Nuclear Safety, Economic Prosperity, and Plentiful Energy

Nuclear Safety, Economic Prosperity, and Plentiful Energy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 5, 2011

The day before the April 30 anti-nuclear rally, protestors coordinated their activities all across Taiwan, from north to south, and from east to west. A million people took to the streets. The march ended peacefully. Protestors demanded that the Ma administration heed the calls of the anti-nuclear movement. They chanted "No to Nuclear Plant Number Four. Tear Down Nuclear Plants Number One, Two, and Three. Zero Fears of Nuclear Disaster." Their chants were of course a response to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster, the earthquake, the tsunami, and the radiation leaks. The scene was stirring. In many peoples' minds, the biggest question has become, "Does Taiwan still want nuclear power?" Many took to the streets to express their concern over the safety of nuclear power generation.

According to newspaper reports, President Ma Ying-jeou was concerned about the demonstrations staged by the environmental groups, and by their demands. A spokesman for Ma said, "You have spoken, and the government has heard you." Government agencies have solicited reactions from a variety of organizations. These agencies must conduct a thorough investigation, They must propose a concrete and practical nuclear energy policy that will allow people to feel safe. The Executive Yuan Atomic Energy Commission said that last year the annex to Nuclear Power Plant Number One was put on hold. Fuel rods will not be installed in Nuclear Power Plant Number Four before the end of the year. Final disposal sites for low-radiation nuclear waste will be subject to local referenda. Licenses will be issued only after a second round of environmental impact assessments.

Based on the government's response to the demands of the anti-nuclear protestors, the two sides are still talking past each other, They really haven't communicated. Opponents and proponents of nuclear power generation are still on different pages.

A number of anti-nuclear protests were held on Ketagalan Boulevard. Thousands of citizens held a sit-in protest. They simulated casualties in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster. Anti-nuclear groups demanded that the government scrap its policy of nuclear power generation, They stressed that as long as the nuclear threat remained, anti-nuclear protests would continue. They said that Taiwan cannot withstand a nuclear disaster similar to the one at Fukushima. But the government's response was merely a vague "We will conduct a thorough review."

The anti-nuclear protest march was a public response to catastrophic events at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima. The Fukushima nuclear power plant incident provoked public fears and second thoughts about nuclear power generation. Could a similar incident occur with nuclear power plants on Taiwan? This is a question that can be answered only by science, not protest marches.

Could a nuclear power plant accident happen? That is a hypothetical question. What if we gather experts from all fields and consulted them? What if we conduct thorough nuclear safety inspections? What if we demand the highest standards in risk management? The likelihood of an accident will be minimized. In the event of a natural disaster, we will be able to limit the scope of the damage as much as possible. But if we remain mired in populist political struggles, we will only lose sight of our real concerns.

Anti-nuclear groups have stressed the horrors of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. They have claimed that Taiwan could not withstand such a nuclear accident. The alarming scenes of the Fukushima nuclear plant radiation leak instilled doubt in the minds of middle class citizens. It inspired them to raise the banner of a nuclear-free homeland. It inspired them to take to the streets. But by adopting such an approach, anti-nuclear activists exaggerated people's fear of the unknown. They claimed that an accident would make Taiwan utterly uninhabitable. But is that true? Consider Nagasaki and Hiroshima, worst case scenarios. During World War II, atomic bombs were dropped on these cities. But today, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are hardly "utterly unihabitable."

Consider also the question of whether construction should be halted on the Nuclear Plant Number Four, and whether it should be put into commercial operation. This too has become a political football. Nuclear Plant Number Four has entered the final stages of completion. In 2000, when the Democratic Progressive Party was in power, it halted construction in the name of a nuclear-free homeland. Eventually however, public pressure forced it to resume construction. Public opinion has been consulted, and the all necesary legal procedures have been followed. There truly is no reason at this late date to call a halt to construction.

In order to develop our economy, we must have electricity. If we continue to resort to fossil fuel power generation, we will increase carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Current renewable energy technology is not sufficiently mature. The cost of power generation is too high. These are harsh realities the public must face.

Elections are around the corner. Every time elections roll around, it becomes impossible to engage in objective discussion of public issues. For the sake of votes, the ruling authorities apparently hope to muddle through and worry about the problems later. Should we develop nuclear power? How can we ensure nuclear power plant safety? How can we achieve a "nuclear-free homeland?" These questions have remained open to discussion, They are questions that must be discussed. They should be part of our overall energy policy debate, But we must not go around and around in circles. The government must make available accurate information. It must offer a national energy policy consistent with public expectations and the needs of economic development. It should then allow the people decide. It should let the people to bear the consequences of their decision. Only then can society break the current deadlock over nuclear power generation.

兼顧核安、經濟 能源政策要雙贏
2011-05-05 中國時報

四三○反核大遊行日前在北中南東全台串連，號召上萬民眾走上街頭，過程和平落幕。他們要求馬政府正視反核的心聲，訴求「不要核四、三座核電廠除役、零核災零恐懼」。這個訴求，當然是緣於日本福島核災事故，地震、海嘯、輻射外洩的畫面，一幕幕驚心動魄，「台灣是否還要核電」成為許多民眾心中最大的疑慮，不少民眾因此走上街頭，表達對核能安全的關切。

據報載總統馬英九關心環保團體的遊行與訴求，透過發言人表示，「這些聲音，政府都聽到了」。行政部門已在廣徵各界意見，通盤研究檢討，一定要提出具體可行並且讓民眾安心的核能政策。行政院原子能委員會表示，核能一廠的延役審查已在去年底暫停，核四廠確定今年底前不會裝填燃料棒。至於低放射核廢料最終處置場址，也須經過地方性公投、二階環評通過後，才會核發使用執照。

從政府的回應與反核民眾的訴求來看，雙方仍是各說各話，並沒有交集，反核與擁核依舊是兩條平行線。

在反核活動現場凱達格蘭大道上，數千位民眾集體躺下，模仿大型核災爆發時的死傷狀況。反核團體要求政府提出具體廢核政策與承諾，強調核能威脅不中止，廢核行動就不會有停止的一天。他們說，台灣絕對禁不起一次類似日本福島的核災。但是政府的回應卻只有空泛的「我們會通盤檢討」。

這場反核遊行，可以說是民眾受到日本福島核電廠災變事件影響的結果，也是日本福島核安事件引發國人對核電的恐慌與反省。不過，台灣的核電廠是否會發生類似的事件，應該是一個科學的問題，不是遊行活動就能解決的。

畢竟，核電廠會不會發生意外，是一個未知與假設的問題，如果我們現在就集結所有各個領域的專家會診，好好落實核安檢查工作，用最高的標準做好風險管理，意外發生的機會就自然減少，碰到天然災變也就能將損害控制在最小範圍內；反之，如果一直停留在政爭與民粹式的爭辯中，只會讓真正該關注的問題焦點被模糊。

反核團體強調福島核災的恐怖，宣稱台灣禁不起核電意外，將一幕幕驚心動魄日本福島核災事故中輻射外洩的畫面，引導民眾心中產生疑慮，因此拿起非核家園大旗，走上街頭。反核人士這樣的做法，似乎誇大了一個未知的恐懼，甚至還讓這些恐懼一直無限上綱到可能淪為萬劫不復的境地。但這樣的狀況真的會發生嗎？事實上，即使情況最壞的日本長崎與廣島，在二次大戰期間被丟了兩顆原子彈，現在的長崎與廣島也沒有到這樣的萬劫不復地步。

此外，核四應否停工興建與商業運轉的問題，也炒作成為選舉語言，因為目前核四廠已經進入最後完工階段，在二千年民進黨執政時期，也曾經為了建立非核家園而一度停工，但最後在社會的壓力下不得不復工。因此無論就政治或是民意的角度來看，既然所有民主程序都已經走完，現在實在沒有理由半途喊停。

台灣要發展經濟就必須要有用電，如果繼續使用石化燃料發電，就會有二氧化碳排放所引發全球暖化的問題，而目前再生能源技術也確實未臻成熟，發電成本過高，這些都是全民所必須面對的課題。

選舉即將來臨，一到了選舉，台灣似乎就沒有客觀討論公共議題的機會，為了選票，執政當局目前似乎只想先混過去再說。其實要不要發展核電？核四該提出怎樣的安全保證？該如何在未來時日實現真正的「非核家園」？本來就是可以討論，也是應該要討論的課題，而且應該在台灣整體能源政策中提出論證，而非在某些個案上一直打轉爭辯，政府唯有公開所有正確的資訊，提出一個符合社會潮流與經濟發展需求的國家能源政策，讓民眾有正確的判斷選擇的機會，並且承擔最後選擇的後果，社會才能往前走出核電爭議的困境。