Quebec nuclear reactor shutdown will cost $1.8 billion

Source: CBC

Quebec's only nuclear power plant will shut down on Dec. 28, Hydro-Québec announced Wednesday, but the process of dismantling it will take 50 years and cost $1.8 billion.

The official statement confirms what the new Parti Québécois government has been saying for weeks: that the province won't pay to refurbish the Gentilly-2 reactor and instead will have it decommissioned.

Hydro-Québec's most recent economic analysis, made public on Wednesday, recommends against spending the billions of dollars that would be required to rebuild the reactor to allow it to continue operating.

The Crown corporation says it now estimates the refurbishment would cost $4.3 billion, up from the $2 billion that the previous Liberal government had budgeted.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/10/03/montreal-gentilly-2-shutdown-cost-hydro-quebec.html

10 replies, 1446 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

10 replies	Author	Time	Post
Quebec nuclear reactor shutdown will cost $1.8 billion (Original post)	alp227	Oct 2012	OP
But rebuilding the damn thing will cost $4.3 billion, and the old plant would still need to be torn	leveymg	Oct 2012	#1
Not to mention the eternity of costs to protect the planet against the spent fuel	on point	Oct 2012	#2
They have to pay to let it cool down	sulphurdunn	Oct 2012	#3
just say no to nuke plants,.	Civilization2	Oct 2012	#4
Whinging bastards	rootProbiscus	Oct 2012	#5
What is "whinging"?	DavidL	Oct 2012	#6
Oi, Yank...	C_eh_N_eh_D_eh	Oct 2012	#7
Not a good start at making new friends. nt	Xipe Totec	Oct 2012	#8
Is that what you have to add to the discussion? nm	rhett o rick	Oct 2012	#10
and each US plant is insured for a whopping (sarcasm) $350 million---US taxpayers pay the rest if	wordpix	Oct 2012	#9

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:04 PM

leveymg (26,366 posts)

1. But rebuilding the damn thing will cost $4.3 billion, and the old plant would still need to be torn

down, as will be the new one, eventually. With decommission costs running almost as much as building new ones, nuclear doesn't look like a bargain, and the construction and operating estimates often omit the high cost of decommissioning these things.

No thank you.

Reply to this post

Response to leveymg (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:22 PM

on point (1,002 posts)

2. Not to mention the eternity of costs to protect the planet against the spent fuel

Last edited Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:32 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

They NEVER include the on going costs of dealing with the spent fuel, for which there is no good answer and which can stretch into THOUSANDS of years!!

Economic net net nuclear power is a loss!!

Reply to this post

Response to leveymg (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:25 PM

sulphurdunn (3,502 posts)

3. They have to pay to let it cool down

for 40 years before they can even begin taking it apart over the next 10 and they have a cost estimate of $1.8 billion?

Reply to this post

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:31 PM

Civilization2 (84 posts)

4. just say no to nuke plants,.

the costs are pushed onto the 99% while the few run off with a sht load of cash for "developing" the plants,. it is a money pit and a terrible theft from the many for the enrichment of the few.

Reply to this post

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:45 PM

rootProbiscus (18 posts)