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
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.
Loading comments ...