In April the Taipower announced that it was purchasing new units for its nuclear power plants... The other day Taiwan News wrote a hard hitting editorial about the KMT's nuclear energy policies....After years of objection while in opposition to the setting of explicit carbon dioxide reduction targets, the KMT now advocates a drive to return to 2008 levels of carbon emissions by 2020 and to return to the level of emissions in 2000 by 2025, in part by expanding the share of "low carbon" energy sources of total electricity power output from 40 percent at present to 55 percent by 2025.
Unfortunately, behind this rhetoric lurks the shadows of a deceitful drive by KMT technocratic ideologues to revive nuclear power as the core of Taiwan's future energy policy under the "low carbon" banner.
The new program specifically mandates that "nuclear power will be considered a zero-carbon option" and the policy decision issued by KMT Premier Liu Chao-shuian that completion of the controversial Nuclear Four facility will be "accelerated" so that its two 1,350-megawatt reactor units can come on line late next year.
Environmental Protection Administration Minister Shen Shih-hung stated Thursday that "nuclear power is a method to deal with carbon dioxide, but is the last resort," but this fig leaf was discarded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs as a spokesman admitted that the MOEA is "evaluating" a fifth nuclear power facility and by the statement of a Taiwan Power Co spokesman that there was room at the Nuclear Four site in northeast Taiwan for up to 12 more nuclear reactor generating units.
It is apparent that the KMT sees the rapid expansion of Taiwan's nuclear power capacity not a "last resort" but as a priority program in yet another example of its proclivity to allow its technocratic ideology "to drive policy."
Typically, not only did the KMT block carbon targets, it also blocked renewable energy legislation, as the editorial notes:
If the KMT was sincere in its adoption of a "low-carbon" philosophy," then the KMT-controlled Legislature should long ago have allowed the passage of several laws proposed by the former DPP government to achieve this vision.
The most egregious example is the draft law for the encouragement of renewable energy use, which was introduced into the Legislative Yuan over six years ago, whose passage would have allowed the promotion of enough renewable energy capacity to cover a new nuclear power facility without the risks and with greater employment benefits.
One pattern common world-wide with nuclear power is the way it shapes political behavior and political structures that are fundamentally anti-democratic. Taiwan is no exception, as the editorial notes:
Last but not least, the KMT's planned revival of nuclear power involves our human and environmental rights.
Since the KMT ticket did not even mention plans for a "nuclear renaissance" in their campaign, the new KMT government does not have an automatic mandate to reverse the decision made by a bi-partisan legislative majority in early 2002 to adopt a "non-nuclear home" vision in the Environmental Basic Law.
We therefore support the position of the Nuclear Four Referendum Promotion Association that the question of whether to allow the controversial Nuclear Four facility to enter commercial production should be ratified by the people of Taiwan through national citizen referendum and urge that any future plans to build new nuclear reactor units should also be subject to ratification by citizen referendum.
Another issue, as the editorial points out, is the almost total lack of policy on greening Taiwan's public and private infrastructure. What Taiwan should be doing is shutting down polluting industries...
The fundamental solution to Taiwan's energy and carbon emissions problems requires mostly action the demand side, especially structural adjustment of our industrial structure.
For example, environmentalists estimate that over 83 percent of the alleged annual carbon dioxide reduction of 18 million tons claimed for Nuclear Four could be realized simply by vetoing plans by the Formosa Plastics Group to build a steel refinery on the Yunlin coast.
Taiwan should also be shutting down the new coal-fired power plants the DPP stupidly signed off on. Instead, it should rapidly expand renewable energy use (like windpower), make buildings green, and implement conservation. The incestuous relationship between local politicians and the construction and concrete industries not only produces massive overbuilding with the attendant strain on the environment and economy, but also creates an infrastructure that has extremely poor energy conservation characteristics.
What is truly monstrous is that these issues have not changed in the two decades after the fourth nuclear plant became a huge political issue. Rational conservation programs could obviate the need for new power plants, yet instead of introducing conservation programs, the government just builds more power plants. This is, in the energy field, the same problem we face with water, where instead of raising prices and encouraging conservation, the government just services demand by providing cheap water and building more reservoirs. Or with roads, where the government just builds more and more roads, instead of working on ways to reduce the number of cars on the road. The result is massive government debt, infrastructure suited to the 1960s, and abuse of every kind of natural resource.
All this the DPP wanted to change. But I'm not worried, because we're all going to be millionaires once we open up to China! It's magic! I think I'll go outside and dress up like a customs official and build a miniature Grand Hotel in my driveway. I bet that will make the Chinese come over and bring plenty of cargo.....
[Taiwan]
11 comments:
The proposed carbon cuts are absolutely pathetic. The latest science on climate change indicates far greater cuts are needed quickly.
I think the DPP had high hopes and grand ideas back in 2000, but once they were defeated on the 4th nuclear power plant issue they just gave up.
Sooner or later the entire island will be covered in concrete!
I am a very concerned environmentalist and liberal, but I'm also libertarian. The science and economics of nuclear energy look pretty good to me, and really, renewable energy still isn't viable for beyond 15-20% of total energy. Wind is cheap, but unreliable; solar fluctuations do somewhat correlate with A/C needs, but solar still isn't economical yet. If the scientific evidence is right and we're already on the path to global warming, then nuclear is really only the viable option we have now.
But the way they decided nuclear #4 in Taiwan was so undemocratic and disgusting and that all they can talk about is economic losses and "humiliating" Lien Chan is a great shame to Taiwan.
There should be some grand compromise. Some huge compensation for each household within the vicinity of the 4th nuclear power plant, not because of nuclear power, but because of the completely undemocratic nature that forced it onto that village. Then, there should be a national discourse on nuclear and renewable energies, and the price and sacrifices that come with it. I think if it's talked about enough in public discourse and everyone mostly agrees that it's the only real way out of this energy crisis, then the drawbacks can be accepted by society.
Yes, I'd love to see a national discourse on energy policy!
Really, Taiwan doesn't need more power plants. The other thing about the Yunlin project is that it uses massive amounts of electricity. If we shut down that plus instituted conservation programs, we could do without the need for new plants. Just switch the coal plants over to wind, and keep the oil plants for peak summer a/c demand, then phase those out too.
It's silly to build nuke plants on an island threatened by both quakes and military attack.
Michael
The military attack part, if you mean China is sort of silly. China has it's own nuke plants and is building more at breakneck speed. If they attacked a nuke plant and radiation was subsequently released into the atmosphere it'd blow right across the strait and, after Taiwan, the country most affected damaged by the radiation would be China itself.
As to earthquakes, it's not a problem that can't be overcome and in fact has already been overcome. With fourth generation reactors, especially pebble bed reactors will lead to very safe (in terms of operation... still need a dumping ground) and efficient reactors, that can also provide a way for providing cheap hydrogen.
Remember, even if we converted completely to renewable energy (impossible without some kind of miracle breakthrough in battery technology), we still have the problem of cars (which to rely on non-hydrogen would also require a miracle breakthrough in battery technology).
With global warming, even maintaining the same amount of electrical production isn't good enough, even though even that is politically very difficult. But the economic scenario could rapidly change. The EU is already considering carbon taxing goods that are produced in countries that haven't signed the Kyoto protocol. Renewables simply don't take you far enough fast enough. It's like driving a hybrid--makes you feel all good inside, but hardly puts a dent in total consumption. We need something radical, fast, economic and implemented now.
The energy problem needs to be solved by market mechanisms.
Here's what I'd do:
Use taxes to reflect the true cost of carbon and encourage use of renewable energy
1) The environmental costs (externalities) of carbon needs to be reflected in the price of goods. There is a tax on gas in Taiwan. But the biggest problem in Taiwan with gas is that the tax is derived from "license plate tax" and "engine tax", which is based on the size of your engine. For ordinary use, the total amount of tax paid is about the same as it is for other comparable countries, but it is super cheap for the bus companies and taxi drivers, because they don't pay a tax per a gallon. Ma won by 16%. He should bite the goddamn bullet and abolish those taxes and replace it with a gasoline tax. A gasoline tax would encourage efficiency, rather than the current incentive structure of encouraging using as much gas as you can.
2) Taxing other carbon spewing goods would have the additional nice effect of taking back from Formosa Plastics Corporation all that they've taken out of Taiwan's environment. They alone, including plants under construction, are accountable for over 40% or more of the CO2 production in Taiwan (see Green Party and others for more info)!
Reflect the true cost of electricity
3) Implement smart metering throughout the country. That means prices can be changed according to the true costs of production. No one using electricity at night? Plug-in your electric bikes for cheap juice. Everyone and their cat has their A/C running on max? Find a way to cut down on your use and save a bundle. Tons of electricity and electrical capacity is produced only to go to waste because of the need to meet maximum demand and fluctuations in demand. But the rate of electricity is the same throughout the day. There are summer rates already--go further and reflect true costs and the market will create very beautiful incentives for people to do what's most environmentally friendly.
4) Industrial users are currently given some kind of discount. That's retarded. Eliminate the discounts--if the only reason they are manufacturing in Taiwan is because the electricity is cheap, get them the hell out of here. They can't possibly be producing much GDP, it's being paid for by everyone else, and Taiwan is way past the cheap manufacturing phase.
Do not, I repeat, do not, subsidize renewables or biofuels
5) Biofuels contributed to vast destruction of Indonesian rainforests because the Dutch thought it'd be a good idea to ignore market mechanisms. It's also part of the reason that all the grains are so expensive now. There's no reason to put additional pressure on price of agricultural goods for something whose environmental benefits are questionable.
6) Why shouldn't we subsidize renewables? Because then it comes down to subsidizing which renewables and doesn't allow the best, most efficient, cheapest technology win out. You want to do the opposite. Tax carbon based fuels, and for dirty fuels, pollution tax them, and renewables will naturally be competitive with carbon-based fuels. Only then can the cheapest, most efficient renewable technology win out, instead of the one that some legislator liked the best.
Hand out money to the poor
7) Again, don't subsidize, it always creates problems. Don't subsidize taxi driver gas, fishermen gas, etc. Give the poor a social safety net and money to get buy. Don't subsidize and even further entrench them in economic activity that isn't efficient and isn't reflecting the true costs on society and the environment. Plus you avoid black markets, like the fishermen selling gas that Michael mentioned. The poor will have the most trouble adjusting to high electrical and gas prices. The problem isn't the prices, which should be high. The problem is they don't have enough money.
1.] Nice comment taiwan economics, keep up the excellent feedback.
2.] I read this the other day on a econ site and thought it was funny:
DUE TO RECENT BUDGET CUTS, AND THE RISING COST OF ELECTRICITY, THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL HAS BEEN TURNED OFF. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE.
(Taiwan version: Due to a Quisling government and ....)
3.] One way to save an enormous amount of wasted energy is to tax store owners that leave their doors open all day with the AC blowing out on the street.
4.] I've posted this else-where, but will post again: I think the vehicles such as what Carver offers are what the Taiwan motorcycle industry should be developing.
5.] In the news lately there have been several reports about the "world" needing $45Trillion to compensate for past and future greenhouse gas problems. Obama has made a few references to this already. (look out if Gore is his VP - long shot, but possible)
I think this is something that needs to be looked at as a warning because there may be an ulterior motive to this. What I mean is this may be a first step of the "forces that be" plan for one world government. First they try to force a global energy tax on everyone which may lead to a global currency, bank, etc.
6.] Lastly, I've got no problems with nuke power (same thinking as anon1) except that in Taiwan, every time I go to Kenting I have to scratch my head and wonder why they put Plant 3 on one of the most beautiful and popular beaches here. Earthquakes are another issue, but I think the technology now can handle this.
You would think solar power would b a good option for Taiwan since its so sunny, and it generates electricity at peak times.
I agree with taiwan economics, but the political economy of not being allowed to personally hand out goodies to key constituencies make these hard to achieve.
I'm flipflopping on this issue. I thought it was safe, but then stories like this come out:
Last July, a 6.8-magnitude quake killed 11 people in Niigata, just southwest of Saturday's epicenter, damaging a nuclear reactor and causing radioactive leaks.
Major earthquake shakes northern Japan (happened last night, this is a new one)
reeb, pebble bed reactors very likely would not have leaked anything radioactive in the past earthquake.
Remember that coal and complex carbon fuels always spew out tons of deadly material constantly including carcinogens, mercury, sulfur, and yes, radioactive material (though it is distributed). How many cases of asthma, lung cancer, other types of cancer have been caused by fossil fuels and the mining of fossil fuels like coal?
Let me point out that the production of silicon, including solar panels, isn't the greenest thing in the world either.
Everything is relative here, and there is level of damage and risk that nuclear reactors carry, but there is a level of damage and risk that renewables and fossil fuels alike have as well.
I'm rooting for wind and solar to be viable alternatives, but they have a long, long way to go. If we had political will, again, it is possible to have 15-20% wind, maybe another 10% solar, 50% nuclear, and 20% gas-fired to meet demand fluctuation. If you chose not to to meet that 50% with nuclear, the only current viable alternative would be gas and coal. Wind goes up and down way too unpredictably, and so does solar. What happens when it rains 4-5 days straight in southern Taiwan, which it is true, is normally sunny?
Really, pebble bed reactors are a huge breakthrough. They are by construction designed to not be able to meltdown, unlike older tech that basically relies on operators and computer systems, and plus they don't have radioactive water to leak. Please take a look, I think you might be pleasantly surprised.
Anon, I've read about the peeble bed tech for the past 5-6 years. From what I know, its still under development. Add: I just checked wiki and found this info:
A number of prototypes have been built. Active development is ongoing in South Africa as the PBMR design, and in China whose HTR-10 is the only prototype currently operating.
If this is something PRC engineers can master and develop commercially, it would be a great achievement for mankind.
While I'm an environmentalist to the core, the current focus on carbon cuts is naive at the least. As appealing as the Kyoto Protocol and similar measures are on an ideological level, prioritization is necessary. The Copenhagen Consensus is a more level headed evaluation of where our resources should be directed.
Those unfamiliar might find this video instructive.
Post a Comment