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
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.
Loading comments ...