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 Tom McLean
Nuclear is a slow expensive technology which is distracting us from implementing the clean, recyclable, and affordable solutions which are coming from the renewable energy revolution.
Wind and solar are expected to dominant energy supply because they are much cheaper than nuclear and far faster to deploy. That's accepted by every major institution that weighs in on energy costs: Lazard, IEA, CER, EIA, IPCC, etc.
Here are just a couple of examples of how the renewable industry has quickly addressed mining 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 )
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. (https://www.up-to-us.veolia.com/en/recycling/recycling-used-wind-turbine-blades
(https://newatlas.com/energy/ge-worlds-largest-recyclable-wind-turbine-blade
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/)
Nuclear reactor equipment and radioactive waste can't be recycled. Calling the reprocessing of nuclear waste "recycling" is nuclear industry spin. (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-reprocessing-dangerous-dirty-and-expensive)
The Green Party should be focusing on supporting the development of truly green technologies in Canada. Here is a great example in Alberta: https://www.eavor.com/
Don't support the nuclear industry. It's expensive, slow, and already headed to oblivion. Hopefully it will finally clean up its toxic radioactive waste before it goes.
"radioactive waste can't be recycled"
Anti-nuclear UCS does issue reports which claim this regularly. You picked a blog post from 2008?
Let's go thru it: "The separated plutonium can be used to fuel reactors"
Moltex is the Canadian company which will be using CANDU waste as fuel.
Moltex separates used fuel into 2 categories:
~1. cladding + most of the uranium
~2. plutonium + transuranics + little uranium + some fission products
Because so many non-Pu materials remain with the Pu, a conventional reprocessing facility (what USC is arguing against) would be still needed if you wanted to separate out Plutonium.
"The separated plutonium can be used to fuel reactors, but also to make nuclear weapons."
It can't. That's right, UCS is making an untrue statement.
Even IF it was a conventional reprocessing facility, and Pu was segregated onto ONLY Plutonium, it STILL would not be used to make weapons.
The Pu is NOT WEAPONS GRADE. It is only reactor-grade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade_nuclear_material
Weapons Grade Pu can be used in weapons, AND it can be used to fuel reactors.
Reactor Grade Pu can ONLY be used to fuel reactors.
Weapons Grade Pu can be made in research reactors, or military reactors, or dual-purpose reactors such as early UK reactors and Soviet RMBKs (Chernobyl).
CANDU power reactors are NOT dual-purpose. They only produce reactor grade Plutonium.
AS YOU CONTINUE TO ARGUE AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER, have you spoken to people who operate nuclear power plants? That are designing the new ones? Have you toured a CANDU?
My introduction to nuclear power was one of being extremely skeptical. But when I looked into claims by anti-nuclear organizations I found they were constantly dismissive of any technical solutions or any means of improving nuclear power. Absolutely everything was bad. Always bad.
Can we generate more low-carbon energy while producing less waste and mining less uranium? Bad.
Can we build safer reactors which are physically incapable of melting down? Bad.
Here's GPC's anti-nuclear go-to-guy, Dr. Gordon Edwards, regrading reactors which could be used to recycle nuclear waste:
"It may be that, one day after all the power reactors have been shut down and folks have weaned themselves off of nuclear power, some version of these concepts may be useful for waste management purposes. But not now! To do it now would just be unleashing the dogs of nuclear expansionism, leading to a mad flurry of activity that the whole world will end up regretting."
I swear to you, it was this attitude by people like Dr. Gordon Edwards who are actively campaigning and consulting and pontificating on nuclear power which influenced my opinion that nuclear was being maligned, as much as anything anyone who supported nuclear power ever said to me.
Tom.
The document shows nuclear's share increased and the gas share of Ontario's electrical power produced decreased.
Gas CAPACITY increased. That does not mean gas provided the power.
Demand actually decreased over the period from 152 TWh to 140.7 TWh
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2018/market-snapshot-why-is-ontarios-electricity-demand-declining.html
Gas did not replace coal as you claim.
Nuclear is slow?
Ontario has been producing electricity for 140 years. Over 50% of current production comes from a handful of plants built in just 20 years beginning 50 years ago.
70% of France's power comes form a 30-year building program.
Like it or not, nuclear is FAST!
David,
I didn't claim it. That was a quote from your own reference. " A number of gas generators were built to replace much of the coal capacity that was phased out. " https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal
I've made my points and I'm finished running down this rabbit hole. Bye
They were built, but nuclear provided the increase in output that replaced coal.
Tom, I won't be addressing all your claims in a single reply.
"slow ... distraction"
Grant Chalmers has taken BP's Statistical Review of World Energy July 2022, and stacked the biggest 10-year deployments of low-carbon electricity generation:
https://twitter.com/GrantChalmers/status/1543162359703027712
...you can see that hydro (as it often does) beats nuclear for 1st (and 2nd) place. Then nuclear power dominates with 3rd 4th 5th 7th 8th.
6th place is Canadian hydro.14th place is Canadian nuclear.
Nuclear power can not both be simultaneously slow, and also responsible for half of the 10 fastest clean-energy deployments on Earth.
There's clear examples (Sweden, France, Ontario) of where nuclear has been indispensable in QUICKLY cleaning up electricity production. NOT JUST DEPLOYING QUICKLY BUT SHOWING RESULTS in CO2eq /kWh.
Only Hydro has been proven to reliably decarbonize grids. NOT solar and wind.
France, Ontario, Sweden didn't just deploy nuclear rapidly...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/low-carbon-share-energy?tab=chart&country=FRA~SWE~DEU~BEL~NLD
...they also decarbonized their grids.
Alternately, Germany's "Energiewende" is a clear example of how deploying massive quantities of solar and wind can lead to minimal decreases in actual greenhouse gas (and other pollutants) being pumped into our atmosphere.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-unit-energy?region=Africa&country=FRA~DEU~CAN~SWE
Germany is currently undergoing a combination of:
- de-industrialization
- return to combustion of lignite (the dirtiest form of coal)
- diminishing energy independence
...that was because German politicians were told their nuclear power could be replaced with solar and wind. They were told that intermittent energy sources could replace dependable energy sources.
Hydropower certainly can, if there's hydropower to develop.
But if solar and wind could replace dependable energy, why is Germany burning more coal to replace their nuclear power?
Did Germans not build enough wind turbines? (Which at least they manufactured themselves.)
Why don't Germans just build battery storage?
Ontario and Germany both decided they wanted to stop burning coal.
Ontario turned to nuclear, and succeeded.
Germany turned to solar+wind and failed.
Ontario's CO2eq over the past 12 months has been 98g. That's world-class.
Germany's CO2eq over the past 12 month has been 370g. That's one of the dirtiest grids in Europe.
Germany's grid is getting dirtier. And please feel free to check at any time of day to see how much electricity Germany is importing from France.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
I'm NOT opposed to solar or wind. No one should be.
GPC should NOT oppose ANY low-carbon energy source. They all fill different needs.
But if there was a measure of "slow distraction" from decarbonization, solar+wind would fit that description far better than nuclear power.
I've already addressed most of your points in previous replies to others or yourself so I won't repeat myself here.
Ontario replaced their coat with gas-fired plants not nuclear. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2017/market-snapshot-canadas-power-generation-switching-from-coal-natural-gas.html
Germany was planning to do the same thing as Ontario then gradually phase out gas but Russia abruptly decided to curtail exports of natural gas. I'm sure you can Google that. Start with Russia-Ukraine war.
Thanks to wind & solar, Germany has manage to limit their increased use of coal, in fact, the long-term direction of their coal use is still heading down. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1329777/coal-consumption-germany/
Another reason Germany had to burn more coal in 2022 was to help France when about half of France's nuclear fleet went offline: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/even-crisis-germany-extends-power-exports-neighbours-2023-01-05/
Nuclear is a slow expensive distraction.
Oh, and speaking of the Russia-Ukraine war, the only power sources which got urgent emergency level attention in the conflict are not solar or wind but the nuclear power plants in Ukraine because of their potential for disaster. Huh. Now that's a distraction.
Tom, you've done it twice. You are making a jump in logic, that because Ontario phased out coal, and because overall Canada's gas replaced coal, that supposedly Ontario's gas replaced coal. It absolutely did not.
Ontario (not broadly Canada) regarding the same subject:
https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal#section-2
There are 2 stories there, one told in MegaWatt Capacity (your anti-nuclear story) and nuclear's story told in Delivered Power.
Tom's Story of Ontario:
Nuclear: +1,500 MW Two units at Bruce Power were refurbished and returned to service in 2012.
Natural Gas: +5,500 MW The addition of new combined cycle facilities, a peaking plant and combined heat and power facilities.
Non-Hydro Renewables: +5,500 MW Added generation under procurements.
Look at all that Ontario Gas and Solar+Wind!
Nuclear's Story:
Percentage share of total generation 2003 -> 2014:
42% -> 60% Nuclear
11% -> 9% Gas
23% -> 24% Hydro
25% -> 0% Coal
0% -> 7% Non-hydro renewables
Solar and Wind (and Gas) have low capacity factors. Nuclear has the highest capacity factor. Nuclear's share increased 18% while gas actually decreased DESPITE MORE GAS CAPACITY NEEDING TO BE BUILT.
You SAY in Ontario gas replaced coal. NO. Lots of gas CAPACITY was built. Just like lots of solar+wind CAPACITY was built. Because solar+wind (presently) need gas backup. But what was actually producing a greater and greater share of Ontario's electricity was NUCLEAR.
David,
My reference was accurate you just didn't read it. Here is a quote from the reference I provided earlier:
"Between 1996 and 2015, natural gas use in power generation has grown at average annual rates of 4.7% in Ontario,"
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2017/market-snapshot-canadas-power-generation-switching-from-coal-natural-gas.html
Ontario's phase out of coal concluded in 2015. A quote from the same reference above:
"The decline in coal usage primarily stems from Ontario’s complete phase-out of coal-fired generation, which moved from a peak of 41 TW.h in 2000 to zero TW.h in 2015."
Ontario didn't build any new nuclear power plants to retire coal they were in the process of refurbishing those two reactors at Bruce Nuclear anyway. They did build gas plants to replace the coal-fired generation.
" A number of gas generators were built to replace much of the coal capacity that was phased out. "
That's a quote from the link you provided in your last reply.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal
Based on your own directive, are you now going to withdraw your comments?
Ontario replaced their coat with gas-fired plants not nuclear.?
You forget that two nuclear units were returned to service during the 10 years that coal plants were being closed. According to the Ontario government, nuclear's share rose from 42% to 60% of total output. The share of gas fell from 11% to 9%. https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal.
So how can you have gotten so confused? The CER data you cite is for Canada as a whole.
You should withdraw your comment, which was based on an incorrect interpretation of the data, and you should remove any conclusions that you think follow from the misinformation.
Loading comments ...