Our Common Future-

A Carbon-Free and Nuke-

Free Asia
Chia-Wei Chao
Green Citizen Action Alliance
No Nuke Asia Forum 2010
 Green Citizen Action
Alliance
n Themes :
Ø No-Nuke Movement
Ø Water Resource
Ø Waste Management
Ø Climate and Energy Policy

nNo-Nuke Actions !
ØLocal Empowerment
ØGeological Issues and Nuke
ØPublic Participation on LLRW
site selection process
ØEnergy Policies Campaign

•
 Content
• T he Real T hr eat: Asian Nukes
• T he Big Four Fallacies of “Nuke as a
solution to Climate Change”
Ø low carbon footprint
Ø cost-effective
Ø sufficient uranium
Ø co-exist with true energy revolution
without “crowding out effect”
• A Tr ue Sustainable Ener g y Blueprint for
Taiwan and Asia
 T he Real T hr eat: Asian
Nukes

Nuclear
Nuclear power
power capacity
capacity inin2008
2030 proposed by Nuclear industries (GW)
(GW)
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/special/maps/globalReactorCapacities/index.cfm?fa=mapGlobalExpan
 Fallacies of
“Nuke as a solutions to Climate
Change”
• IPCC(2007): Nuclear energy, already at about 7% of
total primary energy, could make an increasing
contribution to carbon-free electricity and heat in the
T h future.
e m a jo r b a rrie rs a re : long -term fuel resource
co n stra in ts w ith o u t re cyclin g ; e co n o m ics; sa fe ty ;
w a ste m a n a g e m e n t; se cu rity ; p ro life ra tio n , a n d
a d ve rse p u b lic o p in io n .
T he Big Four Fallacies
plow carbon footprint
pcost-effective
puranium is sufficient
pco-exist with true energy revolution without
“crowding out effect”
 Fallacy One:
Nuclear power has low carbon footprint
GHG emissions for alternative electricity-generation


systems
Meta analysis by Sovacool, 2008

1.4 ~288 tons CO2-eq /GWh

Ave : 66 tons CO2-eq /GWh

World Energy Council consists lots of nuclear power companies

Source: WEC, 2004b

 Fallacy One:
Nuclear power has low carbon footprint

x 3 to
11

Jacobson, M., 2009, Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and
energy security, Energy Environ. Sci., 2, 148–173
 Fallacy Two:
A cost-effective option for carbon
reduction
comparing to other options, the amount of
CO2 displaced by unit dollar invest in
the nuclear power is 30% to 90 ％ less
than other options such as wind farm,
cogeneration, and end-use efficiency

Lovins, A., and Sheikh, I. 2008. The Nuclear Illusion. White Paper, Rocky
 Fallacy Two:
A cost-effective option for carbon
reduction
Fourth NPP Renewable Energy
Budget (billion NTD) 270 170
Capacity 2700 MW 6500 MW
Capacity Factor 87% 34%
ElectricityOutput 20577.24 19359.60
(GWh/yr)
GHGs emissions 16.87 18.9
displaced
GHGs displace 62.5 111.6
(million
by billiontons)
NTD (kilo
ton)

Regarding to GHGs mitigation, Renewable Energy is far more cost effective than
Nuclear Power
 Fallacy Three:
Uranium is Sufficient
• IPCC(2007): long-term fuel resource constraints
without recycling.
• Uranium 2009 by NEA （ Red book ） : primary
uranium production capabilities including
Existing, Committed, Planned and Prospective
production centres could satisfy projected high
case world uranium requirements through 2028
and low case requirements through 2035
• Energy Watch Group(2006) and Swiss Physicist
Dittmar(2009) - the supply of uranium will
face severe shortage in next 5 to 10 years.
 Fallacy Three:
Uranium is Sufficient
• Radioactive Waste and Uranium Mines were listed
as Top 10 worst pollution problem by Green
Cross.
• International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War had passed a resolution to call for
ban on uranium mining this August.
The environmental cost of nuclear fuel requirement (116 tons )of
Taiwan in 2008
Damage Consequence
Categories
Human Health 1000 people will suffer lost of one year of
GHGs emission health life Tons
12.8 million
Water 94.4 millions Tons
Consumption
Resource 4.4 billion USD (surplus cost)
Depletion
 Fallacy Four:
co-exist without “crowding out
effect”
l Nuclear can be the bridge between Fossil fuel to
Renewable ?
l “Policy Challenges of Nuclear Reactor Construction:
Cost Escalation and Crowding Out” by Mark
Cooper
p States where utilities have not expressed an interest
in getting licenses for new nuclear reactors
Ø had three times as much renewable energy and ten
times as much non-hydro renewable energy
Ø spent three times as much on efficiency in 2006;
Ø saved over three times as much energy in the 1992-
2006 period
 Fallacy Four:
co-exist without “crowding
• out
Verbruggen (2008) effect”
: Renewable and Nuclear Power are
mutually exclusive on the five major directions of future
power systems:
1. Nuclear power is part of ‘‘business-as-usual’’
2. add-on by fossil-fuelled power plants is bulky and expansive
for nuclear power, but is distributed, flexible and
contracting over time for renewable power.
3. power grids for spreading bulky nuclear outputs are other
than the interconnection between millions of distributed
power sources requires.
4. risks and externalities and the proper technology itself of
nuclear power limit its development perspectives, while
efficiency/renewable power are still in their infancy.
5. Stalemate for R&D resources and for production capacities
will
Verbruggen , A., intensify
2008, Renewable and nuclear power: A common future? Energy Policy 36, 4036–4047
 Fallacy Four:
co-exist without “crowding
out effect”
Global Warming Economic
Crisis

Industrial Lifestyle
Transition Change Green Jobs

Green Economy
Subsidies for nuclear power
production
⇒Worst policy for A Green New
Deal Green New Deal
by WWF and Ecofys
ØInvestment is diverted from renewable energy sources and 
energy efficiency measures. 
ØProfits  from nuclear power productions are privatized and 
accrue  to  large utilities ,  
while  the environmental costs are  socialized
 A Tr ue Sustainable Ener gy
Blueprint for Taiwan and
Asia
License extension
Operation of NPP4
: NPP1 to 3

Add 3 new reactors (1350MW x3) Huge Gap :100 million

Tons

Effi-ciency
Small Gap :
Million Tons CO2-eq

13 million Tons

Keep electricity demand at 2009 level

Renewable energy increase to 9000MW
Natural Gas increase to 18850 MW
 All Nukes phase out
 A Tr ue Sustainable Ener gy
Blueprint for Taiwan and
 Asia
Higher Energy Efficiency
Larger share of Renewable (especially Solar and
Geothermal )
Nuclear Power can be phased out in 2045
Other Developing Asia’s CO2 emissions are 62% of
1990 levels in 2050
 Create 780,000 green jobs in 2020

Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, Greenpeace

 Conclusion
• Three approaches to expose the Nuclear
Illusion
Ø Emphasizing the fundamental contradiction
between Nuke and sustainable development.
Ø Providing local evidence to expose the
fallacies of Nukes.
Ø Developing a True Sustainable Energy
Blueprint to demonstrate the nuclear-free
and carbon-free is possible.
Ø
 THANKS FOR YOUR
ATTENTION

chiaweichao@gmail.com


Facebook : 綠盟能源與氣候變遷小組


http://www.facebook.com/pages/lu-meng-neng-yuan-yu-qi
