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.
Nuclear Power: Cease Blanket Opposition
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
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
@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.
Loading comments ...