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 Gordon McDowell
Lev, thanks for sharing your cost concern regarding nuclear power. I've often cited Lazards 2023 LCOE+ report as it is finally the first one to include FIRMING costs, which we see in California absolutely swamping the LCOE itself. More solar and wind are deployed, the smaller LCOE itself is and the bigger FIRMING costs become.
(I use California because their firming is battery, not gas. I assume we want to firm without contributing to global warming.)
Lazard uses a single build for their Nuclear costs: Vogtle in Georgia, their AP1000s. They have certainly gone way over budget. So even including firming costs (only 4 hours of firming) still has solar and wind cheaper than AP1000.
https://twitter.com/gordonmcdowell/status/1753490439175639077/photo/1
However, AP1000 represents some gross incompetence on the part of Westinghouse, abrupt changes in licensing after the project had started, and worst-of-all an atrophied USA nuclear supply chain.
Ontario Energy Board... you know... Canadians... shows nuclear's cost when done right. Our supply chain never atrophied. Our workers have been refurbishing reactors continually. You'll see OEB puts nuclear as the second CHEAPEST source of energy, after hydropower.
I'd also like to call your attention to Elizabeth May's recent statement that solar has plunged in price since 2009.
"Solar and wind costs have plummeted from 2009 to 2021." (2024-02-01, House of Commons.)
Here's the data from Lazard 2023 she's referring to:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fgyvb9d3dd8gc1.png
Can we agree that most of the "plummeting" took place before 2011?
Here's 2020-2023:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F0t0h1gt3wegc1.png
Can we agree that there's no reason to expect LCOE of solar and wind to continue to drop?
I personally expect FIRMING costs to drop, as battery tech should continue to improve. But no one should be extrapolating LCOE for solar and wind to continue the % drops that Elizabeth stated to Parliament.
I'd also encourage you to read The Case for CANDU by C4NE:
https://www.canfornuclearenergy.org/the-case-for-candu
...they show (page 17) the cost of CANDU refurbishment vs solar/wind. Nuclear delivered more TWh. Nevermind that nuclear delivered RELIABLE TWh... nuclear actually delivered more a-TWh-is-a-TWh simple way of looking at energy... more TWh per CAD.
Hi Gordon;
I just skimmed it, and it's a one-side sales job instead of a critical
assessment of all options (not surprising given that it is produced by
a pro-nuclear lobby group). What is needed are critical accessible
comparative assessments by a fully independent team. On that note:
I also looked at the document in this proposal's workshop ID'd by:
"Nuclear's domestic, Canadian, supply chain still achieves a cost /kWh only beaten by hydropower" :
The Case for CANDU rev 2.pdf
from the Ontario Energy Board. Their table 2 comparison
of RPP costs for different energy sources is not a good reference
for comparing actual costs of new sources. RPP (regulated price plan)
includes the high costs of early solar/wind contracts. And
I see no mention of the large bailout of the Ontario Nuclear industry
20-27ish years ago when a large wack of Ontario Hydro stranded debt
from Nuclear was moved to the province. If you can find accounting
for that in this obscure document, please show me.
Lev.
The stranded debt question is an accounting fiction. When Ontario Hydro was restructured on April 1, 1999, into five separate entities: Ontario Power Generation, the Ontario Hydro Services Company (Hydro One), the Independent Electricity System Operator (originally named the Independent Electricity Market Operator), the Electrical Safety Authority, and Ontario Electricity Financial. The Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC) was created to manage and retire the company's $38.1 billion in debt and liabilities.
Hydro had been financing the debt with the revenue from sales of electricity. The revenue was handed to Ontario Hydro Services Company, but the debt was moved to OEFC, which had no revenue.
It was all done by a government intending to privatize the entire system. The privatization did not raise enough to cover the debt, so it was "stranded" in the OEFC. Politically the new private system could not get away with raising prices - reducing its market value. In effect, the the Harris government made a bad deal in its haste to chop the public sector.
Lev, thank you for skimming The Case For CANDU.
I don't think the idea was to assess all options. Geothermal, fusion, battery-storage might all see extreme advancements in the near future. It is sort-of open ended to say what might happen outside the realm of CANDU tech.
It looks at what has been proven, with a Canadian supply chain.
Does GPC policy need to exclude any specific tech for other tech to potentially win? We're pre-emptively excluding NUCLEAR POWER. It is oddly specific.
I know OEB is a BIT fuzzy, but this is the ONLY utility perspective on costs. Why would OEB lower CANDU costs but raise intermittent-energy costs? Why do they care? I'd assume they just want to deliver MWh as-needed? So people do not die?
And I think you might be expecting the "stranded debt" to be a bigger factor than it really is.
Honestly, I appreciate you reading C4NE report. Even if you were not impressed.
If it is cost you are worried about, I can't necessarily set your mind at ease. Despite OEB saying Nuclear is the 2nd-cheapest source of power we all know nuclear world-wide is not cheap. But if you're up for it, I'd love to get into the value of intermittent energy vs reliable energy.
We really have a great example with Germany. Germany vs Ontario.
Do you think Germany's dependence on renewables has been as successful one?
Loading comments ...