Privatisation of NUCLEAR and PRISONS

[Karlin]

Nuclear reactors that generate electricity for Canadians are owned and operated by government, the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. If we have to have nuclear generaters in Canada, we feel better about government running them... but now they may be sold off to private corporations under the Harper government.

The knock against privatising is this:
"Cutting corners to save money does not make anyone rich when governments do it, but when General Electric owns them, they will cut corners because 'money saved' means 'money in the bank' for G.E."

Thats why Harper is doing it on the quiet. I bet that makes you feel more secure eh. Will the operational problems [when nuclear plants are in private hands] also be kept quiet then?

The other problem with privatising is that the money these plants make goes to government coffers, whereas private ownership send that money to large corporate humps, i.e. "Friends of Harper", people who can do him a lot of good with election funding, etc.. The moves to combat global warming are aimed at more of the kinds of factilities where only large investors can own them, instead of things like regular individuals owning solar panels and becomeing the producers.

Conservatives prefer to have the situation where the public is all paying into a single corporate entity for something we all use, because it is pure gravy for those wealthy supporters of Harper.

-----------------#2 Privatising :
Private Prisons!!!
"a big increase in the prison population the Conservatives appear likely to create as with their tough approach to criminal justice"
Pot smokers going to jail again, oh the sweet smell of money!! - for private prison owners that is... and thats exactly what Harper would have, and is quietly organising for now.

Crime rates in Canada are going down, but the Harperites can turn that around, by adjusting the laws. Hmmmm. Then, give away the huge jails to corporations for a song and let them contribute to Harper's next election.

This is not the vision of law and order that most Canadians assume we have, it is the sneaky sickness of capitalism under a hump like PM Harper.

Some of us see right through this stuff, and the rest of us seem to be asleep or 'generally overwhelmed' to look at whats happening around them.


---------
Link to both parts [prisons and nuclear power] of the new privatisation movement in Canada under PM Harper:

http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0067

 

[Niflmir]

As much as I like Harper bashing, he being our current figure head excluding Elizabeth the second, a lot of your fears are ill founded.

Nuclear reactors that generate electricity for Canadians are owned and operated by government, the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. If we have to have nuclear generaters in Canada, we feel better about government running them... but now they may be sold off to private corporations under the Harper government.

The knock against privatising is this:
"Cutting corners to save money does not make anyone rich when governments do it, but when General Electric owns them, they will cut corners because 'money saved' means 'money in the bank' for G.E."

Thats why Harper is doing it on the quiet. I bet that makes you feel more secure eh. Will the operational problems [when nuclear plants are in private hands] also be kept quiet then?

They will still have to succumb to Occupational Health and Safety requirements. Currently, you are at a greater risk for radiation when you step into your basement then when you step into a nuclear power plant which is only allowed to expose you to 1% of the allowable radiation dose of 70 Bq/m^3. In fact, safety requirements would have to be so slack as to allow the radiation levels to octuple before it would equal the levels of radiation you experience naturally.

In short, you have nothing to worry about.

The other problem with privatising is that the money these plants make goes to government coffers, whereas private ownership send that money to large corporate humps, i.e. "Friends of Harper", people who can do him a lot of good with election funding, etc.. The moves to combat global warming are aimed at more of the kinds of factilities where only large investors can own them, instead of things like regular individuals owning solar panels and becomeing the producers.

Most of the money the Conservatives get comes from grass roots campaigns. The conservative party was behind a big drive in the past governments to limit the allowable amount of money from any one source. The Liberal party in Canada was the party with few contributors but large contributions, their recent budget declarations show that they have not made the transition smoothly.

Conservatives prefer to have the situation where the public is all paying into a single corporate entity for something we all use, because it is pure gravy for those wealthy supporters of Harper.

-----------------#2 Privatising :
Private Prisons!!!
"a big increase in the prison population the Conservatives appear likely to create as with their tough approach to criminal justice"
Pot smokers going to jail again, oh the sweet smell of money!! - for private prison owners that is... and thats exactly what Harper would have, and is quietly organising for now.

Crime rates in Canada are going down, but the Harperites can turn that around, by adjusting the laws. Hmmmm. Then, give away the huge jails to corporations for a song and let them contribute to Harper's next election.

OK, I agree with you on the crime rates. The scary part is that all but one of the expert witnesses that appeared before the judicial committee told the government that increasing the length of minimum sentences and leaving maximum sentences alone would lead to an increase in the crime rate.

And the funny thing about privatising a prison is that the only place profit can come from in that case is the public coffer. Prisons cannot pay for themselves, unless you slave out the prison population.

 

[Toro]

There's no problem with privatizing nuclear power plants. They're private around the world, why not Canada?

But I don't like private prisons. Those should remain the ward of the state.

 

[Unforgiven]

Stupid as usual.

 

[Karlin]

Stupid as usual.

- since you do not say otherwise, we will assume that this is your self- description.

 

[Karlin]

Privitsing nuclear power plants has the inherant danger of going Chernobyl. Thats what the original author of this article said, if you read the link. It is not the normal operation of the facility that is of concern, but what happens when operations are not normal, which happens in any plant occaisionally.

" It only takes ONCE to have a problem, they have to be right all the time. " , and thats where private operators are a concern. Cutting costs by doing less maintenenace is a well-known and documented occurance in private operations.

Government operated plants do not have any reason or incentive to cut corners, BUT PRIVATE OPERATORS DO. Surely you can understand that.

 

[Said1]

Privitsing nuclear power plants has the inherant danger of going Chernobyl. Thats what the original author of this article said, if you read the link. It is not the normal operation of the facility that is of concern, but what happens when operations are not normal, which happens in any plant occaisionally.

" It only takes ONCE to have a problem, they have to be right all the time. " , and thats where private operators are a concern. Cutting costs by doing less maintenenace is a well-known and documented occurance in private operations.

Government operated plants do not have any reason or incentive to cut corners, BUT PRIVATE OPERATORS DO. Surely you can understand that.

Government operated industry is susceptible to cut backs and gross mismanagement just like private industry. A quick google search would probably reveal lots of negative info pertaining to government operated nuclear power plants (shut downs, operating at low levels, grossly over budget with respect to construction of plants). I'm not claiming that particular industry has undergone budget cuts, I'm basically commenting on the peformance and efficiency of government operated plants and that they are not immune to cut backs.

 

[Toro]

Privitsing nuclear power plants has the inherant danger of going Chernobyl. Thats what the original author of this article said, if you read the link. It is not the normal operation of the facility that is of concern, but what happens when operations are not normal, which happens in any plant occaisionally.

" It only takes ONCE to have a problem, they have to be right all the time. " , and thats where private operators are a concern. Cutting costs by doing less maintenenace is a well-known and documented occurance in private operations.

Government operated plants do not have any reason or incentive to cut corners, BUT PRIVATE OPERATORS DO. Surely you can understand that.

Chernobyl was owned by the government.

Government operated plants have no incentives to operate efficiently. They'll get paid regardless if they do a good job or a bad job.

 

[Toro]

- since you do not say otherwise, we will assume that this is your self- description.

At first, I thought he was talking about me! 8O:lol:

My guess is that he meant privatisation was stupid.

 

[Said1]

Low and Behold! There is a privately owned plant in Ontario. Right under me own nose.

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Boris Yeltsin sold off all of Russias Government operations to his friends creating what became known as the oligrachs....They became instant billionaires....Now Vladimir Puton took it all back for russia.

Harris did the same here in ontario. Mulroney did the same with petro canada and other crown corporation.
Always ..always some guy benefits and the populace loses.....

If you go to Queens Park and look at the Statue of Brock the inscriptaion says something to the effect of...I promised to make affordable Electric power for everyone......WTF happened to our government trying to make a beeter deal for the populace.....

All this crown land and crown corporation might have had it's fill of corruption but throwing the baby out with the bath water really only benefited a few at the cost of the populace

 

[Karlin]

OK, points taken.

Nuclear is one of the "huge projects" that only big players can invest in. That keeps the energy industry in the hands of a very few, essentiall a monopoly. All our energy spending will be going to large investers, instead of individuals being power producers with solar panels on their homes. "Everyone paying into a sinlge coporate entity for something we all use" is the definition of monoply, and it only benefits the wealthy. Reduce pollution and balance the economy a bit by rejecting the large projects - thats also why I reject nuclear.

The thing is, we really do not need nuclear power - by the time they get new plants built we could have installed enough solar panels and wind farms to do the job. If the subsidies going to nuclear and fossil fuels were also applied to 'solar cells for your rooftops', there would be no problem matching the output of a nuclear plant with solar panels within the 10 year period it take to build one.

 

[Impetus]

Government operated plants do not have any reason or incentive to cut corners, BUT PRIVATE OPERATORS DO. Surely you can understand that.

A totally erroneous statement.

High level government managers are incented (bonused) for keeping their fiefdom operating below budget. In cases where cost over-runs jeopardize the budget, they'll cut corners elsewhere.

A good example I've seen is a government purchaser will cut corners by buying remanufactured toners for their printers, not caring that the maintenance costs for those printers will soar, since that's not his budget. Meanwhile, the IT guy is going overbudget on service costs, so he cuts corners on say...disaster recovery or redundance on critical servers, gambling that he won't need it until next year's budget. You get the idea...

Hospitals are another great example...

Muz