Power

Today, I came along an alarming letter to the editor...it said, "I was dismayed with the front page headline in Wednesday's Telegraph-Journal: "Radical Refit Proposal." What was particularly disheartening was the bizarre recommendation put forward (halt Lepreau refurbishment) and the suspect credibility of the avowed anti-nuke from which it came" and "What the media reports and what I see as a Lepreau worker do not mesh. The project is not in total disarray. Yes, the project is now over half a year behind schedule. There are reasons. I will defer the explanation to project management.
Fortunately, the delays are not due to the condition of the reactor.
Reactor disassembly is basically complete. Inspections have confirmed those reactor components not being replaced to be in remarkably good condition. No serious degradation issues have been encountered.
Of course, the "real" refurbishment capital cost will now exceed the original $1.022 billion by some percentage (guesstimate: less than 25 per cent). A new CANDU 6 reactor would cost over $5 billion.
What about replacement energy costs?
The infamous "$million/day" represents what Lepreau saves when it operates. Sure it hurts provincial cash flow now. But it will be made up over the reactor's extended life."


And why is this alarming? Well, first off, this is a Lepreau worker writing to the Telegraph Journal about how great Lepreau is and what a wing-bat the anti-nuclear expert is...even though the wing-bat is an expert on the subject; whereas, the author of the letter is merely someone trying to fight to make their job doesn't disappear...

Secondly, he is suggesting that the media is lying about the progress of the project...except that all the updates the media get are from the project team.

And even worse, most of the details are off and are off significantly...we are not six months behind, we are EIGHTEEN...he is throwing 250 million dollars over-budget around as if it were a small figure, and then he throws the cost of the CANDU reactor out there...the problem with these monetary aspects is that if we decide to go another route, it will involve not using nuclear, making the cost of a new CANDU 6 reactor completely useless.

The condition of Point Lepreau has NOTHING to do with why the expert suggested that we take a step back...the current financial strain it is putting the province under in a time of economic uncertainty is...if the province does not step back and at least hear proposals on other energy sources (most notably, those that are renewable), then this will be a massive failure to the people on their part...they owe it to the taxpayers to see what hydroelectric would cost in terms of environmental costs and real costs, what wind power would cost in terms of environmental and real costs, and what other renewable energy sources are out there to be had.

One of the worst arguments I have ever heard to justify continuing poor practices is to save jobs...the fact of the matter is that the workers at Lepreau are skilled workers, who could find work elsewhere, especially with whatever energy replaces Lepreau...the only workers who potentially could be out of a job are those whose entire job is to monitor how badly working in a nuclear environment is destroying the workers (and even they could find other work, since most of them have education). No business should get preferential treatment at the expense of the people, just because they employ people...that is why a lot of people hate the airline industry (because they live off this same advantage)...

Whether the Liberals pause the project for a day, a week, or even a month to hear what potential energies could replace Point Lepreau, the possibility of having a more efficient power source which is better for the environment (and which isn't a massive target for would-be terrorists) is one that cannot be overlooked...and the kicker is that we are already off-track, meaning that pushing work back a little bit won't do significantly more damage financially...