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 Derek Doda
Gord asked me to post an empty comment because he's having technical issues impeding his ability to post top-level comments. He's going to reply with notes about Suzuki Foundation's Shifting Power 2022 report.
1/3 Thank you Derek! Regarding Suzuki Foundation's "Shifting Power" 2022 report (cited repeatedly here in comments as proof that nuclear is not needed for a carbon-free grid)...
https://davidsuzuki.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Shifting-Power-Zero-Emissions-Across-Canada-By-2035-Report.pdf
This will focus on CP2022-ZP's 2050 build and examples, because only 2050, not 2035, has sets of example data in report.
Canada will consume 980 TWh yearly by 2050. Agreed.
Ontario will deploy 21x as many wind turbines as we had in 2021, by 2050... but NOT develop any additional hydropower capacity? (And also retire all nuclear!)
I do recognize it would be nice to NOT need to develop any additional hydro capacity... the impact landing most significantly on Indigenous Canadians... BUT this is ensuring maximum complexity! Hydro is the cheapest, and the most flexible source of electricity. It is no surprise that the anti-nuclear Suzuki Foundation wants a nuclear-free future... but we're NOT going to expand hydropower AT ALL? We're going to expand expensive intermittent wind... but NOT hydro?
Their sample 1 week period shows a wind capacity factor of ~33%. According to OEB, Ontario's average wind capacity factor is ~30%.This is fine, from an "average" perspective. The "representative hourly supply" is truly representative of a typical summer and a typical winter week in Ontario in 2050. Hour-by-hour the wind goes up-and-down, and we count on lots-of-storage (20 GW) to match the intermittent wind supply with demand.
But, what about atypical weeks? Bad weeks? Not rare-bad, just not-average bad?
https://intermittent.energy/d/QCEg6rl7z/generation?orgId=1&var-region=canada&var-area_type=region&var-area=90&var-production_type=20&var-group_by=area&var-group_by=production_type&var-demand=0&var-min_interval=7d&var-gapfill_function=interpolate&from=now-5y&to=now
That's Ontario's wind generation over the past 5 years. Each point on that graph represents an entire week.
Those "dips" are not hour-long blips (like in SP2022-ZP 2050 example week). Find 2 of THESE dips next to each other, and you've got at-least a 14 day dry-spell.
We see 14 days of (on average) 460 MW. That's with 2022's wind hardware, so in 2050 we can assume CP2022-ZP's build-out of 21x as many wind turbines...
460 MW * 21 = 9.6 GW would be generated by wind, in Ontario, in 2050, according to the CP2022-ZP plan. (Out of an installed capacity of 78 GW wind.)
Look at that January sample (which is only 1 week long), and imagine trying to make it through 14 days with 9.6 GW of wind, as opposed to their optimistic wind sample.
20 GW of storage is depleted in the first 2 days.
Now, please consider that in recent years, during the winter, Quebec does NOT export electricity to Ontario. Quebec IMPORTS electricity FROM Ontario.
2/3 THE ONLY REASON Quebec can (presently) survive the winter is because Ontario's nuclear fleet performs completely differently than eastern-winter-wind, and eastern-winter-solar. That's gone in 2050, CP2022-ZP has retired the fleet.
In 2023, Quebec already has a bit of wind (low capacity factor) and a lot (42 GW capacity) of hydro (high capacity factor). CP2022-ZP doesn't expand this Quebec wind capacity at all.
How, in 2050, without any additional hydro capacity, does Quebec start EXPORTING electricity to Ontario during the winter? When currently Quebec IMPORTS from Ontario during the winter?
It all goes to crap in the winter! Hydro (less so) but very-much-so solar and wind! 20 GW of storage doesn't help with seasonal lulls, that's a get-thru-a-bad-day storage, not hydro/solar/wind all having a bad week... having a bad 2 weeks!
Such a lull isn't an average winter week but we see at least one long lull every winter.
The report says on page 45 (explaining Ontario):
"Thanks to considerable investments in interprovincial transmission, the province can benefit from Quebec’s large hydroelectric capacity in periods when wind and solar production may be low."
No! QUEBEC will be using their same-as-2023 hydro resources to help QUEBEC "in periods when wind and solar production may be low". As they won't be importing Ontario's nuclear energy any more during the winter.
3/3 As I've pointed out 2x in comments here, a DECOUPLE podcast looked at a pro-nuclear advocate (Mark Nelson) asking one of these modelling firms to compare their 100% WWS forcasts against an exact-same model WITH existing nuclear power. Was told no-can-do. Was told we-don't-want-to-upset-the-wrong-people.
What might happen if Canada's CANDU fleet continued to be regularly refurbished? Suzuki Foundation might be anti-nuclear, but isn't that an interesting variable to model outcomes around? Suzuki could show specifically how much money we save by NOT refurbishing the CANDUs!
Might it be more expensive? (If it was more expensive, would further nuclear deployment be even MORE expensive!?! Model that out!)
Anti-nuclear orgs don't model that, because the greater the saturation of intermittent energy sources, the bigger the over-build and transmission and storage needed. When the wind is blowing strong, the 100th wind turbine offers little unique value over the first 99. When wind is not blowing, none of those "100 turbines" offer much value at all. That's why the models are so complex, demanding that energy be moved spatially and stored temporally.
If this plan was followed in Alberta (yes there's example data for Alberta) I would feel unsafe. I would buy a portable diesel generator, just in case. This is not modelling I trust.
But I don't think this is a plan anyone takes seriously, even those who created it. (Please... Reply! Contact me!) It exists to move "The Overton Window". That's it.
A serious plan would AT LEAST expand hydropower. Hate nuclear power? Sure! Suzuki Foundation is gonna Suzuki Foundation. But NOT expanding hydropower is insane. CP2022-ZP is insane.
Every type of power generation has serious environmental impact-hydro dams for sure- Until our focus shifts from a growth economy, we will never produce enough energy as our needs rise with growth. That said I am for opening up to nuclear energy as one arm to fill our future energy needs. The Green Party would do itself a favour not designating any type of energy generation as "clean" or "green" - with climate change remediation the lowest fossil energy content is desireable
Sibylle, I'm responding here to your "On Nuclear Power" call for economic restraint, and your note that the CANDU system appears to be run in a responsible manner. That thread is a complex one I'm trying to keep it focused here.
One of my own eye-opening experiences when trying to figure out what our energy options were was touring a steel recycling facility in USA. Very energy intensive. But it does reduce the need for mining resources.
I'd hope our fellow Greens consider that what we typically see as "recycling" is actually sorting. And a true closed-loop economy is one where a significant supply of energy is needed to fight entropy and turn any used-up goods back into useful raw materials.
Recycling paper, plastics, metals all require signifiant energy. (Once we're past the visible sorting stage.)
And our recycling efforts can become very environmentally unfriendly (and uneconomic) if we constrain our supply of inexpensive clean electricity.
The steel recycling facility's top cost was raw material (acquiring the used steel as pieces of scrap) and their second highest cost was electricity.
They discussed their exploration of nuclear power (in this case SMRs) as an alternative to their dependency on the grid. They actually tried to develop their own SMR technology. So far, it appears, unsuccessfully. But that's how important it was for them to keep on top of the cost of electricity.
Another perspective I later learned was how, in space, they're forced to approach closed-loop society because the cost of all materials are so high. Any sustained space missions (and some existing activities on ISS) happily devote much of their energy budget to recycling.
I think we should be looking at how abundant clean energy, combined with disincentives against pollution, can move us towards a closed-loop society. If we can enforce disincentives on pollution then we do not have to pick winners and losers among energy technologies.
Some of this already exists. We have some pollution disincentives. We have some clean electricity. We have some recycling. If we make poor choices we can actually impede the good which is already taking place.
Loading comments ...