow a right-wing fan of George Bush, just because I suggest a moderate point of view on environmental issues, says more about your level of extremism than mine. Note the anger in your tone, brought on by the simple suggestions that we consider the long-term implication of our environmental decisions, and not fall into the trap of automatically opposing everything that is less than ideal.
33:
Sorry, I missed your comment. I think the search was actually something along the lines of “does DDT cause cancer”.
Tough crowd today. But that’s good. 🙂
bobbo,
Sorry, I’m not going to change my handle. As I pointed out on an earlier thread long ago, I am a bipolar misanthrope. I like many individuals, love a few, and hate humanity as a whole and the things we have done to this pathetic little planet we call home.
I also love many other species. I would like to avoid killing as many more as our species can. Sometimes, this appears to me to include saving our own; most often not. Attempting to convince people of my opinions usually involves ignoring my views on our species.
I should have said beautiful but pathetically insignificant planet we call home. That probably would have more accurately reflected my opinion.
36–I think Bernard Shaw or some other wag said that about being a “Humanist” a century ago?
37–Yes, beautiful from a distance. Ugly and beautiful in places up close.
why can’t the power of solar energy be harnessed to do the heating required for extraction?