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 Dr. Warren Bell
I am firmly against nuclear power for several reasons.
1. It is too slow -- it takes over a decade, on average, to design, site, construct and test a nuclear power plant. The climate crisis is urgent -- taking years to install alternative energy sources to FF is a dangerous diversion from the need to move quickly. Solar and wind energy sources can be installed and running within a fraction of the time it takes to achieve operational status with nuclear.
2. It is to costly -- on average, nuclear power tends to be the most expensive of all energy sources. This graph from this Guardian article earlier this year shows that clearly. https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2024/may/24/nuclear-power-australia-liberal-coalition-peter-dutton-cost Energy from Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), the design proposed for future reactor construction, is the most expensive of all.
3. Nuclear power produces large amounts of toxic radioactive waste. Despite efforts to try and bury or otherwise sequester this material, there is still no successful program for doing so, anywhere in the world. Many of the proposals presented in various countries have involved Indigenous land or land near Indigenous communities, representing a clear measure of environmental and racial injustice.
4. The nuclear power industry is a derivative of the nuclear weapons industry, and remains closely engaged with that sector. Anyone who thinks this is not so has not examined the history of nuclear power and nuclear weaponry development. Nuclear weapons are still present in large numbers, and efforts to reduce those numbers have stalled. The interchange of materials between these two industries.
5. When a nuclear power plant undergoes a breakdown or significant malfunction, the outcome can be -- and has been - catastrophic (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, WIndscale) , with adverse effects that are persistent and significantly harmful to human and ecosystem health. Furthermore, the health harms of uranium mining have been shamefully covered up, affecting as they do primarily Indigenous communities.
6. Efforts to achieve energy efficiency are far and away the most beneficial avenue to energy and GHG reduction. The Green Party should emphasize this path to Net Zero above all others.
I would add that your references to Gordon Edwards' remarks and position are remarkably selective and taken out of context; his arguments against nuclear power are much more detailed and grounded.
Finally, the ENGO community has strongly advocated moving away from nuclear energy: a petition initiated by CELA had dozens of organizational signatories, including CAPE.
Warren Bell MD CM Past Founding President, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE)
"Too slow" is often the first argument we hear against nuclear now that safety and waste storage have proven not to be real problems. So consider one fact: Ontario built 20 reactors in 21 years beginning in the 1970s. That is not slow. It was so fast that Ontario's capacity overran demand and the reactors continue to provide more than half of Ontario's electricity requirements thirty years later.
Furthermore, that was done when the workforce of the province was half as large and the technology for fabricating all the parts less advanced. In principle, Ontario could now build 40 reactors in 20 years.
The trick then was to use overlapping crews and start each new reactor as little as six months after the previous one was started. It is the same trick used in building every one of the suburbs growing up in southern Ontario. A crew digs out the basement, another crew sets the forms for the basement walls, a third pours the concrete, a framing crew gets the stick walls and decks up, another crew puts in siding, the roof trusses are shipped in prefabricated and hoisted in place by crane ....... You can probably add the next 30 sets to building a large home in a month..
The strange thing is, the more you build, the faster it goes.
I agree with the proposal because there are both pros and cons to nuclear power.
Our Ontario Greens recently supported a version of this amendment in this weekend's plenary voting for AGM24P04 after it was split from a second rejected resolution that we Greens would advocate "increasing" CANDU based electricity production. I believe we should continue towards the end of nuclear fission because even the CANDU heavy water reactor produces low grade plutonium that can be used in dirty atomic bombs apart from creating long lasting nuclear waste.
Furthermore increasing support for the CANDU reactor is only a step away from supporting SMRs (Small Nuclear Reactors) which would proliferate through the private sector in industries like oil production creating a difficult-to-stop proliferation of new fission methods that present an very imaginable safety hazard.
We need to support our existing fleet of reactors because demand will by far outstrip supply of electric power especially in Ontario without them. Nuclear fission expertise will also be expertise for nuclear fusion which is at least 100 times harder to do than fission. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Last but not least, we need to keep the public pressure on renewables to wind down nuclear fission, one reactor at a time. Our kilowatt demand is increasing and it should only be met by renewables.
Randy, thank you for your support. I do hope you are open for discussion about one of the nuclear concerns you've raised...
"even the CANDU heavy water reactor produces low grade plutonium that can be used in dirty atomic bombs"
...if you're going to worry about materials which can be used in a dirty bomb, I think lighter elements would be of bigger concern than heavier ones like Pu... some select fission products.
I was lucky enough to video capture Dr. James Conca speaking on the subject of dirty bombs... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL6AA6FBjl0 ...and I suspect you'd find it interesting. I mean... there's a lot to chew on in that talk.
But I am under the impression (this is not a direct question I bounced of Conca or anything like that), that used fuel would need to be ground up, if not chemically segregated, to make a dirty bomb. It needs to be pre-particulated. Otherwise, using an external force to spread it would result in chunks. (That's probably why Conca's talk focuses on isotopes with medical uses... something can be actually stolen in a safe-to-transport container from a hospital, where-as running off with used fuel would be challenging in many ways.)
In my thinking, used fuel is hard to make into a dirty bomb because it is one of the most difficult radioactive assets to acquire, it ought to be pre-pulverized to effectively disperse, and it makes for particularly heavy particulate a bad-guy is trying to disperse.
If you have another take on this I'm happy to hear it. Not-at-all my area of focus.
I'm reluctant to continue this conversation given Blake's predisposition for pop psychology as a means of insulting people. He has a wordy way of telling me I'm full of shit which I'm sure he would not say to my face. It's no wonder ordinary non-intellectuals get insulted by some greens.
"Fact: CANDU reactors produce only half as much plutonium by discharged fuel mass as light-water reactors." according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. People are afraid of plutonium and we had a second part the motion that proposed increasing nuclear power generation which I hope is stricken because we would lose support from our base if it is adopted. Fear mongering could easily transfer votes to the NDP who are still blanketly opposed to nuclear and looking for wedge issues.
Moreover a YouTube video will not convince the fearful emotional arguments that I felt from some our own members who were very opposed. We can sell the concept of keeping the nuclear we have without increases as the concept of increasing nuclear power is vulnerable to a very emotional rejection by the electorate and our own people. Increasing nuclear is a loser.
@randy_schelhas : I understand your position, but it’s still rooted in some cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and factual errors that lead to questionable conclusions about nuclear. Here’s a breakdown:
1) The idea that supporting CANDU reactors equates to endorsing an unchecked spread of SMRs and potential safety hazards is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because we support existing CANDU reactors doesn’t mean we’ll automatically support unregulated or risky nuclear projects. SMRs and CANDU reactors can each be regulated separately. Assuming support for one inevitably leads to an uncontrollable proliferation is an oversimplification.
2) Your claim that CANDU reactors produce low-grade plutonium that can be used in “dirty atomic bombs” is misleading. While CANDU reactors do produce small amounts of plutonium, it is reactor-grade and far from ideal for weaponization due to its isotopic composition. Building a viable nuclear weapon from CANDU plutonium is highly impractical, if not impossible. Moreover, stringent regulations govern plutonium handling and storage, making the risk of its use in “dirty bombs” extremely low.
3) Suggesting that private sector involvement in SMRs will inevitably lead to widespread safety hazards is a hasty generalization. SMRs are specifically designed with enhanced safety features, and their development is subject to strict regulatory oversight. Just as renewables have their own regulatory frameworks, SMRs can be safely incorporated with proper controls. Assuming that SMRs automatically increase risks ignores both design improvements and regulatory advances.
4) The belief that Ontario’s energy needs should be met “only by renewables” overlooks the intermittency and land-use challenges of relying solely on wind and solar. While renewable energy expansion is crucial, nuclear provides reliable, low-carbon baseload power that complements renewables, especially as electricity demand rises. Phasing out nuclear “one reactor at a time” dismisses evidence showing its role in maintaining grid stability and reducing emissions.
5) While nuclear fission expertise can indeed contribute to fusion knowledge, advocating for an “end to nuclear fission” in favour of future fusion technology is a false dilemma fallacy. Fusion remains far from commercial viability and is unlikely to play a major role in the near term. Dismissing fission, a proven clean energy source, while waiting for fusion risks compromising climate goals by removing an essential tool for immediate decarbonization.
While the desire to reduce nuclear dependence is understandable, focusing exclusively on renewables and rejecting nuclear fission based on exaggerated selective risks ignores the full energy landscape & our needs. Nuclear and renewables CAN work together to meet demand reliably and sustainably. A balanced, evidence-based approach will ensure we can meet inevitably growing energy needs without compromising safety or climate targets.
6) JUST USE LESS ENERGY
Every single tech giant would like to use more energy. And they all now include NUCLEAR in their categorization of clean energy. Even Apple, as of 2024, now does this.
Germany's ongoing de-industrialization is a perfect example of adopting rube-goldberg energy solutions, abandoning nuclear, and causing the USE OF LESS ENERGY thanks to high prices. An absolute disaster.
Germany is burning fossil fuels. Germany is now dependent on France for energy. Germany was a net-exporter of electricity and is now a net-importer. And they're cited as a turn-off-nuclear success story by our own Elizabeth May.
"I would add that your references to Gordon Edwards' remarks and position are remarkably selective and taken out of context; his arguments against nuclear power are much more detailed and grounded."
Yes, I had a discussion with Dr. Gordon Edwards regarding how I characterized his statement, and we agreed...
--- 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. ---
...was an acceptable characterization because that is exactly what the paper said and because he signed his name on it. Edwards didn't like it, but he agreed it was fair because he had signed that paper.
I asked Dr. Gordon Edwards if he agreed nuclear power was a low-carbon source of energy. Dr. Gordon Edwards said he had no opinion on the matter. Which is odd, given that the only 2 topics he ever seems to talk about are Nuclear Power and Global Warming.
Well said! Dr. Edwards is just one expert among many, and several others, including other promiment environmental scientists and organizations, have spoken unequivocally in favour of nuclear energy based on similar facts and evidence. Fixating on Dr. Edwards’ position alone to justify opposition, while ignoring the broad scientific support for nuclear as a low-carbon energy source is a clear example of selection bias and cherry-picking - classic logical fallacies. Many of the very arguments Edwards outlines actually reinforce why nuclear _should_ be part of the clean energy mix—overlooking that broader context only narrows the discussion in an attempt to sustain an increasingly flawed narrative that no longer holds up under true evidence-based scrutiny.
5a. ACCIDENTS
Such accidents are INCLUDED in the reports I cite showing nuclear to be among the safest (and least environmentally impacting) forms of energy on Earth. They're baked into the numbers, and yet nuclear remains among the safest. We have ~67 years of civilian nuclear power to study.
Coal kills 1000s of times more people, per kWh.
Hydropower has killed 60x more people. (Banqiao Dam, per biggest-ever-energy-accident.)
It is NOT HARD to make nuclear power safe. GPC's blanket opposition to nuclear power impedes our preferring the safest designs, since we currently operate from a bad-faith position of all nuclear power plants being equally unsafe.
5b. URANIUM MINING
The lifecycle studies I cite include MINING on their environmental and human-health impact assessment. Of course, mining is baked-in to the numbers. They wouldn't be much of a lifecycle impact study if it were excluded!
We could probably do a better job advocating for Indigenous communities by insisting on use of the cleanest and safest mining tech, as opposed to only opposing all uranium mining projects. Currently GPC official policy calls for a GLOBAL BAN on Uranium mining. So who is going to take our criticism of ANY ONE particular mine seriously?
Imagine this: GPC proactively identifying the most environmentally sustainable sources of Uranium in Canada that would have the smallest impact on any Canadians. Put that forward as a suggestion when opposing the next mine.
Did you know Uranium can be harvested from Seawater? Here's a video I show with Dr. Stephen Boyd on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRHaXl9_6k ...is that a good or bad idea? I'm not really sure. But it shows there are different approaches, and we ought to be able to rank them in terms of favorability, instead of opposing everything as we currently must because of our blanket opposition to nuclear power.
4) WEAPONS
Indeed, all nuclear research has stemmed from weapons projects, as Hiter and the Allies raced to be the first to develop the Atomic Bomb.
However, civilian nuclear power plants do not produce weapons grade material.
Nor do they run on weapons grade material... Except in the special case of "Megatonnes to Megawatts" where weapons-grade material was removed from nuclear warheads, downblended, then fed into civilian nuclear power plants as a means of destroying it.
You can cite specific examples of how civilian nuclear power has resulted in weapons proliferation?
Because I don't think it is of ANY relevance to say where a tech was developed as to whether that same tech can-and-should be used to serve humanity.
Here's an article from Solar Today... https://ases.org/saved-by-the-space-race/
The urgent demand for solar cells above the earth by the military opened an unexpected and relatively large business for the companies manufacturing them. “On their own commercially, they wouldn’t have gotten anyplace,” observed Dr. Joseph Loferski, who spent a lifetime working in photovoltaics. Indeed, as the scientist Martin Wolf contended, “The onset of the Space Age was the salvation of the solar cell industry.”
There are indeed some reactor designs which lend themselves proliferation concerns. This does not (yet) apply to Canadian Civilian Power Reactors. But if we're to push for the most proliferation resistant choice(s) then we need to be taken seriously when we rank nuclear options. GPC's blanket-ban against nuclear power ensures any statement we make regarding proliferation will NOT be taken seriously.
3) WASTE
The WIPP is a successful geological repository. I attended (and video captured) a talk by Dr. James Conca on The WIPP which you might find interesting... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6no0FmPk84 ...so I don't really beleive there's "still no successful program" nor are there any unsolved technical challenges.
I don't think Indigenous land (or anybody's land) should be used for this purpose without the consent of communities living there. It is my understanding that NWMO says they are engaging with such communities, although not everyone feels their voice is actually being heard during the community consultation process.
But the focus on a geological repository seems misguided to be, because 90% of the energy potential contained within nuclear fuel remains untouched by our conventional nuclear fuel cycles. Once the energy potential of nuclear fuel is exhausted, it is no has such long term storage requirements. It is radioactive for a long time because it is not "used up".
And yet, the technologies which allow 9x more energy to be extracted from nuclear fuel are repeatedly mischaracterized by GPC and anti-nuclear activists cited by GPC leadership.
Here's Moltex's latest report on their fuel recycling process, and corresponding reactor capable of running on recycled fuel, SSR-W.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/Taylor-2024-Final-1.pdf
...that has been mischaracterized by anti-nuclear activists (including Elizabeth May herself) as a process which enables weapons proliferation. In reality, it destroys such material. (Or rather turns it into clean energy and Fission Products.)
It doesn't really matter if used fuel continues to sit in dry casks next to nuclear power plants, if used fuel is stored in geological repositories, or if nuclear waste is recycled into additional clean energy. All 3 choices have been demonstrated in the real world.
That is because what nuclear power produces is currently a used-fuel "waste" and NOT used-fuel "pollution". The waste is CONTAINED. Easily contained. In a cask, or underground, or recycled and sent back into a reactor.
Also being collected is a fund for disposal of that used fuel. The cost of storage/disposal/recycling was already included in the cost of production of electricity.
GPC could be pushing for recycling of used fuel. If we want the very lowest-impact energy possible, and with minimal storage requirements /kWh, that's how we get there. But GPC's blanket-opposition to nuclear power seems to also include blanket-opposition to used fuel. We object to it just sitting there in dry casks. We object to underground storage. We object to recycling. And so, our objections do not carry as much weight as they could.
The very sensible insistence that Indigenous Voices be heard regarding community siting can't be taken on good faith, because of GPC's blanket-opposition to all courses of action regarding used fuel.
2) COST (AUD until indicated otherwise)
The Guardian article first cites CSIRO GenCost report...
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost
...for its graphic, but excludes other baseload low-carbon options coal+ccs and gas+ccs as were presented by CSIRO in the original non-Guardian graphic. While the cost of SMR indeed might be high... we're all waiting to see how Darlington BWRX-300 build goes... you can see large-scale nuclear competing comfortably against these other BASELOAD delivering (thanks to supposed CSS tech) low carbon energy sources.
I'd encourage you (and all of us) to look in the CSIRO report instead of the Guardian chart, which I hope you'll agree is perhaps one of the worst charts I've seen in 2024? Any defenders of The Guaridan's chart over Guardian simply having replicated CSIRO's chart? Holy cow.
But GenCost 2023-24 is making some assumptions that I think are making nuclear power look uncompetitive. Here are issues on the nuclear side of the equation...
Assumes new reactors will have a lifespan of 30 years.
Assumes 53-89% capacity factor for nuclear plants.
Assumes today's unusually high cost of Uranium (based on recent spike as western nations abandon adversarial nuclear fuel supply chains) will continue.
...and issues on the renewables side...
...for GPC to be a positive force in championing low cost energy, we should indeed be raising the question of large-build vs SMR. We can highlight the many instances where nuclear builds have gone over budget. But I don't think we will be providing any value if we're not also asking WHY costs are sometimes high, and what we can possibly do to keep them low. There are examples of on-time on-budget nuclear.
BC's Cite C is an example of Hydro going over budget. Fleets of off-shore wind are being cancelled after new estimates on cost and reliability. All of these energy sources, in every specific project, need a hard analysis as to real integration costs, and what the alternatives are.
We need to lift our blanket opposition to nuclear so that a GPC analysis of cost are more constructive, and can be taken seriously.
Dr. Warren Bell, Thanks for sharing some reasons you are opposed to nuclear power. I shall try give my reasons why I disagree with your assessment.
1) SPEED
UAE demonstrated the 2 ways people perceive nuclear deployment: One reactor in 8 years. Four reactors in 11 years. In 11 years UAE cut their grid carbon emissions by 25%. That's the difference between a single reactor, and the staggered parallel construction made possible when multiple units are being built.
Carefully planned deployment of nuclear rank among fastest deployment of clean energy in 10-year timeframe:https://x.com/GrantChalmers/status/1673575725050527744 (Grant uses data from Statistical Review of World Energy June 2023.)
You'll see that generally from best to worst: Hydro, nuclear, wind, solar.
Canada has been successfully refurbishing our fleet of CANDU on-budget and ahead-of-schedule in Ontario, which gives us a leg-up with a functioning nuclear supply chain.
But even USA's incredibly delayed First Of A Kind build of 2 AP1000 units showed a ~30% improvement in 2nd unit over 1st unit. It is pretty hard NOT to accelerate the speed at which each unit can be built, if the reactor design remains the same from one unit to the next.
This is why Small Modular Reactors are being looked at as a possible accelerant to get past FOAK learning. This is why OPG is building 4 BWRX-300 SMR at Darlington, as opposed to 1. The 1st unit should be commercially operational by 2029. To get BWRX-300 past FOAK.
So as of 2029, Canada will have (at least) 3 reactor choices which will have progressed beyond FOAK: CANDU, AP1000, BWRX-300.
I suggest that GPC can play a more constructive role by asking tough questions about what clean-energy choices are available to meet the needs of our grids, with such a variety of nuclear technologies included in the consideration. Speed is a concern, but GPC isn't situating itself to effectively address that concern with our blanket opposition to nuclear power.
1) "Nuclear is too slow."
This argument presents a false dilemma, assuming that nuclear’s longer build time is incompatible with urgent climate goals. Nuclear plants provide decades of reliable, low-carbon power, which complements renewables by ensuring consistent baseload. Countries like France and Sweden rapidly decarbonized with a nuclear-renewable mix. Moreover, SMRs, already in development in Canada and the U.S., aim to reduce build times and streamline nuclear deployment.
2) "Nuclear is too costly."
An unfair oversimplification. Nuclear’s up-front costs are offset by a long operational life (60–80 years) of stable, low-cost energy. The Guardian’s graph lacks context on regional cost variations and new technologies. Established programs in France and South Korea show nuclear’s affordability at scale. Additionally, renewables need storage and grid expansion for stability—costs nuclear helps avoid by providing consistent power.
3) "Nuclear waste is dangerous, and there’s no solution."
This argument reflects confirmation bias, focusing on unresolved concerns without recognizing waste-management progress. Countries like Finland have pioneered safe, deep geological repositories. Our own DGR here in Ontario is in final approval stages. Nuclear waste is highly regulated and minimal in volume compared to fossil fuel waste. Indigenous communities are increasingly consulted in waste projects, and framing them as purely exploitative disregards these collaborative efforts.
4) "Nuclear power is linked to nuclear weapons."
Another logical fallacy: guilt by association. Civilian nuclear plants use low-enriched uranium, unsuitable for weapons, and are internationally regulated to prevent crossover. Nuclear energy’s decades of clean power are separate from military applications, and equating them overlooks robust non-proliferation practices.
5) "Nuclear accidents can be catastrophic."
This argument again leans on confirmation bias by focusing on a few incidents while ignoring the nuclear industry’s strong overall safety record. Major accidents were caused by flawed designs or unique events, not by inherent flaws in nuclear tech. Today’s designs are far safer, and studies clearly show nuclear is one of the safest energy sources per kWh. Dismissing nuclear based on rare past accidents overlooks improvements in reactor safety.
6) "Efficiency is the best path to Net Zero."
Efficiency is essential, but it can’t replace consistent power generation to meet demand. This argument creates a false dichotomy, as if we must choose between efficiency and nuclear. Countries leading in efficiency still rely on stable baseload from nuclear or hydro to ensure grid reliability.
7) "ENGOs oppose nuclear energy."
Ignores a broader scientific consensus that includes nuclear as part of decarbonization strategies. Citing a few organizations doesn’t negate nuclear’s place in the clean energy mix, as recognized by the UN and IPCC.
Loading comments ...