The Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Can Be Mothballed, But Electricity Must Continue to Flow

The Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Can Be Mothballed, But Electricity Must Continue to Flow
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation 
January 27, 2015

Executive Summary: Taiwan cannot completely abandon nuclear power. Therefore it must conduct a thorough review of the safety of its nuclear power plants. It may need to adopt the Japanese model for nuclear power plant safety, shutting them down one by one for testing. It must clear up doubts, complete the necessary safety measures, then resume nuclear power generation. Do people want Taiwan to be a "nuclear-free homeland" by 2025? It they do, then they must accelerate the construction of natural gas storage stations and gas power plants, promote energy-saving programs, and ensure that the people and businesses realize the high price they will have to pay.

Full Text Below:

Six years later, the government has re-convened the National Energy Conference. Last year Lin Yi-hsiung staged a hunger strike and succeeded in getting the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP) mothballed. The government now seeks to address the nuclear power plant controversy by convening the National Energy Conference. But the public doubts that the National Energy Conference will be able to resolve the matter. The ruling and opposition parties have wrestled over the nuclear power issue to no avail. A better approach might be to first address the problem of power shortages.

Over the past several years, the 4NPP controversy has overshadowed issues such as power shortages. The two sides remain deadlocked.  Alternative energy development has been slow in coming. Take power generation on Taiwan. Two indicators, "operating reserve" and “idle capacity” are used to assess the electricity supply. Last year, both indicators triggered alarms. Between September 15 and 19, operating reserves fell to 6%, below the brownout risk level for five consecutive days, triggering a red alert. This was the most serious nationwide power outage since the 9/21 Earthquake 15 years ago.

Regulations state that the idle capacity must not fall below 15%. But last year it fell to 14.7%. This was the first time it fell below spec during the past decade. Between 1989 and 2003, idle capacities have fallen short of government specifications, year after year. During that period, 55 nationwide brownouts occurred. Between 2004 and 2013 idle capacity exceeded targets. During this period no brownouts occurred. But last year's crisis meant that the good times are over.

Six years ago, the government convened a National Energy Conference. The idle capacity was at a high of 28.1%. Since Taiwan had a surplus, people questioned the need for the 4NPP. But last year, just five years later, the idle capacity has been halved relative to 2009. We now face an electricity shortage. Nuclear power plants have been delayed. New power plants cannot be built. To this must be added old power plant decommissioning. Over the past six years idle capacity has fallen more than it has risen. This shows that generating capacity has lagged electrical demand. In short, when it comes to power generation, we are consuming  our seed corn.

The theme of the energy conference is "Where will our power come from?" The hope is that the National Energy Conference will establish a long-term energy development plan. But power generation involves highly specialized technical knowledge. Reaching a consensus is no easy matter. Answers will not be found in “Groupthink” conferences. Even more seriously, signs of unstable power supply have emerged. The government lacks the courage to propose real solutions. The public lacks a sense of crisis. Last year, the government hastily mothballed the 4NPP. It has no idea whether to keep the 1NPP and 2NPP in operation. It has euphemistically “left the decision for future generations." The result may well be a electrical power crisis.

We may or may not want the 4NPP. We may or may not want to continue using existing nuclear power plants. New power plant construction is often a time-consuming, multi-year planning and construction process. If we wait until the power supply comes up short before seeking alternatives, it will be too late. Take Japan, for example. The Fukushima nuclear disaster struck in 2011. Twice, all nuclear power plants were shut down completely and overhauled for security purposes. Japan held a long debate. Those who opposed nuclear power constituted a majority. But the Japanese government reaffirmed nuclear power as its electrical generation mainstay. As a result, the Kagoshima "Sendai Nuclear Power Plant" will resume operation as early as this summer, and end Japan's "non-nuclear” status.

The Japanese government risked the wrath of anti-nuclear public opinion and resumed nuclear power generation. The key was the fact that "zero nuclear power" required the import of expensive natural gas as a replacement. This led to soaring trade deficits. The Abe government was forced to consider both economic development and energy security. Therefore it decided to resume the use of nuclear power.

Now look at Taiwan. With the Fukushima nuclear disaster, anti-nuclear sentiment on Taiwan skyrocketed. It moderated only after the government announced that it would mothball the 4NPP.  Unfortunately, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan lack Japan's ability to engage in self-examination. They lack the ability to decide on a single energy path. Tsai Ing-wen recently criticized our national energy policy, saying it was monopolized by state-owned enterprises. She advocated an "Electric Industry Act." Power generation, transmission, and distribution would no longer be concentrated in the hands of Taipower. This is the right approach, but it is too late to be of any help. The divestiture of Taipower and changes to the electrical power generation structure are two different matters. Tsai Ing-wen has dodged the issue of the upcoming power shortage. Such energy measures are merely “distant waters unable to put out nearby fires”.

Taiwan cannot completely abandon nuclear power. Therefore it must conduct a thorough review of the safety of its nuclear power plants. It may need to adopt the Japanese model for nuclear power plant safety, shutting them down one by one for testing. It must clear up doubts, complete the necessary safety measures, then resume nuclear power generation. Do people want Taiwan to be a "nuclear-free homeland" by 2025? It they do, then they must accelerate the construction of natural gas storage stations and gas power plants, promote energy-saving programs, and ensure that the people and businesses realize the high price they will have to pay.

Doing nothing will not make the problem go away. If we wait until power must be rationed, and power failure alarms sound before responding, it will be too late.

核四可以封存 電力不能短缺
2015-01-27 02:36:26 聯合報 社論

相隔六年，政府再度召開全國能源會議。去年核四廠因林義雄絕食而「封存」後，政府希望將核四爭議交由全國能源會議討論；然而，能源會議有沒有能力解決此事，讓人存疑。朝野與其一直圍繞著核電問題纏鬥不休，不如另闢蹊徑，先把電力短缺的現實攤開來討論。

過去幾年，核四的爭議遠遠蓋過電力的其他面向問題，同時，由於爭議僵持不下，替代能源的開發也相對遲滯。事實上，檢視台灣的供電現況，就「備轉容量率」與「備用容量率」兩項評估電力供應穩定的指標而言，去年兩項指標均已亮起紅燈。尤其去年九月十五日到十九日，我國供電備轉容量率連續五天低於有「限電風險」的六％，處於嚴峻的紅燈狀態。這是自九二一大地震造成全國大停限電後，十五年來台灣供電最吃緊的一刻。

依規定，我國電力「備用容量率」不能低於十五％，但去年我備用容量率實績值跌到十四．七％，是近十年首度低於規定。在一九八九年到二○○三年間，台灣供電備用容量率年年低於政府規定的目標值，那段期間，全國共限電五十五次。二○○四年到二○一三年，國內備用容量率實績值都高於目標，這段期間全台零限電。但從去年的吃緊情況看，「太平歲月」已經過去。

六年前召開全國能源會議時，我備用容量率高達廿八．一％；當時外界質疑台灣電力已經過剩，根本不需要核四。但短短五年光景，去年備用容量率已較二○○九年幾近腰斬，目前我們面臨的已是電力不足。受到核四商轉延宕、新電廠無法順利興建，及老舊電廠除役等因素影響，六年來台灣備用容量率跌多漲少，顯示電源開發速度已落後電力需求。簡言之，現在的用電是在「吃老本」。

此次能源會議的主題為「未來電力哪裡來」，即是希望透過能源會議的平台，找出台灣中長期能源發展方向。問題是，供電問題涉及高度專業和技術，在共識凝聚不易的情況下，很難透過大拜拜式的會議找到答案。更嚴重的是，供電不穩的徵兆已現，政府卻缺乏魄力提出解決方案，民間也缺乏危機意識。政府去年倉促「封存」核四，對核一、核二是否延役，亦無明確方向；美其名將爭議「留給後代決定」，其實可能讓台灣陷入缺電的危機中。

無論要不要核四，或現有核電廠要不要延役，由於新設電廠往往耗時多年規劃與建設，若等到供電不足再尋找替代方案，必然緩不濟急。以日本為例，二○一一年福島核災後，兩度讓所有核電廠停機徹底檢修其安全性。其後，歷經長時間辯論，儘管民間反核聲浪仍然過半，日本政府仍確認核電為基載電力之一；也因此，最快在今年夏天前位於鹿兒島的「川內核電廠」就會重啟運轉，結束日本「零核電」狀態。

日本政府甘冒觸怒反核民意之險重啟核電，關鍵就在「零核電」使其必須進口昂貴的天然氣發電取代，造成貿易逆差大增。安倍政府在經濟發展與能源安全的雙重考慮下，決定仍要緩步推動核能電力。

反觀台灣，福島核災後，台灣反核聲浪升高，在政府宣布封存核四後仍未休止。遺憾的是，台灣朝野缺乏日本那樣的自我檢視精神，確認究竟要選擇哪一條能源道路。蔡英文最近批評我能源政策遭國營事業壟斷，並主張修改《電業法》，將發電、輸電、配電業務拆開，不再集中於台電手上；此一方向正確，卻緩不濟急。理由是，整頓台電和調整電力結構是兩回事，蔡英文對即將面臨的缺電危機卻避而不談；這樣的能源對策，根本是遠水救不了近火。

台灣如果不能完全捨棄核電，就必須徹底檢視核電廠的安全性，甚至可採用日本模式將核電廠逐一停機檢驗，釐清各種疑慮並完成電廠所有強化措施後，再重啟核電。而如果台灣要提前在二○二五年前走入「非核家園」，則必須加速興建天然氣儲運站與天然氣發電廠，推動更嚴格的節能方案，並讓民眾和工商企業做好迎接高電價的準備。

什麼都不做，問題不會自動消失。等到限電、斷電的警鐘響起，才想到要應變，恐為時已晚。