I would like to know, for one thing, how Webster came up with the idea that the cost overruns during building of Darlington are linked to the wearing out of its components.
By the time they were completed in 1993, the four reactors built at Darlington, east of Toronto, had jumped in cost from a projected $2.5 billion to $14.4 billion. While some of the cost overruns could be blamed on political interference, the candus were also plagued by severe technical problems largely related to their complex pressure systems, which were wearing out far earlier than expected.
Soooo.... does that mean that the price tag of the car I bought six years ago will change retroactively, depending on how fast it wears out ???
-----Original Message-----The author and I had a few sessions together as he was researching for that article. He is a few years out of school (ie young compared to me) and seems to have an open mind. Nice fellow. We chatted extensively about technical issues, and the history and politics of CANDU. None of what we chatted about was in the article but I think the chats helped him understand the issues in a more balanced perspective. Perhaps he would have written the same article without the chats. It reminds me of the conversations I had with a reporter from Hamilton 12 years ago when the McMaster reactor has issues. It seems that working with reporters to help them understand the issues - as opposed to just telling them answers - is the empowering way to go. Clair Ripley and David Mosey found the same thing, as I recall. I am a big fan of helping others to think as opposed to telling them what to think.
From: email@example.com.McMaster.CA [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Bill Garland
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Walrus CANDU
This is off your point, Randal, hope you don't mind.
At 12:30 AM 05/09/2006, Randal Leavitt wrote:
"The Walrus" - my favourite Magazine, and it's Canadian too.
In "The Walrus", September 2006 Volume 3 Issue 7
Will CANDU Do?
by Paul Webster
The article ends with this statement:
"If the competition wins out, a question will remain: should the CANDU
be romanticized like the Avro Arrow as a technological triumph that
should never have been abandoned, or pilloried as the most expensive
mistake in the nation's history?"
I have been writing about this question for a couple of years now, and
still don't know the answer. If Ontario abandons the CANDU then 30,000
jobs go down the tubes, but we perhaps get more standardized in our
electricity generation technology. If we keep the jobs, do we also get
an albatross hung around our necks? It is a fiendishly difficult
decision. I would like to see the Canadian technology continue, and I
also liked the Arrow, but the wind seems to be blowing the other way.
The Paul Webster article is worth reading. I got all the way through it
without exploding. It portrays the Canadian CANDU dilemma in fairly