Thus, nothing prevents relaunching the nuclear reactor in Gentilly, according to the very words of a study commissioned by Hydro-Québec.
Nothing. Otherwise money. A lot of money.
Nothing. Otherwise common sense.
It would not be before 2035, we are told. Given the time it takes to get this type of operation underway, it’s tomorrow.
The study was carried out by AtkinsRéalis. A firm previously known as SNC-Lavalin. They are the prime contractors for Canada’s CANDU nuclear reactors. Basically, it’s a bit like asking the oil industry to comment on the appropriateness of oil wells.
When will the day come when foxes will be invited, for their part, to explain to us what we should think of henhouses?
In August 2023, the new management of Hydro-Québec affirmed, against all expectations, that it would be “irresponsible at this time” not to closely consider the relaunch of nuclear power on the banks of the St. Lawrence. Irresponsible?
Minister Fitzgibbon, the man who claims not to be buyable for only $100, immediately gave several signs of satisfaction, while formulating considerations favorable to nuclear power.
It is difficult to imagine that, in the name of reason, we are not totally mobilized against the absurdity of such nuclear energy production programs in Quebec. Are we to believe that the idea of progress, at least for some, does not necessarily lead to progress of the mind?
The reactors have improved, they say. However, accidents or incidents are always possible, as current events have continued to prove to us. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are not nothing. In Japan, more than a million cubic meters of contaminated water have just been thrown into the ocean, due to lack of space to store it ad vitam aeternam. What will be the consequences on marine life?
In May 1977, the Gentilly 1 reactor was shut down due to a breakdown. Ten tons of heavy water, loaded with 31,000 curies of tritium, escaped from the power plant into the St. Lawrence River. After only five years of activity, Gentilly 1 was finished. However, it was necessary to wait until 1984 to remove the fuel, without resolving the issue of radioactive waste. In all, Gentilly 1 only operated for the equivalent of 183 days. This plant cost $128 million to build, the equivalent of more than $900 million in 2024.
The new power plant, Gentilly 2, will replace it. Small iodine tablets are distributed to the surrounding population. Until 2012, citizens were instructed to swallow them, in the event of a problem, to try to save at least their thyroid gland… Too expensive, the site was finally closed in 2012. But it would be necessary to wait until 2060 for it to be completely secure. Here again, the question of radioactive waste proves to be an impossible puzzle.
In Ontario, at Chalk River, the green light for the construction of a facility to manage nuclear waste has just been given, despite objections. There, two serious nuclear accidents occurred in 1952 and 1958. They required the intervention of the army. It was close for everything to slide towards the worst. Among the specialists rushed to the site was a future president of the United States: Jimmy Carter. More than half a century later, the soldiers who worked, like Carter, on the decontamination of Chalk River were offered by Ottawa — as long as they were still alive — a large check for… $24,000.
Justified in pirouettes in the name of the fight against climate change, the enthusiasm for nuclear energy is not about to diminish. Neither are its risks. At what price ? In the summer of 2023, the Canadian government indicated that it wanted to revise upwards the compensation regime adopted in 2016 in the event of a nuclear accident. Ottawa now committed to paying $1 billion as a compensation ceiling rather than the $75 million initially planned. An increase commensurate with awareness of the risks.
An irradiated body, shaken by nausea, doomed to wither from the conjunction of cancers, how is it truly “compensated”?
Nuclear power constitutes a danger and a burden on the future of humanity that Quebec can very well do without.
I hear from here saying this: “Oh! Mr. Nadeau… You are exaggerating so much! Civilian nuclear power plants, after all, are not to be confused with nuclear weapons. Let’s see, Mr. Nadeau! »
Radiations do not know whether they are military or civilian. They always put us within death’s reach, no matter in the name of which flag they are produced. Who will deny today that the nuclear technology transferred by Canada to India allowed this country to develop bombs? Has Canada therefore become friends with New Delhi?
The Zaporizhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is not a military site. Despite disregard for life, she nevertheless serves as a target in the conflict with Russia.
Who will tomorrow be the new leaders capable of contemplating, like those of today, the destruction of humanity without flinching? Should we ignore the fact that Nero, Genghis Khan and Napoleon have constantly found themselves reincarnated until today?
Even complete strangers can have designs that are dangerous to say the least. In 1982, an Israeli-Swiss engineer, Chaïm Nissim, launched an attack on a nuclear site in France. He was armed with a rocket launcher. What could happen like this now, at a time when low-cost drones make it possible to discreetly carry fire and death everywhere from a clear blue sky?
Being responsible does not mean bowing down or being intimidated in favor of nuclear power in front of hired engineers or passing politicians.