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
Alternatively, here are three other life cycle studies to consider:
FIRST LIFE CYCLE STUDY:
Mark Z. Jacobson, No Miracles Needed: Why Not Nuclear; March 2, 2023
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit
At that link, see Jacobson p 165 (top); The “Figures” he refers to are from reference 165 (see last page in the Google doc for references)
Quote:
“The estimated range of lifecycle emissions of nuclear (9 to 70 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity) in Figure 8.1 is well within the range (4 to 110) from studies examined by the IPCC. On top of those emissions are opportunity cost emissions (64 to 102); emissions due to heat and water vapor fluxes (4.4); emissions due to covering and clearing soil (0.17 to 0.28); and emissions due to the risk of nuclear weapons use arising from the spread of nuclear energy (0 to 1.4). The total is 78 to 178 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity. These emissions are 9 to 37 times the emissions from onshore wind (Figure 8.1).
Although the emissions from nuclear are lower than those from coal or natural gas with carbon capture, nuclear power’s high CO2-equivalent emissions coupled with its long planning-to-operation time render it an opportunity cost relative to the faster-to-operate and lower-emitting [Wind, Water, Solar] technologies.”
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
SECOND LIFE CYCLE STUDY:
Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? Joscha Weber; November 29, 2021
See link: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
The graphic in the above link shows that nuclear creates almost four times the CO2 emissions that solar creates, and almost 30 times the CO2 emissions that hydroelectric produces
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
THIRD LIFE CYCLE STUDY:
See link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002330
Boyd's nuclear-is-not-low-carbon alternate lifecycle study (number 1 of 2)
SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) deployer Mark Z Jacobson's latest publication.
https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/12/stanford-prof-appeals-order-to-pay-428k-in-legal-fees-after-dropping-defamation-suit/
https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1496848087050256387
...that's Dr. Christopher Clack on that Twitter thread, a living example of MZJ's belief in the peer review process.
MZJ lists his reasons for why nuclear must be high-carbon despite reputable bodies observing that it is low carbon.
Let's start by assuming median CO2eq /kWh in United Nations ECE study is correct, and they must have missed something. Something out-of-scope. That's the oldest anti-nuclear hand-waving in the nuclear-MUST-be-high-CO2 book. What could UN ECE have missed in 2020? (I'm not referring to 2014 IPCC study as that is older, and as emissions drop all processes associated with nuclear are getting increasingly lower-carbon not higher-carbon. MZJ picked it because it was older, not better.)
United Nations ECE puts nuclear at 6g CO2eq /kWH. THE LOWEST of all electricity sources.
Using THAT as an accurate baseline, how would MZJ like to "correct" the value?
add up to 4.4g "Emissions due to heat and water vapour fluxes"
Reality: Any thermal power plant can improve efficiency by using the coldest water possible. This includes biomass and geothermal, which both work best when turning cold water into steam. Closed-loop cooling water is very doable for ANY thermal power plant, it just makes them less efficient because recirculated cooling water won't quickly drop in temperature back to that of a convenient river, lake or ocean.
But up-to 4.4g CO2eq /kWh is not only an INSANELY high range, it is also ignoring the equilibrium from ocean evaporation, and GHG directly impacting Earth's temperature. If thermal plants emit more moisture, then the ocean will emit less. (This is in stark contrast to GHG where Earth's systems continue as-they-were and we're just adding to GHG.)
add up to 1.4g "Emissions due to the risk of nuclear weapons use arising from the spread of nuclear energy"
Megatons to Megawatts turned Russian bombs into fuel. No mention?
Canada stopped exporting weapons-grade Plutonium (was to USA) by 1965. By 1971, we began producing nuclear power using natural uranium, in a process which only creates REACTOR GRADE plutonium, and NOT weapons-grade plutonium. Our civilian nuclear power plants (CANDU) have ZERO risk of proliferation because nothing enriched goes in, nothing weapons-grade comes out.
(If you'd like to make a case any ONE particular proposed reactor is a proliferation concern, I'm happy to discuss in great detail. You have to pick ONE.)
So that's up-to 5.8g CO2eq /kWh on just fundamentally flawed reasoning, which is why real (non-Sovalcool non-MZJ) lifecycle emission studies don't include such factors.
Thank you for the reference to Muellner et al, "Nuclear energy - The solution to climate change?" This paper relies entirely on the following conclusion:
"A substantial expansion of nuclear power will not be possible."
Their entire argument rests on using ing the amount of nuclear power in 2040 "according to current 'planning" in 2020 as the amount of nuclear capacity that is possible.
In other words, they say, "It is impossible to build more because we don't plan to build more."
This would not be considered a serious argument in a logic class. Their maximum possible number comes from the International Atomic Energy Association's 2020 maximum projection based on "looking at announced projects for new NPP builds, life extensions, and shutdowns." As I am sure you know, a lot of new projects (including in Ontario) have been announced in the last two years.
The authors chose the “current policies scenario” of IEA's World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, 2018), which “is a baseline picture of how global energy markets would evolve if governments make no changes to their existing policies and measures”.
Loading comments ...