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.
Preamble
Nuclear power is one of the lowest-carbon sources of electricity, as recognized by IPCC and United Nations ECE. A majority of Canadians support using nuclear energy to generate electricity.
Proposal text
Green Party of Canada WILL CEASE BLANKET-OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR POWER AS A SOURCE OF LOW-CARBON ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION.
Type of Proposal
Public policy that the party would represent.
Objective / Benefit
This resolution is intended to withdraw existing GPC policies which oppose Canada's use of nuclear technologies for non-military purposes. GPC policies which impede nuclear by calling for "renewable" energy shall be updated to replace "renewable" with "clean".
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
1996 Foreign Aid - repeal
G06-p11 Enhanced Nuclear Policy - repeal
1998 - Peace and Security - repeal
G08-p012 Nuclear Power - repeal
G10-p31 Carbon Free National Feed-in Tariff - Amend: remove "non-nuclear,"
G08-136 Energy Transition Plan - Amend: change "renewable energy" to "clean energy"
G08-p137 Support of Distributed Electrical Power Grid Research - Amend: change "renewable energy" to "clean energy"
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe issued a report comparing not just lifecycle carbon emissions for various electricity sources, but overall impact on the environment and human health. Nuclear power was the single lowest CO2eq /kWh electricity source studied. The single lowest impact on ecosystems. And among the very lowest impact on human health. (CO2: Page 8. Ecosystems: Page 57. Human health: Page 58.) https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
Our World In Data summarizes a modern assessment of various electricity system's safety and cleanliness. While not as in-depth or recent as UN ECE's study, Our World In Data clearly positioned nuclear in 2020 as one of humanity's safest and cleanest energy sources. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Despite his continued opposition to nuclear power, Dr. Gordon Edwards acknowledges "Low-carbon emitting technologies include solar, wind, hydro and nuclear" in a 2021 briefing paper. https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/ENVI/WebDoc/WD11891319/11891319/RamanaMV-1-e.pdf
In GPC's "Roundtable on Canada's Nuclear Policy" Dr. Gordon Edward observes that splitting atoms for energy does not release carbon. (Excerpt with my commentary:) https://youtu.be/HKIcnbMMdO0?t=24 (Original video:) https://www.facebook.com/GreenPartyofCanada/videos/934857067289154/
The nuclear supply chain for CANDU refurbishments is 98% Canadian. https://www.opg.com/documents/2021-ontario-nuclear-collaboration-report/
This can be contrasted with other low (but not as low as nuclear) carbon energy sources where components are not domestically produced, such as wind turbines: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/79fdad93-9025-49ad-ba16-c26d718cc070
Nuclear's domestic, Canadian, supply chain still achieves a cost /kWh only beaten by hydropower. https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20211022.pdf
On April 23, 2023, Dr. Chris Keefer debated Dr. Gordon Edwards on the subject of nuclear power in Canada. This was the "Roundtable on Canada's Nuclear Policy" that GPC members might have experienced, if a single pro-nuclear voice had been allowed to participate. https://youtu.be/LvMC8TK025w
Angus Reid Institute finds increasing support from Canadians for nuclear power. In June 2021, 51% of Canadians said they would like to see further development of nuclear power generation. Now 57% say the same. https://angusreid.org/canada-energy-nuclear-power-oil-and-gas-wind-solar/
This 57% of Canadians supporting nuclear matches a similar trend in the United States, where also now 57% support nuclear power. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/
Germany serves as a cautionary tale that renewables have not replaced their nuclear fleet. This video details use on online grid monitoring tools to evaluate Elizabeth May's statement (made during COP28) that shutting down nuclear power has "freed up" the grid to accept renewable energy, while not also noting that German grid remains high-carbon, and Germany immediately transitioned (upon the closure of their last nuclear power plants) from being net-exporter of electricity to net-importer of electricity. https://youtu.be/8rcMwmGuGSo
Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
N/A
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
05/07/2024 -
- 6
-
Created at
27/02/2024 -
- 0
-
Created at
05/07/2024 -
- 0
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
"No solution for nuclear waste"
The WIPP is an operational nuclear waste repository for military waste in USA. Civilian waste could be stored in such a site. I recorded Dr. James Conca's presentation where he covers this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6no0FmPk84
That's the sort of voice we should be hearing when GPC holds roundtables on nuclear power, in addition to our current roster of anti-nuclear consultants. To fact-check claims such as "there is no solution".
"It is surprising that no terrorist group has yet deployed a dirty bomb, or blown up or robbed a storage facility."
It is not surprising when you try to game out how exactly such a thing could be attempted, and what little it could actually accomplish. Even if there was no security force, what you're suggesting is impractical. The materials are not portable. The materials are inert.
"if things go wrong, the result could be a disaster. "
Things did go wrong, 3 notable times. Over 60 years. And when you calculate deaths /kWh nuclear is still among the safest sources of energy on planet Earth. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
This is also the finding of United Nations ECE report on lifecycle impact. They tally impact on human health. This was cited in my policy proposal. If you want to get into safety, that's an excellent report to read. Human health: Page 58.
https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
The "when things go wrong" is in-scope. Nuclear is still one of the safest sources of energy because when things did go wrong, very few people were actually harmed. You might be conflating (for example) tsunami deaths (>10,000) with deaths caused by Fukushima Daiichi.
"The Green Party should not promote the construction of nuclear power stations, although it might be a mistake to adamantly oppose all research in the topic. "
My proposal DOES NOT CALL FOR PROMOTION OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS. I'm trying to STOP GPC's BLANKET OPPOSITION. Is like opposing combustion. Burning lignite coal is bad. Burning hydrogen is not. Nuclear fission is far to broad a technology to oppose all forms of energy production using it. GPC can continue to ask hard questions about specific projects, but should not oppose them regardless of the details.
"The resources required to build a nuclear power plant would be better used..."
Bruce Power tallies the cost of firmed energy on Page 44 of their Energy Report...
https://www.brucepower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/210426_2021AnnualReport_Accessible.pdf
The cheapest are:
1. Hydro 5.8 c/kWh
2. Nuclear 9.6 c/kWh
3. Gas 12.5 c/kWh
4. Wind 15.4 c/kWh
5. Biofuel 26.7 c/kWh
6. Solar 49.8 c/kWh
...why don't we start opposing Solar Power? It is expensive! At best, it might be a small part of the solution.
Because solar has a role to play. All (clean) energy tech have pros and cons. Please read UN ECE report to see nuclear's.
These cost numbers are old and only applicable to mass utility scale projects. Wind costs in particular offshore are coming down predictably, and new solar costs are competing with coal prices, cheaper than commercial nuclear. Many taut SMRs but these would have to be built in mass production that has not been proven as economical. Solar in particular can and should be placed on nearly every building lowering pressure on the regional grid and lowering power cost. See Australia as example, one region frequently has more power than it can use, sometimes for multiple days at a time. They go around shutting off panels to avoid overloading their grid, a new problem.
Tom,
"The latest Lazard LCOE figures still show solar PV and wind, even when storage is included, undercutting nuclear by multiples."
I assume you're referring to Page 2? "Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison—Unsubsidized Analysis" (Note that LCOE+ FIRMING only means 4 HOURS.)
https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf
Solar PV (Utility Scale) + Storage: $46 - $102 USD / MWh.
Wind Onshore + Storage: $42 - $114 USD / MWh.
Those are the cheapest renewables, right? We'll work with that? (And we'll ignore expensive examples like UNFIRMED Residential Rooftop PV which already is more expensive than nuclear in that same chart.)
We should probably just focus on Wind, because Canada has a higher latitude than USA we shouldn't expect our solar to be on-par with USA's. Plus OEB's over-view numbers aren't breaking down residential-solar vs utility-solar. That might help explain why OEB's solar is so expensive... it includes that expensive UNfirmed residential solar.
Middle of that Lazard's firmed LCOE for Wind Onshore + Storage: $78 USD / MWh. That's $106.54 CAD /MWh, or...
10.6c /kWh: Lazard Wind + Storage.
15.4 c/kWh: OEB's negotiated price for wind.
These are not drastically different numbers. If you want to assume going-forward that OEB should be paying $10.6c /kWh for wind instead of 15.4c I can see that.
That's still more expensive than OEB's negotiated price for nuclear.
9.6c /kWh: OEB's negotiated price for nuclear.
It's a negotiated price. But Bruce (as a private concern) is not going to accept less than their actual costs.
So I agree on Lazard's Page 2, American nuclear doesn't look very competitive (except against UNFIRMED rooftop solar), but Lazard's ONLY source for USA nuclear costs is Vogtle. USA had no nuclear supply chain to speak of when they started Vogtle's AP1000.
Canada HAS a nuclear supply chain, because we've been refurbishing CANDU. The refurbs are extremely similar to new builds, in some ways even more challenging. Like AP1000 over-run CANDU refurbs started over-budget. Now they're consistently on-budget and ahead-of-schedule. And refurb costs... a good analog for LCOE... are included in OEB's cost of nuclear power.
And the CANDU supply chain is 98% Canadian.
Here is a database of wind-turbine manufacturers who supplied Canadian wind farms.
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/79fdad93-9025-49ad-ba16-c26d718cc070
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1smheiigesR_DFYhErVQrGW3rZFoFMKHQUGwmUP9QeEU/edit?usp=sharing
...so costs for CANDU are already cheaper... and trending downwards as refurbs continue. Wind is moving upwards (Lazard Page 9) after a long plateau.
So I don't think "cost" is a case-closed argument you can wield against nuclear, particularly Canadian nuclear, when you cite Lazard LCOE+. That lower cost (of nuclear) is paid to our Canadian supply chain.
David,
The price advantage of renewables over nuclear continues and no major institution is expecting that to change, not IEA, not EIA, not CER, not IPCC. My description of "speculation" was applied to your conclusion that current price bumps indicate a long term trend.
The other thing to notice about the IEA's prediction for solar PV is just how poor their solar PV predictions have been in the past. Before taking their "expert projections" of solar PV at face value check out their track record: https://maartensteinbuch.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-reality-versus-projections-of-the-international-energy-agency/
The IEA report you referenced talks about a big jump in the price of lithium and smaller ones in cobalt and nickel. Sorry but the chemistry has changed and cobalt and nickel are not longer used in grid batteries. There are alternatives for lithium such as sodium, but before sodium batteries come along, iron-air batteries are coming to market in 2024 which are "10 times cheaper, perform better, and last 17 times longer." https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42532492/iron-air-battery-energy-storage/
Guess what iron-air batteries are going to do to the cost of firming wind & solar PV? Sorry, you're not going to find your justification for nuclear there. The renewable industry is too nimble.
"It is hard for people who have been pinning their hopes on reneables to face the evidence that those favourable conditions are passing. " Sorry, I think you've described the nuclear industry perfectly here. That's why they are so desperate to have SMRs, any SMRs, work no matter the cost.
The latest Lazard LCOE figures still show solar PV and wind, even when storage is included, undercutting nuclear by multiples.
If you're argument is that we want to support Canadian industry then we need develop the wind, solar PV, geothermal and storage industries here. Check out this great example in Alberta: https://www.eavor.com/ and these companies across Canada: https://www.whcsolar.com/top-solar-panel-manufacturers-in-canada/
Tom. You have suggested that my observations about rising prices for renewables s was "Pure speculation," and you went to to claim that "the bump in price in the article you referenced is due to a shortage in some minerals." In fact the the shortages are projected to get worse. Citing the projections is not speculation.
On the other hand, stating flatly as you do that "Typical supply and demand processes will kick in, open new sources of supply and prices will continue to fall" really is speculation.
You make a classic Pollyanna-ish economic argument htat the market will take care of a problem. The IEA writes, on the other hand, "Innovation and economies of scale had rapidly reduced the cost of key clean energy technologies such as solar PV and batteries, but surging raw material prices could now reverse these gains, with a major impact on the financing needs for clean energy transitions around the world. "
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/critical-minerals-threaten-a-decades-long-trend-of-cost-declines-for-clean-energy-technologies
The argument from expert projections about rising resource prices might not convince you. The IEA data also shows an 8-year shift from falling prices to rising prices in both wind and solar costs. That is not speculation either.
We have gotten used to a long period of falling costs for renewables under very favourable conditions. It is hard for people who have been pinning their hopes on reneables to face the evidence that those favourable conditions are passing. I understand that. But forecassts should be based on real data and real system analysis - not wishful thinking.
David,
Pure speculation on your part. The bump in price in the article you referenced is due to a shortage in some minerals. Typical supply and demand processes will kick in, open new sources of supply and prices will continue to fall.
Nuclear continues to be the most expensive option for new power. (Lazard)
Joel, those are the latest figures Bruce Power provides. You can see from the URL it was made available as recently as 2022-02. Could you please cite your own source for the claim "Wind costs in particular offshore are coming down predictably", please?
You probably haven't heard this before, because firming costs are usually excluded from pricing studies. As of 2023, Lazard has finally started to include firming costs in their comparisons, and you'll find Canadian nuclear (if it was included in the study, and if converted from USD to CAD) would compare quite well. They call the study LCOE+.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Plus, I'm sure you are aware solar and wind have actually increased in cost.
https://www.irena.org/Publications/2023/Aug/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2022
https://www.wsj.com/articles/green-power-gets-pricier-after-years-of-declines-87d71d5f
https://www.evwind.es/2023/08/10/the-wind-industry-fights-against-the-skyrocketing-costs-and-failures-of-wind-turbines/93346
...while I expect wind and solar to NOT continue a steady increase for long, overall the spend on wind and solar is NOT money feeding into the Canadian economy. We've seen 95% of CANDU refurb spend being spent on Canadian industries. CANDU was designed to be built in Canada, as are SMR which Canada is leading on. Solar and wind are import based.
https://renewablesnow.com/news/senvion-closes-wind-turbine-blade-factory-in-ontario-501962/
...and certainly solar panels from China use unsustainable forced labour in their supply chain.
I don't say this because I think we should exclude solar and wind from our clean energy plans. But we should be very cautious about blanket-bans on tech. That's what GPC has with nuclear.
When you say solar-is-cheap and wind-is-cheap... well no one (anymore) disputes nuclear is low-carbon. So if nuclear, and wind, and solar are all low-carbon, then doesn't nuclear's supposed high-cost take care of itself? If nuclear was really high-cost then no utilities would want it.
GPC members are repeatedly told nuclear is high-cost, but 2023 is the very first year Lazard has incorporated firming costs. 2023! Every year up until now, anti-nuclear folk could cite Lazerd, and did cite Lazard. That's where the LCOE (unfirmed) costs came from.
So if you want THE LATEST costs, you either want a Canadian utility that actually uses all these different energy sources (Bruce Power) and is responsible for balancing their supply with our demand, or you want THE go-to org for LCOE, Lazard. Now with firming costs!
I invite you to not just cite your source on costs, but also consider what a CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN means. Who manufactures the hardware? Does a "green" job mean installing hardware, or does it mean extracting the resource, and manufacturing the hardware from it, and potentially exporting the end-product around the world to solve EVERYONE's GHG emissions?
Is Wind really getting cheaper? Will it keep getting cheaper?
Data insight: the cost of a wind turbine has increased by 38% in two years
The average price of the seven most significant critical minerals for the wind industry has increased by 93% since January 2020.
The reason is that renewables are very resource intensive, demand is rising, reserves are stretched and those costs wil rise more in the future.
Nuclear power is much less resource intensive, so prices will not rise at the same rate
https://www.energymonitor.ai/renewables/data-insight-the-cost-of-a-wind-turbine-has-increased-by-38-in-two-years/
(External link)
Loading comments ...