Collaborative Proposal Creation
Create, improve and sponsor proposals in a respectful, fully bilingual environment. Grow proposals in the "Hothouse", for promotion to the "Workshop", to become official GPC policy.
Proposal text
Be it resolved that the Green Party of Canada long conflicted between the horror of nuclear weapons and the need to support reliable and clean nuclear power,
• will adopt a view of nuclear power that is consistent with the best scientific knowledge and practices, and
• will advocate for the continued development of nuclear power technologies, extraction technologies, nuclear waste disposal, and alternative nuclear fuels.
Type of Proposal
Public policy that the party would represent
Objective / Benefit
The GPC has a longstanding public position of preferring renewable power generation instead of nuclear power generation. Yet not one policy currently addresses the beneficial effects of nuclear power. All policy references to nuclear are to the prevention and control of nuclear weapons.
The objective of this policy is to establish a new policy that addresses the benefits of the use of nuclear power generation in a changing environment that urgently needs reliable power generation.
- Whereas the policies of the Green Party of Canada are to be based on scientific principles, and
- Whereas we now know how to build nuclear power plants that are far safer than our current operational designs, and
- Whereas nuclear power generation can be demonstrated,
- to be the least polluting of all electricity generation technologies, in terms of CO2 production per MW of capacity,
- to have the smallest footprint in terms of station size, acres per MW of installed capacity,
- to have the lowest volume of waste production in terms of tons per MW,
- to require the least input of scarce resources in terms of tons per MW,
- to have the best safety record of all generation facilities in terms of loss of human life per MW of installed capacity, and
- Whereas we do know what to do with spent nuclear fuel to ensure safety.
This policy will complement and expand the policies of the Green Party of Canada, making them more appropriate in an intellectually honest way.
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
This is new policy. All existing policy addresses various aspects of the undesirability of nuclear weapons. It does not in any way reduce the relevance of those policies.
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
1. Jack Devanney, The Two Lies that killed nuclear:
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-two-lies-that-killed-nuclear
2. Jack Devanney, Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop:
3. Cleo Abram, The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc
4. Burning Nuclear waste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u44skO-nMo
5. IEA on Nuclear Power:
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power
6. Our World in Data, Death Toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima:
https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
7. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, LNT:
https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/linear-non-threshold-model/index.cfm
8. Original text of this proposal: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j5bvh4dagagllrhus59h9/GPC-Nuclear.docx?rlkey=8ozj24vcajsvofrtgtpy9pt85&st=uvmsga8g&dl=0
Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
There are many in the party and outside, who consider Nuclear Power to be so dangerous as to be categorically denied as a solution to our future power needs. This policy reverses that perception of Nuclear Power. It is likely to alienate such people in their support of the party.
There is also likely to be an adverse reaction from the Global Greens, which would need to be carefully managed, though it is to be hoped that this motion will start a greens-wide reassessment of their positions on nuclear power.
Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
Yes
Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
English
This proposal is being evaluated
Posted on the Continuous Motion Development Vote tab for member review prior to the all-member vote.
Amendments (3)
-
Created at
24/05/2024 -
- 0
-
Created at
05/07/2024 -
- 0
-
Created at
10/07/2024 -
- 2
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Related images
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Gordon McDowell
Colin, could you move this proposal into ENERGY cateogry?
I am very sad to see opponents of this motion downvoting factual comments. They are essentially trying to shout down opinions they don't like. That's what people do when they are losing an argument. I think any neutral observer would say that the proponents of the motion have politely and very effectively refuted most statements of the opponents of the motion.
There is still no way to deal with the waste. Even Finland whom we have been watching with great interest has delayed the opening of the only potential Deep Geological Repository in the world another year. Canada has not even approved a site yet. Furthermore SMR waste will not go into the currently planned site as it is different. "Reprocessing" and "Recycling" were attractive ideas in the early 1970's but turned out to be simply words that obfuscate what is actually going on.
Ionizing radiation cannot be made safe for human health - and the health of the environment. It is what is says it is: it ionizes molecules (which is why refurbishment of nuclear power plants is required) but ionizing the molecules that make up biological entities should be considered criminal because of the potential of affect on the entire human genome.
Non-emitting? All nuclear power plants emit radioactive hydrogen, tritium, on planned or unplanned intervals - it behaves just like hydrogen and can unite with oxygen to form water, tampering with the earth's water supply. Associated with the emissions of tritium are carbon14, krypton85 and infinitismal amounts of strontium90 and caesium137.
Dale, you say:
"Even Finland .. delayed the opening of the only potential Deep Geological Repository in the world another year."
The WIPP is an already functioning DGR for nuclear waste in USA. It is the world's 3rd.
I had the good fortune to meet Dr. James Conca at a conference where he gave a short talk about The WIPP. I video captured that talk.
Here is a 1 minute summary video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChAbGUFSgB8
Here is the full talk (which I highly recommend): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6no0FmPk84
Recycling waste is still an attractive idea, since only 5% of nuclear waste has been modified by being in the reactor.
France does recycle waste already. They have one of the cleanest grids in the world, although their reprocessing technology is from the 70s. No one is proposing to dissolve used fuel in nitric acid any more. Newer approaches do not dilute the fuel in water which (in France) creates a large volume of lower-level waste. Newer approaches use pyroprocessing and electrochemistry.
95% of "Nuclear Waste" is fuel for advanced reactors such as Moltex SSR-W. Such reactors are "not picky eaters" and only need the cladding and some select fission products to be removed for the waste to be re-used as fuel.
Moltex recently gave a public presentation on this system, and I was disappointed to see that none of GPC leadership who've been repeatedly mischaracterizing Moltex's system submitted any questions. Nor do I see them asking Moltex on Twitter. If you have concerns you can contact Moltex and bounce your questions off them. It is not an unreasonable thing to do.
RADIATION
The universe is radioactive. You're exposed to more radiation from a coal plant than a nuclear plant, because combustion releases the radioactive isotopes (as it also releases CO2) into our environment.
Even Imperial Valley Geothermal (California) produces massive amounts of radon contaminated filters... because geothermal is powered by radioactive decay.
United Nations ECE released a report comparing all energy sources impact on human health.
https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
Page 54 is the graph you are looking for. The health impact INCLUDING CARCINOGENS.
Nuclear's impact is 0.55 /TWh.
Large Hydro's impact is 3.05 /TWh.
Every type of Solar PV rates well ABOVE nuclear power. (Many types, many values.)
The ONLY energy source with a smaller impact on human health is specifically SMALL SCALE Hydro.
You might be wondering how that could be possible? Why is that? Please read the report.
Just skip to page 54, then skim around from there.
Done.
Loading comments ...