Bid adieu to Gentilly

REFITTING THE NUCLEAR PLANT would at best be a make-work project so it makes sense to talk about getting this white elephant out of the room

This month, as Japan marks the anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster with plans to shut down all its nuclear reactors more than 40 years old, the Charest government is mulling the fate of Quebec’s sole reactor, the aging Gentilly 2. It’s 30 years old but on its last legs.

The question is whether to refurbish the plant so as to keep it running until 2040 or to follow the Japanese example and close it down.

We Montrealers seldom give much though to the facility. It’s discreetly located northeast of us in little Bécancour across the St. Lawrence River from Trois Rivières. The prevailing winds come from the west, so in case of an accident those winds would blow the radioactivity away from Montreal.

The problem is that prevailing winds don’t always prevail. Environment Canada’s weather office says that 20-22 per cent of all winds reaching the Montreal metropolitan region hail from the direction of Bécancour in winter, less in summer.

Because radioactivity can spew from a stricken plant for a long time, it’s plausible that a serious accident could cause the evacuation of our metropolitan region (not to mention Quebec City). Note that, according to news reports this week, Japan’s then-premier had actually considered ordering the evacuation of Tokyo – 240 km from Fukushima and with nine times more people than the Montreal region. (As it turned out, heroic workers managed to get the crisis under control.)

But back to the question facing the Charest government: To close or not to close?

Those who seek a new lease on life for Gentilly want to exclude from the debate the “alarmist” possibility of an accident. So let’s indulge them.

Let’s ignore the fact that Bécancour is in an earthquake zone.

Let’s forget that a Radio-canada reporter tested Gentilly’s anti-terrorist security several years ago by renting a small plane that flew back and forth over the reactor for 20 minutes without prompting a response.

Too, let’s not harp on that inconvenient truth that, after decades of dithering, no one knows where to dispose safely of spent nuclear fuel, which will remain lethally radioactive for ages.

Instead, let’s be generous and deal with the debate from the one angle the promoters are stressing – the economic angle. Two chambers of commerce from the Trois Rivières region as well as local mayors and labour leaders are organizing a campaign called “Gentilly-2, c’est notre économie!” At a rally two weeks ago attended by the minister responsible for the region, longtime Gentilly booster Julie Boulet, they said a refit of the nuclear facility would create 2,000 jobs directly and indirectly, contributing $1.3 billion to Quebec’s economy. It would also save the plant’s 750 existing wellpaying jobs.

The refit’s estimated cost is $2 billion. The cost of closing down the plant is $1.6 billion. That might not seem like a huge disparity, but bear this in mind:

Quebec will eventually have to close the plant, in 2040 or whenever, so eventually it would have to pay both for the refit and the decommissioning. Another generation would pick up the tab.

Authorities in 2009 estimated at $16 billion to $24 billion the cost of entombing spent fuel from Canada’s five nuclear plants somewhere in the Canadian Shield. If Quebec were to double its amount of waste, its share of that stiff bill would rise accordingly.

Cost estimates of nuclear work are subject to notorious increases. (The cost of refitting New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau reactor soared from $1.4 billion in 2004 to $2.4 billion in 2011, and the work is not finished.)

So far as employment goes, decommissioning a plant can take typically five to 10 years (often longer than a refitting) and also create many jobs.

The least bad argument for refitting Gentilly is that 750 people could work at the plant for several more decades. But that would make Gentilly an absurdly costly makework project. A province that already carries far more public debt per capita than any other province shouldn’t even think of it. The Parti Québécois suggestion to close Gentilly and give the region $200 million for “economic diversification” makes far more sense.

Indeed, Quebec doesn’t really need Gentilly’s energy. That power comprises no more than three per cent of Hydro’s total energy output. Cheaper, safer ways exist to get those megawatts.

Once upon a time, having a nuclear plant helped put Quebec on the soi-disant technological map. Now it’s just a geriatric white elephant. Kill it.

Decommissioning the Gentilly 2 nuclear plant would provide years of work, at a cost of $1.6 billion, and would end any danger of a deadly accident at the 30-year-old reactor.