Ontario and the buy canadian option.

[scoops11]

In the next several weeks, the Government of Ontario will choose one of three technologies for the nuclear plants it will build.



The Advanced CANDU Reactor, which is made right here in Ontario by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a corporation owned by the Government of Canada and its partners.



The European Pressurized Reactor, made by AREVA, a company owned by the Government of France.



The AP1000 reactor, made by Westinghouse Electric Company, owned by the Toshiba Corporation of Japan.




considering the amount of jobs we have lost in the past year and a half why is this even up for debate. I realize that it is a bidding process but this should really be something that precipitates other considerations. We should be keeping our energy infrastructure as Canadian as we possibly can and grow jobs here. For those Canadians who care about maintaining jobs in Canada go and throw your name on the petition to keep this nuclear site strickly canadian <a href='http://pickcandu.yoozur.com/track/clickthru/text'>here.
</a>

 

[scoops11]

should they go cheap or stay Canadian?
what really benefits the populace in this situation?

 

[L Gilbert]

It's pretty tough to keep our jobs here when companies go offshore looking for cheap labor.

 

[taxslave]

What would really benefit Canadians would be no nukes. . There are much safer and cleaner and cheaper methods of generating power. But none of these are owned by the government.

 

[Liberalman]

Since other countries are awarding contracts to companies in their country Canada has to buy their Canadian made products.

Don’t forget about America’s Buy America policy

Nuclear is the only way to go.

Look at wind power a lot of people don’t want the wind mills in their backyards

Ethanol is another way but this is subject to price fluctuations, which is more than oil unless you can find really dumb farmers that will sell their crops for cheap prices.

Hydro is another one but the environmentalists don’t like hydro dams because of the wildlife.

Burning garbage can run steam generators but no one like those big chimneys with smoke coming out of it even if they have scrubbers on them.

In the long run small nuclear plants saves the consumers a lot of money.

 

[Machjo]

In the next several weeks, the Government of Ontario will choose one of three technologies for the nuclear plants it will build.



The Advanced CANDU Reactor, which is made right here in Ontario by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a corporation owned by the Government of Canada and its partners.



The European Pressurized Reactor, made by AREVA, a company owned by the Government of France.



The AP1000 reactor, made by Westinghouse Electric Company, owned by the Toshiba Corporation of Japan.




considering the amount of jobs we have lost in the past year and a half why is this even up for debate. I realize that it is a bidding process but this should really be something that precipitates other considerations. We should be keeping our energy infrastructure as Canadian as we possibly can and grow jobs here. For those Canadians who care about maintaining jobs in Canada go and throw your name on the petition to keep this nuclear site strickly canadian <a href='http://pickcandu.yoozur.com/track/clickthru/text'>here.
</a>

With the money involved in this, I'd like the best deal for the money. Remember too that if the bid goes to a foreing company, then we must convert Canadian dollars to their currency to pay for it. That process alone devalues the Canadian dollar in relation to their currency (supply and demand, the demand for their currency goes up along with the supply of ours). So even if a foreign company gets the contract, that will push foreign prices up and Canadian prices down, making it easier for Canadian companies to win futrue contracts. It al balances out in the end.

 

[Johnnny]

machjo r u a rocket scientist lol, cause i usually end up learning something from your posts lol

 

[Machjo]

machjo r u a rocket scientist lol, cause i usually end up learning something from your posts lol

I'm not a rocket scientist. I just like to read alot. Sometimes I'm wrong, and that's fine too.

But what some are proposing above is what's called autarky:

Autarky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially, it means economic self-sufficiency of a country by not trading, or trading little, with others. One famous example was Mussolini's 'Battle for Wheat' prior to WWII.

Prior to this policy, Italian farmers were producing high quality and high-priced goods that were best suited to the Italian climate and soil. They'd export them at high profit and then import wheat cheaply from abroad, still leaving them with a good profit margin at the end of the day.

Mussolini changed that with his Battle for Wheat. He wanted Italy to become economically self-sufficient, and so forced the farmers to stop growing their higher-valued foods and start growing wheat. Italy won that battle and did become self-sufficient in wheat. The problem though was that Italian farmers were making less money that way and so Italy became poorer too. So yes, the battle was won. But was it worth it?

 

[lone wolf]

From what I know of CANDU, it's the safer system in that fuel is brought down to reaction versus the rest that are brought up. Don't ask me to explain what it means because it's my friend who worked the deck at Pickering. He explained it as refined uranium and heavy water coolant versus enriched uranium and natural water coolant (Three Mile Island) or graphite coolant (Chernobyl)

 

[captain morgan]

If the USA elects to promote protectionist policy, it will be in the best interest of Canadians to either aggressively develop other foreign markets or to impose it's own form of protectionism.

Clearly the best option is to promote policy that encourages greater international trade. If the Americans wish to default on their previous agreements, well so be it. However, there are plenty of opportunities to trade with Asia and Europe, presuming that they will lift their protectionist restrictions.

 

[Machjo]

And like I said before, with the money involved, I'd like the biggest bang for the money, not a Canadian version of the Battle for Wheat, blind nationalism based in senselessness.

 

[Machjo]

From what I know of CANDU, it's the safer system in that fuel is brought down to reaction versus the rest that are brought up. Don't ask me to explain what it means because it's my friend who worked the deck at Pickering. He explained it as refined uranium and heavy water coolant versus enriched uranium and natural water coolant (Three Mile Island) or graphite coolant (Chernobyl)

I'd heard that CANDO is well-reputed too, and so it might get the contract. I'm just saying that it should get the contract as the best particimpant, not just because it's Canadian.

 

[Machjo]

If the USA elects to promote protectionist policy, it will be in the best interest of Canadians to either aggressively develop other foreign markets or to impose it's own form of protectionism.

Clearly the best option is to promote policy that encourages greater international trade. If the Americans wish to default on their previous agreements, well so be it. However, there are plenty of opportunities to trade with Asia and Europe, presuming that they will lift their protectionist restrictions.

If the US shoots itself in the foot, the best policy is for Canada to shoot itself in the foot too, of course, right? Wrong.

Let's take a simple example. Country Z and country Y have free trade. A recession comes along and so country Y adopts protectionist policies. As a result, country Y's imports drop, resulting in a rise in the cost of those products that were once imported and, since it imports less, it purchases less foreing currency. This pushes the value of tis currency up, thus eventually making its products too expensive for country X to afford. And since country X is still importing from country Y but not exporting to it, country X's currency keeps dropping in value until eventually we reach a state of equilibrium.

But it doesn't end there. With country X's currency devalued, people from country Y start looking at what can be bought without tariffs. So they might for example go to country X to study (you can't tariff it since it's not crossing any border), or science and other intangibles. In the end, country Y's products just become too expensive for the others. It shoots itself in the foot. Do we really want the same for Canada? Let the US tariff us, and let the Canadian dollar fall in value. How will the US respond to that? Tariff us even more?