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
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.
Loading comments ...