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
Alternatively, here are three other life cycle studies to consider:
FIRST LIFE CYCLE STUDY:
Mark Z. Jacobson, No Miracles Needed: Why Not Nuclear; March 2, 2023
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit
At that link, see Jacobson p 165 (top); The “Figures” he refers to are from reference 165 (see last page in the Google doc for references)
Quote:
“The estimated range of lifecycle emissions of nuclear (9 to 70 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity) in Figure 8.1 is well within the range (4 to 110) from studies examined by the IPCC. On top of those emissions are opportunity cost emissions (64 to 102); emissions due to heat and water vapor fluxes (4.4); emissions due to covering and clearing soil (0.17 to 0.28); and emissions due to the risk of nuclear weapons use arising from the spread of nuclear energy (0 to 1.4). The total is 78 to 178 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity. These emissions are 9 to 37 times the emissions from onshore wind (Figure 8.1).
Although the emissions from nuclear are lower than those from coal or natural gas with carbon capture, nuclear power’s high CO2-equivalent emissions coupled with its long planning-to-operation time render it an opportunity cost relative to the faster-to-operate and lower-emitting [Wind, Water, Solar] technologies.”
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
SECOND LIFE CYCLE STUDY:
Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? Joscha Weber; November 29, 2021
See link: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
The graphic in the above link shows that nuclear creates almost four times the CO2 emissions that solar creates, and almost 30 times the CO2 emissions that hydroelectric produces
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
THIRD LIFE CYCLE STUDY:
See link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002330
The German Environment Agency does indeed report 117 g/kWh for nuclear, but it also reports 442 g/kWh for natural gas and 1034 g/kWh for coal. With the German Green party taking the lead, they planned and followed through on a plan to shut down nuclear 8 years before coal, even after all natural gas from Russia was cut off (due to which, I understand, previously-closed coal plants were prepared in case of necessity).
This illustrates that there are many for whom this issue isn't about stopping global warming, even when they argue on that basis. But for me it actually is about that (plus public health[2] and sustainability). And when I go looking for sources, Wikipedia cites the IPCC, saying that the "median" estimate of carbon emissions are 12 g/kWh for nuclear and wind, 48 g/kWh for solar farms (odd, I didn't expect that), 38 for geothermal, 490 for gas, and 890 for coal.[1]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't lifecycle emissions take everything into account? Things like trucks used to move goods and process raw materials, and concrete used to build structures? Because it seems to me that in the long term we will use electrification (electric trucks and electric smelting) and low-carbon concrete. So regardless of the numbers today, as we keep transitioning to clean energy, the lifecycle emissions should drop for constructing any power plant that doesn't burn fossil fuels, whether they be solar or nuclear.
The rest of your comment hinges on MZJ, and I won't belabor my previous points on MZJ. As I always say, a downvote is not a counterargument.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
Loading comments ...