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 James Mihaychuk
This is cross-post from comments on a similarly-themed proposal.
Does the GPC really need to waste time on pro-nuclear (waste) nonsense? It is clearly in opposition to the stated Values of the GPC including ecological wisdom and sustainability. Perhaps if there were a commercializable fusion reactor technology available, there would be something to discuss, but there have only been a couple of experiments on fusion that have produced a net energy gain. It would be reckless todouble down on fission, long-lived radioactive waste, and the proliferation risk for "dirty bombs". Proliferation of fission reactors also increases the risk of terrorist attacks on generation or waste storage facilities by greatly increasing the number of attack surfaces, including the need to transport new and spent fuel across long distances, usually on public highways.
As I explain in another comment, I think it is very unwise ecologically to have a plan that is almost entirely based on wind, solar and hydro, especially in Canada.
Today's nuclear plants are extremely inefficient, since they consume only about 1% of the uranium input (99%+ is theoretically possible). So they can be 99x more sustainable than they are today, albeit not perfect. Thorium reactors are much more sustainable still, since there is about 4x as much thorium in the Earth's crust than Uranium. In both cases we need "breeder" plants to increase efficiency. We don't build breeders mostly because the _very first_ breeders will need to cover R&D costs that non-breeders don't need to cover. But if sustainability is worth something, we can pay for it.
And by the way, breeders that burn up all their fuel don't produce any significant amount of plutonium waste, so the spent fuel will not be dangerously radioactive for 10,000 years (it'll be more like 300-500). Most people would consider that a good thing.
That's why the 4th renewable energy source (after hydro, solar and wind) is the game changer for humanity: geothermal...safe, clean, reliable, abundant and becoming more cost-efficient too...it's the silver bullet that we should be working toward, both in Canada and globally... :-)
Geothermal is great, and I'm following companies working on this (Eavor and Fervo). However, my understanding (based on a map I once saw of North American geothermal resources) is that only Western North America has resources that are easily reachable with current drilling technology. That makes geothermal an especially good resource to promote in the prairie provinces. But I also follow nuclear technology closely and I believe it is underrated by top Greens, especially the new Molten Salt Reactor category.
Great points, James. There is nothing Ecologially Wise about any aspect of the uranium fuel chain, radioactive and dangerous, from cradle to grave.
The fusion 'gain' experiment most recently touted was a nuclear weapons test. It lasted less than one second, and comparing huge energy inputs to a large heat output is like comparing apples & oranges. Getting excited about new technology means we shouldn't allow anyone to ever criticize its negative implications, right?
Loading comments ...