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
Quote: ““Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology – and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy,” [French president, Emanuel Macron] said during a visit to Framatome’s Le Creusot facility in December 2020.”
See link: https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/09/27/how-agencies-that-promote-nuclear-power-are-quietly-managing-its-disaster-narrative/
Macron supports nuclear power.
&&&&&&&&&&&&
Here is another quote from someone who supports nuclear power:
In 2009, when Stephen Harper tabled Bill C-20, a bill which would force taxpayers to cover more of the liability of the nuclear industry, a nuclear industry chief executive Peter Mason exactly summed up the situation: He said: “… if there was not suitable legislation insurance in place, [(ie taxpayers covering our liability costs so that we can pay less liability costs and thereby make more profits)] then we wouldn't be in the nuclear industry,"
Here is the full quote from the Star article: "It's absolutely essential, said Peter Mason, president and chief executive of nuclear supplier GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada. "If there was not a cap and if there was not suitable legislation insurance in place, then we wouldn't be in the nuclear industry," he explained to the committee."
Source: Toronto Star: Front page of Business Section: November 30, 2009, Article: How much would a nuclear meltdown cost?
Link to Star article
https://www.thestar.com/business/how-much-would-a-nuclear-meltdown-cost/article_f452c249-65c7-556d-ae93-94eef2c9d3bc.html
I see an _extremely_ strange quote in the Star article you linked to. It said "Research commissioned in 2007 by Defence Research and Development Canada...suggests the cost of a severe nuclear accident...would be much higher than $650 million. The research looked at the impact of a relatively small dirty bomb going off in downtown Toronto."
It's literally describing a terrorist attack as an "accident" while equating it with nuclear energy. Even though this was not marked as an opinion piece, it clearly is. By contrast, CTV's reporting on the same topic is more in line with, say, the Department of Homeland Security's assessment[2]: "Experts say the explosive impact of a dirty bomb would kill or injure few, if any, people. Radiation safety authority Jeff Lafortune says a terrorist strike on a chemical plant would almost certainly make more people sick than a radiological attack. But because it is poorly understood, radioactivity tends to frighten people, which could put pressure on government officials to undertake an exhaustive cleanup after a dirty bomb explosion [which would be very expensive]."
This goes to the heart of the overall discussion: is the danger posed by mild radiation commensurate with people's fear of it? Well, a 1982 survey of professional societies of radiation health scientists had these results[3]:
2 - grossly less than realistic (i.e., not enough fear).
9 - substantially less than realistic.
8 - approximately realistic.
18 - slight greater than realistic.
104 - substantially greater than realistic.
70 - grossly greater than realistic (i.e., too much fear).
Fair enough: scientific information about the risk of radiation IS very rarely reported and so hard to find. But I did eventually find this NASA report: [4]
Obviously nuclear power isn't perfect, but this tendency to refuse cost-benefit analysis caused society to build fossil fuels instead of nuclear since the 1980s, and caused Germany to close all nuclear plants while leaving coal plants open. Given available data[5], how does that make any sense?
Also, Macron is wrong; politicians make poor information sources. In reality, nuclear weapons are often created without involving nuclear power plants & vice versa, e.g. the first nuclear bombs by the USA and Pakistan[6] were made with no power plant; South Korea makes many reactors but no bombs; and nuclear plants can & should be designed to be proliferation-resistant.
[1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/dirty-bomb-would-cause-huge-economic-toll-study-1.247127?cache=lyphobl
[2] https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/prep_radiological_fact_sheet.pdf
[3] http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html
[4] https://x.com/DPiepgrass/status/1569508398202515458
[5] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
[6] https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-weapon/Pakistan
Macron's remark is just silly.
The insurance question is much more interesting.
Who is being protected by insurance for nuclear plants? Obviously it is the general public.
Who benefits from nuclear power generation? Obviously, it is the general population that benefits from cheap, reliable power.
So now ask yourself who should pay for the insurance. Obviously, the public should.
I know it is very attractive to try and push the insurance cost onto participants the supply chain. That is really stupid economics, and it pretty much guarantees that large projects will be really hard to finance. This is exactly the reason for having govenments that can act on behalf of the whole society.
By that reasoning, clearly the state should pay third party liability on auto insurance.
Actually, we do need people to drive and to go to McDonald's (spell it properly) because they help to propel our society through the trading and use of goods and services... :-)
Analogies are tricky, Mr Robinson, get them wrong, while trying to belittle someone on top of it, only makes you seem petty and ignorant of what the person is actually trying to say... :-)
We don't need you to drive, and we get no benefit out of your trips to MacDonald's. We probably shouldn't pay your third-party liability. We do get benefits out of our shared power system, so it is not like your trip to MacDonald'. Analogies are tricky, Stephen. Get them wrong and you show you are more interested in trying to score cheap points than in having a real discussion.
Renewable energy apparatus does not involve any radiation that can be carried by wind and water.
On the other hand, if there’s a significant nuclear malfunction, imagine what would happen to the real estate values of all the home owners and business owners within a 50 kilometre radius of Pickering Nuclear Power Plant….which is the entire Greater Toronto Area!
Is a dollar figure for that even fathomable?
In 2009 Harper put the cap at a mere $650 million for which the industry is liable.
Here is a quote from the 2009 Toronto Star article:
“"Under any scenario of a major nuclear accident happening within Canadian nuclear facilities, you can crack through $650 million without breaking a sweat," said B.C. MP Nathan Cullen, the New Democrat for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, who's on the parliamentary committee combing through the bill. The difference between a $650 million event and a multibillion-dollar catastrophe, he said, can be determined by the direction and speed of the wind that carries the radiation.”
See link:
https://www.thestar.com/business/how-much-would-a-nuclear-meltdown-cost/article_f452c249-65c7-556d-ae93-94eef2c9d3bc.html
Renewable energy apparatus does not involve any radiation that can be carried by wind and water.
In terms of differences in liability costs between renewables and nuclear, there’s really no comparison.
About radiation dangers: See excerpt from Mark Jacobson's boo, "No Miracles Needed, : pg 171:
Quote about Fukushima meltdown: "At least on nuclear plant worker died from lung cancer from direct radiation exposure. (footnote 174)"....The radiation release created a dead zone around the reactors that may not be safe to inhabit for decades to centuries. The radiation also poisoned the water and food supplies in and around Tokyo. ....It is estimated that 130 (15 to 1,100) radiation -related deaths and 180 (24 to 1,800) radiation-related illnesses will occur worldwide...."(footnote 167)
See link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit
Another quote: "The cost of the cleanup of the Fukishima reactors and the surrounding area is estimated at $460 to $640 billion.(footnote 168)" That's a thousand times more than the $650 million Harper set as a ceiling for the industries share of liability costs in 2009:
This means that taxpayers will be paying a thousand times more than companies like "GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada." "GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada", mentioned in the Star article, is a private company, not the government. They will be laughing their way to the bank while taxpayers pay a thousand times more for cleanup than they do. See link to Star article: https://www.thestar.com/business/how-much-would-a-nuclear-meltdown-cost/article_f452c249-65c7-556d-ae93-94eef2c9d3bc.html
I understand that you find the radiation risk terrifying. My sister is afraid of COVID vaccine. Neither fear is grounded according to the majority of scientists. Quoting a Toronto Star story does not change that.
One of the reasons I left the NDP is it was clear they did not understand the climate problem nor how nuclear power works. Cullen is a good guy and he was trying to gin up public fear against a Conservative government, That does not make him an authority on the safety of nuclear power.
Loading comments ...