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 Clement Kent
We need to move RAPIDLY to clean power. Wind and solar can be built more rapidly than nuclear. Full life cycle costs need to be covered - all power projects need to post bonds to end-of-life remediation. This also militates against nuclear, since Canada doesn't have a proper nuclear site and waste end of life and disposal program. The practicality of wind and solar given fluctuations in supply is being rapidly mitigated by a Moore's Law-like decline in the cost of battery storage and by numerous new battery technologies which don't rely on toxic or scarce metals. And, the Moore's Law-like trend in prices for solar and hydro tech is by no means over. Altogether, to my mind there is no economic or practical argument for new nuclear power generation. The wikipedia article on costs of power generation seems balanced to me. The plot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png) of levelized costs by generation type from 2010 to 2019 covers nuclear, coal, solar, onshore wind, and offshore wind. Nuclear is the only generation type whose costs went up in the period. Solar and onshore wind are clearly the ways to go.
I agree with Clement and add to this Professor Winfields Feb 3 2024 blog assessment of what Ontario is doing (also in the G&M) https://marksw.blog.yorku.ca/2024/02/03/ontario-power-generations-nuclear-power-play/
In a world where conflict is increasing (and by many estimates will continue to increase as a result of the impact of climate change) there has never been a greater need for resiliency, decentralized power generation and a reduction of targets that could, if exploited, result in unimaginable death and illness. On a slightly less pessimistic note I am very concerned about the financial impact of the current nuclear expenditures in Ontario. We have yet to see what information the Ontario Government used to determine the need for the amount of power being built nor the factual reasons why this is the best approach for Ontario. A recent article assessing US energy consumption reveals the interesting fact that the continual increase and application of energy efficiency has resulted in a flat demand for electricity for 20yrs...how can that be possible with over a million EVs and millions of AC units being added yearly as well as a population that has increased.... https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/
The cost to Ontario of all this nuclear is likely to be so high that ratepayers will not be paying the real costs...just as they weren't during the earlier round. This will mean that general revenue will have to cover the shortfall. This logically will mean that the Province will need to find savings somewhere...and that typically means Social Services...Education, Health Services, .....anything that we pay for to help those less fortunate as well as improve the standard of living for all Ontarians. One thing is clear, the current government wont reduce their spending on highways to nowhere. I support moving forward as per Dr Murray and Prof Winfield....Nuclear is an expensive mistake.
And with regard to Wind and Solar costs in Ontario...there has not been any new solar or wind since Ford's government came to power and prior to that there was a big push by the then Liberal Government to build a sustainable renewable energy grid. That push used the Feed in Tariff incentive which paid a very generous return which, had it played out properly would have tapered down to rates found on the global electricity market place. The incentive was designed to encourage manufacturing, engineering and installation of sustainable energy components which would and did for a period of time result in significant employment across the province...not just in centralized locations, and it allowed/encourage many Ontarians to participate in energy generation using their own money. If the FIT and MicroFIT rates are being compared to Nuclear in Ontario then the comparison is as dishonest as one can possibly be.
Clement, thanks for sharing your concerns regarding the cost of nuclear power.
In my proposal I do have a source regarding cost...
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
...which is Ontario Energy Board. They're responsible for balancing supply against demand, and not just producing random quantities of electricity.
Your Wikipedia LCOE points to 2020 Lazard report. As of 2023, Lazard has begun including firming costs in their estimates and I believe it is worth Googling for source documents and reading Lazard's LCOE+ yourself. (And update Wikipedia! If you have the time!)
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Nuclear is still high-cost in Lazards new report, but Lazard is basing their nuclear cost entirely on USA's over-budget AP1000 build, and not Canada's on-budget and on-time CANDU refurb.
The cost of storing nuclear fuel is actually included in the cost of CANDU... all Canadian utilities which use nuclear power pay into a fund for decommissioning and waste storage. Nuclear is the only source of energy which encompasses this future cost into their operation.
I'm happy to look into other concerns you have... or your enthusiasm for renewables. I don't need or want to trash renewables, but I think the "Moore's Law" you refer to is not quite that. There's a clear plateau and then increase. Again, that's the 2023 LCOE+ report and it really is worth a look. We will still need solar and wind. They still have roles to play. But the curve shown is the opposite of Moore's Law, where computing power is exponential (note the Y-axis)...
http://zesty.ca/summit-chart.pdf
...and solar power performance per $ is not...
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2023.08.29/chart2.svg
...that is from here: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=60261
You might be thinking solar DEPLOYMENT looks like Moore's Law. And I won't argue that is something that looks loosely like Moore's Law. But the COST of solar has actually started to increase, and is NOT AT ALL like Moore's Law.
Please reply with your thoughts on this. -Gord
Loading comments ...