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
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.
Loading comments ...