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
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?
Loading comments ...