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
Quote: ““Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology – and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy,” [French president, Emanuel Macron] said during a visit to Framatome’s Le Creusot facility in December 2020.”
See link: https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/09/27/how-agencies-that-promote-nuclear-power-are-quietly-managing-its-disaster-narrative/
Macron supports nuclear power.
&&&&&&&&&&&&
Here is another quote from someone who supports nuclear power:
In 2009, when Stephen Harper tabled Bill C-20, a bill which would force taxpayers to cover more of the liability of the nuclear industry, a nuclear industry chief executive Peter Mason exactly summed up the situation: He said: “… if there was not suitable legislation insurance in place, [(ie taxpayers covering our liability costs so that we can pay less liability costs and thereby make more profits)] then we wouldn't be in the nuclear industry,"
Here is the full quote from the Star article: "It's absolutely essential, said Peter Mason, president and chief executive of nuclear supplier GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada. "If there was not a cap and if there was not suitable legislation insurance in place, then we wouldn't be in the nuclear industry," he explained to the committee."
Source: Toronto Star: Front page of Business Section: November 30, 2009, Article: How much would a nuclear meltdown cost?
Link to Star article
https://www.thestar.com/business/how-much-would-a-nuclear-meltdown-cost/article_f452c249-65c7-556d-ae93-94eef2c9d3bc.html
Our civilization runs on heat.
Electricity is great for producing light and motion, but most of our energy use is heat - steel, asphalt, concrete, transportation, paper manufacturing, almost all of our bulk chemicals including fertilizers, whiskey, and beer, and of course, electricity generation and keeping warm.
We are setting out to decarbonize every industry. We need to replace the heat that drives about 3/4 of the economy.
We have a problem: solar and wind power are very, very bad at providing heat.
Nuclear is terrific a producing clean heat.
But we have to stop thinking about nuclear as just a cheap way to produce electricity. Nuclear is very good at producing electricity because it can replace heat that drives the turbines that produce almost all of our current electricity supply.
The really important role for nuclear power will be generating the heat we need to keep our industrial system and our agricultural system going and to improve the lives of the energy-poor 60% of the human population.
Thats why it is essential that Greens support this very mild motion.
Who benefits from large energy projects? The public.
Who should pay for the insurance? The public.
How should the public pay? Though charges on electricity? That is part of what we do. Through taxes? That is part of what we do.
Gee whiz! Sensible policies in Canada!!
Whiners and shirkers will try to push the insurance cost off onto private enterprises in the supply chain. They are deeply dishonest or don't understand the economics.
Renewable energy apparatus does not involve any radiation that can be carried by wind and water.
On the other hand, if there’s a significant nuclear malfunction, imagine what would happen to the real estate values of all the home owners and business owners within a 50 kilometre radius of Pickering Nuclear Power Plant….which is the entire Greater Toronto Area!
Is a dollar figure for that even fathomable?
In 2009 Harper put the cap at a mere $650 million for which the industry is liable.
Here is a quote from the 2009 Toronto Star article:
“"Under any scenario of a major nuclear accident happening within Canadian nuclear facilities, you can crack through $650 million without breaking a sweat," said B.C. MP Nathan Cullen, the New Democrat for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, who's on the parliamentary committee combing through the bill. The difference between a $650 million event and a multibillion-dollar catastrophe, he said, can be determined by the direction and speed of the wind that carries the radiation.”
See link:
https://www.thestar.com/business/how-much-would-a-nuclear-meltdown-cost/article_f452c249-65c7-556d-ae93-94eef2c9d3bc.html
Renewable energy apparatus does not involve any radiation that can be carried by wind and water.
In terms of differences in liability costs between renewables and nuclear, there’s really no comparison.
Renewable energy apparatus does not involve any radiation that can be carried by wind and water.
On the other hand, if there’s a significant nuclear malfunction, imagine what would happen to the real estate values of all the home owners and business owners within a 50 kilometre radius of Pickering Nuclear Power Plant….which is the entire Greater Toronto Area!
Is a dollar figure for that even fathomable?
In 2009 Harper put the cap at a mere $650 million for which the industry is liable.
Here is a quote from the 2009 Toronto Star article:
“"Under any scenario of a major nuclear accident happening within Canadian nuclear facilities, you can crack through $650 million without breaking a sweat," said B.C. MP Nathan Cullen, the New Democrat for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, who's on the parliamentary committee combing through the bill. The difference between a $650 million event and a multibillion-dollar catastrophe, he said, can be determined by the direction and speed of the wind that carries the radiation.”
See link:
https://www.thestar.com/business/how-much-would-a-nuclear-meltdown-cost/article_f452c249-65c7-556d-ae93-94eef2c9d3bc.html
Renewable energy apparatus does not involve any radiation that can be carried by wind and water.
In terms of differences in liability costs between renewables and nuclear, there’s really no comparison.
Listening to the news these days of wars and rumours of wars will confirm that there are always state actors and non state actors willing to show disregard for nuclear safety.
Do we really want that gamble just because it hasn’t happened “yet?” Desperate actors are everywhere right now: Just look at the disregard for human safety that Russia is presently showing at the site of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant See link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-day-271-1.6658116
See excerpt from Mark Jacobson's book, "No Miracles Needed,"pg 171 mentions an example: "an airplane flown into a reactor."
About radiation dangers: See excerpt from Mark Jacobson's book, "No Miracles Needed, : pg 171:
Quote about Fukushima meltdown: "At least on nuclear plant worker died from lung cancer from direct radiation exposure. (footnote 174)"....The radiation release created a dead zone around the reactors that may not be safe to inhabit for decades to centuries. The radiation also poisoned the water and food supplies in and around Tokyo. ....It is estimated that 130 (15 to 1,100) radiation -related deaths and 180 (24 to 1,800) radiation-related illnesses will occur worldwide...."(footnote 167)
See link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqLEnAGz4ormCn1KZarQB1RqBW2VPlwMf1XDIBgi0Ck/edit
Another quote: "The cost of the cleanup of the Fukishima reactors and the surrounding area is estimated at $460 to $640 billion.(footnote 168)" That's a thousand times more than the $650 million Harper set as a ceiling for the industries share of liability costs in 2009:
This means that taxpayers will be paying a thousand times more than companies like "GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada." GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada, mentioned in the Star article, is a private company, not the government. They will be laughing their way to the bank while taxpayers pay a thousand times more for cleanup than they do. See Star article link: https://www.thestar.com/business/how-much-would-a-nuclear-meltdown-cost/article_f452c249-65c7-556d-ae93-94eef2c9d3bc.html
Boyd, do you care to explain exactly how a CANDU is going to explode and scatter radiation? It is just a small technical question that you clearly must have an answer to. If you don't have an explanation, then maybe you should stop broadcasting scary science-fiction stories as your contribution to the policy discussion.
By the way, what you call the "the industry" is actually the Government of Ontario. WE designed, built, and paid for the plants to provide us with electricity.
It was brilliant Canadian engineers and scientists and a terrifically skilled workforce that gave us what we have. It was not cheap Chinese labour or some fly-by-night subsidy-seeking gas operator.
While I agree that we should pay for what we consume at the real cost of what it costs to produce, the reality is that many Ontarians would move away...to follow the businesses that would be seeking more reasonable power costs. Governments don't subsidize the cost of hydro just for fun. And with regard to insurance...it should be paid by the service provider and incorporated into the cost of the product. If that was done with Nuclear we literally would have a massive run on large fuel tanks for gasoline or propane generators because it would be that much cheaper than buying grid power. Design, Construction, safety, security, operating costs, insurance, decommissioning costs, any resulting pollution and direct health related costs should all be incorporated into the cost of the product. Granted that doesn't happen now for fossil fuels or mining or forestry or pretty much anything else because the taxpayer pays for most, if not all of those external costs...but we are the Green Party and we are about sustainability and renewables and caring about our environment and other people...so doing the status quo isn't what we are about. By incorporating all those costs, the real costs to produce the electricity we consume, the best solution to our power needs would rise to the top...and I really don't think it would be nuclear (I could be wrong but I don't think so).
Richard.
You have raised a concern about a cap on liability for the public company that built and ran the nuclear plants. It was our public sector that was protected by that cap.
Limited liability like this is not actually unusual. A limited company (LC) is a general term for a type of business organization wherein owners' assets and income are separate and distinct from the company's assets and income; known as limited liability. Most firms in our economy have limited owner liability.
So the cap is not unusual and it is justifiable by who is being protected - the public. It is also justifiable as an economically efficient mechanism that virtually every society uses.
Richard, there is lots of room to doubt almost any cost accounting in the electricity sector. I think you may be able to support an argument that nuclear has not paid its full costs, but given the extremely high feed-in tariffs for renewable, you cannot come close to arguing that they came close in cost to the system at this point, or that they come close to paying their system costs.
To be fair, these were pretty experimental projects and the intention was to build a market to create scale economies. I approved, but they were economic failures. As Germany's experiment has been an economic failure. I tend to like the idea of a smart grid and decentralizing power, as you do. It is costly and we are nowhere near ready. That is not because of spending on nuclear, which has not really begun.
You might be able to put together a case that renewables will be cost-effective at a large scale for Ontario based on current and coming technology, and will in the future cover full system costs. It has not been done and has not been adequately demonstrated in other jurisdictions. High renewable jurisdictions generally have higher electricity costs. At those costs nuclear would generally cover all costs and be profitable.
You are right that I am making some assertions that are "fuzzy" in the sense that they are relative cost statements. The big point is that there really is no evidence available in the Ontario system that nuclear power has been subsidized more than renewables. That claim is not just "fuzzy" it is almost certainly false.
Hi David, I agree that with nuclear replacing coal in Ontario it is fair to attribute our improved health to that decision. I am not as quick to accept your assertion that full cost accounting for nuclear is better than for other power suppliers. The same goes for your assertion that it is fact that Ontarians pay all the costs for nuclear with the exception of subsidies that apply to all. That is a fuzzy claim and while it may be true I am skeptical as it is my understanding that the nuclear industry has been granted a cap on their liability for any incident or disaster that may result from an accident in one of our nuclear power plants. No other energy source carries the same risk and no other, to the best of my knowledge has a cap on their liability.
With regard to renewables being heavily subsidized, there is truth in that but you are only telling part of the story. The subsidies I believe you are referring to are limited to the FIT and microFIT programs which were offered to business and the public at a time when both wind and solar were very expensive. This program was designed to encourage a strong renewable energy contingent of expert designers, installers and manufacturers. The program paid generously for every KW generated to compensate for the significant capital the participants put in for their own equipment. The program was quite successful despite significant administrative complications and bureaucracy. I can go into more detail if needed. Since the Conservatives took over renewable energy has become a dirty word in Ontario despite its successes. The current government has done all it can to make installation of solar on rooftops prohibitively expensive and complex.
In fairness, if that even makes sense, the problem in Ontario is how to manage all the non-dispatchable power generators....a significant problem that Germany has been tackling for quite sometime and which has given their green electricity efforts a black eye. Our grid, like theirs, is not sophisticated enough to deal with intermittent power sources so the easy way out is to discourage renewables and to spend heaps of money on baseload generation and gas peaker plants. There will be a need to upgrade the grid since massively increasing centralized generation vs decentralized generation will overload existing infrastructure. The unfortunate part of all this is that with an updated sophisticated grid and decentralized power generation the existing infrastructure would probably not need to be upgraded. It would also make adding privately owned solar, batteries and wind trivial. I don't see both happening due to the amount that will be spent on nuclear and the associated grid upgrades it will require. I recognize your enthusiasm for nuclear but I suspect that future generations will not think kindly of us for this choice.
Hi Richard. What you say is entirely sensible.
You should know though, that full cost accounting is much better for nuclear than for other power suppliers. A major flaw in the current accounting is that nuclear has actually saved thousands of lives by reducing air pollution, so the very large healthcare savings should be credited to the nuclear system. So should carbon credits for the huge reduction in greenhouse gasses.
And as a matter of fact, Ontarians do pay all of the cost for nuclear - Design, Construction, safety, security, operating costs, insurance, and decommissioning costs, are already built into the price of nuclear energy. (unlike the renewables, by the way) So is accident insurance. The exception is just the extent to which all electricity sources are subsidized.
The 'renewables' are actually the most heavily subsidized at the moment. Remember the quote from Warran Buffet? "... on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."
This really is a major distortion of the price system, as you suggest, Richard. It is what people vote for, alas.
Nuclear has actually saved thousands of lives by reducing air pollution, so large healthcare savings should be credited to the nuclear system. So should carbon credits for the huge reduction in greenhouse gasses.
Loading comments ...