4-1

AECL-7086

ATOMIC ENERGY K & [ S L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE

OF CANADA UMITED V ^ & j r DU CANADA LiMITEE

AECL PROGRAMS FOR

NEW APPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Programmes de I'EACL ayant trait

aux nouvelles applications de I'energie nucleaire

J.A.I. ROBERTSON

(Editor)

Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Laboratoires nuclgaires de Chalk River

Chalk River, Ontario

May 1982 mai

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED

AECL PROGRAMS FOR NEW APPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY

J . A . L . Robertson(Editor)

Chalk River Nuclear Laborator iesChalk River , Ontario

1982 May

AECL-7086

L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE DU CANADA, LIMITEE

Programmes de TEACL ayant

trait aux nouvelles applications

de 1'énergie nucléaire

par

J.A.L. Robertson(Editeur)

Résumé

Ce document passe en revue les activités du nouveau Comitédirecteur des nouvelles applications de la Commission du programme derecherches et développements de la Société de recherche de TEACL. Lesactivités en question sont décrites sous les rubriques suivantes:

Programmes majpurs

- Remplacement du pétrole par la chaleur d'origine nucléaire (J.W. Hilborn)- Remplacement du pétrole par l ' é lec t r i c i té d'origine nucléaire (J.G. Melvin)

. Chauffage mixte (R.K. E l l i o t t )- Faci l i tat ion de la production de combustibles liquides (A.R. Bancroft)

Evaluations

- Production de carburant 3 part i r du gaz naturel (E.A. Symons/A.I. Mil ler)- Stockage de l'énergie (O.S. Tatone)- Hydrogène (M. Hammerli)

Activités de soutien

- Autres sources d'énergie (R.S. Dixon)- Modélisation mathématique (M.F. Duret et collègues)

Laboratoires nucléaires de Chalk RiverChalk River, Ontario

Mai 1982

AECL-7086

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED

AECL PROGRAMS FOR NEW APPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY

J.A.L. Robertson(Editor)

Abstract

This document reports the a c t i v i t i e s of the New ApplicationsSteering Committee (NASC) of the AECL-Research Company's Research andDevelopment Program Committee under the fol lowing headings:

Major Programs

- Oil Substitution by Nuclear Heat (J.W. Hilborn)- Oil Substitution by Nuclear Electr ic i ty (J.G. Melvin)

- Hybrid Heating (R.K. E l l i o t t )- Aiding Liquid Fuel Production (A.R. Bancroft)

Assessments

- Production of Gasoline from Natural Gas (E.A. Symons/A.I. Mil ler)- Energy Storage (O.S. Tatone)- Hydrogen (M. Hammerli)

Support Act iv i t ies

- Alternative Energy Sources (R.S. Dixon)- Mathematical Modelling (M.F. Duret et a l . )

Chalk River Nuclear LaboratoriesChalk River, Ontario

1982 May

AECL-7086

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pago

1. Introduction (J.A.L. Robertson) 1

2. Scope of NASC Activities (J.A.L. Robertson) 3

3. Oil Substitution by Nuclear Heat (J.W. Hilborn) 4

3.1 Surnnaty 43.2 World Experience 43.3 A Strategy for Canada 53.4 Industrial Process Heat from CAMDU Reactors 6

3.4.1 New Proposals 63.4.2 Industrial Survey 63.4.3 Steam Costs 73.4.4 Subsequent Actions 83.4.5 Prospects for Nuclear Heating in Quebec and

the Man'times 93.4.6 Future AECL Role 10

3.5 Small Reactors for Low-Temperature Heating 103.5.1 Feasibi l i ty Study 103.5.2 Energy Costs 123.5.3 Electr ic i ty Production 123.5.4 Future Prospects for Small Reactors 12

4. Oil Substitution by Nuclear Electr ic i ty (J.G. Melvin) 14

4.1 Electr ic i ty /Oi l Substitution Study 144.2 Hybrid Heating Studies and Demonstration (R.K.Ell iott) 15

4.2.1 Introduction 154.2.2 Deep River Experiment and Demonstration 164.2.3 Publicity 174.2.4 Longer Range Prospects 18

4.3 CRNL Off-Oil Conversion 19

Table of Contents, cont'd

fage

5. Energy Storage and the Role of Hydrogen (J.A.L. Robertson) 22

5.1 Storage 225.2 Hydrogen 23

6. Aiding Liquid Fuel Production (A.R. Bancroft) 28

6.1 Nuclear Energy for Oil Sands 286.1.1 Basis for Study 286.1.2 Concept 286.1.3 Economic Comparison 296.1.4 Plans 30

6.2 Coal Conversion 306.3 Transportation Fuel from Natural Gas 30

7. Support Activities (J.A.L. Robertson) 327.1 Energy Prospects 327.2 Energy/Economic Modelling 33

8. Conclusions (J.A.L. Robertson) 35

9. Papers and Reports Published 37

1. Introduction (J.A.L. Robertson)

The Research and Development (R&D).activities of the AECLResearch Company, executed by the laboratory sites (the Chalk RiverNuclear Laboratories (CRNL) and the Whiteshell Nuclear ResearchEstablishment (WNRE)), are planned and coordinated through the R&DProgram Committee. Table 1.1 shows the structure of Working Partiesand Steering Committees reporting to the R&D Program Committee, whichis chaired by the Executive Vice-President of the Research Company.Five of the Steering Committees cover the established R&D programs.The sixth is the New Applications Steering Committee (NASC).

In general terms, the NASC is intended to develop future R&Dprograms for the Research Company. More specifically, its purposeshave been:

- to promote certain existing ideas that have not yet become part ofestablished programs

- to stimulate new ideas within the Research Company's mandate- to identify needs and opportunities for Research Company R&D- to evaluate proposals for R&D programs arising out of new ideas- to initiate action, where appropriate, on new ideas- to provide feedback to Research Company staff who may be expectedto generate new ideas.

In the Steering Committee's name the phrase "NewApplications" is short for "New Applications for Nuclear Energy", inaccord with the AECL's mission, viz., "to produce the greatest benefitfor Canada from the peaceful uses of atomic energy and relatedtechnologies". Thus the ideas considered relate to the heat, theradioisotopes and the resulting radiation from nuclear reactions.Possible applications unrelated to nuclear energy are, however,excluded.

No one should expect to find all the Research Company's newideas within the NASC activities, since most occur within establishedprograms. Thus new ideas relating to the existing design of CANDU-PHWpower reactor systems, to the existing design of heavy water plants orto new means of producing heavy water, and to the management of nuclearwaste naturally fall within the ambits of the appropriate steeringcommittees. New fuel cycles for the CANDU system, and any associatednew ideas, have their own steering committee. New ideas for underlyingresearch that is more pure than applied are the responsibility of thatsteering committee. The NASC has also excluded that R&D done undercontract to other organizations through the Commercial Operations ofthe two laboratory sites.

Later sections of this report will review those programs andassessments that have been the responsibility of the NASC.

TABLE 1.1

M D PROGWM COmTTTEE

STEERING COMTTEES

POWER REACTOR AWAKED FIEL ENVIROMCNTAL PROTECTION HEAVY VATERSYSTEM CYCLES & RADIOACTIVE VRSTE MWWHtKT PROCESSES

V O K O G W R n E S

UfttPLYING S NEW APPLICATIONSADVANCED SYSTEMS

RESEARCH

Fuel Channels Fuel Developnent Reactor Wastes Management Steering Ccnnrittee Steering Camrittee Steering Comnittee

Out-Reactor Fuel Reprocessing Fuel Waste Imrnbi i izat ionCouwnents

Electricity/DiiSubstitution

Systems Chart stayReactor Physics

Assessnent

ThennalhyAaiiics Non-Proiiferation

ReactorInstrmentation,Control, andElectronics

Storage & Disposal

Etwirormentai Research

Erwirormentai Assessment

Safeguards

Nuclear Reactorsfor Space Heating

Oil Sands

roI

Fuel

- 3 -

2. Scope of NASC Activities (J.A.L. Robertson)

The activities coordinated by the NASC consist of:

- Certain major programs, where there is approved commitment ofappreciable effort to a clearly identified objective.

- Assessments of specific technologies or subject areas to help theNASC judge the needs and opportunities for future R&D.

- Computer modelling of energy systems to provide further support forNASC deliberations.

- Stimulation and review of new ideas for future R&D.

Within the NASC these activities are organized by objectives,and are reported here similarly in the following sections:

3. Oil Substitution by Nuclear Heat, a major program coordinated byJ.W. Hil born.

4. Oil Substitution by Nuclear Electricity, a major programcoordinated by J.G. Melvin, including a sub-program on hybridheating coordinated by R.K. Elliott.

5. Energy Storage and the Role of Hydrogen, two assessments, byO.S. Tatone and M. Hammerli, respectively.

6. Aiding Liquid Fuel Production, a major program coordinated byA.R. Bancroft, including an assessment of the production ofgasoline from natural gas by E.A. Symons and A.I. Miller.

7. Support Activities, an assessment of Canadian energy resources byR.S. Dixon and computer modelling of energy systems by M.F. Duret,G.J. Phillips and J. Veeder.

- 4 -

3. Oil Substitution by Nuclear Heat (J.W. Hilborn)

3.1 Summary

CRNL has been studying the direct use of nuclear heat forindustrial processes and space heating since 1977. Our assessmentshave focussed on large-scale and small-scale applications as follows:

- process steam for industry and waste heat for greenhousesfrom existing CANDU* reactors

- hot water for heating buildings from small, low-temperaturereactors, including the possibility of generating smallquantities of electricity.

The first assessment has been completed (AECL-7426), and we arecurrently studying the feasibility of a SLOWPOKE-type reactor (2-20MW(t)) for space heating and cogenerating applications (AECL-7438).

3.2 World Experience

Nuclear heating studies, carried out in a number of Europeancountries during the 1970s, were reported at an internationalconference (Proc. Int. Topical Meeting on Low-Temperature Nuclear Heat,Helsinki, 1977 August). In 1974, the province of Ontario sponsored adetailed feasibility study of a district heating system for a proposednew community near the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. The studywas done by Acres-Shawinigan Ltd. and completed in 1976. In 1977, theOntario Ministry of Energy summarized the prospects for nucleardistrict heating in Ontario in a report entitled "The Nuclear DistrictHeating Option - An Ontario Perspective". Technical studies on theadaptation of CANDU reactors to combine heat and electricity productionhave been carried out at Carleton University by Prof. J.T. Rogers, andreported at international conferences.

Previous AECL studies on nuclear heating using CANDU reactorshave been documented in three Whiteshell studies: AECL-5117 (1975),AECL-5232 (1976) and AECL-5689 (1977). AECL has also carried out threeassessments of small reactors: AECL-1045 (by Can. Westinghouse Ltd.under contract, 1960), AECL-3141 (WNRE, 1968) and CND 1456/1 (by CRNLunder contract to the Dept. of National Defence, 1978). A proposal fora 2 MW(t) SLOWPOKE-type heating reactor, submitted by J.W. Hilborn andR.E. Kay in 1977, is the basis of the current feasibility study.

The studies prior to the 1977 proposal were concerned withdual-purpose power plants (i.e., heat and electricity) in unit sizes upto 40 MW(t). None of those studies resulted in AECL developmentprograms, because small nuclear plants could not compete with oil-fired

*CANDU:CANada Deuterium Uranium

- 5 -

boilers and diesel-electric generators. However, subsequent increasesin the price of oil have rekindled an interest in the development of asmall reactor. Initially it was conceived as a low-temperature designfor heat only, but the possibility of producing electricity and heat ina cogenerating mode is now being considered.

The only commitments to nuclear heating on a large scaleare at Ontario Hydro's Bruce Nuclear Power Development, where 1500MW(t) of medium-pressure steam is being used for heavy waterproduction, and in the USSR, where two 500 MW(t) district heatingreactors are under construction. The USSR reactors are designed forlow-temperature, low-pressure operation, and are intended solely forheat production.

There have been three significant small-scale demonstrationsof dual-purpose nuclear plants. The 70 MW(t) Agesta reactor suppliedheat and electricity to a Stockholm suburb of 40,000 people from 1963to 1973; four 60 MW(t) reactors are currently supplying heat andelectricity to a remote mining town in the USSR; and a 970 MW(e)nuclear power plant in Switzerland is providing 30 MW of thermal energyto a cardboard factory in the form of process steam. In the last case,the steam diverted from electricity production is only 1% of thereactor heat production.

3.3 A Strategy for Canada

The implementation of nuclear heating schemes on a largescale or a small scale will depend on the public acceptance of nuclearplants in urban areas, as well as economic and technical feasibility.Our strategy is to identify and exploit those technical features ofexisting Canadian reactors that would reduce costs, ease licensingrequirements and gain community approval. For example, in launchingthe Bruce Energy Centre, the proven economy and reliability of nuclearsteam supplied to the Bruce Heavy Water plants provided a firm andcredible basis. The proposed small heating reactor is an upratedversion of the SLOWPOKE research reactor, already licensed and.operating in six Canadian cities.

As oil becomes more and more expensive, the economicfeasibility of nuclear heat will depend mainly on the cost of competingheat energy from natural gas, coal and electricity. Hence the earliestuse of nuclear heat would probably be in those regions of Canada whichnow depend on oil and do not have other options.

- 6 -

3.4 Industrial Process Heat from CANDU Reactors

3.4.1 New Proposals

Early in 1979 it was proposed that AECL take an initiativeto identify candidate demonstration projects and recommend a course ofaction leading to commitment.

An eight-month program was devised by J.W. Hi!born andimplemented by J.S. Glen and W.A. Seddon. Following discussionswith the Ontario Energy Corporation, a steering committee was formedwith representation from the Bruce County Economic DevelopmentCommittee, the Ontario Energy Corporation, the Ontario Ministry ofIndustry and Tourism, Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of CanadaLimited. The ii.. in objective was to study the feasibility of anIndustrial Energy Park adjacent to the Bruce Nuclear PowerDevelopment.

The concept evolved from an entrepreneur's proposal to usewaste heat from the power station's moderator cooling water to heatgreenhouses and a fish farm. The Bruce AgriPark Joint Venture —comprising the Ontario Energy Corporation, Anderson Flax Ltd., HuronRidge Ltd., The Consumer's Gas Co., TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., andWeston Energy Resources Ltd. -- was formed to develop this concept in1979. The Joint Venture's investigation of thermal energy at the Brucesite led to the broader concept of an energy centre using all types ofavailable energy.

3.4.2 Industrial Survey

The first activity sponsored by the steering committee was ajointly funded survey by CRNL of energy intensive companies that mightbe interested in gaining access to a long-term supply of low-costnuclear steam. An information pamphlet and associated questionnairewere prepared by AECL and mailed to 103 selected companies withoperations located in Ontario. Forty-seven replies were received andfollowed up by telephone, further correspondence, and interviews withsenior executives of eight companies. Twenty-two returns expressedvarying degrees'of interest, ranging from a wish to be kept informed tospecific requests for more detailed information. The remainder showedno interest in pursuing the concept any further. In general, the highcosts of transportation and the lack of docking facilities wereconsidered to be the major drawbacks of the Bruce location.

Four companies with an integrated steam demand of more than100 kg/s were prepared to consider seriously the use of nuclear steam.Their combined plants would involve a capital investment in excess of$200 million and provide direct job opportunities fo<- 350-400 paople.

- 7 -

They required a firm indication of steam prices on which to base theiroverall economic assessment. All considered docking facilitiesessential to their operations, with three of the four specifying a portwithin a few miles of the Bruce site.

3.4.3 Steam Costs

For the purposes of discussion with potential industrialusers, Ontario Hydro provided preliminary cost estimates for the supplyof medium-pressure steam to the Bruce site boundary, a distance ofabout 3 km. These estimates assumed that steam supplied to outsidecustomers would result in curtailed electrical production. Thisdiverted steam was costed on the basis of a system average replacementvalue of an equivalent amount of steam generated elsewhere by nuclearand coal-fired stations. Because of the higher overall costsassociated with coal-fired stations, the system average steam cost issubstantially higher than the cost of nuclear steam alone. Theresulting cost of medium-pressure steam at the Bruce site boundary was$3.04/GJ assuming industrial steam demands of 40-60 kg/s at 80%capacity factor.

In the majority of cases, industrial responses to thequestionnaire reflected the need to satisfy two basic businessconcerns:

(a) the need for an energy cost substantially lower thanachievable with conventional fuels in order to offset thehigher transportation costs envisaged for the supply of rawmaterials and/or delivery of finished products, and

(b) the requirement for after-tax corporate returns oninvestment of not less than about 20%.

To put Ontario industrial energy costs into perspective,steam is now most commonly generated using natural gas as the primaryfuel. At the time of the survey (1980 May to August) natural gas wasavailable at $2.20 to $2.30/GJ resulting in industrial steam costsranging from $2.80 to $3.30/6J. The 1980 September 01 natural gasprice increase to $2.46/GJ and a further $0.28/GJ federal tax raisedindustrial steam costs proportionately. However, some of the largercompanies were operating their own co-generation facilities, therebyproducing electricity as well as heat. Their unit energy costs weretherefore lower than achievable with conventional steam boilers andpurchased electricity. In those cases nuclear steam would have tocompete with co-generation cycles.

- 8 -

Industrial projections show total energy costs escalating atnot less than 10% per year for the next 5 to 10 years. Bruce nuclearsteam is projected to increase at 4.7% per year for the next 20 years,and consequently, its competitive position should be considerablyenhanced with time.

3.4.4 Subsequent Actions

In a letter dated 1980 November 05,0ntario Hydro advised theOntario Energy Corporation that it would supply up to 30 kg/s of mediumpressure steam to the site boundary by 1982 October. Prices at thesite boundary would be in the range $1.40 to $1.80/GJ (1982 dollars),on the basis of an interruptible supply, independent of demand and loadfactor. The quoted prices were contingent on a partial recovery ofcapital costs from other parties. Ontario Hydro was also prepared tocooperate in providing services such as water, sewer, roads, etc., atnarket value prices. In addition, Ontario Hydro would allow, on atemporary basis, the use of the outfall channel of the Bruce B NuclearGenerating Station as a docking facility.

On 1981 March 04,0ntario's Premier Davis formally launchedthe Bruce Energy Centre aimed at using steam and waste heat from theBruce Nuclear Power Development for agricultural, aquacultural andindustrial purposes. In an address given at Kincardine, Ontario, heannounced the following government initiatives:

- $10 million toward construction of a pipeline to carry industrialprocess steam and hot water from the Bruce plant to the boundary ofOntario Hydro's property.

- Contract negotiations between the Ontario Energy Corporation andOntario Hydro whereby the Corporation would purchase steam and hotwater at Hydro's boundary for commercial resale. Under thecontract, Ontario Hydro would agree to provide a firm priceschedule for the first five years of the agreement with provisionto negotiate steam prices for subsequent periods.

- A study of the feasibility of building a deep water harbourfacility at-Douglas Point.

- A transitional assistance program to assist greenhouse operatorswho wish to locate to sources of waste heat or relativelyinexpensive energy such as exist at Bruce.

- Acceleration of the development of an aquacultural fish farmcomplex at the Bruce site.

- 9 -

- A $4.5 million ethanol pilot plant -- a joint venture of theOntario Energy Corporation and Weston Energy Resources.

- An industrial park to be located on 2,000 acres (approx. 800hectares) close to the nuclear power development.

- An invitation to individuals and companies to join in the BruceEnergy Centre on an investment basis.

Premier Davis also announced that the Bruce Energy Centre wasto be one of the projects receiving attention under BILD ~ the Boardof Industrial Leadership and Development -- a cabinet committee formedin January. BILD's $1.5 billion, five-year program is aimed atcreating jobs, reducing inflation, increasing trade and improvingproductivity.

The purchase of steam from Ontario Hydro and resale toindustrial customers will be managed by two companies controlled by theOntario Energy Corporation, Ontario Powershare Ltd., and Bruce EnergyCentre Corporation. A 5-year contract has been signed with OntarioHydro with options for renewal at 5-year intervals. The purchase priceof steam is not yet public but the selling price will probably be inthe range $3.30 - $3.80/G0 (1983 dollars). The corresponding price ofnatural gas, assuming 80% burning efficiency, is likely to be greaterthan $5.70/GJ. It should be noted that the $1.40 - $1.80/GJ pricequoted earlier was a basic steam price, which did not include theconsumer's share of the pipeline cost. It was not clear from PremierDavis' statement on March 04, what fraction (if any) of the $10 millionpipeline cost would be borne by the Ontario Government.

Negotiations with large industrial steam-users led to areport that Domtar is considering a $50 million chemical plant. Iffunding of the pipeline is confirmed, it should be completed in 1983.

3.4.5 Prospects for Nuclear Heating in Quebec and the Haritimes

In Ontario, the proposal for the Bruce Energy Centreoriginated as a private initiative in 1977 and culminated in apolitical decision to build a steam pipeline in 1981. A key factor wasthe availability of surplus steam capacity. AECL played a significantcoordinating role, bringing together the major participants fromprivate enterprise, the public utility, the municipal government andthe provincial government. The situation in Quebec and the Maritimesis less promising. Without a local initiative or a directive fromeither of the provincial governments, there is little prospect for anuclear-based energy centre in the foreseeable future.

- 10 -

3.4.6 Future AECL Role

No further action is planned in the immediate future. AECLwill continue to monitor nuclear heating activities worldwide, and willcontinue to publicize the long-term advantages of dual-purpose CANDUplants for oil substitution.

3.5 Small Reactors for Low-Temperature Heating

3.5.1 Feasibility Study

For regions that do not have abundant long-term supplies ofoil, gas or electricity, small nuclear reactors for heating largebuildings are a future energy option. In Canada, the firstinstallations might be in remote arctic communities where heating costsare highest. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is currently studying thefeasibility of a nuclear heating plant in the range 2 to 20 MW(t).Based on the inherently safe SLOWPOKE research reactor, the proposedheating reactor (Figure 3.1) would produce hot water at a temperatureof about 80°C. It would be unattended most of the time, respondingautomatically to daily variations in load demand. The reactor corewould contain enough uranium fuel to last two heating seasons.

Inherent safety of the proposed reactor is based on limitedreactivity additions and a large negative void coefficient. Full-timeoperators would not be required, but alarms for fire, intrusion andradiation would be continuously monitored at a location away from thereactor site. In an urban area, a number of reactors could bemonitored at a single control centre.

The reactor would be installed in a water-filled poollocated inside a concrete vault. In the present reference design thecore contains 200 uranium oxide fuel elements of the type used in CANDUpower reactors, but made from 5% enriched uranium instead of naturaluranium. Reactor power is controlled by a motor-driven berylliumannul us surrounding the core, in response to a signal from atemperature sensor. The coolant temperature at the core outlet isautomatically maintained at approximately 80°C. Core cooling is bynatural convection and the pool water is separated from the hot waterdelivered to the consumer by heat exchangers. The reactor can be shutdown by lowering the beryllium annulus; for an extended shutdown asoluble poison can be added to the pool water.

Thermohydraulic tests have been carried out on anelectrically heated tube simulating a single fuel element, and a31-element test rig simulating the core and primary coolant circuit isunder construction. If the current studies at the Chalk River NuclearLaboratories confirm technical and economic feasibility, a 2 MW(t)prototype reactor may be built at Chalk River in 1984/85.

- 11 -

TABLE 3.1

COMPARATIVE HEATING COSTS, 1987 JANUARY

Heat Source Total Unit Energy Cost(2 MW Unit) (m$/(kW.h))

Nuclear 32

Heavy Fuel Oil- Domestic 21- Imported 32- Air-lifted to far north 154

Natural Gas 18

Electricity 29

Notes: (1) Nuclear costs expressed in constant Canadian dollars(1981 January), assuming an annual interest rate of 16% andan inflation rate of 11.5%, resulting in an effectiveconstant dollar interest rate of 4.036%.

(2) Amortization time 20 years.

(3) Heavy fuel oil at 14.5t/litre (domestic), 24t/litre(imported), $1.32/litre (air-lifted to far north).

(4) Natural gas at llt/m3 (Eastern Ontario).

(5) Combustion efficiency for oil and gas heating 80%.

(6) Combined capital and operating costs (excluding fuel) foroil and gas heating 5 m$/(kW«h).

(7) Electricity cost based on average Canadian commercialrates.

- 12 -

3.5.2 Energy Costs

Preliminary estimates from the feasibility study providedcomparative costs summarized in Table 3.1 for an annual capacity factorof 50%.

3.5.3 Electricity Production

At first sight it would not appear to be economical togenerate electricity at low conversion efficiency using 80cC water froma small reactor. However, in remote northern communities whereelectricity costs include the cost of transporting diesel fyel greatdistances, small-scale nuclear electricity production may be viable.Moreover, 1f the electricity demand is significantly less than the heatload, it may bt,possible to recover reject heat from a Rankine-cycleturbine at a temperature high enough for space heating.

Electricity production from low-temperature water has beendemonstrated in a solar heating/air-conditioning project in Texas, asolar-heated salt-pond in Israel, and the Ocean Thermal EnergyConversion (OTEC) project in California. Low-temperatureturbine/generator units up to 150 kW(e) are now in operation and a5 MW(e) unit is under development.

3.5.4 Future Prospects for Small Reactors

The preliminary cost estimates summarized in Table 3.1 showthat heat from a 2 MW(t) SLOWPOKE-type reactor costs about the same asheat from electricity and imported oil, but is significantly moreexpensive than the corresponding energy from natural gas. In urbanareas well provided with gas and electricity, small reactors are notyet needed, but in remote regions which depend on oil transported byair, a small, reliable nuclear plant could be an attractive alternativenow.

It must be recognized that until a prototype reactor isdesigned in detail and licensed, there will be large uncertainties incapital costs. In addition, the estimated cost of nuclear heat isparticularly sensitive to the amortization period, the annual capacityfactor, the cost of enriched uranium and the number of operating staff.Increasing the power rating of the reactor- would tend to reduce thetotal unit energy cost, but at the possible expense of simplicity andreliability.

Qur present development program is aimed at a decision in1983 to design and build a 2 MW(t) prototype reactor at CRNL. Anessential prerequisite is approval of the Preliminary Safety AnalysisReport (PSAR).

- 13-

TOBUILDINGHEATINGSYSTEM

LEVEL

REACTOR CORE(30 cm OIA x 50 cm HIGH)

MOVEABLE

BERYLLIUM

REFLECTOR

FIGURE 3 . 12MW SLOWPOKE HEATING REACTOR

- 14 -

4. Oil Substitution by Nuclear Electricity (J.G. Melvin)

4.1 Electricity/Oil Substitution Study

The purpose of this study was to document the need andscope for substitution. The report (AECL-7Ot37) was published in 1980September. Its main conclusion was that it would be feasible andeconomical to back-out most of Canada's projected oil imports in aboutfifteen years by substituting electricity for oil in stationary uses.Articles based on the study have been published in the Journal ofBusiness Administration (UBC) and Canadian Consumer magazine. Theexecutive summary is distributed in pamphlet form by AECL's PublicAffairs.

Subsequent events have reinforced the conclusions of thestudy and increased awareness of the electricity option. These includethe National Energy Program, the publicity campaign by the Electricaland Electronic Manufacturers Association of Canada (EEMAC) to promoteelectric heating, the Ontario Government BILD program and theFederal/Alberta agreement on the pricing of oil and natural gas.

The study has recently been extended by an analysis ofelectricity/GNP data which shows a rigid connection between the two,unaltered by the post-1973 oil crisis; the recent slump in electricitydemand growth is attributable entirely to economic slowdown asillustrated in Figure 4.1, reproduced from AECL-7501 "Electricity andthe Canadian Economy".

An article "Substituting Electricity for Oil", based onthese studies, was published in the Winter 1981/2 issue of EnergyForum, a Maclean-Hunter periodical.

Future plans include:

(a) monitor and promote the progress of electricity/oilsubstitution,

(b) assess the impact of seasonal oil substitution on utility loadfactor and identify means of load levelling. To this end, anumerical model (CERES) of the Ontario Hydro system has beenconstructed and detailed data on electrical load and weatherhave been obtained.

(c) find and exploit effective approaches to industry aimed atelectrical conversion. We will maintain contact with EEMAC,CRNL has recently become a member of the Association of MajorPower Consumers of Ontario (AMPCO), and we are seeking contactswith specific industries.

(d) identify opportunities outside of Ontario for the beneficial useof electric space heating and industrial processes. Successful

- 15 -

operation of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Stationshould create a receptive environment in New Brunswick.

4.2 Hybrid Heating Studies and Demonstration (R.K. Elliott)

4.2.1 Introduction

A hybrid heating system uses two energy sources --electricity for base-load heating throughout the year and fuels forpeak heating in severe weather. The electricity may be used inresistance elements or heat pumps while the peaking fuel may be wood,oil, natural gas or liquefied petroleum gases. If oil/electric hybridheating were implemented on a wide scale in Canada, it could displacemuch of our expensive imported oil and increase the use of base-loadelectricity from nuclear and hydraulic generation.

Broad implementation of hybrid heating will probablyrequire the following:

(1) Economic and engineering study.

(2) Experiments and demonstrations.

(3) Dissemination of results to the industry, the utilities and thepublic.

(4) CSA standards for hybrid heating systems including host furnacesand add-on electric heaters.

(5) Inspection criteria for reliable and safe operation of hybridspace heaters.

(6) Capital grants and low interest loans to reduce the houseowners' cost of converting off-oil.

(7) Manufacturing and marketing of a range of hybrid heatingequipment.

(8) Interruptible power at incentive rates for hybrid heaters.

AECL has concentrated on engineering studies, and the DeepRiver Oil/Electric Experiment and Demonstration. We have collaboratedwith other groups such as the Ministry of State for Science andTechnology, Ontario Hydro, Canadian Standards Association andelectrical manufacturers on other facets of the implementation plan.Significant progress has been made in preparation of CSA standards andelectrical inspection criteria, and the development,

- 16 -

certification and promotion of electric plenum heaters for oilfurnaces.

Plenum heater packages are being marketed by an oil companythrough an active advertising program. These units includeload-limiting controls and are one of the types demonstrated in theDeep River experiment. Several other firms are preparing to marketconversion packages.

For hybrid heating to be attractive to consumers it will beessential for electric utilities to offer interruptible power atincentive rates. The resultant growth of base-load electricity shouldimprove the utility load factor thus allowing it to employ itsgeneration, transmission and distribution systems more efficiently andhold down the cost of power. In the absence of a rate incentive, manycustomers would choose full electric heating rather than a hybridsystem, thus aggravating electric power demand peaks and reducing theload factor.

4.2.2 Deep River Experiment and Demonstration

It was recognized that AECL had a unique opportunity toperform a convincing hybrid heating experiment and demonstration in ourrental houses in Deep River. Scientific, engineering and dataprocessing support is available at CRNL. This experiment would testthe equipment and controls and determine the economies of hybridheating. A proposal was prepared in 1980 May.

Six different heating systems with a range of plenumheater ratings up to 15 kW, using both continuous power andinterruptible power under time switch control, were installed over thesummer. The experiment and demonstration started in November withregular collection of environmental and energy consumption data.Environmental Research Branch collects environmental data daily andtenants take energy readings in the houses each Monday morning. AECLclerks take check readings each month, convert the raw data to energyconsumption and enter the environmental and energy data into the CRNLcomputer.

Three types of plenum heaters and associated controls wereinstalled in the demonstration. Two types performed exceedingly well.The third proved unsatisfactory.

The primary results for the first heating season are shown inTable 4.1.

- 17 -

TABLE 4.1

OIL SAVINGS1980 November 03 to 1981 May 18

(Oil furnace only)FirmFirm

InterruptibleInterruptible

0.045.575.865.385.9

Electric Heater Type of Power Reduction in OilRating (kW) to Heater Consumption [%)

0.02.55.05.015.0

The five kilowatt heater on eit'ier firm or interruptiblepower displaces well over 50% of the heating oil and thus qualifies forthe Canadian Oil Substitution Program (COSP) capital grant to reduceconversion costs.

4.2.3 Publicity

Our experience with hybrid heating received muchpublicity.

Articles on hybrid heating and the Deep River Demonstrationappeared in Energy Analects, 198? March 20, and in Electrical EquipmentNews, 1981 April. These periodicals have wide circulation amonggovernment, university and electrical industry groups in Canada. Thesetwo articles were based on interviews with Ron Glen, editor ofElectrical Equipment News.

An invited paper was presented by R.K. Elliott to 300delegates at the Annual Meeting of the Ontario Electrical League onMulti-Source Heating Systems at Barrie on 1981 March 13. MartinLivingston published an article entitled "Dual Heating Technology TakesOff" in the 1981 April issue of Electrical Business, based on this talkand another by Frank Pellini from Ontario Hydro Research.

A six page pamphlet called "Saving Oil in the HomeFurnace", defining hybrid heating, describing the demonstration, givingthe main results and outlining conversion incentives and sources ofinformation for the householder, is distributed by AECL's PublicAffairs.

- 18 -

An article on "Oil Substitution with Hybrid Heating" has beenpublished in the first issue of Energy Forum, a new Maclean-Hunterperiodical aimed at energy policy makers in Canada.

4.2.4 Longer Range Prospects

The oil/electric hybrid heating system is only one of afamily of systems which could displace imported oil and reduce ourdependence on other forms of fuel. Other possible hybrid spaceconditioning systems are:

Oil/Heat Pump Space ConditionerWood/Electric Hybrid FurnaceGas/Heat Punp Space ConditionerPropane/Electric Hybrid FurnaceGas/Electric Hybrid SystemPropane/Electric/Heat Pump with Water Storage.

All members of this family would employ base-load electrical capacitythat can be expanded economically with CANOU nuclear generatingstations. Peak winter loads on the utility can ba avoided by limitingthe electrical heating capacity in each installation, by load limitersin each residence and by load management systems by which the utilitycan interrupt electric heaters in hybrid installations. Lowergeneration, transmission and distribution costs per kilowatt hourshould justify incentive rates for off-peak power to hybrid heatinginstallations.

The oil/electric hybrid heating system being investigatedin the Deep River experiment is expected to have the greatest impact onresidential space heating, particularly in Ontario, Quebec and perhapsManitoba and the Man'times, over the next five years. However, theOil/Heat Pump and Wood/Electric hybrid systems could also have asignificant impact in this period if suitable systems are developed.Propane/electric furnaces and gas/heat pump space conditioners might bedeveloped for new construction in the colder and warmer parts ofCanada, respectively. Electric plenum heaters may be added to thelarge population of new gas furnaces later in this decade when gasbecomes expensive relative to base-load electricity. Sophisticatedsystems incorporating energy storage could be developed to providemaximum comfort at minimum operating cost, when fuel costs becomesignificantly higher.

- 19 -

4.3 CRNL Off-Oil Conversion

Conversion of CRNL from oil to an alternative means ofspace, water and process heating is required under the National EnergyProgram, and as a cost control measure. It is also an opportunity todemonstrate electricity/oil substitution in a quasi-industrialenvironment. Currently, CRNL consumes about 14 ML of residual oil and110 GW.h of electricity per year. (The heat content of the oil isabout 160 GW.h.)

Energy conservation measures to date have reduced oilconsumption by about 15%. Further improvements are expected as moneybecomes available for longer payback items such as retrofit insulationand heat recovery.

Three megawatts of electric steam generator capacity havebeen installed to take advantage of off-peak power. At current pricessteam produced with off-peak power costs $3.87 per thousand pounds($3.67/GJ) sent out, compared with $6.00 per thousand pounds ($5.69/GJ)for oil generated steam.

Buildings remote from CRNL's Power House are being equippedwith electric hot water tanks to permit shutting down part of the steamdistribution system in summer and so avoid the associated distributionlosses.

For the longer term, several options exist:

(a) Continue to use heavy oil to meet our space heating needs. Thepresent glut of heavy oil is expected to continue untilupgrading facilities, currently being planned by refiners,become available, probably about 1985. The operating cost ofthis option is already relatively high and is increasing.Allowing for distribution losses and inefficiency of end use,overall oil utilization efficiency is estimated to be no higherthan 65%.

(b) Transfer space heating load from oil to electricity. Thisoption is the most capital intensive. The operating costs areexpected to be substantially lower than the "all oil" option,due to lower utilization and distribution losses and a growingprice differential between oil and electricity.

(c) Transfer space heating load from oil to gas. This option isspeculative, pending extension of the gas pipeline down theOttawa Valley. Assuming that the pipeline will be built thecapital cost of converting the oil-fired boilers to gas plus thecost of running a spur line to bring gas to the Plant isestimated at 2 to 2i million dollars. The cost of gas is alsospeculative but the Toronto price as of 1981 June 12 wasreported as $3.19/gigajoule compared to a range of $3.33 to

- 20 -

$3.52/gigajoule for heavy oil. Since the cost of gas isscheduled to rise with the cost of oil, there would be littlesaving relative to oil and the operating cost of this optionwill not be competitive with electricity for long, if at all.The lower efficiencies of utilization and distribution apply tooil and gas equally.

(d) Transfer part of space heating load to electricity. Theavai labi l i ty of some nuclear generated steam (10,000 - 15,000kg/h available about 50% of the time) and the continuing needfor process steam present an opportunity to reduce operating andcapital costs. The areas requiring process steam can continueto be heated with steam generated by waste nuclear heat,electr ic boilers and/or o i l - f i red boilers (o i l -e lect r ic hybrid)..The use of heat pumps to recover energy from the NRU reactorcoolant is another possible option that wi l l receive furtherexamination. The remainder of the space heating load would beconverted to e lec t r ic i ty .

- 21 -

350

300

300

kW.h

250

ELECTRICITYCONSUMPTION(109 kW.h)

200

150

100

0 G N p 150

FITTED CURVE(kW.h) = 0.649 (GNP) 1.275

ELECTRICITY DEMAND

REAL GNPCANADA

80 100 120

GNP (109 1971 DOLLARS)

140

FIRURE 4.1

- 22 -

5. Energy Storage and the Role of Hydrogen (O.A.L. Robertson)

5.1 Storage

The relatively high capital costs of hydro- andnuclear-electric generating stations mean that these sources are mosteconomic when used in a base-load role. Conventional electric spaceheating, with its low annual load factor, would increase electricitycosts if it constituted a large fraction of a utility's load. If acheap method of storing energy were available the market for electricspace heating would be greatly expanded without damaging itseconomics.

The hybrid heating discussed in the previous sectionrepresents one approach to the problem. Here, the combustion fuel,oil, natural gas, etc., provides stored energy to level the load seenby the electric utility. However, this stored energy is non-renewableand cannot be readily regenerated from the electric supply duringperiod of low demand.

The potential value of energy storage has been longrecognized and many means of storing energy are known. Some of thesewere reviewed by a WNRE group during studies in the mid-1970s. In thepast, most means of energy storage have been more expensive thanproducing energy from cheap fossil fuels.

With recent increases in fuel costs it is appropriate toreview the validity of earlier conclusions and to examine theapplicability of any new technological developments. Accordingly,O.S. Tatone prepared "Energy Storage: A Review of Recent Literature",published as report AECL-7410. About 250 references are cited.

Tatone considered the technical and economic aspects of thefollowing storage methods:

- Hydraulic pumped storage- Compressed air storage- Electrochemical energy storage- Feedwater and steam storage- Flywheel energy storage- Superconducting magnetic energy storage- Thermochemical energy storage- Energy storage in phase-change materials- Sensible heat storage.

The first two of these are the only methods that have been adopted byelectric utilities; the last has been in use in Europe for many yearsfor residential space heating.

- 23 -

Tatone summarized graphically the relative capital costs(Figure 5.1) and the present worths of the lifetime cash flows (Figure5.2) for the various methods. From this it appears that those methodsalready in use by some are likely to remain most attractive. None ofthe other methods appears likely to provide energy storage moreeconomically. Of interest to Canada is the possibility, subject to aninternational agreement, of exploiting the difference in levels betweenLakes Erie and Ontario as the world's biggest example of hydraulicpumped storage.

The NASC was unable to identify any specific areas where R&Dby the Research Company would be likely to alter the conclusions of theprevious paragraph. The availability of a low-cost electric battery,through the use of electric vehicles and other means, could vastlyexpand the demand for electricity, while providing load-levellingadvantages. This opportunity is widely recognized, much worldwide R&Dis directed towards this objective, and the Research Company wouldenjoy no special advantage in competition with others seeking asolution. In conclusion, therefore, the NASC decided to maintain acontinuing awareness of new developments relevant to energy storage,but not to undertake any specific R&D programs.

5.2 Hydrogen

Hydrogen can be used as a form of energy storage, as a meansof transporting energy, as an input in the processing and production ofliquid fuels and as a fuel in its own right to substitute for liquidfuels. Thus it is convenient to consider it here between energystorage and aiding liquid fuel production.

Following earlier publications on electrolytic hydrogen,M. Hammerli has recently conducted an assessment of the future role forhydrogen in Canada, with particular emphasis on possible opportunitiesfor the AECL Research Company. His assessment is in two parts, asseparate reports. In the first part (to be published) he reviews themany processes that are available to produce hydrogen; in the second(AECL-7676) he examines the relevance to nuclear energy.

In Canada at present most hydrogen is produced by reactingwater with natural gas; where gas is not available the coal-waterreaction would probably be the preferred source for large quantities ofhydrogen. Electrolysis of water is employed for special applications,e.g., where pure hydrogen is required and where the demand is too smallto justify a chemical plant but too large for hydrogen in cylinders tobe economic. A Canadian firm produces its own design of electrolyticcells and associated equipment for world markets and conducts R&D

- 24 -

likely to result In lower capital costs and higher operatingefficiencies within the next few years.

Present markets for hydrogen include the food processingindustry and the production of ammonia fertilizer. There is adeveloping market for hydrogen in upgrading heavy oils, bitumen andcoal to produce liquid fuels. Finally, there is considerablespeculation over the possible use of hydrogen as a fuel. For certainfuel applications hydrogen has inherent advantages but, quite apartfrom cost, there are practical and institutional problems to beovercome. In summary, there is a large assured market for hydrogenwhich could become huge if hydrogen were to be widely used as a fuel.

The capital costs of electrolyzers can be estimated withreasonable confidence and, anyway, these account for only a smallfraction (about- one-fifth) of the cost of the hydrogen product. Thecost of the electricity accounts for about three-quarters of the totaland is more controversial. If the electricity is obtained at normalindustrial rates from a Canadian utility whose generating capacityconsists largely of inflation-resistant hydro- or nuclear-electricstations, electrolytic hydrogen should soon be competitive withhydrogen from natural gas or coal. Judged as a fuel on the basis ofequal energy content, the electrolytic hydrogen would probably be moreexpensive than synthetic crude oil from the oil sands, but in the samerange as alternative liquid fuels under investigation, e.g., methanol,ethanol and gasoline from coal.

An objective of the continuing study by the NASC is toidentify areas of relevant expertise within the AECL Research Companyse.g., electrolysis, hydrogen storage, hydride embrittlenient of steels,that could be of value to a national program of research anddevelopment on hydrogen.

It would only be realistic to recognize that the future ofenergy storage, whether by hydrogen, hybrid heating or any other means,is less likely to be determined by technological advances than byutilities' po'icy decisions on the rates to be charged for off-peakpower.

- 2b -

-V///////////////////A//

,r k\\\\\\\VT

K\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l

3oz

5

£

0101

s?i.o

f 0 J 'd0

- 26 -

FIGURE 5.1(Key)

Capital Cost Ranges of Energy Storage Technologies

1. Surface pumped storage

2. Underground pumped storage

3. Compressed ai r storage

4. Compressed ai r storage with thermal storage

5. Lead/acid batteries

6. Advanced batteries

7. Feedwater storage

8. Steam storage

9. Flywheel energy storage

10. Superconducting magnetic energy storage

11. Thermochemical heat storage (as thermal energy)

12. Thermal storage in phase change materials, cost of storagemodules only (thermal energy)

13. Sensible storage units for residential use (thermal energy)

Figure 5.1 compares the capital cost ranges of energy storage methodsadjusted to f i r s t quarter 1980 Canadian dollars. Total capital cost,capital cost of the power or capacity component and capital cost ofthe energy or storage component are i l lus t ra ted. The three methodsfor thermal energy storage (11,12,13) are shown for i l lus t ra t ivepurposes only. A shaded bar indicates the range of costs published,while a horizontal l ine within the shading indicates the median value.

- 27 -

3500 -

GAS TURBINE UNITCOMPRESSED AIR STORAGECOMPRESSED AIR STORAGE WITHTHERMAL STORAGESURFACE PUMPED STORAGEFEEOWATER STORAGEADVANCEO BATTERIESUNDERGROUND PUMPED STORAGECOAL -FI RED PLANTSTEAM STORAGE

10. LEAD ACID BATTERIES

500 FIGURE 5.2 PRESENT WORTH OF LOAD-MEETING ALTERNATIVES FORFEAK AND INTERMEDIATE LOADS

O.I 0.2 0.3

CAPACITY FACTOR

0.4 0.5

Figure 5.2 i l lustrates total investment cost for the more favourablestorage options and gas turbine and coal-f ired generation. These areexpressed as present worth cost ($/kW) in 1990 of the l i fetime cashflows of each option and are plotted against capacity factor. Thecalculation is based on Acres Consultants Ltd. review for the CanadianElectrical Association and their assumptions regarding cost of money,fuel-price escalation and cost of charging energy have been used withoutindependent validation. The charging energy cost has been taken as thecost of nuclear fuel and operation-related operating and maintenance costs.

- 28 -

6. Aiding Liquid Fuel Production (A.R. Bancroft)

6.1 Nuclear Energy for Oil Sands

6.1.1 Basis for Study

The possibility of using nuclear energy for recoveringand processing Alberta oil sands was explored during the period1975-80 by teams at WNRE. During 1980 the decision was taken to pursuethis project through the next phase of resolution and a Nuclear Energyfor Oil Sands (NEOS) Working Party was established under the leadershipof the AECL Research Company, with representation from the EngineeringCompany and the Chemical Company. Alberta companies, Alberta PowerLimited, Petro-Canada and Nova were invited and they participated aspartners. The objective was "To provide the basis and strategy for anappropriate AECt initiative to ensure that any useful role for nuclearenergy in the oil sands is exploited expeditiously." The workconcentrated initially on the CANOU Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor(PHWR) and only when it was shown that the PHWR would not besufficiently attractive economically was the CANDU Organic-CooledReactor (OCR) considered.

Since the basic question is "Is there a place for nuclearenergy in the oil sands?", the approach for this study (Phase 1) was toidentify the single most promising application and to assess itstechnical and economic feasibility.

The study is complete to the stage of defining technically soundconcepts, showing attractive economics and identifying a preliminarystrategy for proceeding with Phase 2. It is documented in reportAECL-7677.

There are two major processes that require energy asheat:

1. recovering the bitumen from the ground, and2. changing its chemical composition using an

intermediate refining process called "upgrading".

The main upgrading reaction occurs at temperatures above500°C and this produces as by-product, fuels that must be consumed orwasted. There is no opportunity to use heat from CANDU reactors inthis upgrading process. Because the heat energy for surface mining isrequired at low pressure (ca. 1 HPa) 1t can be supplied easily by theupgrader. Electrical energy is also required for surface mining; in

- 29 -

Alberta, electricity using mine-mouth coal will probably be cheaperthan that from nuclear stations for the short- and intermediate-termfuture.

Where the oil sands deposit is deeper, in-situ methods areused, of which the most promising requires injection of high-pressuresteam, typically 14 MPa. The upgrader can provide this energy byproducing less synthetic crude oil or the process can be optimized toallow the use of external fuel (coal or uranium) to provide it. Oneoil sands plant of the current large size (25,000 m3/d) requires 2000MW(t) of steam, which is the output of a CANDU-600 reactor. Our studyis based on the bitumen-recovery details of an in-situ project that,until recently, was planned as a full-scale commercial operation, viz.,Esso's Cold Lake project.

Energy supply systems were fitted into this oil sandsproject by decoupling the nuclear steam supply system for therecovery operation from the steam systems for all other operations.This allows a single unit nuclear system to provide steam at therequired capacity factor. To reach 14 MPa the steam from a PHWR mustbe boosted by about a factor of three using a compressor. Since thecompressor is driven by a turbine using some of the steam from thereactor only a little over half of the energy in the primary coolant isavailable for injection into the ground. This low thermal efficiencyis reflected in a proportionately higher steam cost. The OCR, on theother hand, by achieving the required pressure without compressionoffers a 50% higher thermal efficiency than the PHWR and hence asubstantially lower steam cost. These two concepts are technicallysound, but they would require some development: To prove theperformance and reliability of the steam compressor for the PHWR and toprove safety-related technology for the OCR.

6.1.3 Economic Comparison

Capital and operating costs were estimated byAECL Engineering Company for 2000 MW(t) steam supply systems using aPHWR in one case and an OCR in the other. These were compared with thecosts estimated for equivalent systems by Alberta Power Limited and oneof their contractors using coal and natural gas, all at an Albertasite. The economic analysis was done using the in-house programs of anAlberta utility and an oil company. For the most probable case foreach concept the OCR was cheapest, being substantially less than thecost of coal integrated over the whole life of the project. Coal wasused as the reference fuel because of the provincial policy to use coalfor large heating needs. PHWR and natural gas had costs similar tothat for coal. Over a wide range of fuel and capital costs and for avariety of economic assumptions the OCR was always cheapest.

- 30 -

The conclusion is that OCR is sufficiently attractiveto pursue. The PHWR is only marginally interesting for high-pressuresteam, but it could offer the same attractive economics as the OCRwhere low- or intermediate-pressure steam is required.

6.1.4 Plans

A plan for activities during 1982 and 1983 encompasses:

- discussing the study with Alberta organizations,- establishing a project team,- defining an oil sands/OCR concept,- designing the OCR conceptually,- designing the oil sands/OCR project conceptually,- estimating the cost, and- several other supporting activities.

6.2 Coal Conversion

"H-Coal", a process to produce liquid hydrocarbons fromcoal, is being developed by Hydrocarbon Research Inc. of USA. A pilotplant processing 600 Mg coal per day started operating during 1980.This is typical of the state of development of currently interestingprocesses.

Hydrogen and coal react to give off heat at typical reactionconditions of 450°C and 14-20 MPa. The evolved heat is used to preheata number of process streams. At this stage of process developmentthere is no attempt being made to optimize the reaction to allow heatfrom other sources to be brought in. In the long term, heat from thehigh temperature gas-cooled reactor (up to 1000°C outlet) may be used,but because the reaction temperature exceeds the maximum temperatureavailable from the OCR there is little prospect for using the CANDUreactor. Furthermore, coal conversion plants can be expected to belocated where coal is cheap, making it difficult for any nuclearreactor to compete.

There is no plan for AECL to pursue this applicationfurther.

6.3 Transportation Fuel from Natural Gas

The study by E.A. Symons and A.I. Miller on this topic,"Gasoline and Other Transportation Fuels from Natural Gas in

- 31 -

Canada" (AECL-7258), was prompted by the question "Can nuclear energybe used to make liquid hydrocarbon fuels from natural gas?" The answeris "No" for CANDU-type reactors. Since most of the processes forbreaking the carbon-to-hydrogen bonds in methane and rearranging themrequire high temperature, typically 900°C, they cannot accept heatdirectly from CANDU water-cooled or organic-cooled reactors. Thisprocess heat could be produced by electricity from nuclear powerstations, but this would not be economic for the foreseeable future.

One prospect that does not involve nuclear energy wasidentified. It combines two fairly new chemical processes and aspecial situation. ^Jery abundant Arctic natural gas could be convertedon location to gasoline and shipped to Canadian or foreign markets at acost lower than shipping the natural gas and processing it in CentralCanada. The first process, refined by ICI, converts methane tomethanol and the second, developed by Mobil Oil Corporation, producesgasoline from methanol. The combination is said to be a substantialimprovement over the established Fischer-Tropsch process.

There is no plan for further AECL activity on thistopic.

- 32 -

7. Support Act iv i t ies {J.A.L. Robertson)

7.1 Energy Prospects

In assessing the future contribution of nuclear energy i t isimportant to have a proper understanding of the l ikely demand forenergy, the purposes for which the energy wi l l be needed and whatalternative energy sources wi l l be available. To provide thisbackground information R.S. Dixon undertook a study, now available as"Energy in Canada: Review and Perspective" (AECL-68O7). In this heassembled historical data to help forecast probable future trends. Thereport cites 179 references.

Dixon's conclusions were:

"Energy is essential for man's well-being and his use of i thas been extensive and generally beneficial. I t has providedinnumerable social and economic benefits, continued provision of whichwi l l require extensive supplies of energy in the future. Despite theimplementation of conservation measures, energy consumption in Canadawi l l continue to rise and energy analysts estimate that Canada wi l lneed at least 50% more energy by the year 2000 than i t uses now.Providing this energy wi l l be no easy task, but Canada is relat ivelyfortunate in having practical alternatives because of the wealth anddiversity of i ts natural resources, and the technologies with which toexploit them. However, nothing is free. Each energy source has i tscost, risk and l imitat ions, al l of which are factors when consideringalternatives for tho future.

"The main problem facing Canada is to achieve energyself-sufficiency despite increasing energy requirements and dwindlingoi l supplies. To reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence onimported oi l w i l l require al l available energy resources. One l ike lyoutcome of this wi l l be an expansion in the use of e lectr ic i ty andnatural gas in the next 20 years. The dependence of the transportationsector on petroleum supplies wi l l require enhanced development of tarsands oi l and frontier o i l . In industry, coal could supply a largeportion of the increased demand, i f improved technology reduces thehazard from coal combustion, as could e lec t r ic i ty . Looking furtherinto the future, tar sands oi l and nuclear power (using advanced fuelcycles) offer long-term security in energy supplies. Renewableresources w i l l probably not make major contributions to the totalenergy picture in the next 20 years. However, continued research on,and demonstrations of, the most promising are necessary so that thetechnology is developed when required.

"To make the most ef f ic ient use of our energy resources,t/hile supporting satisfactory economic growth and individual l iv ing

- 33 -

standards, will require careful, disciplined, effective energypolit-ies. Canada has the potential to produce an optimum balance whichwill prevent social disruptions and ensure options for futuregenerations. Its extensive indigenous resources and its technologicaland industrial capability could guarantee conventional energy suppliesuntil well into the next century, and permit the gradual developmentand addition of alternative energy sources. This strategy could leadto increased employment opportunities, improved skills, more regionalequality, enhanced competitiveness in world markets and growth of oureconomy and living standards. Canada's indigenous resources, andtechnology, coupled with a vigorous response to the challenge of energyself-sufficiency, therefore promise major economic and socialopportunities in the future."

In conducting his study Dixon identified two specific areasin which further, more detailed, assessments would be useful inimproving forecasts for future demand for electricity:

- Liquid fuels from forest wastes and products. Economicallyattractive processes require large amounts of electrical energy,comparable to the energy content of the product fuel.

- Solar heating. Were this technology to become more economic thanelectric heating the expected demand for electric energy would bereduced while the utilities' problems of load-peaking would beexacerbated.

At present there is no effort assigned to these additionalassessments.

7.2 Energy/Economic Model 1 ing

Mathematical modelling, using computers, is another tool thatcan be applied in estimating future requirements and opportunities fornuclear energy. These models, through the method of scenarios, canalso provide a better understanding of the interactions between variousfactors, e.g., how increases in oil costs can be expected to affect thedemand for electricity and how substituting a domestic energy sourcefor imported oil can be expected to affect the national balance ofpayments. Furthermore, it is necessary for the Research Company tohave some capability in this modelling technique if we are to commentknowledgeably on forecasts affecting us made by other bodies.

M.F. Duret and his colleagues reviewed those mathematicalmodels of energy systems already available in Canada. In doing so,they gained direct ff limited experience with a few of those thatappeared to have greatest potential for our applications:

- 34 -

- The Economic Council of Canada's CAMDIDE- Informetrica's TIM- DataMetrics' Econometric Model of the Manufacturing Sector in

Ontario- The International Energy Agency's MARKAL, and- Energy, Mines and Resources' Canadian Interfuel Substitution

Demand Model.

As a result of their experience they concluded that there isnot in existence any model that fu l ly satisfies our requirements. Theone that comes closest is EMR's Canadian Interfuel Substitution DemandModel, which has since been imported to CRNL with the intent ofadapting i t for our purposes. Since this model covers the demand sideof the energy system, i t has to be complemented with other modelscovering the supply side and macro-economics.

G.J. Phil l ips has studied the consumption of e lectr ic i ty inDeep River, Ontario, in order to document the effects of a large andrapidly growing seasonal load on the operation of a small electricalu t i l i t y . Electr ic i ty is rapidly displacing oil as a fuel for spaceheating, primarily because of the public perception that electr ic i ty isas cheap or cheaper than o i l , and the expectation that the price gapcan only increase in the future. In addition, electr ic i ty offers theadvantages of cleanliness, convenience and assured supply. Theresulting deterioration in load factor can be costly for the u t i l i t ybut the hybrid heating experiment (Section 4.2.2) represents apromising method to restore the load factor.

- 35 -

8. Conclusions (J.A.L. Robertson)

This account of the NASC's act iv i t ies has revealed somesubstantial achievements, some significant clari f ications and someareas in which continuing work should be f r u i t f u l .

The achievements include:

- obtaining acceptance for nuclear process heat, as evidenced byOntario's development of the Bruce Energy Centre,

- effective promotion of the feasib i l i ty of, and the potentialadvantages of, substituting electr ic i ty for o i l ,

- successful demonstration that domestic hybrid heating can reduceoil consumption by two-thirds with only minimal modifications toexisting equipment, and

- ident i f icat ion of a major opportunity for the application of CANDUreactors in oil-sands recovery.

The significant clar i f icat ions achieved by the followingassessments and support act iv i t ies have also proved valuable:

- an analysis of the correlation between electr ic i ty use and GNP,

- an examination of how a quasi-industrial site l ike CRNL cansubstitute e lect r ic i ty for o i l ,

- a review of the technical and economic aspects of energy storage,

- an assessment of the future role for hydrogen in Canada as i t mayaffect the demand for nuclear e lect r ic i ty ,

- an examination of the potential for using nuclear energy in coalconversion processes,

- an examination of the potential for using nuclear energy to makel iquid hydrocarbon fuels from natural gas,

- a review of the l ike ly demand for energy in Canada, the purposesfor which the energy wi l l be needed and what alternative energysources wi l l be available, and

- identi f icat ion of the most promising mathematical model of energysystems that is already available f c further development at CRNL.

- 36 -

Ongoing work includes continuation of the three majorprograms:

- vigorous exploitation of the oil-sands opportunity,

- completion of the conceptual design of a 2 MW(t) SLOWPOKE reactorto allow a decision on whether to commit the engineering design,and

- continued promotion of e lectr ic i ty as a substitute for o i l ,including continuation of the Deep River Hybrid HeatingExperiment.

In addition, the NASC continues to receive and act uponindividual proposals, with tha dual purpose of stimulating creativi tyand expanding the beneficial uses of nuclear energy.

- 37 -

9. Papers and Reports Published

Electricity/Oil Substitution Working Party

1) Substitution

- Electricity/Oil Substitution, by J.G. Melvin, Atomic Energy ofCanada Limited, report AECL-7067, 1980 September

- Electricity/Oil Substitution pamphlet, by J.G. Melvin, 1980December

- Nuclear Electricity is Economical and Safe, by J.G. Melvin,Canadian Consumer, 1981 April

- Energy: The Future Has Come, by J.G. Melvin, J. of BusinessAdministration, V.12, No. 2, 1981 Spring, University of BritishColumbia, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, report AECL-7325

- Electricity and the Canadian Economy, by J.G. Melvin, Atomic Energyof Canada Limited, report AECL-7501, 1981 October

- Substituting Electricity for Oil, by J.G. Melvin, Energy Forum,Vol. 1, No. 2, 1981/2 Winter

2) Hybrid Heating

- Saving Oil in the Home Furnace, by R.K. E l l i o t t , 1981 July(pamphlet)

- Oil Substitution with Hybrid Heating, by R.K. E l l i o t t , EnergyForum, V . I , No. 1 , 1981 Fall

3) Energy Modelling

- The Consumption of Electr ic i ty in Deep River, by G.J. Phi l l ips,Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, report AECL-7255, 1981 August

- Econometric Analysis and Energy Substitution: An ExploratoryExample, by G.J. Phi l l ips, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, reportAECL-7231, 1981 September

- 38 -

Nuclear Energy for the Oil Sands Working Party

- Nuclear Energy for Oil Sands - A Technical and Economic Feasibil i tyStudy (A.R. Bancroft - Coordinator), Atomic Energy of CanadaLimited, report AECL-7677, 1982 March

Nuclear Reactors for Space Heating Working Party

- Industrial Process Heat from CANDU Reactors, by J.W. Hi 1 born,J.S. Glen, W.A. Seddon and A.G. Barnstaple, Atomic Energy of CanadaLimited, report AECL-7066, 1980 August

- Nuclear Process Steam for Industry, by W.A. Seddon - Presented tothe 2nd World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Montreal, P.Q.,1981 October

- Nuclear Process Steam for Industry - Potential for the Developmentof an Industrial Energy Park Adjacent to the Bruce Nuclear PowerDevelopment, by W.A. Seddon, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,report AECL-7426, 1981 November

- Small Reactors in a Neutron-Abundant World, by J.W. Hilborn,Presented at The International Insti tute for Applied SystemsAnalysis (IIASA) Workshop on a Perspective on Adaptive NuclearEnergy Evolutions: Towards a World of Nuclear Abundance,Laxenburg, Austria, 1981 May 25

Alternative Energy Sources

- Gasoline and Other Transportation Fuels from Natural Gas in Canada,by E.A. Symons and A . I . Mi l ler, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,report AECL-7258, 1981 March

- Energy in Canada: Review and Perspective, by R.S. Dixon, AtomicEnergy of Canada Limited, report AECL-6807, 1980 December

Energy Storage

- Energy Storage: A Review of Recent Literature, by 0.S. Tatone,Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, report AECL-7410, 1981 December

Hydrogen

- The Potential Role of Electrolytic Hydrogen in Canada, by M.Hammerli, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, report AECL-7676, 1982March

ISSN 0067 - 0367

To identify individual documents in the serieswe have assigned an AECL- number to each.

Please refer to the AECL- number when re-

questing additional copies of this document

from

Scientific Document Distribution Office

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

Chalk River, Ontario, Canada

KOJ 1J0

ISSN 0067 - 0367

Pour identifier les rapports individuels faisantpartie de cette serie nous avons assigneun numeYo AECL- a chacun.

Veuillez faire mention du numdro AECL- si

vous demandez d'autres exemplaires de ce

rapport

Service de Distribution des Documents Officiels

L'Energie Atomique du Canada LimiteeChalk River, Ontario, Canada

KOJ 1J0

Price $4.00 per copy Prix $4.00 par exemplaire

1346-82