skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Nuclear management in Ontario: the central lesson: knowledge transfer is critical
Nuclear management in Ontario: the central lesson: knowledge transfer is critical http://canadianenergyissues.com/2012/05/25/nuclear-management-in-ontario-the-central-lesson/
... this is a good read (makes you pause to think whether political
appointee for such positions is a good thing??? a countries course must
be determined based on the best benefits to the country as a whole not
for the benefits or ideology of one particular political party that
happens to be in power at the time): From the article: "A few days ago I
tried to give some perspective to a newspaper article about the
performance of the Pickering nuclear station. The newspaper article
painted a grim picture, which I tried to explain by pointing up the
decision, by utility chairman Maurice Strong, to reverse direction on
nuclear policy. In the space of about ten short years during the 1970s,
Ontario had become the most nuclearized jurisdiction in North America.
As a jurisdiction we became one of North America’s economic powerhouses;
our biggest industry, car manufacturing, relied then and relies today
on cheap, reliable power.
During those ten years, Ontario became the
proving ground for a unique reactor technology based on natural,
unenriched, uranium fuel and heavy water moderator. This technology,
CANDU, became, within ten short years, the biggest energy provider in
the province, outperforming all other generation types combined.
Suddenly, with this success under its belt, Canada was a force to be
reckoned with in the international civilian nuclear arena. We began
competing with some pretty formidable adversaries, all of whom were
pushing enriched uranium, light water moderated/cooled machines. All had
the backing, through various diplomatic and commercial mechanisms, of
the United States government, by far the mightiest of the two
superpowers.
The international sales effort was already underway
when Strong took over as chair of Ontario Hydro. More importantly, so
was the next wave of nuclear construction in Ontario. The Darlington
project was nearing completion, and there were plans to build another
station at the site. As a political appointee, Strong held his job at
the pleasure of a political party, the NDP, that was then and is today
anti-nuclear.
The fledgling NDP government was under severe
criticism for also being anti-business. So, under the guise of cutting
costs in government, Strong summarily reversed the nuclear policy that
had transformed Ontario Hydro, the province of Ontario, and Canada. He
cancelled the second Darlington station and set about getting rid of a
large part of the nuclear workforce. Jeremy Whitlock of AECL has, as
usual, provided an outstanding assessment of the Strong years, which he
calls “The Lost Years.” It should be required reading.
As Whitlock
points out, Ontario Hydro’s electricity demand forecast, on which the
case for the second Darlington station was based, proved about exactly
right. And as I have pointed out, that demand was met not by clean,
cheap nuclear power but by fossil power.
Strong’s ideologically
motivated decimation of the nuclear workforce ensured that Ontario Hydro
would have great difficulty in refurbishing the older CANDUs at
Pickering A and Bruce A. This is why seven of those CANDUs were taken
out of service by 1997."
No comments:
Post a Comment