Why the US, Russia, and Japan Remain Nuclear Despite Disasters

Why the US, Russia, and Japan Remain Nuclear Despite Disasters
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 21, 2013

Summary: Nuclear power generation has been around for over 50 years. Antinuclear sentiment has been around nearly as long. But despite the rise in antinuclear sentiment the world over, the status of nuclear power generation has not actually changed. This suggests that the decision to continue or discontinue nuclear power generation is no easy matter. The nuclear power controversy on Taiwan is the result of "argumentum ad populum." This newspaper believes the people have the right to make the final decision. It merely wants to remind them that just saying no to nuclear power may not be as easy as it looks.

Full Text below:

Nuclear power generation has been around for over 50 years. Antinuclear sentiment has been around nearly as long. But despite the rise in antinuclear sentiment the world over, the status of nuclear power generation has not actually changed. This suggests that the decision to continue or discontinue nuclear power generation is no easy matter.

In 1979, the United States fell victim to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident. In 1986, the former Soviet Union fell victim to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. In 2011, Japan fell victim to the Fukushima "composite style" nuclear power plant disaster. These three nations all fell victim to nuclear power plant catastrophes. Nevertheless they continue to use nuclear power. The United States and Russia have engaged in heated debates over the issue and arrived at their decisions.

These three countries debated every conceivable aspect of nuclear power generation in detail. Did they consider renewable energy? Yes they did. Did they consider wind, solar, hydro, and biomass energy? Yes they did. Did they consider natural gas and geothermal energy? Yes they did. Did they consider consumer electricity rates and international economic competitiveness? Yes they did. Did they consider carbon emissions? Yes they did. Did they consider nuclear safety issues? Of course they did. These countries endured nuclear disasters, first hand. Yet after considering all the factors, all three nations, all victims of nuclear disasters, decided to continue using nuclear power.

Today's Russia is a major user of nuclear power and nuclear technology. By 2030, it intends to build over 38 nuclear power plants, and help other countries build 28. The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan occurred two years ago. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, with the support of a new public consensus, rejected a "no nukes" policy. He championed the restoration of nuclear power plant operations. He called for an optimum mix of nuclear and other forms of energy. He did not call for a public referendum. U.S. President Barack Obama's newly appointed Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is a supporter of nuclear power. He said, "It would be a mistake, however, to let Fukushima cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits." He said, "If the country doesn't invest in nuclear technology now, Americans will look back with regret."

In other words, the United States, Russia, and Fukushima catastrophe victim Japan, have chosen to continue the use of nuclear power. despite the Fukushima incident. These three nations are major users of nuclear power technology. They are also major political and economic powers. They have not neglected consideration of the pros and cons of nuclear power. They do not lack domestic anti-nuke opposition. Yet despite the Fukushima incident, they remain firmly committed to nuclear power generation. The United States, even after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, approved nine nuclear power plants. It postponed the decommissioning of power plants, and began the construction of two nuclear power plants. [Translator's note: This passage is ambiguous and difficult to interpret. I was forced to guess.]

Ernest Moniz said "It would be a mistake, however, to let Fukushima cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits." To decision-makers in the United States, Russia, and Japan, the lesson of the Fukushima incident will merely enhance nuclear safety. To them it is no reason to abolish nuclear power generation.

People on Taiwan are debating whether to retain or abolish nuclear power. There is not a single argument that has not been addressed during nuclear power debates in the United States and Russia. Consider these nations' political and economic strength, and their ability to fall back on alternative energy technology. The ROC is clearly less able to fall back on non-nuclear power technology than the United States, Japan, and Russia. Never mind that the next step would be "no-nukes." A construction halt on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP) would be followed by the decommissioning of the 1NPP. Taiwan's nuclear safety concerns are greater than those of the US, Japan, and Russia. A nuclear power plant catastrophe would only impact part of their territory. But Taiwan is smaller. It cannot afford any nuclear power plant catastrophe. But this remains a technical issue. It is not necessarily a decisive factor that necessitates the abolition of nuclear energy.

AIT Taipei Office Director William Stanton commented on the 4NPP controversy. He said it is easy to say no to nuclear energy. But it is extremely difficult to find alternative energy sources. Don Shapiro, Senior Director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei noted that If Taiwan abandons nuclear power generation, it may eliminate the risk of nuclear disaster. But it would face other risks, including severe power shortages, the rising cost of electricity, and reduced competitiveness.

Shapiro said that if Taiwan relies on gas-fired power generation, the annual cost of electricity would increase by 100 billion NT. If it relies on coal-fired power generation, the cost would increase by 50 billion NT. Either would severely undermine Taiwan's international competitiveness and lead to reduced foreign investment. Substituting gas-fired power generation for nuclear power generation would increase carbon dioxide emissions by 18 million tons per year. Substituting coal-fired power generation for nuclear power generation would increase them by 36 million tons per year. Unless one is prepared to purchase carbon credits at exorbitant prices, how will Taiwan achieve its carbon reduction targets?

Stanton said it is easy to say no to nuclear energy. Recent polls indicate that even if electricity prices increase after going non-nuclear, 70% of the public still wants construction on the 4NPP halted. It may be easy to say no. But the consequences may be unbearable. The United States, Russia, and Japan are victims of nuclear disasters. Their economic and political strength is greater than Taiwan's. If saying no to nuclear energy is so easy, why haven't they said no?

The nuclear power controversy on Taiwan is the result of "argumentum ad populum." This newspaper believes the people have the right to make the final decision. It merely wants to remind them that just saying no to nuclear power may not be as easy as it looks.

美俄日三大核災國何以仍維持核電
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.03.21 04:00 am

核電在世界上存在了五十餘年，反核的議論也持續了逾半世紀。即使在今日世界各國反核民意上升之際，核電的地位其實並未動搖。由此可見，核電存廢的辯論與抉擇，皆非易為之事。

一九七九年美國發生三哩島核電廠變故，一九八六年前蘇聯發生車諾比核電廠災難，二○一一年日本發生福島電廠的複合式核災。但是，美俄日這三個曾受核電廠災變巨創的國家，現在卻均維持核電政策；美俄日不是未經辯論，亦非未經抉擇，而是皆經過激烈辯論所採的政策抉擇。

在這三個國家，一切有關核能存廢的辯論皆已十分透徹。沒考慮過再生能源？有。沒考慮過風力、太陽能、水力、生質能源？有。沒考慮過天然氣、火力發電？有。沒考慮過民生電價及國際經濟競爭力？有。沒考慮過排碳？有。沒考慮過核安？當然有，其本國即親受核災重創。但是，經過考慮了這所有的一切，三個「核災大國」的抉擇仍是：維持核電。

今日的俄羅斯已是核電大國及核電技術大國，在二○三○年前，其國內將增建三十八座核電機組，並協助外國建設二十八座。日本福島核災甫過兩周年，安倍晉三首相挾著「新民意」否定了「零核電」政策，而主張恢復核電運作，謂將與其他能源搭配成「最佳混合比例」，且未訴諸公投。美國總統歐巴馬新任命的能源部長莫尼茲為核電支持者，他說：「若因福島核災就終結核能，是一錯誤；如果美國現在不投資核電技術，民眾會後悔。」

也就是說，美、俄及包括身受福島巨災重創的日本，均在福島事件後，仍然選擇了維持核電的政策。這三國皆是核電技術及實務上的大國，且也是世界上的政治與經濟大國，亦不是沒有比較過核電存廢的利與害，更非在國內沒有反核的「民意」；但是，他們皆在福島事件後仍然維持核電，美國更在福島核災後，核准了九個核電機組延後除役及兩座核電機組的興建。

主要的原因，可能就在莫尼茲的那一句話：「若因福島核災就終結核能，是一錯誤。」在美俄日三國的決策者眼中，福島事件的教訓只會成為促進提升核電安全的動力，而不逕視之為停廢核電的理由。

台灣目前關於核電存廢的辯論，可說沒有一個觀點不曾出現在美俄日的核電辯論中。而就各國的政治與經濟及替代能源的技術條件論，台灣顯然較美日俄三國更不具非核廢核的條件，遑論是一步就走上非核（核四停建，二○一八核一除役）；台灣在核電風險上較三國不同的考量是，三國幅員較大，核電廠災變只是「局部」影響，但台灣較小的幅員承受不起任一核電廠的災變。不過，這仍然是一個核安的技術問題，未必能成為廢核非核政策的決定性因素。

美國在台協會前台北辦事處處長司徒文就當前的核四爭議說：對核能說「不」很容易，但要如何找到替代能源很困難。繼之，台北美國商會資深總監沙蕩亦撰文指出：台灣若放棄核電，固然沒有核災的風險，但卻必須面臨其他風險，例如嚴重缺電、電費上漲、國家競爭力減弱等。

沙蕩說：台灣未來若以燃氣發電，每年成本增加一千億元；若以燃煤發電，則增加五百億元。無論如何，皆對台灣的國際競爭力產生極嚴重的影響，並將導致外國投資不前。至於以燃氣代核電，每年將增加二氧化碳排放一千八百萬噸，以燃煤代核電則增加三千六百萬噸；如此，除非以大手筆購買碳權，將如何達到減碳目標？

司徒文說，對核能說「不」很容易。近日相關民調更顯示，即使非核後電價上漲，亦有七成民意主張停建核四；這恐怕也是說來容易，但後果未必承受得起。如果對核能說「不」真是那麼容易，則美俄日「三大核災國」，在國際政治、經濟上的條件均有優於台灣處，他們為什麼不說「不」？

台灣的核電存廢問題逼到今日這個地步，只剩訴諸民意一途，本報也持尊重民意最後抉擇的立場。只是想提醒國人：對核電說「不」，其實並不那麼容易！