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 David Piepgrass
I think a core matter of the disagreement must be whether it's actually practical to build 100% renewables. Some of us don't think it is. Even if we add EGS to the mix―that'll only work in certain regions, the efficiency is low, the economics haven't been proven.
They say "don't put all your eggs in one basket", especially if the entire planet is at stake. The eagerness with which people would risk the planet by attempting to decarbonize almost entirely with solar and wind astounds me. To do so with solar power _in Canada_ is even more astounding. Have you considered that Canadians use the most energy in January and February? What would be your plan for transporting energy from solar power, peaking in July, to January/February? What is the efficiency and cost of this plan? Does Lazard account for this ins their concept of "firming"? (They do not.)
We could imagine a plan that involves importing solar power from southern Mexico in January. We could imagine generating immense amounts of hydrogen and filling immense storage tanks in summertime. We could imagine ditching solar in favor of a grid that is mostly wind-powered, and then imagine the grid collapsing if the wind blows at half the usual speed for a week. I don't think any of these plans are realistic or that typical GPC members are accounting for the costs involved.
Voters value grid stability, especially when it's -30°C outside and their electric heat pumps are working at minimum efficiency. Voters do not want a plan where energy is expensive and harms their quality of life. And I know some of you will laugh because wind and solar are the cheapest options today. But they are only cheapest options when they are not "firmed". Just as importantly, their value goes down as market penetration goes up.
GPC members should understand the complete net-zero picture, the picture where we cannot simply fire up natural gas peaker plants when the wind slows down. GPC got 2.3% of the vote in the last election. And I _used_ to donate to GPC. I'll give you one guess as to why I gave up on that.
Everyone following the energy space knows that the world's #1 go-to guy for 100% renewable energy plans is Mark Z Jacobson. Well, Jacobson proposed a plan for the U.S. to have under 150 GW of hydro-electric capacity, but this 150 GW needed to be able to generate nearly 1,300 GW of power. When other scientists pointed out that this didn't make sense, he sued them (later withdrawing the suit): https://kencaldeira.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/mzj-hydro-explainer/
Jacobson said he had made an "assumption" that the existing hydropower dams could be modified so as to boost their energy output by a factor of 9. Is this a reasonable assumption? It is not. If one is serious about 100% renewables, it seems to me one must look for a group of engineers that agrees with Mark Z Jacobson that this is practical. And when one fails to find such engineers, one must consider being skeptical of MZJ.
By the way, I'm sure some of you will have assumed the lawsuit had merit, but a little-known fact is that the judge ruled that MZJ's suit qualified as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and granted attorney’s fees and costs to the defendents (Dr. Clack and the Academy of Sciences).[1] I didn't learn about this until after writing the message above. On page 27-28 of the 36-page ruling, the court notes regarding MZJ's defamation claim:
It's very clear to me that (i) MZJ is a man who can't admit mistakes. (ii) MZJ tried to deflect attention from the meat of the issue.
Re: (i) you can't trust people who can't admit mistakes. Either they know they made a mistake and are dishonest, or worse, they think they're always right. Re (ii), MZJ's paper had several major issues, the biggest one is the discrepancy between the under 150 GW planned nameplate hydro capacity and the 1300 GW hydro capacity required by the model[2], and this issue was sidestepped by the 3 corrections MZJ demanded to Clack's paper.[3]
I said earlier: "beware the man of one study". Likewise, don't rely on one researcher or one small group for critical policy decisions when you don't have to. MZJ is the darling of the 100% renewables movement because he always tells you what you want to hear, but that's no guarantee he's correct or honest.
The fact is, not only do all IPCC scenarios require nuclear power, they require _more_ nuclear power than we have now.[4] Most reactors were built in the 1970s because costs skyrocketed after 1979[5][6]. Therefore, more construction is needed to replace these outdated machines plus additional construction besides. Luckily, those skyrocketing costs were a decision by society. Airplanes weren't terribly safe in the 1960s, but regulations were added in ways that made them safe but NOT unaffordable, to the point where some years have zero commercial jet crashes. Making reactors safe is dead simple compared to airplanes―would happily talk more about that if anyone wants.
[1] https://climatecasechart.com/case/jacobson-v-national-academy-sciences/
[2] https://kencaldeira.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/mzj-hydro-explainer/
[3] https://x.com/DPiepgrass/status/1760426494701207691
[4] https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-the-ipcc-report-on-climate-change
[5] http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
[6] https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
I think the Green party has to be very honest with the energy question. We are all so far in overshoot with the demands of our economy focused on fiscal growth. Really our "productivity" ( whatever that is ) should be measured by the ever extending energy poured into the process. We have to manage with less and we have to manage with very few fossil sources. We must shrink energy use and hence must not focus on GDP growth. Often nuclear energy is touted as a way to expand the economy. That would be the wrong focus. But we need a soft landing from expansionary ambitions. Do you really think what happened in Germany because of the Green protest against nuclear energy , was environmentally or societally a good move? Burning brown coal and importing more fossil fuels from the Emirates ,and Saudi Arabia. I also ( having been through the protest movement in Germany), regard the Candu system and its controls as well run and responsible.
I haven't seen figures for Canada's energy use per capita but I think it's between USA and Europe? Yes, it's worth trying to reduce it.
Worth noting: some people assume that more GDP = more energy usage and that's not really true. For instance, when a $10,000 software package is sold, GDP rises, even if the software uses less energy than a light bulb and its whole purpose is to help the buyer use resources more efficiently. The buyer may then make 10,000 widgets instead of 8,000 without changing resource consumption, raising GDP again by selling more widgets.
Impoverishing people is extremely unpopular, so if a party wants votes, they should promote such techniques. Of course, GDP growth must stop someday, but there are lots of problems we can solve first, from homelessness to cancer to AGI risk, etc. Selling cancer cures is another example that can raise GDP without much energy use (aside from people living longer, but if worse comes to worst, reducing fertility will again be more popular than impoverishing people).
Loading comments ...