Durgan
Posts: 248 
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 21st, 2005, 05:17 PM
Nuclear power yes, CANDU's no. Wait until you see the signs.
Durgan.
Quoting
I have also worked with AECL on the Wolsong, Korea CANDU's, and I gotta tell ya Durgan I know a completely different side to AECL than you. These types of contracts have milestones that have to be reached before payment is received, and there are HUGE monetary penalties for being late. If I remember correctly it is about 1.5% of the contract value per day. Lots and lots of heavy duty engineering and testing goes into alot of parts and components and that's before applying ASME Section III code to them and other Engineering requirements. Safety is huge when building parts for reactors, lives are at stake.
Yes,Yes, Yes, I am assuming you did more than hold a ladder while others worked. What have you got to say? Why not on time and in budget? Why re-furbishing jumped from 4 billion to 15 billion and still climbing at Darlington? Quoting
Correction, Type 6, I worked on the part of the project for a year and a half. Plus there was a contingency in the contract to add some more, but that didn't happen.
China does have some. I believe we're working on a type 5 for them right now.
I have also worked with AECL on the Wolsong, Korea CANDU's, and I gotta tell ya Durgan I know a completely different side to AECL than you. These types of contracts have milestones that have to be reached before payment is received, and there are HUGE monetary penalties for being late. If I remember correctly it is about 1.5% of the contract value per day. Lots and lots of heavy duty engineering and testing goes into alot of parts and components and that's before applying ASME Section III code to them and other Engineering requirements. Safety is huge when building parts for reactors, lives are at stake.
Nuclear power yes, CANDU's no. Wait until you see the signs.
Durgan.
Genius
Posts: 848
Location: Mission, BC
Location: Mission, BC
December 21st, 2005, 07:04 PM
hey man my pumps were on time, including the motors which drive them little puppies, and as far as I know we made money. Although I purchased raw material and other components which had to meet ASME Section III code, blah blah blah, I never got the opportunity to hold a ladder.
As for over runs at Darlington, I've got no idea what it's all about, do you have a link to some info?
hey man my pumps were on time, including the motors which drive them little puppies, and as far as I know we made money. Although I purchased raw material and other components which had to meet ASME Section III code, blah blah blah, I never got the opportunity to hold a ladder.
As for over runs at Darlington, I've got no idea what it's all about, do you have a link to some info?
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 21st, 2005, 09:03 PM
The Canadian tax-payer has footed the bill for many of the overseas developments with guaranteed loans over many years at low rates. I suspect the new China developmnet is just such a deal. Sort of like an offer that China couldn't resist, probably using the excuse that there is Canadian content in the parts used. You know it creates jobs-screw the cost.
The consequences of the Darlington cost over-runs have lasted to this day.
http://bumkanar.notlong.com
Darlington - the original cost of the plant nearly tripled to some $14 billion during construction in the 1980s -
http://bumkanar1.notlong.com
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/CANcostb.htm
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/CANcosts.htm
Some of my knowledge comes from an arms-length association with AECL over many years, newspaper articles in several countries, radio news, conversations, and research on the internet. My interest has been tweaked recently, because of the miserable condition of power generation in Ontario at the present time. I suggest it is almost a crisis situation.
Durgan.
Quoting
Numerous stories: There are so many stories about the Canadian Nuclear Industry that it will take a week or two to understand. Certainly, if the CANDU was such a marvellous device buyers would be knocking on the door. This is simply not the case.
hey man my pumps were on time, including the motors which drive them little puppies, and as far as I know we made money. Although I purchased raw material and other components which had to meet ASME Section III code, blah blah blah, I never got the opportunity to hold a ladder.
As for over runs at Darlington, I've got no idea what it's all about, do you have a link to some info?
As for over runs at Darlington, I've got no idea what it's all about, do you have a link to some info?
The Canadian tax-payer has footed the bill for many of the overseas developments with guaranteed loans over many years at low rates. I suspect the new China developmnet is just such a deal. Sort of like an offer that China couldn't resist, probably using the excuse that there is Canadian content in the parts used. You know it creates jobs-screw the cost.
The consequences of the Darlington cost over-runs have lasted to this day.
http://bumkanar.notlong.com
Darlington - the original cost of the plant nearly tripled to some $14 billion during construction in the 1980s -
http://bumkanar1.notlong.com
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/CANcostb.htm
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/CANcosts.htm
Some of my knowledge comes from an arms-length association with AECL over many years, newspaper articles in several countries, radio news, conversations, and research on the internet. My interest has been tweaked recently, because of the miserable condition of power generation in Ontario at the present time. I suggest it is almost a crisis situation.
Durgan.
Genius
Posts: 848
Location: Mission, BC
Location: Mission, BC
December 22nd, 2005, 09:27 AM
Actually Duran, there was a NO US content restriction on the order. And alot of countries include clauses within their contracts that X shall be supplied from here, it helps to keep their people working. And can you imagine the espionage that c/would happen if.
And no offense, but those links don't strike me as a trustworthy source, they look like they are from someone who can publish a page of text. But from what I did read, it looks like OH is the reason for the decaying condition, not AECL.
Actually Duran, there was a NO US content restriction on the order. And alot of countries include clauses within their contracts that X shall be supplied from here, it helps to keep their people working. And can you imagine the espionage that c/would happen if.
And no offense, but those links don't strike me as a trustworthy source, they look like they are from someone who can publish a page of text. But from what I did read, it looks like OH is the reason for the decaying condition, not AECL.
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 22nd, 2005, 10:23 AM
Durgan.
Quoting
I notice that AECL had some supervisory, consultanting powers. Shooting the messenger has its virtues, but the underlying story has a lot of substance.
Actually Duran, there was a NO US content restriction on the order. And alot of countries include clauses within their contracts that X shall be supplied from here, it helps to keep their people working. And can you imagine the espionage that c/would happen if.
And no offense, but those links don't strike me as a trustworthy source, they look like they are from someone who can publish a page of text. But from what I did read, it looks like OH is the reason for the decaying condition, not AECL.
And no offense, but those links don't strike me as a trustworthy source, they look like they are from someone who can publish a page of text. But from what I did read, it looks like OH is the reason for the decaying condition, not AECL.
Durgan.
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 22nd, 2005, 10:37 AM
Selling CANDUs to China
http://rogeheus.notlong.com
From Peace Magazine May-June 1996, p.8. Author=Kristen Ostling; Title=Ten Years After Chernobyl: What Prospects for the Nuclear Option?; URL=http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v12n3p08.htm
Selling CANDUs to China
Reactors sold overseas create stockpiles of plutonium which can be used anytime in the next 50,000 years to build bombs. Canadian taxpayers have subsidized the sale of reactors to India, Taiwan, Pakistan, South Korea, Argentina and Romania. Canada is currently pursuing a deal to sell China two CANDU reactors. Two-thirds of the $3.5 billion dollar deal will be financed by the Canadian government. China's ongoing nuclear testing program, long-standing human rights violations, and dumping of nuclear waste in Tibet make this deal unconscionable.
Canada is also actively pursuing CANDU reactor sales to South Korea, Turkey and Indonesia.
Selling CANDUs to China
http://rogeheus.notlong.com
From Peace Magazine May-June 1996, p.8. Author=Kristen Ostling; Title=Ten Years After Chernobyl: What Prospects for the Nuclear Option?; URL=http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v12n3p08.htm
Selling CANDUs to China
Reactors sold overseas create stockpiles of plutonium which can be used anytime in the next 50,000 years to build bombs. Canadian taxpayers have subsidized the sale of reactors to India, Taiwan, Pakistan, South Korea, Argentina and Romania. Canada is currently pursuing a deal to sell China two CANDU reactors. Two-thirds of the $3.5 billion dollar deal will be financed by the Canadian government. China's ongoing nuclear testing program, long-standing human rights violations, and dumping of nuclear waste in Tibet make this deal unconscionable.
Canada is also actively pursuing CANDU reactor sales to South Korea, Turkey and Indonesia.
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 22nd, 2005, 10:45 AM
http://rogeheus11.notlong.com
NUCLEAR NOW
With high probability, the countries of the world will face a decision between greatly expanded nuclear energy and a greatly reduced standard of living. Unless all countries choose badly, the losers will learn from the winners.
Durgan
http://rogeheus11.notlong.com
NUCLEAR NOW
With high probability, the countries of the world will face a decision between greatly expanded nuclear energy and a greatly reduced standard of living. Unless all countries choose badly, the losers will learn from the winners.
Durgan
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 22nd, 2005, 10:52 AM
Trying to sort fact from hysteria regarding Nuclear Power. Conflicting views and government not informing the public freely has created a lot of unfounded opinions.
Compared with coal, still used to produce 50% of the US electricity needs, nuclear is clean. It creates no greenhouse gases. Its waste, although highly toxic, is compact and when handled correctly, safe.
Uranium, the fuel reactors use, is widely available in the continental US and Canada. Australia has the largest known reserves. This makes it unlikely rouge states can affect supply. Stable supply means lower long-term costs – especially when compared with oil and gas fired plants which are now producing about 20% of US electricity.
Reactor designs such as the Canadian CANDU can be very safe and less expensive to build than most reactors in use today. One drawback to this design, unfortunately, is its ability to produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct. On the plus side, it can use unenriched uranium – about .07% uranium 235. Regular plants require between 2% and 7% uranium 235 in reactor fuel to run properly.
Safe Nuclear Power and Green Hydrogen Fuel
http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html
Durgan.
Trying to sort fact from hysteria regarding Nuclear Power. Conflicting views and government not informing the public freely has created a lot of unfounded opinions.
Compared with coal, still used to produce 50% of the US electricity needs, nuclear is clean. It creates no greenhouse gases. Its waste, although highly toxic, is compact and when handled correctly, safe.
Uranium, the fuel reactors use, is widely available in the continental US and Canada. Australia has the largest known reserves. This makes it unlikely rouge states can affect supply. Stable supply means lower long-term costs – especially when compared with oil and gas fired plants which are now producing about 20% of US electricity.
Reactor designs such as the Canadian CANDU can be very safe and less expensive to build than most reactors in use today. One drawback to this design, unfortunately, is its ability to produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct. On the plus side, it can use unenriched uranium – about .07% uranium 235. Regular plants require between 2% and 7% uranium 235 in reactor fuel to run properly.
Safe Nuclear Power and Green Hydrogen Fuel
http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html
Durgan.
Genius
Posts: 848
Location: Mission, BC
Location: Mission, BC
December 23rd, 2005, 09:02 AM
Here's a link to AECL, check out the FAQ's on fuel waste, current projects, etc.
http://www.aecl.ca/index.asp?layid=3&csid=34&menuid=16
Here's a link to AECL, check out the FAQ's on fuel waste, current projects, etc.
http://www.aecl.ca/index.asp?layid=3&csid=34&menuid=16
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 23rd, 2005, 09:26 AM
Politicians must make a decision. It appears that Rome is burning while Nero fiddles.
CBC Radio- 23 Dec 2005: Toronto is facing rotating blackouts within the next two years unless power generating capacity is added with more transmission lines.
Durgan.
"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies, and the media. … Even if they were right about its dangers - and they are not - its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear, the one safe, available energy source, now, or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet." - From the London Independent – May, 2004
Politicians must make a decision. It appears that Rome is burning while Nero fiddles.
CBC Radio- 23 Dec 2005: Toronto is facing rotating blackouts within the next two years unless power generating capacity is added with more transmission lines.
Durgan.
"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies, and the media. … Even if they were right about its dangers - and they are not - its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear, the one safe, available energy source, now, or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet." - From the London Independent – May, 2004
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 23rd, 2005, 09:46 AM
Durgan.
Quoting
The link is propaganda, sales babble without any real information. There has been too much of this type of usless hype from AECL in the past.
Here's a link to AECL, check out the FAQ's on fuel waste, current projects, etc.
http://www.aecl.ca/index.asp?layid=3&csid=34&menuid=16
http://www.aecl.ca/index.asp?layid=3&csid=34&menuid=16
Durgan.
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 23rd, 2005, 10:05 AM
It would be enlightening if some-one with advanced knowledge of nuclear reactors could and would respond in great detail. Is any-one aware of a link that take the oppossing side of the many items mentioned in the link?
I suggest many of the issues have and will be addressed with current technology.
Certainly China has to accept this option. They have no choice.
The risks are apparent, but so if life. It is risks that have to be balanced against insufficient electic power generation.
All said and one, I see no viable alternative to the use of Nuclear Power.
We are in a situation which calls for: Damm the torpedeos, full speed ahead.
Durgan.
Quoting
Quite a link. It addresses many issues. Probably a bit hysterical in some cases.
http://www.blackhole.on.ca/nuclear.htm
It would be enlightening if some-one with advanced knowledge of nuclear reactors could and would respond in great detail. Is any-one aware of a link that take the oppossing side of the many items mentioned in the link?
I suggest many of the issues have and will be addressed with current technology.
Certainly China has to accept this option. They have no choice.
The risks are apparent, but so if life. It is risks that have to be balanced against insufficient electic power generation.
All said and one, I see no viable alternative to the use of Nuclear Power.
We are in a situation which calls for: Damm the torpedeos, full speed ahead.
Durgan.
Member
Posts: 55
Location: north-eastern Ontario
Location: north-eastern Ontario
December 23rd, 2005, 10:25 AM
Consider Chernobyl.
30km around is a Dead Zone for next 50,000 years or so.
Consider Pickering. Downtown Toronto is not quite 30 km away! Serious accident is just a matter of time. Having no other choice at the moment BUT to use nuklear power must have SERIOUS safety considerations. Definitely , not building it NEXT to a MEGAcity. It is a crime. With tens of thousands dead and millions forced to move away ... sometime in the future ... when current politicians will be spending their leasuire far far away .. who will be there to held responsible ?
Prevention works the best. Dont think about yourselves but think about your children.
Last year Canada pulled out of international effort in creating commercial thermonuclear fusion reactor ( ITER http://iter.org)
... So much for its 'technologically advanced' strategy!
Consider Chernobyl.
30km around is a Dead Zone for next 50,000 years or so.
Consider Pickering. Downtown Toronto is not quite 30 km away! Serious accident is just a matter of time. Having no other choice at the moment BUT to use nuklear power must have SERIOUS safety considerations. Definitely , not building it NEXT to a MEGAcity. It is a crime. With tens of thousands dead and millions forced to move away ... sometime in the future ... when current politicians will be spending their leasuire far far away .. who will be there to held responsible ?
Prevention works the best. Dont think about yourselves but think about your children.
Last year Canada pulled out of international effort in creating commercial thermonuclear fusion reactor ( ITER http://iter.org)
... So much for its 'technologically advanced' strategy!
Genius
Posts: 848
Location: Mission, BC
Location: Mission, BC
December 23rd, 2005, 07:34 PM
Quoting
Durgan.
Sorry Durgan, but the credibility of the site leaves a whole lot to be desired, IMO. If you have anything else I'd be more than happy to check it out.
Quoting
Read them in detail. At least there are some facts with less pure bull****.
And your 'notlong.com' links are any better?
Durgan.
Durgan
Posts: 248
Location: Brantford, ON
Location: Brantford, ON
December 23rd, 2005, 09:23 PM
Neodim wrote:
http://www.blackhole.on.ca/nuclear.htm
I am beginning to think you have difficulty reading let alone comprehending. You have contributed nothing to this thread except the most shallow comments, and I am being kind.
http://www.blackhole.on.ca/nuclear.htm
Durgan.
Quoting
Try the link by Neodim wrote: This link mentions almost everything discussed in this thread in a most colourful manner. Quoting
Durgan.
Sorry Durgan, but the credibility of the site leaves a whole lot to be desired, IMO. If you have anything else I'd be more than happy to check it out.
Quoting
Read them in detail. At least there are some facts with less pure bull****.
And your 'notlong.com' links are any better?
Durgan.
Neodim wrote:
http://www.blackhole.on.ca/nuclear.htm
I am beginning to think you have difficulty reading let alone comprehending. You have contributed nothing to this thread except the most shallow comments, and I am being kind.
http://www.blackhole.on.ca/nuclear.htm
Durgan.
