Why was it closed in the first place?
HQ has a capacity of 36 GW on hydro and thermal alone. When closed, Gentily-2 had a capacity around 675 MW. A drop in the portfolio. The cost of refurbishment was very high, so it was closed.
My assumption is that Gentily-2 is being considered for export sales only; because I don’t then the capitalisation on a plant could be done at heritage (HQ domestic consumer) rates.
Edit: such to say, I think this will have little impact on Quebec’s energy portfolio, but may help her export clients (Ontario, NE USA, Atlantic Canada) go greener. I’m not familiar with their portfolios.
In 2012, the provincial government under then-premier Pauline Marois accepted Hydro-Québec’s recommendation to close Gentilly-2, in part because of the high cost of refurbishing the plant.
“More than 10 years later, costs can only go up because we’ve started dismantling the plant,” Pineau explained in an interview. An increase in construction costs in the last decade means “the nuclear bill could turn out to be very high,” he said.
Gentilly is near identical to the 660MW unit at Point Lepreau in NB. It needed a refurbishment after 28 years of operation. The estimate for the project was $1.5B and 18 months. It ended up taking $2.5B ($3.1B in today’s money) and close to 4 years to complete (2008-2012). Just for reference, original construction costs were $3.8B in today’s money.
With a ~70% lifetime capacity factor, it’s been more of a liability for NBPower than anything.
When Gentilly was due for refurbishment, Hydro Quebec decided to decommission rather than going through the expense of refurbishment. Costs to put it back into service at this point are going to be very high. They already have solid baseload, so they’d be better off looking at more wind/solar.
Imagine how much wind and solar and new Hydro you could install across the province for the 3-4 billion in refurb costs?
There’s so much that could be done with that money…
- Tuition reimbursement for students in trades that benefit the green power industry.
- Research and development for power storage - ‘second life batteries’, etc.
- Rebates and incentives to have homes install solar / wind / battery.
- Modernization / optimization projects like switching to heat pumps, variable speed pumps, etc.
- Efficiency projects like offsetting the costs of improving insulation in existing homes - with new windows/doors/etc.
Pourquoi pas les deux?
Because it would cost twice as much? :D
Spending twice as much and getting twice as much isn’t the same as something costing more
