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.
Nuclear Power: Cease Blanket Opposition
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
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with David Robinson
Thank you for the link.
You might be interested to know that Jacobsen's modeling has been heavily critiqued by his peers:
"...the modeling errors
described, the speculative nature of the terawatt-scale storage technologies envisioned, the
theoretical nature of the solutions proposed to handle critical stability aspects of the system,
and a number of unsupported assumptions, including a cost of capital that is one-third to one-
half lower than that used in practice in the real world, undermine that claim.” Google " mark jacobson critiques" to find this and others.
And if you like very highquality podcastsm try starting a 5:19 in this
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Energy+Modeling%3A+the+Good%2C+the+Bad%2C+and+the+Misleading#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:1bbb8f54,vid:0__qpTuLaGg,st:0
You might also like to review the debate between Jacobson and highly respected environmentalist, Stewart Brand
https://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_mark_z_jacobson_debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=en
Peer review of this particular book is what is most important because every writer has different works of different caliber. This particular book, “No Miracles Needed,” has a Foreword by Bill McKibben. On the back cover, it is recommended by Naomi Oreskes, Bob Howarth, Peter Strachan, Anthony R. Ingraffea, and Heidi Hutner.
Here are the links to those peers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes
https://ecologyandevolution.cornell.edu/robert-warren-howarth
https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/person/77310/peter-strachan
https://www.cee.cornell.edu/faculty-directory/anthony-r-ingraffea
https://www.heidihutner.com/nuclear-power-and-waste
David (hope I'm replying to correct comment this nesting is a bit awkward), I don't like that particular MZJ vs SB TED Talk (debate) because Mark Z Jacobson gets away with using Sovacool numbers for nuclear, essentially claiming nuclear is high-carbon.
I've not yet read a detailed review of MZJ's 2023 book as it is out too soon, but we both know Jacobson used SLAPP to silence (ultimately legitimate) criticism of his modelling.
https://www.science.org/content/article/10-million-lawsuit-over-disputed-energy-study-sparks-twitter-war
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-jacobson-lawsuit-20180223-story.html
https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/12/stanford-prof-appeals-order-to-pay-428k-in-legal-fees-after-dropping-defamation-suit/
There were 21 authors on the review, but only one, Christopher Clack, was sued. This is because he was the only one personally exposed, the rest were protected by their educational institutions (would have covered legal fees).
I just want to make clear to anyone reading this comment strand, that the ordeal unfolded from 2015 (MZJ publishes his paper) all the way to 2022 (MZJ appeals order to pay Clack's legal fees) and is still ongoing.
Clack's criticism was valid. He's still waiting on MZJ to pay his legal fees as MZJ was ordered to.
No one should expect academics to be jumping at the chance to critique MZJ's work.
I like some things about the book - it is optimistic and it supports the idea of an energy transition. Unfortunately, as modeller, he has been shown to be wildly out to lunch, and as a rabid anti-nuke guy he is at best superficially informed.
People who model the system don't listen to him. People like those you quote promote what he says because they start with the same biases. The fact is, his proposal does not work. That does not mean that everything he says is wrong. It means that only the gullible buy the whole cake he. is selling.
Loading comments ...