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 Sarah Gabrielle Baron
https://reneweconomy.com.au/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-a-history-of-failure/. HISTORY OF FAILURE article, a great read! Shared on social media by Greens like Saskatchewan Green leader Naomi Hunter. This motion seeks to gag her.
Missing from the article is the USA DoD Project Pele funding for the 'micro reactor' design: TRISO / TRISO-x fuel pellets - EVinci by Westinghouse; fuel by BWXT & daughter company X-Energy. Northern Canada will be the guinea pig location. TRISO pellets are used in nuclear submarines.
Trudeau's liberals throw money at these powerpoint reactors:
- Moltex ($50 M from Feds) ,
- ARC-100 ($ 7M from Feds),
-Terrestrial ($20 M from Feds with former Prime Minister Stephen Harper as Advisor),
- 'TRISO' pebble Westinghouse EVinci model ($27 M from Feds) - Mark Carney employed advisor,
- Global First Power $970 M for four experimental BWRX-300's...dig 10 stories deep beside Lake Ontario within the exclusion zone of existing 4 CANDU reactors at Darlington.
- something nuclear in Saskatchewan $74 M
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation and OPG birthed "Global First Power" to make an experimental MMR (micro modular reactor) at Chalk and have been making TRISO pellets at Chalk since 2021.
Recently, an even more dangerous fuel for non-existent reactors started at Chalk River facility... upriver from Ottawa. This allows UK-funded Moltex to do its experiments on Canadian soil.
What is going into our drinking water?
Please note, the Go-Co contract that governs operations at Chalk River and other nuke locations is up for renewal in 2024, but planning is shrouded in secrecy, and from what I can tell, the contract terms are dictated by proponents. Personally, I think the Go-Co contract model should be terminated and the Crown should take back control of all nuke planning, blueprints and materials.
The current Go-Co contract is with the “Canadian National Energy Alliance" (SNC-Lavalin / Atkins-Realis & American weapons producers Fluor and Jacobs).
Who here is ok with the Canadian nuclear regime being marionette for the American war $$ machine ?
Pretending that Canada's nuclear industry is somehow promoting the American war machine and nuclear winter says a lot about one's politics and nothing useful about Canadian nuclear power. What we have to come to terms with is how to get the power we need to slow or stop the climate collapse that is coming and Safe, clean cheap nuclear is part of the solution.
Green opposition to nuclear power has been tested - look at the results:
“Germany’s residential grid operators will be empowered to restrict the flow of power to heat pumps and electric vehicle (EV) chargers from 2024 in order to preserve the stability of the grid, which is suffering from chronic underinvestment.
This is precisely the result of Green Party anti-nuclear policies in Germany and, Sara, you are going to have to admit that. It is just a fantasy that nuclear power is dangerous and it is a fantasy that the world can do without nuclear power going forward.
It is unfortunately true that the "waste " and by products of the nuclear industry can be weaponized. As far as I know no Canadian made byproducts are being sold to the arms industry. I am concerned about the potential.However I support the motion to regard nuclear energy as a necessary source for the future electrification of our energy. We simply need it . I follow the German story. While I have a solar installation and support small local energy sources, there is no "clean" power, that has no environmental impact.
I give credit to Stephen, because it is in fact possible to make a bomb that is highly contaminated with Pu-240/241/242. However, it's never been done before and for good reasons.
For governments, the reasons to avoid Pu-240/241/242 are obvious enough (a highly radioactive bomb with unpredictable explosive power is undesirable, and it's easier to make a purpose-built weapons reactor than a power plant). For terrorists, there are surely many safeguards on spent fuel handling? The Sum of All Fears scenario involved some extremely skilled terrorists, but even they did not consider making a bomb from spent fuel. First you'd have to figure out how to steal it, then you'd have to figure out how to reprocess it without a reprocessing plant, without dying from radiation sickness, while evading detection by authorities.
But I think a core matter of the disagreement must be whether it's actually practical to build 100% renewables. David, Gordon and I don't think it is.
Theoretical is nice but practical is relevant.
You are suggesting that someone is going to steal enough of the used nuclear fuel, separate the plutonium then build a bomb. Step one of your project is pretty hard given none of those big containers of high-level waste contains a lot of fuel, so you plan to airlift them out of the storage yards? Then open them up to get at the fuel - which is going to be a challenge requiring special equipment. Step two is even harder. In your secret hideaway, you have a huge number of power-hungry gas diffusion separators to concentrate your new low-quality plutonium. And a big connection to the grid for power. And a lot of technicians. You will do all this without getting caught or bombed!!
After the first two stages of your billion-dollar secret project comes the easy part: you build a bomb. In theory, it is possible. Go ahead - try and do it! I'd suggest this is just material for a not-very-convincing science-fiction movie.
Oh - and I forgot - The plutonium you get is contaminated with plutonium 240 Weapons-grade plutonium contains less than 7% plutonium-240. Fuel-grade plutonium contains from 7% to less than 19%, and power reactor-grade contains 19% or more plutonium-240. And don't forget the miscellaneous fission products in the spent fuel that suck up neutrons and make it hard to get a reaction. You will find some of those pretty hard to handle.
"Plutonium 239 is produced in a nuclear reactor when uranium 238 is irradiated with neutrons. Its half-life is 24,000 years, and it is a fissile material. When it absorbs neutrons in a reactor, plutonium 240 is formed. Subsequent neutron captures lead to accumulations of plutonium 241 and plutonium 242. Plutonium 241 is fissile, but plutonium 240 and plutonium 242 are not. However, all of these plutonium isotopes are fissionable by fast neutrons, and thus can be used either in combination or alone in nuclear explosives. Although the weapon designer's preference is always for material with high concentrations of plutonium 239 and low fractions of other plutonium isotopes, militarily useful weapons can be made out of plutonium with low concentrations of plutonium 239 and high concentrations of plutonium 240, plutonium 241, or plutonium 242."
https://www.isis-online.org/publications/fmct/primer/Section_I.html
The waste problem is so trivial we have not needed to solve it yet. There are no problems with the current storage of the very small amounts of waste our Canadian system has generated. No one has ever been harmed by it and we have lots of room left.
The proliferation problem is a joke almost a joke: using used reactor fuel is technologically about the hardest way to build a bomb. These are simply ill-founded excuses, superstitions, or lies.
Yes we were, and yes power reactors do produce plutonium suitable for nuclear weapons. Also plutonium is one of the most toxic elements known and is eminently suitable for the simplest dirty bomb. India is an example of a state that promised not to use our technology for military purposes back in the 1960s. Plutonium from spent fuel is the shortcut to the bomb there as well as DPRK and others.
Sibylle Walke, could you walk me though this weaponization?
The Plutonium in used fuel ("nuclear waste") has the wrong mix of Pu isotopes. It is contaminated with Pu-240 which spontaneously fissions and would not facilitate a weapon.
Because a Canadian RESEARCH reactor was abused by India to make weapons grade Plutonium, it might SEEM like a Canadian POWER reactors (our CANDU) are routinely pumping out similar Plutonium. If only someone could separate the Pu from the nuclear waste they'd have weapons grade material? No, that Pu is NOT weapons-grade and can never become weapons-grade.
It is still a controlled material. It is still tracked by IAEA. Terrorists won't get ahold of it. But none of that means that it is weapons-grade Pu.
Canada DID used to manufacture Plutonium (weapons-grade Pu) during the cold war, and sell it to USA. We stopped, but while we were doing it, we were NOT using power reactors.
Glad to hear you support this motion.
...and nuclear submarines DO NOT run on TRISO fuel. Is that something someone told you on your podcast and you broadcast it to your listeners? Or are you just sharing that mis-information here for the first time?
I am drawn to the gestalt of the message, and its popularity. She offers (evidence-free) suggestions that nuclear fuel is "going into our drinking water" (????), that power plants could be "marionette for the American war $$ machine" (???????), and that "contract terms are dictated by proponents" as if Canada doesn't have robust safety regulations. She's just asking questions -- questions like "do they beat their wives every night or just on weekends". It's a popular message and will continue to be -- I just hope there are enough people in the party who value evidence above loyalty to tradition.
Or, an alternate take by Angelica Oung, who was a off-shore wind-power reporter (and still is) before she learned about nuclear power.
https://twitter.com/AngelicaOung/status/1729920282583036346
🇨🇦GO CANADA 🇨🇦
Quietly and with great foresight, the Canadians have taken pole position on the race to complete the first SMR (Small Modular Reactor) in the West with the BWRX-300 project on the Darlington site in Ontario. The first reactor of four is projected to be completed by 2028.
It’s all about the partnerships said Ontario Minister of Energy Todd Smith:
“You have four parties splitting the cost of the first of a kind build — 🇨🇦OPG, 🇺🇸TVA,🇵🇱ORLEN and GEHitachi.”
This prevents the problem of the first customer of a nuclear reactor bearing the tip of the spear for developmental costs. Reactor provider GEHitachi and Canadian utility OPG are working hard to finish the design work now, and some time in 2024 we will know the cost of that FOAK build and from there some projection of the cost of subsequent reactors.
Minister Smith announced in July a 6GW nuclear buildout for Ontario for both big and small reactors. But that could be only the beginning. “Ontario needs 18GW of new nuclear by 2050 according to the IESO…there is the potential for more developments.”
It’s great to see the kind of long-term planning by the government to make sure the energy security their people and businesses are provided for. But how does Minister Smith intend to future-proof Ontarios nuclear plans with the inevitable change of administration in a democracy?
“Decisionmakers need to see that a sector can complete multi-billion dollar builds on time and on budget. OPG and Bruce did that with their refurbishments and they are bringing that same rigor to their new builds.”
That's sort of an international perspective on Canada's progress, just not Jim Smith from Australia's.
The SMR that is actually going to be built first in Canada (and first in all-of-the-west) is BWRX-300. It is GE's 10th (hence the X) generation BWR.
Once past FOAK costs, it will be exported around the world, and possibly make the cost of decarbonizing grids world-wide a nothingburger.
Maybe not. Maybe the price won't come down enough. But I'm in favour of people actually trying to make nuclear cost less, rather than blocking promising solutions. Which is what GPC's current blanket-opposition to nuclear power does. (And what Jim Green does in Australia.)
Nuclear is presently the second-cheapest source of electricity in Ontario (after hydro), according to Ontario Energy Board. I'm sure we'd all like to see the single lowest-carbon source of electricity on Earth cost even less.
If you're concerned about Naomi Hunter being gagged by "On Nuclear Power" proposal, of course you are aware there's ANOTHER nuclear power proposal on the table which is seeks ONLY to eliminate GPC's blanket ban ("G23-P024 Withdraw Opposition to Nuclear Power") so there's no "gagging" in either direction.
I don't really see how 'gagging' enters into the discussion. Members decide to accept or reject a policy. In this case, the proposed policy would not interdict discussion of the anti-nuclear position. We all remain free to discuss policies with which we disagree. No books are being burned here.
Loading comments ...