Nuclear Safety Can Be Controlled, Electricity Prices Cannot

Nuclear Safety Can Be Controlled, Electricity Prices Cannot
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 5, 2013

Summary: Nuclear safety concerns have many worried. But no one disputes the low price of nuclear power generation. Nuclear safety is relative. One may have nuclear safety concerns. But many countries continue to champion the use of nuclear energy, on condition that nuclear power safety measures are imposed. Electricity prices are inflexible. When the risks and rewards are weighed, more major nations support nuclear power than oppose it. In other words, nuclear safety can be controlled. Electricity prices cannot.

Full Text below:

Yesterday's editorial on nuclear safety posed a number of questions. Today' editorial weighs the benefits and deficits of nuclear energy. It compares the pros and cons.

Nuclear safety concerns have many worried. But no one disputes the low price of nuclear power generation. Nuclear safety is relative. One may have nuclear safety concerns. But many countries continue to champion the use of nuclear energy, on condition that nuclear power safety measures are imposed. Electricity prices are inflexible. When the risks and rewards are weighed, more major nations support nuclear power than oppose it. In other words, nuclear safety can be controlled. Electricity prices cannot.

The Jiang Cabinet has asked Taipower to carefully calculate electricity prices in the event the 4NPP is shut down. The numbers provided are objective, and have a scientific basis. But quantifying the psychological, social, and economic impact of rising electricity prices is not so easy.

If possible, one might want to implement a one year "non-nuclear" trial period. Then perhaps one could be certain whether society would really be willing to live with the consequences.

Japan, which has undergone two years of turmoil, is a clear example. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, 54 nuclear power plants were completely shut down. The Japanese government is attempting to reduce the demand for electricity. But industrial use of electricity is up over 20%, and household use of electricity is up 15%. Japan's government has spent one trillion NT purchasing natural gas from all over the world. The result has been the first trade deficit in 30 years. Last year, Japan's nuclear power plants suspended all operations. Summer peak electricity rates rose fourfold. Industry was forced to scale down operations. That was the key reason Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced the rebooting of nuclear power generation.

Simply put, there is no readily available alternative source of cheap energy. The impact of shutting down nuclear power plants is not limited to electricity rates. It is comprehensive, and impacts people's livelihood and economic development. Some have estimated that electricity rates on Taiwan in the event it goes non-nuclear, will double. There is also the risk of blackouts. Unfortunately this not alarmism. Maintaining a stable power supply is among the highest priorities for national security.

Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany announced total denuclearization by 2020. Germany can do this because back it decided to adopt a non-nuclear policy way back in 1998, and and gradually began phasing out its nuclear power plants. It adopted a three-pronged approach. It passed laws limiting new nuclear power plants, imposed energy conservation, and developed new renewable energy sources. Germany will have to pay a high price in international competitiveness. Only then will it be able to establish a non-nuclear environment. Another key is that the German power grid is linked to the French power grid. When it lacks electricity, it can purchase electricity generated by nuclear power plants in France. Nevertheless German electricity rates have risen repeatedly. The government has been forced to subsidize electricity costs for the poor.

ROC electricity rates are clearly low relative to other nations. Yet the public backlash in April of last year over rate increases, far exceeded expectations. In this case, the power supply was unaffected. Now imagine a shortfall in the power supply, rate hikes, brownouts, and power outages. The likely impact will be economic, political, and social unrest.

A large percentage of industrial production remains energy-intensive. One must face this fact. Even assuming one wishes to phase out these industries, one must do so gradually. Moreover, workers in these energy-intensive industries are among the most economically disadvantaged. Changing the structure of industry requires discrimination. So-called "changing the structure of industry" is not as easy as most people imagine. . Taiwan's main economic competitors, such as South Korea, Japan and Mainland China, all rely on nuclear power generation.

Taiwan's independent power grid cannot interact with its neighbors' to meet each other's energy needs. Taiwan has virtually no indigenous energy sources. Conditions for electrical power generation are poor. The government has promoted liberalization of the electrical power generation industry since 1995. But so far electrical energy sources remain limited. Global warming considerations require a reduced carbon footprint. The majority of aging, coal-fired power plants are being replaced by gas-fired ones. Taiwan has no indigenous energy sources. It is subject to the limitations of global energy struggles.

The biggest problem with Taiwan's electrical energy generation is base load power shortages. The use of gas-fired plants is increasing. Last year, natural gas purchases increased 25% over the year before. This equals 42.3 billion NT. This is close to the limit amidst the global grab for natural gas. Suppose we suddenly promote non-nuclear power generation? Where will we get the natural gas to make up for the 20% gap previously met by nuclear energy? We suffer from low energy autonomy. We have few cards to play in our attempt to promote a nuclear-free homeland.

Progress in wind power, solar power, biomass, and other renewable energy sources remains limited. The main reason is that the development potential sources is limited. Electricity is used mainly in the cities. Cities lack the conditions necessary for the development of renewable energy. The Taipower grid sends electricty generated in the south to the north, and electricity generated in the west to the east. Power losses are considerable. This increases the difficulty of Taipower electricity restructuring.

The government has established a goal of a non-nuclear Taiwan. But it has not established a timetable. The reason is Taiwan's environmental limitations. Preparation for a non-nuclear Taiwan. requires gradually reducing reliance on nuclear energy, increasing the efficiency of the electrical generation system, maximizing the benefits from each kilowatt of power, and reducing demand for electricity,

Should the 4NPP be shut down? The decision must not be made solely on the basis of whether one is anti or pro-nuclear. Going non-nuclear could be a path from which there is no return. Taiwan's political and economic future could end up on that same path of no return.

Recall what happened on Japan following March 11. Then examine Shinzo Abe's nuclear power policy.
  
核安可以控制 電價不能控制
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.03.05 07:48 am

昨日社論對核安提出質疑，今日試略論核能的效益，以對照比較正反雙方的觀點。

核電的安全顧慮使人憂心，但核電的低電價卻無可異議。核安是相對的，因此即使有核安顧慮，仍有國家主張在維持核安下使用核電；電價卻是絕對的，這也是之所以在比較風險及利益下，在重要國家中，支持核電的國家超過廢核非核者。也就是說，核安可以控制，但電價不能控制。

江內閣要求台電仔細計算若停建核四可能的電價波動，數值試算當然有一定的科學依據，但恐怕不易衡量電價上漲後對社會心理及經濟活動的影響。

其實，如果可能的話，可以試行一年的「無核電電價」，也許始能知道社會的接受度與承受力究竟如何。

日本這兩年的動盪是眼前的例子。福島核災後五十四座核電廠全關的短暫期間，雖然政府極力壓低電力需求，但工業用電電價仍上漲百分之二十多，家庭用電漲百分之十五，在全球蒐購天然氣斥資達一兆台幣之鉅，因而造成了三十餘年來首見的貿易赤字。去年，日本核電廠全數暫停運轉，夏季尖峰電價大漲四倍，產業界被迫縮減生產規模；這正是安倍晉三首相宣布重啟核電的關鍵考量。

簡單說，在沒有新的低廉能源替補情況下，關掉核電廠對國家影響絕不只是電價一項，將是全面性的，從民生日用到經濟發展。曾有人估算台灣非核後電價可能會調漲一倍，且有停電的風險，這恐怕不是危言聳聽，穩定供電必須以國安層次的高度來考量。

福島核災後，德國宣布二○二○年全面非核，德國能這麼做，是因早在一九九八年確定非核政策後即逐步做廢核準備；立法限制核電廠新設、節能、發展再生能源三管齊下，再加上德國具有承受高電價的國際競爭力，始能逐步建構廢核環境。另一個關鍵，德國電網與法國併聯，缺電可以向法國買核電；但德國電價仍因而連番上漲，政府甚至須補貼基層民眾的電費。

台灣的電價無疑是國際上的低水平，但去年四月的調高電價，民眾的反彈即遠超出預期，這還是供電品質未受影響的狀況；設若在供電準備不足情況下，調漲電價、限電、停電接連發生，可能的影響將是經濟、政治及社會動盪。

再者，產業結構還有相當比例的耗能工業，這是必須正視的事實；即便要淘汰這些產業，也必須循序漸進；何況，耗能產業從業人口多是經濟弱勢，改變產業結構的作為需更細緻。所謂「調整產業結構」，絕非如一般人想像之容易。何況，台灣的主要經濟競爭者，如韓、日及大陸，皆核電國。

台灣的獨立電網（未與鄰國互通有無），以及幾乎全無自產能源，電力環境相對艱困。雖然從民國八十四年起推動電業自由化，但迄今電力的開源仍相當有限；尤其地球暖化帶動減碳風潮的考慮下，多數燃煤機組老化後改以燃氣電廠取代，這又觸及台灣無自產能源、全球能源戰爭的限制。

台灣電力結構目前最大的問題，是基載電力不足，燃氣機組不斷增加，讓去年的天然氣採購較前年多出四分之一，達四百二十三億元，這幾乎已是全球搶氣的極限；如果驟然推動非核，要到哪裡買氣去填補近百分之二十的核電？在能源自主性低的情況下，推動非核家園的籌碼相對不足。

另個問題，是風電、太陽能、生質能等再生能源迄今進度有限，主要原因是發展場域潛力有限；加以用電主體在城市，多不具備再生能源發展條件，靠台電的電網南電北輸、西電東送，電力的流失相當可觀，這也增加台電電力結構調整的困難度。

政府目前以非核為目標，但不訂時間表，是因為台灣電力環境的先天限制。在逐步推動減核的過程，增加電力系統的有效度，讓每度電帶來的效益極大化，相對也就降低電力需求，這正是非核準備的一環。

停建核四與否，不應只是反核或擁核而已；若等廢核非核走上了不歸路，台灣的政治與經濟或許也走上一條不歸路。

想一想三一一的發生國日本，看一看安倍晉三的核電政策。