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 David Piepgrass
Earth just passed 1.5°C of global warming. Can we finally get behind an "all of the above" energy strategy? Starring more than the usual Chinese solar panels and Chinese/EU wind turbines?
Every year I look at the The Green Party's energy platform and something like 80% of it is about punishing and then banning fossil fuels, with no mention at all of nuclear power or enhanced geothermal (let alone manufacturing anything in Canada)... and I shake my head. So how popular is the Green Party? 2.3% of the vote nationwide.
Imagine if instead GPC's strategy were manufacturing and exporting clean Enhanced Geothermal technology, Small Modular Reactors, and Molten Salt Reactors. I think people would actually vote for "retraining of oil workers for geothermal drilling! wind power jobs! nuclear power jobs! heat pump manufacturing jobs!" For solar panels and wind turbines, we would surely rely mostly on imports (especially from China but also the EU), but these new technologies are young enough that we still have time to build Canadian expertise and Canadian factories.
Gordon, you prepared a nice long video for this proposal, but aside from most members not watching it, I have to wonder if it's too advanced. Like, you noticed that most people don't even know that nuclear power has a low carbon footprint - but this is a very basic fact. You and I think about this as engineers, but most greens are...political animals. I would've expected Greens to be among the world's most enthusiastic students of energy systems, but to really understand energy systems you have to think about them physically, causally, and numerically, as an engineer or scientist would, and I'm afraid this is not typical.
Partly, I think you makes a mistake by speaking to people as if they already are engineers at heart. I think much more basic explanations are necessary. For example, what is the total global supply of energy storage (i.e. GWh / GW)? Well, it's measured in seconds. This is extremely important, and you have to explain why. You can't just start talking about "firming" as if people will know what that means! Also, doesn't Lazard's "firming" involve 4 hours of storage or something like that? 4 hours might be "firm enough" in a 30% variable-renewable grid, but not so much in a 90% VR grid. Partly, there is a reason why GPC leadership always invites the same 3 people as "experts" - the hundreds of other experts they could invite wouldn't say "the right things". There's a famous essay titled "Politics is the Mind Killer". Still, thanks for making this proposal. BTW I haven't seen you talk about Mark Z Jacobson in your videos, but AFAICT, he is most of the reason people believe that 100% renewables is practical. Well, Team MZJ's original proposal called for less than 150 GW hydropower capacity, but their model had hydropower peaking at nearly 1,300 GW. MZJ then (basically) sued other scientists for pointing this out: https://kencaldeira.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/mzj-hydro-explainer/
(Again, in case the nested and test comments get removed... plus I'll finish the thought.)
"Gordon, you prepared a nice long video for this proposal, but aside from most members not watching it, I have to wonder if it's too advanced."
Ultimately I think the challenge is to get ANY type of content into the feed of active members. Only GPC leadership can send direct messages to all members. If an argument like this was treated as a top-tier piece of communication to members, I'd think GPC member opinions on nuclear would shift.
Not going to happen, but I think that's the fundamental challenge with members-not-watching-it.
Currently, the Tweet has 22k views and the YouTube has 3k views. But of course those ~25k views are not among GPC supporters... I can't figure any mechanism to communicate directly with fellow Greens.
Even this WeDecide reaches practically no one.
Basically the strategy was to try get as many people to see it as possible, and hope a tiny fraction of them might be Greens. Would have needed probably 1 million views for that to work impact fully on the vote.
Certainly don't expect GPC members (except leadership) to use Twitter... Elon having gone full-Elon and all.
I see you're linking to Ken Caldera (who I just realized I was conflating internally with Christopher Clack)... here's the very latest I have...
https://twitter.com/DrChrisClack
(Not being specific about which tweet because Clack posted a couple.)
MZJ might not have been the-guy who fabricated nuclear-has-high CO2/kWh concept, but he's the reason I was personally introduced to it, when I saw his (nuclear) debate against Stewart Brand as a TED Talk. MZJ cited Sovacool.
I'd love to tear into MZJ but honestly Caldicott had a bigger impact on me. Couldn't believe what she got away with, and still appeared on a 60 Minutes Australia episode years later... as if citing Snopes-debunked (and doubly, directly, confirmed by me) Fukushima Fallout Map wasn't a show-stopper before appearing on any news show after that. Holy hell, what a mess of an anti-nuclear campaigner.
"Gordon, you prepared a nice long video for this proposal, but aside from most members not watching it, I have to wonder if it's too advanced."
Ultimately I think the challenge is to get ANY type of content into the feed of active members. Only GPC leadership can send direct messages to all members. If an argument like this was treated as a top-tier piece of communication to members, I'd think GPC member opinions on nuclear would shift.
Not going to happen, but I think that's the fundamental challenge with members-not-watching-it.
(Sorry more to say, but I need to leave as more-than-one comment as last time I tried it timed-out and I lost everything.)
"Gordon, you prepared a nice long video for this proposal, but aside from most members not watching it, I have to wonder if it's too advanced."
Ultimately I think the challenge is to get ANY type of content into the feed of active members. Only GPC leadership can send direct messages to all members. If an argument like this was treated as a top-tier piece of communication to members, I'd think GPC member opinions on nuclear would shift.
Not going to happen, but I think that's the fundamental challenge with members-not-watching-it.
(Sorry more to say, but I need to leave as more-than-one comment as last time I tried it timed-out and I lost everything.)
Loading comments ...