[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Archive Top]

Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Foreplay to privatization? It's time to get real! When will we?



Jerry,

I am not surprised.  One very positive thing to come out of this recent mess is that the notion of balancing risk and benefit is front and centre and, most importantly, is accepted by the public and government.  Let's take the gain and lock it in.  It provides a new higher ground from which to present our case.  Maybe, just maybe, we can now have a saner discussion on low dose effects.

Bill

At 08:29 PM 04/02/2008, Jerry Cuttler wrote:

Bill,
 
There is a very positive story about CANDU, but it is not being publicized by the anti-nuclear media.  They prefer a good negative story, and now they have one about the MAPLE reactors.
 
There is a very good positive story about Canada supplying radioisotopes and the NRU reactor performing so well for 50 years, but the negative story about an unreal safety issue gets the big publicity.
 
As Ted Rockwell pointed out in his December 2004 Nuclear News article, "The Realism Project: It's time to get real," until that happens, the status quo will prevail.  ( See also: http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/lowDose-cuttler-PBNC-07.pdf   )
 
So why are we surprised?
 
Jerry
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Garland
To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:43 PM
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Foreplay to privatization?

Folks,

After reading the news article below I can't help but think that just like Harris and the breakup of Ontario Hydro, this whole NRU / MAPLE / AECL / CNSC isotope issue is the setup for the sting.  If you make the industry look badly managed and full of problems then it is easier to sell the idea of privatization to the public and garner votes by appearing to save the day.  I am not a fan of private companies controlling base infrastructure like education, health care, transportation and the like but I do like the efficiencies of business based models compared to government based models.  Maybe the French model mentioned below is a possible path forward.

Bill


The London Free Press
Ottawa blasted on nuclear business
Sat 02 Feb 2008
Page: A3
Section: News
Byline: BY PETER ZIMONJIC, NATIONAL BUREAU
Dateline: OTTAWA
The former chairperson of Atomic Energy of Canada
says he told the government before his resignation in
December that it was time for the private sector to
steer the course of Canada's nuclear business.
Mike Burns says the Crown corporation that he used
to oversee is losing money in the isotope business
and is having problems bringing the new Maple
reactors online. He says the solution lies with private
industry.
"Nobody is happy. Government is not happy about
putting the money in, Canadians aren't happy about
having to pay. We've got out of the airline business,
we've got out of the petroleum business . . . That's
what we should be focusing on," Burns told Sun
Media.
On Nov. 29, Gary Lunn, the Minister of Natural
Resources, which is responsible for Atomic Energy,
announced that his department was conducting a
review to look at the ongoing problems there.
The first of those problems has been the development
of the Maple 1 and 2 reactors at the Chalk River
nuclear site, which were supposed to be online and
producing medical isotopes by 2000.
But eight years and $500 million later, they're still
not running and, sources tell Sun Media, will likely
never run, forcing Canadians to rely on a reactor built
in 1957 to supply an estimated 65 per cent of the
world's isotopes used in medical scans for cancer and
heart disease.
The second major problem has been the failure of
Atomic Energy to complete its advanced CANDU
reactor, a smaller, more powerful and cheaper reactor
than the CANDU. It has never been licensed, is over
budget and is not available for sale.
Burns says currently Atomic Enery has to keep
"going back to government for more money, more of
this, more of that. It is a structure that's proven it
doesn't work anymore."
Burns, who resigned as chairperson on Dec 31, said
that as long as Atomic Energy remains a Crown
corporation it will never be able to get the funding it
needs.
"Isotopes are a little business in which we lose a lot
of money," said Burns.
"(Atomic Energy) needs more private sector content
in the company to make it work," he said, explaining
that Crown corporations cannot borrow money to
invest.
Burns said an ideal solution would be to follow the
model of the French nuclear company Areva which is
a publicly traded company in which the French
government owns 90 per cent of the shares but the
corporation is free to borrow funds against future
profits.
Omar Alghabra, the Liberal Natural Resources critic,
said a public-private partnership was a possible
solution to the atomic crisis.
"There are certainly good arguments for privatization
but a decision like that should not be taken lightly,"
he said.
"All of the options are on the table," said Louise
Girouard, spokeswoman for Lunn, adding: "Mike
Burns' suggestions would certainly be part of what
the team would be looking at" in its review of AECL.




No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19 - Release Date: 02/02/2008 12:00 AM



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19 - Release Date: 02/02/2008 12:00 AM


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19 - Release Date: 02/02/2008 12:00 AM