AnonymousFebruary 21, 2008 19:13 EST

Paul martin is an idiot...

stefano from italyMarch 21, 2011 15:22 EST

Very interesting, but what about safety of CANDUS vs others' techs?After Fukushima disaster, looks like in GE BWR reactor fusion of core is almost automatic in case of lack of coolant. In AREVA PWR risk is lower but rise of temp in case of lack of cooling may occur.
It looks like fusion of core cannot happen in CANDUS without cooling. So CANDUS is less profitable but more safe? It would have been more profitable if chain production compensated research spending?
So what if USA and France had not protected their interior market, while selling unsafe reactors world wide.
Actual rating is:
number of fusions:
BWR 3 in fukushima and 1 in Three Miles Island
RBMK 1 (worth) 10 in Chernobil,
CANDU: 0!!!!!
Lower points win, I think

anonApril 04, 2011 16:49 EST

The whole premise of this article is incorrect. Since the majority of nuclear power reactors installed in the rest of the world use a different, far less safe technology than Candu, and that Candu has a plethora of safety advantages, largely ignored or dismissed here, it is sad you are taking the position you are in your article.

Candu uses either unenriched or lower enrichment fuel, can even use spent fuel from conventional reactors for fuel safety life cycle advantages not acknowledged.

Conventional nuclear power reactors have a fuel cycle implicitly intended to generate larger concentrations of plutonuim sutable for plutonium extraction, for explosives. Since in pure civilian applications, this is unneeded, Candu makes extraordinary sense.

The control cycle for feedback and operation of a Candu plant is extraordinarily forgiving - and enables a completely passive redundant 2min emergency shutdown. Nothing like it worldwide as of yet, and certainly most reactors don't even come close, with others susceptible to reactor meltdown, and the Canadian CANDU design largely immune to any conceivable meltdown scenario, due to far lower operating temperatures.

There is more to this, but it is truly sad you are more than disparaging of a superb safe, purpose designed Civilian reactor that CANDU is, almost uniquely so.

If all reactors in the world were Candus, the world would actually be a safer place.

That the reactor marketing for Candu was not strong, that is another story, but not atypical for brilliant Canadian innovations.

Disparaging of the Avro Arrow, that is just as stupid as the false tenets you try to pass off as facts here. The Avro Arrow design was approx 10 years ahead of its time, could have been a competitive platform for 20 years past the 1957 design. The hugely talented design team went on to many leadership positions throughout the US in aircraft and space industry.

Had the Arrow been shipped instead of destroyed, it could have formed a huge source of economic success for the country, instead of being chopped up in a quid pro quo as was done without thought of any intelligence nor wisdom. That you misinterpret the circumstances does not reflect kindly upon the author, nor editorial supervision.

That Chretien supported the endeavor, says he is far smarter than the author.