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 Elaine Hughes
Somewhere in this long-winded 'discussion', I stated my absolute opposition to this dreadful distraction, and waste of time and money as meeting the challenge of climate change to save our planet - it seems to have disappeared! However, I repeat: should this policy proposal become part of GPC regulations, I will immediately and permanently cancel my membership in the Party. Elaine Hughes
I see no comment left by you stating your absolute opposition. Maybe you're thinking of a different nuclear policy proposal? CORRECTION! Sorry I see in your activity feed...
https://wedecide.green.ca/profiles/elaine_hughes/activity
...that you DID post such a comment on this (my) policy proposal. You posted it during Hot House phase, and for whatever reason GPC stripped out all comments as proposals advanced from Hot House to Workshop.
Here's polling data showing 57% of Canadians support nuclear power:
https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2023.01.11_Energy_Nuclear.pdf
GPC's blanket ban means no nuclear anywhere. Not just near you, but not near anywhere else where a strong majority of citizens want to see it deployed.
Imagine if GPC issued a blanket-ban on rooftop solar? There'd be rational for doing so:
1- Chinese supply chain for polysilicate involves forced labour.
2- Rooftop Solar is one of the most expensive sources of electricity once firmed.
3- Lack of solar panel recycling facilities in Canada.
Of course a blanket-ban on solar power would be ridiculous, and would drive away many people serious about climate change from the party.
Just like our opposition to nuclear power does.
Maybe you could focus your efforts on opposing nuclear power in Saskatchewan, based on any specific proposal or reactor design or uranium mine? Rather than a blanket ban on an extremely broad category of energy production?
I realize you've probably been opposed to nuclear power for decades, and maybe that was why you joined GPC in the first place. But please take a moment to look at the reports I'm citing in my proposal.
Statistically nuclear power is one of the safest energy sources. There's 60 years of commercial nuclear power plant operation on which to base that statement. I cite Out World In Data, and United Nations ECE report.
In contrast, many people have been systematically mis-informed by anti-nuclear activists. If you have a specific concern I can try address it.
The only specific thing you mention in your comment is MONEY. When wind+solar are looked at as LCOE yes they are (much) cheaper. When firming costs (backup storage) is added, they can actually cost more than the most outrageous over-budget nuclear (Vogtle AP1000 in USA).
And Canadian nuclear is NOT currently over-budget. The CANDU refurbs are on-budget and ahead of schedule. That's a mega-project in some ways more challenging than a new build. 2 reactors in USA were actually destroyed by a botched refurb... very difficult stuff and OPG in Ontario seems to be doing a fantastic job.
Loading comments ...