Our Common Future- A Carbon-Free and Nuke-Free Asia

Chia-Wei ChaoGreen Citizen Action Alliance

No Nuke Asia Forum 2010

Green Citizen Action AllianceThemes : No-Nuke Movement Water Resource Waste Management Climate and Energy Policy

No-Nuke Actions ! Local Empowerment Geological Issues and Nuke Public Participation on LLRW

site selection process Energy Policies Campaign

Content • The Real Threat: Asian Nukes • The Big Four Fallacies of “Nuke as a solution

to Climate Change” low carbon footprint cost-effective sufficient uranium co-exist with true energy revolution without “crowding

out effect”• A True Sustainable Energy Blueprint for

Taiwan and Asia

The Real Threat: Asian Nukes

Nuclear power capacity in 2008 (GW)Nuclear power capacity in 2030 proposed by Nuclear industries (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 future. The major barriers are: long-term fuel resource constraints without recycling; economics; safety; waste management; security; proliferation, and adverse public opinion.

The Big Four Fallacies low carbon footprintcost-effectiveuranium is sufficient co-exist with true energy revolution without “crowding out effect”

Fallacy One:Nuclear power has low carbon footprint

GHG emissions for alternative electricity-generation systems

Source: WEC, 2004b

Wind

Hydroelectric

Wind

Biogas

Hydroelectric

Solar thermal

SolarPV

Geothermal

Biomass

Nuclear

Naturalgas

Fuelcell

Diesel

Heavyoil

Coal

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Meta analysis by Sovacool, 2008

World Energy Council consists lots

of nuclear power companies

1.4 ~288 tons CO2-eq /GWhAve : 66 tons CO2-eq /GWh

Fallacy One:Nuclear power has low carbon footprint

Jacobson, M., 2009, Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Energy Environ. Sci., 2, 148–173

x 3 to 11

Fallacy Two:A cost-effective option for carbon reduction

Lovins, A., and Sheikh, I. 2008. The Nuclear Illusion. White Paper, Rocky Mountain Institute

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

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%Electricity Output (GWh/yr) 20577.24 19359.60

GHGs emissions displaced (million tons)

16.87 18.9

GHGs displace by billion NTD (kilo ton) 62.5 111.6

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.

Damage Categories Consequence

Human Health 1000 people will suffer lost of one year of health life

GHGs emission 12.8 million Tons

Water Consumption 94.4 millions Tons

Resource Depletion 4.4 billion USD (surplus cost)

The environmental cost of nuclear fuel requirement (116 tons )of Taiwan in 2008

Fallacy Four: co-exist without “crowding out effect”

Nuclear can be the bridge between Fossil fuel to Renewable ? “Policy Challenges of Nuclear Reactor Construction: Cost

Escalation and Crowding Out” by Mark Cooper States where utilities have not expressed an interest in getting

licenses for new nuclear reactors had three times as much renewable energy and ten times as

much non-hydro renewable energy spent three times as much on efficiency in 2006; saved over three times as much energy in the 1992-2006 period

Fallacy Four: co-exist without “crowding out effect”

• Verbruggen (2008) : 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 intensify

Verbruggen, A., 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

Green Jobs

Lifestyle Change

IndustrialTransition

Green Economy

Green New Deal

Subsidies for nuclear power productionÞWorst policy for A Green New Deal by WWF and Ecofys

Investment is diverted from renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures. Profits  from nuclear power productions are privatized and  accrue  to  large utilities,    while  the environmental costs are  socialized

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 20250

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Nuke Taiwan Climate Pledge

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

CHPRenewableNatural GasOilCoalNukeHydro

A True Sustainable Energy Blueprint for Taiwan and Asia

Mill

ion

Tons

CO

2-eq

Huge Gap :100 million Tons

Small Gap :13 million Tons

•License extension: NPP1 to 3•Operation of NPP4•Add 3 new reactors (1350MW x3)

• Keep electricity demand at 2009 level• Renewable energy increase to 9000MW• Natural Gas increase to 18850 MW• All Nukes phase out

Effi-ciency

A True Sustainable Energy Blueprint for Taiwan and Asia

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

• 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

Conclusion • Three approaches to expose the Nuclear Illusion Emphasizing the fundamental contradiction between Nuke

and sustainable development. Providing local evidence to expose the fallacies of Nukes. Developing a True Sustainable Energy Blueprint to

demonstrate the nuclear-free and carbon-free is possible.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

chiaweichao@gmail.comFacebook : 綠盟能源與氣候變遷小組 http://www.facebook.com/pages/lu-meng-neng-yuan-yu-qi-hou-bian-qian-xiao-zu/107096765990456