1	Climate Change and Nuclear Energy Presentation to the Canadian Institute of Energy Calgary, Alberta, January 23, 2002 Duane Pendergast, Computare
2	Contents Background Canada, Kyoto (and Beyond) Energy (Nuclear) and CO₂ Reduction Potential Applications in Alberta Conclusions
3	The Greenhouse Effect is Real
4	Concentration (1000 year) of Greenhouse Gases
5	Northern Hemisphere (1000 years) Temperature
6	IPCC (UN) Messages - The Scientific Basis
7	Kyoto Protocol 1997 International (UN COP 3) agreement to reduce GHG emissions Targets for developed countries No targets for less developed countries Several subsequent meetings to establish details UN COP 7 (Marrakech) in the fall of 2001 establishes a near consensus on the way to proceed (US abstains?) Countries talking ratification in 2002 A first step to GHG Control
8	Kyoto (and Beyond)
9	Canada and Kyoto Canada’s target 6% below 1990 levels Major national review initiated early 1998 ~15 Sectoral “Issue Tables” established Federal, provincial, stakeholder input Analysis and modelling Major public reports of review and analysis http://www.nccp.ca/
10	Canada Projected GHG Emissions and the Kyoto Target
11	Canada’s Action Plan Pre Kyoto efficiency and other measures Limits “Gap” to 199 Mt Business/Action plan 2000 ~ 65 Mt Focus on energy efficiency Business Action plan 2002 underway Business Plans position Canada for ratification Actions to date are not intended to close the gap
12
13	Lifecycle CO₂ From Electricity Production
14	CO2 From Electricity/Hydrogen Fuelled Cars
15	Role of Nuclear Energy in Kyoto – and Beyond 2010 Kyoto target date very tight for any expansion Nuclear plants at peak production in early nineties Avoiding about 100 Mt/year relative to coal then Essentially limited to making best use of existing plants Post 2010 allows time for a nuclear contribution expanded electricity production expanded use of electricity process heating applications application to transport
16	Economic Modeling of the Kyoto Commitment National Climate Change Process Modeling Analysis and Modeling Group (AMG) Lowest cost way of achieving Kyoto National modeling projected to 2020 2013 start time – 10 year build time input data Results - no new nuclear plants in Canada
17	Economic Modeling of the Kyoto Commitment Canadian Nuclear Association Modeling Supplemented the AMG modeling Same model as AMG with the following exceptions: Start time – 2002for CANDU 6, 2005 for NG CANDU Build time – 5 years NG CANDU cost 30% less than CANDU 6 per the AMG model The model decided to add 24 NG CANDU’s to Canada’s electricity supply mix Results provided to the National Climate Change Process
18	An Alberta CO₂ Opportunity – The Oil Sands Nuclear Process Heat Many studies of application to oil sands Low temperature steam from CANDU Large capacity of CANDU’s inconsistent with size of oil sand projects AECL even designed and built a higher temperature test reactor (organically cooled)
19	An Alberta CO₂ Opportunity – The Oil Sands
20	An Alberta CO₂ Opportunity – The Oil Sands Oil sands projects are more and bigger Extraction and upgrading generates CO₂ About 0.10 tonnes CO₂per barrel A 50,000 bpd plant could utilize 1 power plant Nearly eliminates CO2 from production Avoids 73 Mt/yr at 2 million barrels/day
21	An Alberta CO₂ Opportunity? – Biosinks Kyoto Protocol allows for biosinks Forest sinks are capped Agricultural and grazing land sinks are not Sinks require land, water and nutrients The prairies provide lots of land that could use more water Energy can provide water and nutrients
22
23	An Alberta CO₂ Opportunity? – Biosinks Agricultural production increase via irrigation Alberta currently irrigates < 1.5 million acres One half of the Slave river could irrigate 20 million acres Poplar and corn absorb about 8 t/acre-annum of CO2 A potential for 160Mt/annum absorption from the atmosphere How much could be returned to soils? Overcoming Gravity Lakes Claire and Athabasca are about 700m lower than the prairies Two kwhr/m³ About 12,000 Mw at 100% to lift ½ of the Slave River Would the value of carbon sinks help defray costs? Food for thought
24	Conclusions Implementation of Kyoto and beyond will change the energy status quo The intrinsic value of fossil resources will be much more appreciated Alternate energy will be needed Additional energy may be needed to manage CO₂ Human ingenuity can adapt our technology on many fronts to cope with the challenges posed