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 Mr. Colin Griffiths
One of my reasons for advancing this proposal is that we are fooling ourselves if we think that renewables are the only solution. Renewables cannot in fact be the only solution because they are intrinsically unreliable.
As an example of unreliability, the graph below shows the pattern that is experienced from solar and wind power generation. While this graph is based on Germany’s experience in 2014, the pattern will inevitably be the same wherever solar and wind are used. Introducing a nationwide grid does not solve the problem. Nuclear provides a very low carbon but dispatchable form of electrical power, that provides network stability.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0zmbtv98dqjnt3v1xtdye/German-Solar-and-Wind-2014.jpg?rlkey=mexr7407agg8a2xj4wyffhr2p&dl=0
(Screen grab from Bright Green Lies, Derrick Jensen, Lierre Kent and Max Wilbert, 2021.)
What this graph says is that for 8% of the time, Germany’s solar and wind were generating just 3 GW of power. The median is at about 7% of the time when 5 GW of power was generated. The maximum is at the right when a peak of 39 GW was generated. But not for long, perhaps one tenth of a percent of the time.
If the nation was able to use 39 GW throughout the year, then the normal solar and wind production were barely able to meet an eighth of that, and that for only 7% of the time. Thus, installed capacity would have to be some 14 times greater to ensure a max supply of such renewable power for a reasonable amount of time. Which would amount to a large overcapacity and expense. And that’s no guarantee since as we see above, there are times when no power is generated.
There are also serious and significant pollution issues with the extraction of the materials needed for solar, wind power (rare-earth magnets) and battery storage. They are not neutral technologies.
Nuclear has to be seen as a creditable source of power, despite the issues it faces. We must not be blind to its capabilities.
Geothermal isn't unreliable...and there's plenty of it everywhere to use 24/7/365 for the entire human population for several millennia too... :-)
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geothermal-energy/
I also find it very interesting that all pro-nuclear folks never mention geothermal when talking about renewable energy sources...could it be that it makes nuclear obsolete and irrelevant and it's the Kryptonite of the pro-nuclear position? I think so... :-)
It's only a matter of time until more countries develop and scale geothermal and make all of this talk of unreliability a thing of the past...look to Iceland for starters...and now they are helping Africa too...love it... :-)
Loading comments ...