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
Here’s a cautionary note about the life cycle emissions of nuclear energy:
Read the fine print on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) link: See Page 44 (54 of 108)
Quote:
“…it was recognized that for the nuclear power cycle, and especially for the front end, this data is inaccurate. Therefore, supplemental data was provided regarding energy inputs, water requirements, chemicals in use, as well as for the fuel cycle back end and including the management of high-level radioactive waste such as interim storage, encapsulation, and deep geological disposal.”
My analysis:
Front end: As uranium in mines becomes more rare, the mining and refining will require more CO2. There is only a finite amount of uranium (8.1 million tonnes) as mentioned in Mark Z Jacobson’s pg 159 (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit
Back end: Notice the words “geological disposal” of nuclear waste -- as if something that remains lethal for hundreds of thousands of years can be safely “disposed of.”
Liability and insurance costs are not accounted for at all. This amounts to billions.
Here’s more fine print from the UNECE life cycle study:
Pg 61 (71 of 108): Quote: “Ionising radiation occurs due to radioactive emissions from radon 222…as a consequence, only nuclear power shows a contribution to this."
Is uranium supply or cost a real problem?
The theory here is that there is a limited supply of uranium and not enough to support massive nuclear expansion.
Current supply is not really all that limited. The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals.
So, sure, - just like all the other metals, including those needed for solar and wind, proven reserves will not carry us to 2100. Realistically, more reserves will be found for all of the metals. Costs will probably go up for all of them if grades go down, as they have been doing for copper. Does that allow a special case to be made for uranium as a problem? NO! It leads to choosing technologies like nuclear that use less of the really scarce material pe\er KWH of output.
First, the oceans hold billions of tons of uranium, that costs, currently, about $1000/kg to extract. That is hugely expensive by compared to the peak price of over $300/kg or the current price of over $150/lb. The thing is that researchers expect they can get their seawater extraction process down to under $500/kg. This kind of price improvement is not much compared to the decline in prices of solar cells, batteries, or machinery. That puts a cap on uranium prices. So we have no quantity constraint and a fairly small price constraint.
Second, uranium is not even necessary for reactors - Thorium reactors are a proven technology, and thorium is more common, provides hugely more energy, and does not need to be enriched - enrichment is the largest energy cost.
Ionising radiation occurs due to radioactive emissions from radon 222. I have Radon 222 in my basement.
Radon-222 is the most stable isotope of radon, with a half-life of approximately 3.8 days. It is transient in the decay chain of primordial uranium-238 and . Radon-222 is especially dangerous because its longer half-life allows it to permeate soil and rocks, where it is produced in trace quantities from decays of uranium-238, and concentrate in buildings and uranium mines.
Unfortunately, Radon 222 is part of our natural environment. I promise not to lock you up in my basement!
Sir, quit using threatening statements that seek to intimidate, rather than focus on the objective discussion at hand...please and thanks...
Who moderates this thing, anyway?
Loading comments ...