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 Boyd Reimer
Here’s a cautionary note about the life cycle emissions of nuclear energy:
Read the fine print on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) link: See Page 44 (54 of 108)
Quote:
“…it was recognized that for the nuclear power cycle, and especially for the front end, this data is inaccurate. Therefore, supplemental data was provided regarding energy inputs, water requirements, chemicals in use, as well as for the fuel cycle back end and including the management of high-level radioactive waste such as interim storage, encapsulation, and deep geological disposal.”
My analysis:
Front end: As uranium in mines becomes more rare, the mining and refining will require more CO2. There is only a finite amount of uranium (8.1 million tonnes) as mentioned in Mark Z Jacobson’s pg 159
See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit
Back end: Notice the words “geological disposal” of nuclear waste -- as if something that remains lethal for hundreds of thousands of years can be safely “disposed of.”
Liability and insurance costs are not accounted for at all. This amounts to billions.
Here’s more fine print from the UNECE life cycle study:
Pg 61 (71 of 108): Quote: “Ionising radiation occurs due to radioactive emissions from radon 222…as a consequence, only nuclear power shows a contribution to this."
Boyd, thanks for sharing your concern about United Nations ECE Electricity Lifecycle report with all of us GPC members.
Here's a Twitter exchange I think you'll find interesting.
https://twitter.com/ThomasGibon/status/1714566947008843796
...it is one of the authors of UN ECE defending his work. I find one of the great things about Twitter is (was?) that we can directly engage with authors like Thomas Gibon. (Not MZJ though, he just blocks everyone.) (When MZJ is not using SLAPP to silence critics.)
I did read one review of MZJ's 2023 book and they said it didn't really look into mineral requirements for MZJ's WWS solution. MZJ just notes we'd be moving less earth by avoiding fossil fuel consumption, not the absolute mining requirements for WWS.
Do you think we should be mining Rare Earths in Canada? And replicate the Chinese REE supply chain in Canada?
If you're worried about resource-constraints for low-carbon energy sources, I'd hope you can appreciate the importance of not being dependent on unfriendly nations for critical minerals and their respective supply chains.
Uranium only looks constrained when looking at today's commercializable resources. Like all resources if the cost creeps up, more resources become exploitable. Because Uranium is such a tiny fragment of nuclear's cost (which is mostly construction and operation) it will be a very long time before we (particularly us here in Canada) ever experience any uranium resource pressure, let alone constraint.
IF WE DID, then we might actually start building MORE EFFICIENT REACTORS. We only liberate 5% of the energy in our fuel rods. We can extract more from recycling, or from putting them in more efficient reactors in the first place.
New Brunswick will build 2 different reactors that can recycle used fuel. I'm not sure which one is the best, but I don't need to even consider questions like that so long as GPC as a blanket-ban on nuclear. Which is better/smarter for Canada to pursue? ARC or SSR-W? Shouldn't one be pursued and the other dropped? Surely they can't both be equally good investments? Doesn't matter! Oppose it all. Fission is always bad.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) supports nuclear power:
"Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced global CO2 emissions by about 74Gt, or nearly two years’ worth of total global energy-related emissions, "
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Nuclear%20power%20brief_EN_0.pdf
Nice to get supplemental information from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. "
"Nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source that has played a major role in avoiding CO2 emissions. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced global CO2 emissions by about 74Gt, or nearly two years’ worth of total global energy-related emissions, as shown in Figure 2. Only hydropower has played a greater role in reducing historic emissions."
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Nuclear%20power%20brief_EN_0.pdf
The UNECE technology brief notes the potential role of nuclear power – which currently provides 20% of electricity generated in the region and 43% of low-carbon generation - to decarbonize the energy system and energy-intensive industries, as part of a broader portfolio alongside deploying other sustainable low- or zero-carbon technologies.
Loading comments ...