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
Joel thanks for sharing your concerns. As I mention in my reply to Bill, Bruce Power (a utility) needs to incorporate firming costs when pricing electricity and they find that only hydropower is cheaper than nuclear.
"cost"
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
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. Nuclear's pros and cons are not even remotely close to justifying such a blanket-ban in our policy books. This blanket-ban is precluding a serious conversation on the subject, where only anti-nuclear activists participate. I'm of course referring to GPC's SMR Roundtable posted on Facebook. I've turned that into a "debate" to balance it out, if you want to hear my assessment on how far off the rails GPC nuclear discussion has gone: https://youtu.be/cu1GIxigNyc
"sustainable"
CANDU runs on natural uranium. Canada has an abundant supply. The used-fuel from our fleet could sit in 8 hockey rinks. The fuel is just too energy-dense for us to run out, or for us to be unable to safely store the used-fuel. And new nuclear tech such as Moltex SSR-W recycles the fuel into additional energy, and can reduce the volume that needs to be ultimately stored... used-fuel is actually 95% unused. We've only tapped 5% of its energy potential.
"geothermal"
I'm in favour.
David,
Wind and solar are much cheaper than nuclear. That's accepted by every major institution that weighs in on energy costs: Lazard, IEA, CER, EIA, IPCC, etc. Wind and solar are expected to dominant energy supply. According to the IEA's 2022 Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions: "Nuclear and other dispatchable power sources complement renewables by providing critical services to electricity systems. The predominance of wind and solar in the power mix and the end of unabated fossil generation must be complemented by a diverse mix of dispatchable generation to provide stability, short-term flexibility and adequate capacity during peak demand periods."
"Stability, short-term flexibility and adequate capacity" are roles provided by storage technologies. So storage does not complement nuclear but competes with nuclear. Storage is already winning that competition on speed, cost and recycling. Again, nuclear ideology and wishing for the past are not winning strategies.
You, your family, or family may be workers in the nuclear industry. I don't mean to insult nuclear industry workers. There will be plenty of need for them in the renewable energy grids. The Green Party needs to ensure that they have a fair transition, just like those in the fossil fuel industry. Please don't lead them on by telling them their industry has a future.
Gordon,
The numbers from Bruce power are not LCOE figures but prices - two very different things which can not be directly compared. Those prices are simply negotiated with the OEB, not a reflection of the total costs of construction, operations, maintenance and decommissioning which are included in LCOE.
Also, OEB prices for energy did NOT include the surcharge amount that Ontario consumers paid for14 years to paid off a $20B debt cause by construction of the Darlington nuclear power plant? https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/ontario-is-buying-three-massive-nuclear-reactors-the-province-won-t-say-how-much-they/article_4e15141c-ed6e-541f-99ed-bb657436388a.html
Nuclear power cost overruns are typical. The $5B debt at NB Power was mostly from the Point Lepreau nuclear plant in NB. See page 76 of this Auditor General report: https://www.agnb-vgnb.ca/content/dam/agnb-vgnb/pdf/Reports-Rapports/2020V2/Chap3e.pdf
The IREN report you referenced just shows graphs of solar and wind LCOE numbers falling, by a lot. Not sure why you think they are rising.
Nuclear power, as Lazard points out, is the most expensive source of new power. Globally, when generation companies decide what to build today, the results are dominated by wind, solar and storage because of the dramatic fall in costs over the last ~20 years. The nuclear industry knows they are being hammered on cost that's why they dazzle governments with the promise of SMRs. Not even the pro-nuclear NB government is willing to say what the LCOE for SMRs will eventually be (in a decade?). We'd be far better off spending those $billions on deploying wind, solar, and storage right now.
Yup, the Bruce numbers are higher for wind because they still include wind farms built many years ago when prices were higher. Wind cost is falling, not nuclear cost.
As Lazard indicates, the wind and solar cost advantage, even when including storage,is set to out compete every new power source globally.
For years, the International Energy Agency has underestimated the growth in solar and wind, which has skyrocketed, and overestimated the growth in nuclear power, which has remained flat, in their annual World Energy Outlook reports. Even they are projecting that solar and wind will produce almost 10x the amount of electricity that nuclear will by 2050. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022
The evwind.es link is just cherry picking not industry trends. I can do that too:
Vogtle in US - $17B over budget and 7 years behind schedule
Olkiluoto in Finland - 7B Euros over budget and 12 years behind schedule
Hinckly Point C in UK - $10B over budget
By the way, the EDF is building the reactor at Hinkley Point C. That's the giant nuclear power company in France that went bankrupt and had to be nationalized by the France government.
Lots of wind turbines and solar PV panels are not made in China.
There is a energy revolution happening in solar, wind and storage. We ignore it at our peril.
"So you're saying that nuclear power plants in China are awesome but solar PV panels from China are not. Huh! Have you scrutinized the labour and accounting practices of the Chinese nuclear industry too?"
No Tom. China's nuclear supply chain is probably not scrutinized in North America because Western nuclear doesn't depend on China. Not like Western solar depends on China. And if you are familiar with the use of rare earth magnets in wind turbines, not like how Western wind power depends on China as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/business/economy/china-solar-companies-forced-labor-xinjiang.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/business/economy/china-forced-labor-solar.html
But now that you mention it, when I try to Google: nuclear china forced labour
...I only see stories about SOLAR FORCED LABOUR.
So it might be happening, but it certainly isn't being reported on.
"Yes, mega projects in general have budget and schedule overrun problems. That's another reason why wind, solar, and storage shine."
Ontario Energy Board Regulated Price Plan Price Report see Page 21:
https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20211022.pdf
Nuclear 9.6¢ /kWh
Hydro 5.8¢ /kWh
Gas 12.5¢ /kWh
Wind 15.4¢ /kWh
Solar 49.8¢ /kWh
Bioenergy 26.7¢ /kWh
"FOAK's are expensive, even more so when in the nuclear industry. Why throw $B's away on a wild card gamble when we have ready solutions that work now?"
Because the more you deploy intermittent energy, the greater the firming costs.
Because the first iPhone cost $150 million to produce, yet Apple sells them for ~$1000.
I'm not asking GPC roll out the red carpet for nuclear power. Just that we cease blanket opposition to the single lowest-carbon energy generation tech on planet Earth. Provinces and markets can then decide what sources of energy they'd like to pay for.
"You're complaining about human rights abuses in China then hold up UAE as a shining example of what to do? You have got to be kidding!?!?!"
Hmm.
David,
What I find surprising is the incredibly irrational faith some people have in nuclear power. Lazrd's cost numbers show that nuclear is the most expensive option. If you don't believe it then check out the world nuclear capacity figures published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for the last 20 years. They are essentially flat. If nuclear is so awesome why isn't it growing?
Now, check out the IEA World Energy Outlook figures for the same period for wind and solar capacity. Explosive growth.
If nuclear is so cheap and fast why isn't the first SMR already finished? They've been at it for almost ten years. If CANDU is so awesome why is the nuclear industry now pushing SMRs? Sorry, your industry is just not supporting your own claims.
The French nuclear industry is held up as the pinnacle of nuclear achievement but last year half their national fleet was offline due to corrosion, maintenance issues, and rivers which were too hot to cool reactors due to (duh!) a heat wave. Also, EDF, the giant nuclear company in France which is building UK's vastly over-budget Hinkley Point C, had to be nationalized by France to save it from bankruptcy.
The most economical way to use storage is to fill it will cheap wind & solar energy. Plenty of energy system analysts have already done that math.
Back in 2014 I bought my first battery electric vehicle (BEV). Hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) advocates told me that HFC would win out despite the basic cost advantages of BEV over HFC. It was like the old mime showing all of the lines of a project diagram converging into a box saying "miracle happens". We are just repeating that debate with nuclear vs renewables. Nuclear just don't measure up in any possible way, unless that miracle you're wishing for happens.
The question isn't whether renewables will win over nuclear, they already have and major institutions such as the IEA and IPCC continue to confirm it. The question is how much time and money do we have to waste on nuclear before we can move on.
Tom, you close your argument with reference to the big, bad three: cost, time, and the risks associated with its waste.
So many people have pointed out that the waste problem is easy, already solved, and tiny, that I will not even go there. It is almost impossible to allay irrational fears.
The time problem is also imaginary. Everyone in this discussion must know that Ontario built 21 reactors in 21 years - so many that the province enjoyed a surplus of electricity for decades.
That was when Ontario had half the population and before huge improvements in technology. There is no technical or economic reason that Ontario alone could not build 63 reactors in 21 years. We would need a 5-year planning run-up, but we could have 2.5 times our current generation capacity by 2050. That is nearly enough to totally decarbonize the Ontario economy.
Finally, there is the old question of cost. You do know that except for the last reactors, Ontario's plants were delivered on time and on budget? That is like the Korean plants, the CANDU refurbishments, and most of the french system.
You know that the reason for the huge overruns at the end was political delays, regulation changes, and the 20% interest rate at the beginning of the 80s that drove up financing costs.
And you do know that the debt of Ontario Hydro was partly a political shifting of costs onto Hydro and partly due to a recession that cut hydro revenues from electricity sales?
Knowing all that, I imagine you are starting to lean in favour of the motion.
Tom, Advancing storage technology is not an argument for reneweables.
You listed a bunch of interesting and promising storage technology advances. Obviously, storage is great for nuclear. Nuclear can provide continuous power, so batteries can carry power produced at low demand times over into high demand high-value times. That is precisely the reason you want storage for wind and solar.
I think if you do the arithmetic you find storage solutions actually have a higher payoff with nuclear than with renewables.
Gordon,
So you're saying that nuclear power plants in China are awesome but solar PV panels from China are not. Huh! Have you scrutinized the labour and accounting practices of the Chinese nuclear industry too?
The enriched uranium required for many SMRs is only produced in Russia. Does that mean we should not develop those SMRs? Let me guess, you'll find another country to produce it...
Again, other countries produce solar PV panels. Prices bumps do not a trend make. Although nuclear has quite a lengthy trend of years of high cost even with direct and indirect subsidies from governments.
Yes, mega projects in general have budget and schedule overrun problems. That's another reason why wind, solar, and storage shine.
Refurbishments are not new builds but it is nice to see a project on schedule. The nuclear refurbishment in NB was a $1B+ financial disaster. That's a lot of coin for a province the size of NB. Even after that, the plant unexpectedly shutdown for months. We could have installed a lot of working wind, solar, and storage for $1B.
FOAK's are expensive, even more so when in the nuclear industry. Why throw $B's away on a wild card gamble when we have ready solutions that work now? The reason is lobbying from a well connected nuclear industry, not a legitimate solution for urgent climate action.
You're complaining about human rights abuses in China then hold up UAE as an shining example of what to do? You have got to be kidding!?!?!
By the time any SMR FOAK is successful, if ever, and trying to moving onto NOAK we could have the energy emissions problem solved without them. That's based on the nuclear industry's own timelines. Nuclear has simply been outclassed by the solar PV, wind and storage revolution. Nuclear is just a dangerous distraction and money pit.
"The IREN report"
...as I said, "solar panels from China use unsustainable forced labour in their supply chain"
Here is what the IREN report says:
"China was the key driver of the global decline in costs for solar PV and onshore wind in 2022, with other markets experiencing a much more heterogeneous set of outcomes that saw costs increase in many major markets."
That was BEFORE prices went up... the OTHER 2 URLS...
Process them all 3 together... the low-prices were in-part due to forced labour in China, the 2022 link. AND that prices have risen since.
Forced labour. Rising prices. Solar.
I'm not opposed to solar power. I don't think GPC needs to declare that an electron hitting a photovoltaic cell is a form of energy generation we simply can't abide!
Solar CAN be useful, and it CAN be harmful, if manufactured using forced labour.
It is simplistic to toss such a fundamental technology into a good-or-bad basket because of how the majority of it is manufactured today. In China. With forced labour. The poly-silicone is not at fault.
"Lots of wind turbines and solar PV panels are not made in China."
Lots of nuclear projects come in on-budget, on-schedule.
As of 2023, the CANDU refurbs ARE on-budget, on-shedule.
As of 2023, what solar-farms in Canada, what wind-farms in Canada are manufactured in Canada?
I can't find a database of solar farms that includes manufacturers, but I have checked out a database of wind-turbine manufacturers who supplied Canadian wind farms.
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/79fdad93-9025-49ad-ba16-c26d718cc070
...my Google Sheet of the data...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1smheiigesR_DFYhErVQrGW3rZFoFMKHQUGwmUP9QeEU/edit?usp=sharing
...what's your take on that? vs CANDU refurbs have >90% Canadian supply chain.
What do we do? Keep importing wind-energy hardware? If we're going to firm that energy, are we going to do it with domestic resources, or import those too?
All you need for reliable domestic low-carbon energy is CANDU (very similar to recent refurbs) and domestic natural uranium.
Could you please speak to SUPPLY CHAINS.
Could you please speak to RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS.
Please paint a picture of Canada manufacturing solar + wind + firming hardware.
As opposed to more CANDU (for example) and continued resource extraction of Canadian Uranium.
The resource (if domestic) implications of solar+wind+renewables are significant. Same (as we know) with hydrocarbon resource extraction.
https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
Isn't it significant that UN ECE finds nuclear to be THE lowest-impact on the environment?
Tom,
"Stranded Debt"
The stranded debt encompassed more than just the costs associated with Darlington, there were pension liabilities and unfavourable power purchase agreements.
This charge was applied from 2002 though 2018. I'm citing Bruce's 2021 Annual Report.
"Nuclear power cost overruns are typical"
Megaproject cost over-runs are typical. BC's Site-C hydro project being a typical example.
Recent CANDU refurbs are megaprojects. In some ways, refurbishments are even more difficult than new builds. Unlike new construction, refurbishments occur within the tight confines of existing concrete structures, sensitive equipment, and radiation. Six years in, despite COVID, they're on-budget but ahead of schedule.
SMR might start out as mega projects... First Of A Kind projects are hard, and there's no telling how smoothly any FOAK SMR project will unfold. But once we're past FOAK we should have easily deployable hardware. Mass produced hardware. They won't be megaprojects.
Chinese, South Korean and Russian nuclear projects do not typically suffer cost over-runs. The very least expensive nuclear on Earth is Indian. UAE will be hosting COP28, and will be explaining to us how they transitioned 25% of their nation's electricity consumption from hydrocarbon combustion to nuclear power with Barakah. There are many examples beyond just CANDU refurbs of nuclear projects NOT spiralling out of control. And all it should take is a single example to make the case that nuclear projects can go smoothly if properly managed. WESTERN mega-project style nuclear cost-over-runs are typical. But Canadian nuclear mega-projects are NOT, with CANDU refurbs. And world-wide nuclear mega-projects are NOT, with South Korea, China, India and Russia demonstrating what is possible.
Colin,
The learning cycle is so fast with these renewable technologies, esp. compared with nuclear, that the implementation gets cleaner each year.
I've not seen any references to problems with silicon mining. But there are lots of examples of how renewable technology has quickly adapted to address issues. Cobalt is no longer used for grid storage batteries. (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/tesla-shifts-battery-chemistry-for-utility-scale-storage-megawall/600315/) The Salton Sea in the US has been identified as a huge clean source of lithium. (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/the-salton-sea-could-produce-the-worlds-greenest-lithium.html).
Oh, and iron-air batteries are expected be commercially available in 2024. They use iron and air and may be as little as 10% of the cost of lithium-ion batteries. (https://formenergy.com/technology/battery-technology/)
To reduce the need for mining, recycling is being put in place for all renewable technologies: solar PV, lithium-ion batteries, and wind turbines all have high levels of recycling and/or reuse. Yes, even wind turbine blades are now recycled (https://www.up-to-us.veolia.com/en/recycling/recycling-used-wind-turbine-blades), some places have found it worthwhile to dig them up to recycle them. Manufacturers are now making blades even easier to recycle. (https://newatlas.com/energy/ge-worlds-largest-recyclable-wind-turbine-blade)
Nuclear reactor equipment and radioactive waste can't be recycled. Calling the reprocessing of nuclear waste "recycling" is nuclear industry spin. The process is risky and, even if it works, very little material is extracted for use. That material is plutonium which make the process is a nuclear weapons proliferation risk. Also, the process produces liquid radioactive waste which is even more difficult to maintain than the original solid waste. Now, ignoring those risks places us all at a grossly unfair disadvantage. (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-reprocessing-dangerous-dirty-and-expensive)
I'm not sure what you mean by "highly variable solar record". Solar has an excellent track record of falling costs and predictable performance, it's called weather forecasting.
Nuclear needs to be ignored since its empty promises are just those of an industry that's trying to save itself, not the biosphere. The cost and time required to deployed nuclear and the risks associated with its waste just make it a distraction from the clean, fast, affordable and effective solutions we have today.
Climate change needs action now, not expensive grand promises from a defunct nuclear industry.
Tom, you are right, "There is an energy revolution happening in solar, wind and storage. We ignore it at our peril." I dont think this motion is doing so, rather asking that we NOT ignore nuclear.
But, what we continue to ignore with solar, wind and storage, is that these energy sources, while green in the sense of their fuel, are far from green in their implementation. They are all doing enormous damage to the environment through their mining, processing and delivery (silicon in particular). Ignoring these costs, and then also ignoring the highly variable solar record, puts nuclear at a grossly unfair disadvantage.
Loading comments ...