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
Conversation with Gordon McDowell
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.
Loading comments ...