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 Mary Gail Wylie
Response to Proposal ‘On Nuclear Power’ re Green Party of Canada policy
Prepared by Gail Wylie, Oct 26 2023
Against
Canada’s Energy Picture - Supply side
The proposed policy change does not appear to be based on an understanding of current technology options. That understanding would not place nuclear power in the role of a key climate solution.
A science-based, modern energy technology paradigm is one with very low cost existing and new renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro and geothermal), supported by smart grid and regional electricity interties and backed up with modern power storage. This represents a paradigm shift from a focus on ‘baseload power’. Mycle Schneider, the lead writer for the yearly comprehensive World Nuclear Industry Status report, who is himself a baseload expert, expressed the shift this way, “Baseload is out the window.” 1
This new paradigm for Canada is supported by modern scientific modelling tools applied by energy experts. In Canada the David Suzuki Foundation’s study confirms that, even under the scenario of other sectors shifting to electrical energy, nuclear power is not needed as part of a net zero electricity grid. (https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learning-centre-article/shifting-power-zero-emissions-electricity-across-canada-by-2035/ ). Mark Jacobson’s Stanford University modelling, confirms that for all energy purposes, Canada can securely transition to 100% wind, water solar, (WWS) i.e., without nuclear or other energy forms not created with WWS: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/145Country/23-WWS-Canada.pdf)
Given the urgency of cutting emissions this decade, these ‘flexible’ power technologies which already exist and can begin implementation immediately, need to be given priority. Development time for SMRs is projected by its proponents to require 15 to 25 years before beginning significant implementation as replacement power sources – assuming one or more SMR models are eventually proven to be workable and safe in operation. The initial cost of power from SMRs is also projected to be significantly higher than the flexible power mix. (https://www.cleanairalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/options2022.pdf ).
Energy modelling includes technology for energy efficiency – the lowest carbon-emitting energy being the power not needed! It includes the retro-fitting of buildings and installation of heat pumps. The scientific journal, Joule, has published an Oxford study finding that heat pumps are more efficient than other sources of heat even in sub-zero conditions down to -30 C. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/11/heat-pumps-twice-as-efficient-as-fossil-fuel-systems-in-cold-weather-study-finds )
Many claims in the proposal require examination applied to SMRs now in design-stage - proposing new fuels, new wastes and unproven safety. Reliability claims also need examination in light of years of long outages at Lepreau, especially in recent peak winter demand.
I understand the technology options, and so does the IPCC. All IPCC scenarios include nuclear power.[1] 1.5°C scenarios included not just enough to replace today's aging fleet of mostly-1970s reactors, but a massive new additional buildout. Do IPCC scientists just not understand current technology options?
https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-the-ipcc-report-on-climate-change
And Mary, I've posted a top-level comment regarding Suzuki foundation's modelling of 100% WWS. Yours isn't the only comment to have mentioned it, so I did my best to dig in.
Nuclear Power: Cease Blanket Opposition?commentId=2053#comment_2053
...I hope GPC members, including yourself, can take some time to really look at what Suzuki Foundation is proposing, and contrast it with some real-world data.
I understand their model DID use real-world data... which is why I find it so perplexing their expectation of wind's performance in Ontario and how it contrasts with what I see using real-world monitoring tools we all have access to.
There's no images I can embed, but here's an example Tweet contrasting Suzuki's data with a real-world example...
https://twitter.com/cadlam/status/1720213364050178149
...I wouldn't be surprised if someone who worked on the Suzuki model was a member of GPC. Or a friend-of-a-friend? If so, can they please participate in this discussion? Either here on GPC, or on Twitter? Email me [email protected] if you want to backchannel it.
Please keep in mind, when Mark Z. Jacobson's model was critiqued as part of the normal peer-review process HE SUED. (MZJ is not involved in this Suzuki modelling, but he is the most prominent modeller in USA.) That is the context in which these models are critiqued, or often not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/02/23/stanford-professor-withdraws-10-million-libel-suit-over-clean-energy-claims/
We all know what a SLAPP lawsuit is, right?
The lawsuit is over a 2015 model, critiqued by 20 people in 2017, and the issue of Ken Caldera's legal costs are STILL in court, as MZJ appeals having to pay Caldera's fees as he was ordered to. MZJ only sued Ken Caldera, because Caldera was the only critic of the 2015 model who was financially vulnerable to a lawsuit.
That's 2015, to today. Still ongoing in the courts.
For a lively discussion about modelling (not Suzuki's model, but just modelling energy systems in general) please check out...
Energy Modeling: the Good, the Bad, and the Misleading
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__qpTuLaGg
...I guarantee you'll find it interesting, where you are pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear.
I would love, love, LOVE for someone in GPC to tell me they've watched that video, and what they thought of it.
Mary, I'm aware of modelling efforts which show we only need renewables. They depend on complex modelling which has not yet been reflected in real-world success.
If you listen to podcasts or watch YouTube, there's a one-of-a-kind conversation with Mark Nelson (of Radiant Energy) with Dr. Chris Keefer (of Canadians For Nuclear Energy) on the subject of modelling.
"Energy Modeling: the Good, the Bad, and the Misleading"
https://www.decouplemedia.org/podcast/episode/1ef07cc3/energy-modeling-the-good-the-bad-and-the-misleading
I know both the participants in this conversation. Both have participated in pro-vs-anti nuclear debates. (On the pro side.)
The topic they cover here is how energy modelling is used to convince policymakers that renewables can be easily integrated, and balanced out across the grid with combinations of storage and balancing and intermittent sources compensate for one another.
START EXCERPT
One anecdote I think I would end with is that when Diablo Canyon was hanging between life and death before this right through where the governor publicly supported it and you know, crushed opposition and got Diablo Canyon widely supported by Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate of California and, you know, Diablo Canyon looks set to be saved.
Before that happened. I reached out with folks to one the possibly the leading energy modeling firm in the US and reached out to their founder, their head honcho, and directly said, we can get the money, the money you need, what is it $75,000? $100,000? We can get that money. And we want a model comparing California without Diablo to California with Diablo on an emissions and cost.
They said absolutely just any other nuclear plant other than Diablo.
I said well hold up. We don't we don't need models for other nuclear plants, other nuclear plants aren't set to close for non economic reasons. So we need one on Diablo.
The answer was, Well, no.
I said, Well, why?
They said, Well, we get we do a lot of work with the powers that be in California and we can't risk upsetting them.
END EXCERPT
That's the overall context of modelling... nuclear is usually not included as an option, so we have apples-to-apples comparisons in any given model.
Within each model, there's the challenge of making mistakes (MZJ) or over simplifying (Suzuki Foundation).
The real-world outcome is an example like Germany, where THE GREEN PARTY held the balance of power and insisted the last 3 reactors be shut down. A choice opposed by majority of Germans. https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/weekly-data-shift-in-germanys-perception-of-nuclear-energy/
What do you think Germany policymakers (and Greens) were told by modellers? I'm sure models showed wind balancing solar when the sun went down. Some battery storage during lulls. It all just worked.
Germany used to net-export electricity. Now they net-import.
Germany used to be the economic powerhouse of Germany. Now it is Europe's only shrinking economy.
Gail, thank you for laying out your objections to nuclear power.
You started by suggesting that Greens who support nuclear power for Canada don't understand the technology options. That is a risky thing to say.
You go on to assert claim that solar and wind coupled with other developing technologies represent a paradigm shift away from a reliance on caseload power. Basically you are claiming that our society does not need large reliable sources of electricity because they can be replaced by cleverly stitching together a lot of small irregular sources. This has not been demonstrated anywhere.
It is true a number of proponents of renewables like Mark Diesendorf in 2012 have made the argument that baseload power is logically unnecessary. It is also true that Mark Jacobson has put forward calculations supposedly showing that the entire electricity system can be cheaply and quickly decarbonized and that existing nuclear power can eliminated at the same time using just renewables. Unfortunately, Jacobson's proposal has been shown to be laughably unrealistic and expensive. 21 researchers participated in a PNAS paper that concluded:
"… 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."
So, Gail, you seem to be relying on claims from someone who doesn't understand the technology options.
You also point to the urgency of action on climate change. I agree with this concern. You must know that 50 years ago Ontario began the construction of 20 reactors and completed them in on budget and on schedule 20 years, as you must know, and 30 years later they still produce more than half of Ontario's electricity. We now have proven designs and improved manufacturing capacity. Can you think of even one technical barrier to building 10 or even 20 next 10 years IF we decide to do it?
There is a place for renewables, but it really is hard to believe that they can provide a similar amount of power in Ontario in the next 10 years.
You suggest that SMRs will take 15 to 25 years before beginning significant implementation. This is false. SMRs have been built and are being built - including in Ontario. You probably don't even know that our successful CANDU reactors are small and modular.
You need to get up to date on the technology options available.
Loading comments ...