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 Derek Doda
Hi Tom,
So it's an interesting article. But you might want to look into some of the details.
I saw this and I was a bit suspect.
"In 2019, at least six countries were generating all of their electricity from renewable power, while 32 more produced at least 90 per cent of their electricity from renewable sources of energy. During the first six months of 2019, Scotland generated so much electricity from wind that it could have powered the nation twice over."
I wanted to see their sources and this is their source:
https://mc-cd8320d4-36a1-40ac-83cc-3389-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Aug/IRENA_Renewable_Energy_Statistics_2021.pdf?rev=b6e5aa20a5bc40818f55963d23ef9c5a
You gotta go down to page 91 to see where they get their data from. You'll see countries like Nepal that use 100% renewables. Here is the info on that grid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal_Electricity_Authority
That has a total capacity of 1095 MW. That's almost the equivalent of a single CANDU reactor. We are not talking about large grids here. This grid specifically is entirely hydro.
There are countries / grids out there that have very low emissions but they usually follow this pattern. They have a low energy needs or a massive amount of hydro power. This is a good map that gives you realtime data of what every grid is using and how much they are producing.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
If you poke around that, almost any grid that is green is using a massive amount of hydro or nuclear. Hydro + wind + solar is a fantastic combination as it can pick up the slack when the wind isn't blowing and sun isn't shining. But you are also limited by how much wind + solar you can deploy based on that hydro. Wind + solar need to backed up by something.
Energy from renewables can be 'backed up' by energy storage systems. This is a fast-growing sector. Low environmental impact energy storage options are best for community-level deployment (think 'grassroots', if you dare). Furthermore, grid resiliency can be realized with integrating smart, distributed systems. The industry uses the trope "base load" to scare citizens into thinking the lights will go out on the hottest or coldest days. It's a ruse to ensure big producers (like nuclear) stay in the hands of the very few. They want profits to stay in the hands of the very few. Nothing could be more terrifying to them than a solar panel on every roof, and an energy storage system in every basement. Democratization of the power grid system is a future Greens can and should be championing.
Sarah, the impact of various energy sources is detailed in United Nations ECE Report on Energy Lifecycles.
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf
I'm still wondering if you've looked at it. Page 53 is a good place to start, comparing human and environmental impacts.
Page 57 is specifically (as you mention) ecosystem impact. Nuclear is THE SINGLE LOWEST.
(Just like it is THE SINGLE LOWEST CO2eq/kWh.)
Distributing energy generation doesn't make the overall impact smaller.
If you (say) put solar panels on your roof you need panel materials, but also minerals for the transformer which will change DC to AC for use in your home.
Even without battery backup, just looking at random kWh being supposedly equal in value to baseload kWh or dispatchable kWh, the "lifecycle" impact that the UN report is tallying up shows nuclear as the lowest impact. To humans. To ecosystems.
Now, imagine that impact with enough storage to make unreliable energy sources act as dispatchable.
When Alberta had grid alerts this winter, it was during a cold snap when the wind stopped blowing. We did (and do) have battery storage in Alberta, that was almost instantly depleted. The reason we didn't have brownouts, is that people were asked to use less electricity and we complied. Then, when the wind picked back up again, we were given the OK to consume electricity again.
There are a lot of unfortunate politics unfolding from that experience in Alberta. Our Premiere froze the development of renewables which, in turn, cost Alberta millions of dollars of investment in renewables, as investors saw Alberta as being an unreliable partner for such projects. That was an over-response, but possibly (politically) enabled by too-high expectations of renewables.
The pitch you are making only resonates where there's (dispatchable) hydro. And dependency on storage needs to be implemented rather than speculated. It is extremely obvious here in Alberta, that wind power depends on winds being not-too-fast and not-too-slow, or we get nothing.
You, personally, don't need to worry about the cost or dependability of the (distributed) solution you're articulating. Manitoulin Island is powered by nuclear and hydro. Are you not connected to this grid? Are you (essentially) not using dispatchable hydro to balance out whatever intermittent energy you might be using at home? Yes, that's storage, but probably not the sort of storage you're implying.
If you have found an energy storage solution which has allowed you to enjoy reliable energy at home, without the crutch of hydropower, please share.
"Base load" is not a scare tactic. Without some form of base load, serious brown outs can occur. Yes energy storage can help, but even that is not the whole answer, nor is grid resiliency. Both of which incidentally imply continued ownership by the few which you then object to. As do I. Nothing would be better than solar everywhere, individually owned. Plus storage. But it is being myopic to think that solar + wind + battery will be enough. The capacity is just not there, without central power stations of one kind of another; or complete destruction the environment to make room for solar panels and windmills. Nuclear fits the bill to a "t".
Loading comments ...