Made-in-Ontario nuclear power
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle
China does have some. I believe we're working on a type 5 for them right now.
China does have some. I believe we're working on a type 5 for them right now.
Argentina, India, Korea, Pakistan, and Romania is the list I got off internet.
I was always astonished that not one really advanced country ever bought a Candu.
The one in Romania was a total disaster under the old communist regime, and I don't know if it ever got into production. The one in India was used to make India's bomb. AECL lost control of the unit after four years from the beginning of construction.
AECL keeps a close lip on the Candu. The less known the more likely one may be bought. Cost over-runs and problems seem to be the order of the day.
Candus are responsible for the huge electrical debt in Ontario.
Durgan.
I was always astonished that not one really advanced country ever bought a Candu.
The one in Romania was a total disaster under the old communist regime, and I don't know if it ever got into production. The one in India was used to make India's bomb. AECL lost control of the unit after four years from the beginning of construction.
AECL keeps a close lip on the Candu. The less known the more likely one may be bought. Cost over-runs and problems seem to be the order of the day.
Candus are responsible for the huge electrical debt in Ontario.
Durgan.
Is that our fault, or the fault of the Romanian government of the day?
So? That's like selling somebody a hammer, then being expected to take responsibility when they wave it threateningly at their neighbour.
So are toaster ovens and colour TVs. The US has a huge electrical debt as well, yet they don't have CANDUs.
Durgan said:
The "advanced" countries all designed their own reactors, mostly so that they could get enriched unranium from the reactor, to use as weapons grade. You're getting confused by your dislike of Ontario Hydro's incompetence.
TenPenny said:
Confused not, just bringing the disaster out in the open, or separating the facts from the bullshit. The advanced countries do not make Candu type reactors-not one. Most reactors do not manufacture bomb grade uranium. The Candu is the best for making weapons grade uranium. The end product is almost perfect. There are other methods, but a Candu is the best.
The disadvantage of the Candu outweigh the advantages. They have been a disaster paid for by the Canadian tax-payer. I suggest the Candu compared to other types of reactors is and has been an abysmal technical and financial failure.
There has neve been a Candu built on time and in budget.
Durgan.
Reverend Blair said:
Is that our fault, or the fault of the Romanian government of the day?
I have heard this trite excuse fron AECL for years.
If I sign a contract for a 2 million dollar CANDU, I expect sufficient control by the supplier to see it through to completion.
The one in India was used to make India's bomb.
How about safeguards in the contract with inspection teams, probably under the UN? AECL would sacrafice anything to get a major CANDU sale.
So are toaster ovens and colour TVs. The US has a huge electrical debt as well, yet they don't have CANDUs.
I consider this remark silly. Cost overuns on the CANDU's from 4 to 15 billion in one case certainly contributed to debt. As an aside Maurice Strong firing or early retiring everybody with any knowledge certain contributed to the disaster with Ontario electrical power generation.
Comparing the US utility debt to other than not having CANDU's sort of eludes me. Just imagine how bad it would be if they had CANDU's.
There has never been a CANDU installed that was on time and in budget.
Durgan.
RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle
So your basic argument is that the CANDU is no good because of political ineptitudes?
I generally argue against nuclear power, but not because our governments have a record of incompetence-driven greed. That's going to be a problem no matter what kind of energy you use.
So your basic argument is that the CANDU is no good because of political ineptitudes?
I generally argue against nuclear power, but not because our governments have a record of incompetence-driven greed. That's going to be a problem no matter what kind of energy you use.
Before choosing a Nuclear Reactor, there shoud be a hard look at the history of operating plants throughout the world.
Indeed seperate the propaganda from the facts about the CANDU and consider this one also. Too many people believe the propaganda without knowing the facts about the CANDU and indeed Canada's whole nuclear industry.
Nuclear Power generation is required period. It is the safest, cleanest power sufficient to meet demands. Renewable sources and conservation should be encouraged, where appropiate, without the hysterical views expressed by the fat and well fed.
I just heard on the CBC that OPG, Ontario Power Generation, will not be building the new plants. This is due to their past poor performance.
I suggest a hard look at a Japanese Company. The end product will be in budget and on time.
Governmnet must from the beginning keep out of the building after the contractor is selected. Government and political interference has always been a major cause of the cost over-runs. Hysterical ignorant interference has been the order of the day regarding Nuclear Power.
Now is the time to start with a new slate and do it right.
Durgan.
Indeed seperate the propaganda from the facts about the CANDU and consider this one also. Too many people believe the propaganda without knowing the facts about the CANDU and indeed Canada's whole nuclear industry.
Nuclear Power generation is required period. It is the safest, cleanest power sufficient to meet demands. Renewable sources and conservation should be encouraged, where appropiate, without the hysterical views expressed by the fat and well fed.
I just heard on the CBC that OPG, Ontario Power Generation, will not be building the new plants. This is due to their past poor performance.
I suggest a hard look at a Japanese Company. The end product will be in budget and on time.
Governmnet must from the beginning keep out of the building after the contractor is selected. Government and political interference has always been a major cause of the cost over-runs. Hysterical ignorant interference has been the order of the day regarding Nuclear Power.
Now is the time to start with a new slate and do it right.
Durgan.
Re: RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle
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.
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.
Reverend Blair said:
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.
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.
Reverand Blair asked:
Good question! I've wondered that too. I heard something about nuclear waste being reprossesed and reused but I don't remember the details. I hope someone can answer the question here.
That brings brings up another point. For years, we have been using resources and throwing away the waste products. We have to get out of that mindset. At the moment, in Ontario, we have a number of coal-burning power plants which are dumping their emissions into the atmosphere. That is polluting the air and killing people, trees, lakes, etc. and we are throwing away valuable chemicals! Carbon dioxide is valuable in extracting oil and gas from reservoirs. See the Weyburn Project in Sasketchewan. Sulphur is widely used in fertilizer and in chemical manufacturing. Nitrogen is used in fertilizer too. We have the technology to capture 90% of these emissions and reuse them US DOE Press Release
An excerpt:
Good question! I've wondered that too. I heard something about nuclear waste being reprossesed and reused but I don't remember the details. I hope someone can answer the question here.
That brings brings up another point. For years, we have been using resources and throwing away the waste products. We have to get out of that mindset. At the moment, in Ontario, we have a number of coal-burning power plants which are dumping their emissions into the atmosphere. That is polluting the air and killing people, trees, lakes, etc. and we are throwing away valuable chemicals! Carbon dioxide is valuable in extracting oil and gas from reservoirs. See the Weyburn Project in Sasketchewan. Sulphur is widely used in fertilizer and in chemical manufacturing. Nitrogen is used in fertilizer too. We have the technology to capture 90% of these emissions and reuse them US DOE Press Release
An excerpt:
Re: RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle
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?
Nuclear power yes, CANDU's no. Wait until you see the signs.
Durgan.
bevvyd said:
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?
Nuclear power yes, CANDU's no. Wait until you see the signs.
Durgan.
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?
Re: RE: Made-in-Ontario nuclear power
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.
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.
bevvyd said:
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.
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.
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.
Re: RE: Made-in-Ontario nuclear power
I notice that AECL had some supervisory, consultanting powers. Shooting the messenger has its virtues, but the underlying story has a lot of substance.
Durgan.
bevvyd said:
I notice that AECL had some supervisory, consultanting powers. Shooting the messenger has its virtues, but the underlying story has a lot of substance.
Durgan.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.