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 Boyd Reimer
Be aware that there is a webinar tomorrow on the topic: "Is Nuclear a Good Investment for Ontario?" Register at this link:
https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/is-new-nuclear-a-good-investment-for-ontario-tickets-730418410127?aff=oddtdtcreator
(External link)
I base my opposition to this proposal partly on an excerpt (see below) from Mark Z. Jacobson's 2023 book, "“No Miracles Needed: How Today’s Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean our Air.”
Here is an excerpt from that book called, “Why Not Nuclear.” https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit?usp=sharing
(External link)
Buy the book here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/no-miracles-needed/8D183E65462B8DC43397C19D7B6518E3
(External link)
This is a great book for many more reasons than the nuclear issue.
That event is hosted by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance which is extremely anti nuclear. We already know this won't be a serious discussion on the subject.
I can probably predict what they will say. It will be things like wind/renewables have the lowest levelized cost of elctricity. Therefore why ever invest in nuclear!? While also ignoring levelized full system cost of electricity.
I'm not going to tell anyone not to attend. If anything, please do. But ask questions like "For Ontario we're installing 6000 MW of new nuclear. What would the cost be to replace that with renewables and to have a similar capacity factor? That is 90+% uptime"
Also regarding the book excerpt. I did a quick browse, but the weapons proliferation aspect is interesting. It looks like they are making the argument that the more nuclear reactors there are, that the more likely someone will use a nuclear reactor to make a bomb. This is the "nuclear reactors have plutionium in their spent fuel" argument.
Well, I got some FANTASTIC news! The nuclear industry has heard this argument for years. In New Brunswick we are designing/building a reactor that literally destroys plutonium! It's called a fast reactor and has existed for a long period of time. This specific design is new. A fast reactor splits all atoms going up the period table from Uranium. So if plutonium goes into the reactor, it gets gobbled up, splits, releases energy and then no more plutonium. Anti nuclear advocates should be rejoicing for this! One day soon the worry about proliferation from nuclear reactors will be gone!
About “fast reactors” - Please read the excerpt more carefully, thanks. See page 159 at bottom paragraph is this quote: “One type of new design is a fast reactor…..…uranium-239, which then decays to plutonium-239. By this mechanism, though, fast reactors become breeder reactors, increasing weapons proliferation risk.”
See link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit
That quote was published March 2, 2023.
You say "we are designing" as in "currently designing" which means it is "not yet designed" which means it is still simply on paper. Lots of things are on paper.
Let's see it working and feasible before spending billions of taxpayers money, which could otherwise be spent on solutions that we already have, namely wind, water, and solar.
The climate clock is ticking, and we already have solutions. Waiting for a completion of a design could mean a deadly wait for all of humanity.
I woud say one more thing:
Yes, the clock is ticking, we already have solutions, we're deploying those solutions, but we need even more solutions.
Decarbonization is a very big job. I often say it's not a difficult job - if done right - it's merely a huge job. But we haven't been doing it right for 45 years.
The Charney report was a consensus of many climate scientists 45 years ago.[1] It's older than me. 45 years later, global carbon emissions are still climbing. It's absurd. Why did it turn out like this? It's the cost of refusing to compromise.
We all know right-wing forces blocked progress. They denied the globe was warming. They didn't want solar panels or wind turbines. They blocked subsidies and carbon taxes. They laughed at Kyoto. I give them most of the blame, sure. But they didn't block low-carbon nuclear plants, and the left couldn't compromise. So industry built the only thing it could, fossil fuel power plants and fossil fuel vehicles. So here we are -- global carbon emissions are still rising 45 years later. On top of that, carbon can linger in the atmosphere for many centuries.[2]
Wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy right now, so you think the same thing you've thought for last 45 years: no compromise! no nuclear!
True, wind and solar are popular, cheap and important for decarbonization. They just aren't necessarily enough to stop global warming, even with the huge increases in battery production, EGS, etc. I'd be happy to explain why for the 100th time. But if the attitude is that "no compromise" is more important than stopping global warming, it won't matter what I say.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scientists-accurately-climate.html
[2] [Disclosure: I am the author] https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
I am deeply familiar with the Moltex Molten Salt Reactors that may be used in New Brunswick. Full disclosure, after following Molten Salt Reactors closely for about seven years, I eventually decided to invest £7000 in Moltex. This is my only "connection" to the "nuclear industry" -- I know you'll think it means I'm biased, but you'll have the causation backwards: I studied up on all the details over many years before investing, so it's not a case of "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it". In fact my salary pays for software related to fossil fuels, and I am doing my best to make that software obsolete.
Demonization is popular in politics, so you might dislike me for this, but the fossil fuel industry of Alberta is huge, and when I was on EI I understood the EI rules to mean I should apply to all jobs I was qualified for, so I included fossil fuel companies among my job applications and was hired, after first asking about the presence of people who deny humans cause climate change at the company (luckily, that wasn't really a thing). Believe it or not, a lot of us want to transition to clean energy. Recently I've been pushing my boss hard to open up sales channels to new geothermal tech, which is closely related to oil/gas tech. I voted Green the first time in 2000 or so, but I've always been voting against the big parties. Obviously I'd prefer to have a party I can proudly vote for.
So yeah, Moltex has never built a fast-spectrum reactor but it's pretty clear that
1) They can achieve it at lower cost than traditional reactors via hazard-reduction[1]. In brief, the cost of NPPs is driven largely by the cost of hazard mitigation and regulations, both of which are reduced if hazards can be eliminated. Moltex's design eliminates the following key hazards of traditional nuclear plants: (i) high pressure, (ii) coolant that can boil away very quickly in a theoretical worst case, (iii) excess reactivity, (iv) loose cesium and iodine. (no one gave me this list, I simply know what I'm talking about.) Eliminating water is the most important thing, because it enables a smaller containment structure and much bigger safety margins simultaneously.
2) It may use plutonium waste as fuel for electricity, which can reduce the world's main source of long-term waste without needing newly-mined uranium.
I can't reply directly to people, but Derek said "a reactor in general is a terrible way to make plutonium for a bomb" and that's against my understanding. Not only is it a fine way to make plutonium for a bomb, it's by the most common way. It's uncommon for a _power plant_ reactor to be used for that, because proliferation is unpopular and dedicated reactors for weapons can be simpler. But in the 1960s/70s it wasn't unusual to build a dual-use reactor, typically after first building a reactor producing weapons-grade plutonium, e.g. Magnox after Windscale in Britain, and UNGG after EL-2 in France.
I agree, Boyd...the more nuclear materials you have laying around, whether "processed" or not, only encourages nefarious groups to think about taking it from you (destroying it or stealing it for themselves)...
No plants - no attack threats and no theft threats...simple...prevent the potential problems before they even start...
Nuclear thieves and/or terrorists will likely not make plutonium themselves. They will seek it out, and or track it down, -- regardless of how anyone tries to permanently "dispose of it." Because of the fact that plutonium has lethal potential for thousands of years, this threat will remain with humanity long after nuclear powers and nations cease to exist --the nations that supposedly promise to guard it "forever" or "dispose of it" forever. See these three links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_involving_radioactive_substances#Intentional_theft_or_attempted_theft_of_radioactive_material
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_terrorism
Interesting that I can't just reply to a comment. That's a shame.
In regards to Boyd talking about plutonium.
I looked at your source again, it does miss some stuff. A nuclear reactor will produce many different kinds of plutonium. It doesn't just produce plutionium 239. You can see a list here:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx
A reactor in general is a terrible way to make plutonium for a bomb. If you want just plutonium 239 then you want to irradiate uranium quickly, something like weeks. Where most reactors will hold onto their fuel for over a year. This is why you get PU-238, PU-239, PU-240, PU-241, and PU-242 in spent fuel.
Your source is somewhat correct, you need to seperate out the Plutonium 239. That's the really difficult part. Hence why you don't want to use a reactor to do it, as it makes that process much harder. The centrifuges are not cheap. They take an obscene amount of energy to run and are super ineffeicent. You need to seperate atoms from each other that have single neutrons differences in weight. You cannot measure a neutron on your kitchen scale.
This is why it requires a country to decide to do this. It's extremely expensive and difficult.
That said, you don't really need a reactor to make a nuclear bomb. This isn't a technology problem. If a country wants to make one, they can make one. It will cost a lot, and it won't be easy, but they can do it. Whatever the political policy is in Canada won't stop them. Whatever the world's policy regarding nuclear power won't stop them. North Korea isn't exactly renowned for their technological prowess, yet they've made a bomb. I don't see how countries having nuclear reactors would make it easier. Also, the policy we are commenting on is for our party, the Green Party of Canada. Not the world. We're talking about a policy potentially for OUR country, Canada.
If you want to explore why other countries haven't built any then I recommend this video which goes over the geo politics of why. Like I said before, the technology isn't really stopping anybody from making one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8MkjxFq7pI
What is more likely to keep countries from developing a bomb is: the cost, geo politics and war. A nuclear weapons program is INSANELY expensive. Potentially taking up very large portions of a coutnries budget. Geo politics, no reason for many to develop a bomb due to the cost. Then war, it's a good way to get invaded. Case in point Iraq.
David Robinson: You said, "the plutonium made in breeder reactors is not the type you want for bombs." Please see the excerpt from Mark Jacobson's book "No Miracles Needed": On pg 169 he writes, "Ten kilograms of plutonium-239 were used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki." See link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit
Context: As I already pointed out: Also see page 159 at bottom paragraph is this quote: “One type of new design is a fast reactor…..…uranium-239, which then decays to plutonium-239"
You quote "One type of new design is a fast reactor…..…" Accuracy matters when we are debating policy.
Fast neutron reactors are NOT NEW.
Some have been operating since the 1950s. Over 400 reactor-years of experience have been gained in operating them. The FNR was originally conceived to burn uranium more efficiently and thus extend the world's uranium resources – it could do this by a factor of about 60. Geological exploration showed by the 1970s that uranium scarcity would not be a concern for some time, which greatly reduced the interest.
They have not been developed for commercial use because no one really wanted to deal with plutonium in commercial power production and because the standard light-water reactors and the CANDU were a better commercial product.
Here is a list of the currently operating ones. Over 30 more designs are in development right now
BOR-60 Experimental, loop, sodium 55/10 oxide Russia 1969-2020s
BN-600 Demonstration, pool, sodium 1470/600 oxide Russia 1980-
BN-800 Experimental, pool, sodium 2100/864 oxide Russia 2014-
BREST Demonstration, loop, lead 700/300 nitride Russia (2026)
FBTR Experimental, pool, sodium 40/13 carbide (metal) India 1985-2030
PFBR Demonstration, pool, sodium 1250/500 oxide (metal) India (2022?)
CEFR Experimental, pool, sodium 65/20 oxide China 2010-
Joyo Experimental, loop, sodium 140/- oxide Japan 1978-2007, maybe restart 2021
And by the way - the plutonium made in breeder reactors is not the type you want for bombs - it is mostly another isotope and very hard and costly to separate. There are far easier, cheaper, safer, ways to build bombs It isn't worthwhile for most countries and isn't possible for any known non-state entity.
Are you honestly sending us to Jacobson as a source? On nuclear technology? Let's start a proper conversation on the existing technologies, the licensed ones, the ones under construction, and so on. From the quote I don't really know what you intended to say.
Jacobson's title is spot on, by the way - “No Miracles Needed: How Today’s Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean our Ai.r” That is a perfect description of nuclear power.
Loading comments ...