Nuclear Energy for Oil Extraction in Canadian Tar Sands:
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Professor Andrew C. Kadak
Professor of the Practice
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nuclear Science & Engineering
Life Cycle Assessment Special Nuclear Session
November 3rd, 2006, 1:30pm-3:00pm
University of Calgary
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SAGD
Plant Scenarios
Nuclear Plant Designs
Thermo-hydraulic Analysis
Economics
Carbon Dioxide
Conclusion
Future Work
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
2
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
In-situ SAGD
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
3
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Scenario One:
• Production – SAGD Process Heat Only
• Electricity from off-site source
• Product – Diluted bitumen
Scenario Two:
• Production – SAGD Process Heat and Electricity for onsite needs
• Product – Diluted bitumen
Scenario Three:
• Production – SAGD Process Heat, Electricity for on-site
needs, and Hydrogen for upgrading needs
• Syncrude
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
4
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Evaluation of Reactor Options
• ACR-700 (1983MWth, 731MWe)
– Primary coolant: Light Water, Moderator: Heavy Water
– Primary Outlet: 326°C, Fuel: Canflex bundle; SEU(slightly
enriched Uranium) ~2%
• PBMR
(400MWth, 165MWe)
– Primary coolant: Helium, Moderator: Graphite
– Primary outlet: 900°C, Fuel Pebbles: 60mm, outer dia., encloses
~11,000 C/SiC coated fuel microspheres of UO2
• AP600 (1940MWth, 600MWe)
– Primary Coolant and Moderator: Light Water
– Primary Outlet: 316°C, Fuel: 4.20 wt % 235U, sometimes MOX
(mixed oxide) fuel
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
5
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Extraction Parameters
• The conditions for extraction vary depending on the
quality of the tar sand bed
• Calculations for this study were conducted using low
quality tar sand bed conditions
Based on a 100,000 Bbl/day
bitumen extraction plant
Heat
Transfer
Required
(MWth)
Pressure
2 Mpa
6 MPa
Low
Performance
1230
1264
High
Performance
820
843
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
6
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Layout for Steam Cycles
• Either two ACR700s or two AP600s
in parallel would be
acceptable for this
scenario
Scenario
Bitumen (Bbl/day)
SynCrude (Bbl/day)
1
332,000
-
2
199,000
-
3
-
114,000
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
7
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Layout for Gas Cycles
850°C
• Eight PBMRs would
be acceptable for
this scenario
Scenario
Bitumen SynCrude
(Bbl/day) (Bbl/day)
1
253,000
-
2
166,000
-
3
-
98,000
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
8
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Economics
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
9
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Purpose of economic analysis
1.Should natural gas or nuclear be used for the SAGD extraction
process?
2.Should the electricity requirements of the plant be fulfilled by
buying electricity off the power grids, or by making it at the plant?
3.Should the hydrogen required for the bitumen upgrading process
be bought from private suppliers, or produced at the plant?
**This is meant to be a comparison between nuclear and natural
gas energy sources for this application, not an estimate of the
actual full cost of the facility.
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
10
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Economic Assumptions
• All costs are in US dollars (US$)
• The lifetime for the plants are assumed to be 30 years, and the
Net Present Value (NPV) is calculated for a 10% discount rate
• No inflation is assumed
• Easy access to Alberta electricity power grid is assumed, price is
~US$0.05/kWhr
• Buying price of hydrogen is assumed to be ~US$2.50/kg of H2
• Natural gas price is assumed to be $8.00/mmBtu
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
11
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Economic Assumptions, Cont’d.
• A 90% learning curve is assumed for building additional
nuclear reactors
• Costs do not include that of processing and
upgrading plants as these are held constant and
independent of heat source used.
• 4 categories of cost: capital, O&M, fuel, and
decommissioning
• 3 final types of costs looked at: Cost of Process Heat,
Cost of Electricity, and Cost of Hydrogen Production
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
12
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Nuclear Power Cost Assumptions
AP600
1 unit
AP600
2 units
ACR-700
1 unit
ACR-700
2 units
PBMR
1525.55
1250
Capital Rate
($US/kW)
1687.2
1520
1693.40
Fuel Rate (US
mills/kWhe)
5.0
5.0
2.6
2.6
6.0
O&M Rate (US
mills/kWhe)
8.0
10.0
7.05
8.82
3.0
Decommisioning
Rate (US
mills/kWhe)
1.25
1.0
0.6175
0.494
0.6
Operating Life
(yrs)
30
30
30
30
30
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
13
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Hydrogen Production Costs
Natural Gas
PBMR
ACR-700
AP600
Hydrogen
Make
Cost per
Hydrogen
unit bitumen
($US/Bbl)
1.754
1.636
1.901
1.811
Buy
Hydrogen
2.506
2.506
2.506
2.506
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
14
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Cost Comparison of Natural Gas v. Nuclear
Cost Comparison of Natural Gas vs. Nuclear
Lifetime Cost over 30 years ($M)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Process Heat
Electricity
Hydrogen
Type of Cost
Market
Natural Gas
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
PBMR
ACR-700
AP600
15
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Sensitivity of Total Cost to Changes in
Capital Cost
Change in Total Cost
for a 25% increase in
Capital Cost
PBMR
ACR-700
AP600
11.3%
13.9%
12.5%
Capital cost is an initial fixed cost, unlike natural gas cost
which is a recurring cost over the lifetime, i.e. capital cost
has no future volatility
For a 25% increase in the price of natural gas, the gas
extraction costs rise 18%.
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
16
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Economic Conclusions
• Given current natural gas costs, nuclear is a viable alternative for
producing process heat for SAGD.
• Producing electricity using nuclear power is more cost-effective
than buying it off the Alberta power grid or producing it using
natural gas.
• While Steam-Methane Reforming has historically been a
cheaper process than High Temperature Steam Electrolysis, the
cost of HTSE with nuclear power is now comparable to SMR due
to high natural gas cost.
• Overall, using nuclear power is a competitive alternative to
natural gas due to high prices and volatility of natural gas, and
new compliance regulations of the Kyoto protocol
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
17
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Kyoto Protocol
•Canada has agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by 6% relative to the 1990 level of 612 Mt by 2012. (575
Mt)
•Canada’s Climate Change Plan (2002/2005)
•Reduce emissions to 305 Mt by 2012
•In 2012 (at 100Mt CO2) oil sands emissions would
represent 17% of the total Kyoto target (575 Mt), and
29% of Climate Change Plan target (305 Mt)
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
18
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Conclusions
• Nuclear Process Heat applications in Oil Recovery from
Tar Sands are possible for steam production, electricity
generation and syncrude refining with hydrogen
production at costs that are lower than natural gas.
• Canadian Kyoto agreements will be challenged without
the use of nuclear energy in oil sands extraction
processes. Approximately 100 Mt CO2 emissions are
avoided.
• Additional site specific analyses are needed to refine the
nuclear energy applications to meet industry needs.
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
19
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Updates & Extensions Needed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Updated process requirements
Updated nuclear capital costs
Hard look at practical implementation challenges
Safety implications
More in-depth CO2 analysis
More in-depth natural gas displacement analysis
Regulatory needs and insurance issues
Conceptual business plan possibilities
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
20
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Acknowledgements
This study was prepared as an MIT class design project in the Department of
Nuclear Science & Engineering. The authors of the original study included:
G. Becerra, E. Esparza, E. Helvenston, S. Hembrador, K. Hohnholt, T. Khan, D.
Legault, M. Lyttle, C. Murray, N. Parmar, S. Sheppard, C. Sizer, E. Zakszewski,
K. Zeller
Assistance and information were also provided by:
Ryan Hannink of MIT, Dr. Julian Lebenhaft of AECL, William Green of MIT, The
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Westinghouse Electric Company, James
Fong of Petro-Canada, Bilge Yildiz of Argonne National Laboratory, Brian Rolfe
of AECL, Michael Stawicki and Professor Mujid Kazimi of the MIT Nuclear
Science and Engineering Department, Thomas Downar of Purdue, Daniel
Bersak of DRB photography, MIT alumnus Curtis Smith of INL, and the faculty
members of the MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering.
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
21
Integration of Nuclear Power with In-Situ Oil Extraction
Questions
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
22