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 Gordon McDowell
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 ...