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
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.
Loading comments ...