Subscribe for 12 months with recurring billing - $199

Buy 12 months of subscription time - $199


Search Uranium Stocks
Uranium Price
Our RSS Feed

Uranium Updates

Enter your email address:

Follow Us on Twitter
« Hot Rocks Equals Hot Stocks? | Main | Japanese Consortium’s stake in Uranium One »

Hyperion offers Clean Fix for Canada’s Tar Sands

Tar Sands.JPG

Environmentalists Lobby President Obama to Stop 'Dirty Oil,' but Emissions Solution via Super 'Thermal Battery' is Already Underway:

SANTA FE, N.M., February 19, 2009 — As President Obama wings his way to the U.S.'s northern neighbor today, environmentalists on both sides of the border are pummeling the new administration with demands to stop the production of oil from Canada's hefty tar sands deposits. The beef?  While still creating fewer carbon emissions than U.S. coal-fired plants, the extraction of oil from the Canadian deposits is problematic because the power for the mining and processing typically comes from burning fossil fuels.  The process can be cleaned up and made emission-free however, by use of the new Hyperion Power Module currently under development in the U.S.

"We have the solution to concern about the additional emissions generated by the mining and retorting of Canadian tar sands," explained Hyperion CEO John R. Grizz Deal.  "The new Hyperion Power Module, metaphorically a 'super thermal battery' for distributed power, was designed with this problem in mind.  The HPM can be transported into remote locations to provide huge amounts of emission-free power. Further, a recent study reveals the average oil field can save as much as $2 billion a year by using the HPM technology instead of burning natural gas to run operations."  

The Hyperion Power Module (HPM) offers 70 MW of thermal energy per unit. Converted to electricity, that is enough energy to power 25,000 average-size American-style homes or the industrial equivalent.  Once sited, the units can be ganged together to create as much power as needed. Transportable by truck, rail or ship, the units are only about 1.5 meters wide and 2 meters high.  

The HPM was invented by Dr. Otis Peterson. Inherently safe and proliferation-resistant, the HPM utilizes the energy of low-enriched uranium fuel in a technology unlike any other currently in use or in development. Approximately 4,000 units of the same design will be produced, sealed and shipped from company manufacturing sites. The company expects to begin delivery of the units in 2014.

Its not impossible but the above news release sent to us by Hyperion is certainly food for thought, although for an ex-oilman it sounds strange that an energy problem on an oil site can be solved by nuclear energy!

Got any comments? Fire them in!

If you are new to this web site and wish to receive our free newsletter regarding investment in uranium stocks and updates regarding uranium, then please click here to subscribe.

To stay updated on our market commentary regarding gold, which gold stocks we are buying and why, please subscribe to The Gold Prices Newsletter, completely FREE of charge. Simply click here and enter your email address.

For those readers who are also interested in the silver bull market that is currently unfolding, you may want to subscribe to our Free Silver Prices Newsletter. Just click here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (4)

Hyperion nuclear power modules and/or even a regular conventional nuclear power plant will solve the green house gas problem by not burming coal/natural gas to generate steam to extract crude oil from oilsand. The drawback as anticipated is nuclear waste disposal upon depletion. The French and the Japanese has done much better in creating less waste from the nuclear fusion/fission process. There is some way in the world to reduce emission while processing oil sand ;i see this as a problem solving the "dirty" oilsand scenerio. The world especially the G7 government should give this s try before it is too late.

February 23, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterwen

I think that since the tarsands are in Alberta, Canada, then a Canadian technology such as the Candu reactor should be used. A major installation could provide most if not all of the power needed to get the oil out of the surrounding sandy deposits. The timeline is not great though since it would probably take 8 years to build the facility and that's if the project got off the ground immediately and was put on the government's fast track for permits and design. I think the oil should stay in the sand until then. It's just too environmentally destructive to burn natural gas just so you can get oil out of the ground and then burn your newly refined gasoline in your car. That's twice the carbon footprint and that's insanity in this day and age...

February 23, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterdaveydog

bruce power has been pushing ahead thru the maze of canadian red tape for a nuclear power plant around peace river, alta. it will be a 3-4year phase. uranium power is absolutely crutial for the alberta province power grid, and it produces no co2 emissions. however that is like trying to sell a bicycle in truck country - people still perceive nuclear power as a threat based on very old technology and nuclear accidents of long ago. attitudes are changing very slowly toward acceptance, however "not in my back yard" is still a serious blocking point to excelled development. it takes a uranium company 4 years to develop a commercial find and 8 years for gov't red tape plus construction of a plant.

February 23, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterb. mc millan

I appreciate and value your newsletter. It has been indispensable for keeping up with news on uranium.

I have a suggestion: You focus very much on technical analysis. However, there have been some major investments in the uranium sector recently - most notably by the Japanese - and these have not been discussed in detail, that I am aware of.

These strategic moves by Japan (and China to come) are what will drive future M&A activity in uranium. Investigating these further will put you ahead of the curve in a way that technical analysis never can.

why are the Japanese buying? how many plants do they have in process? what is the realistic timeline of those plants? (the japanese have built nuclear plants faster than anyone in the past - in as little as 5 years, vs. 10 typicall, according to my understanding). how much uranium are they securing in offtake agreements? how many nuclear plants will this fuel? can we learn anything about their future plans from the amt of uranium they are getting in offtakes?

All of these fundamental issues of the potential nuclear ramp up are ignored by Wall Street analysts, and you could truly carve out a niche by using your platform to explore these issues more fully.

Just my $0.02.

Thanks again.

February 26, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJ

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>