After a record seventeen power outages in Taiwan in the first eight months of 1994, everyone on the island has firsthand knowledge of the hassles, financial losses, and, in some cases, the dangers caused by blackouts. As the result of typhoons Tim, Caitlin, Doug, and Fred, as well as severe flooding in the south and the seasonal peak use of electricity during the hot summer months, electrical power faltered intermittently from June through August. In the most serious cases, residents of Kaohsiung lost electricity for four days. The blackouts left babies crying in the stifling heat, food spoiling in warm refrigerators, and expensive tropical fish suffocating in the aquariums of upscale apartments and offices. Nearly everyone felt the impact as factory orders were delayed, banks and shops closed, traffic lights went out, and computer systems crashed. This year, all residents gained a clearer idea of the need for a dependable supply of electricity.
The consumption of electricity has in creased steadily in Taiwan during the last two decades, mainly because of rising industrial and commercial use, although residential use is also growing rapidly. Annual per capita electricity consumption was 1,088 kilowatt-hours (kWh), in 1972, but 4,873 kWh in 1993. (One kilowatt-hour is equal to the amount of electricity used by a common 100-watt lightbulb in ten hours.) The increase in power usage is expected to continue. Taiwan Power Co. (Taipower), the island's government-run sole electricity supplier, expects a growth rate of 5.5 percent per year over the next decade. To keep pace with demand, Taiwan will have to generate 30,000 megawatts of electricity annually, a 50 percent increase.
Looks nice, but is it safe?—This model of a nuclear reactor at Taipower's North Visitors Center was set up to help educate the public. The island's sole electricity supplier argues that nuclear power is friendlier to the environment than thermal power.
Taipower representatives say Taiwan is already overusing its power sources. "Ideally, we should have a reserve margin of 20 to 25 percent of our capacity, even during periods of peak use," says Morgan Tsai (蔡茂村), vice president of Taipower. "But this summer, there was al most no reserve margin. Whenever the demand is too high, or something goes wrong with any of our generators, or we have to stop some machines for routine inspection, we have trouble supplying enough electricity."
To increase Taiwan's electricity supply, Taipower began a ten-year electricity development plan in 1993. Most of the island's current electricity supply is generated by thermal plants (60 percent); the rest comes from nuclear power (27 percent) and hydro power (13 percent). Besides these main power sources, Taipower is experimenting with alternatives such as solar, wind, and tidal power, but without positive results so far. Taipower officials say these alternatives are inefficient. For example, according to the company, a solar power plant would require five thousand hectares of land, or ten times the space used by the planned Fourth Nuclear Power Station, to generate about the same amount of electricity. In other cases, Taiwan's scarcity of undeveloped flatlands, rugged coastlines, and highly changeable weather patterns have made proposed power projects difficult if not impossible.
Taipower's energy generation plan includes about twenty thermal or hydro plants and a highly controversial fourth nuclear power plant. These projects would increase Taiwan's electrical power capacity to 35,040 megawatts by 2002. But the planned nuclear power plant has elicited one of the largest public opposition movements for a non-political issue that Taiwan has ever seen.
Nuclear power has been used in Taiwan since the first reactor began operating in December 1978. Taipower now operates three nuclear power stations around the island with six reactors. In the past, these power plants attracted little attention. But with increasing social liberalization and growing environmental awareness—and in some cases for political reasons—many people now openly oppose the new nuclear power plant.
Rolling out the profits—Electrical consumption has jumped 500 percent since the 1970s, mainly because of rising industrial output. Here, Tang Eng Iron Works Co.
In a way, those who oppose nuclear power are making up for lost time. Many not only want to scrap plans for the new nuclear power plant, but also hope to shut down the existing three. "There are many options that are safer or cause less impact on the environment than nuclear power," says K.L. Chang (張國龍), professor of physics at National Taiwan University and president of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union, the most active anti-nuclear group. "We think the government is making a big mistake in insisting on developing nuclear power plants."
Chang is not alone. More than eighty social organizations, including environmental, political, and religious groups, have joined the anti-nuclear movement. The Homemakers' Union and Foundation is one such group. "We are an environmental group formed by mothers—we want to see our children grow up in a clean and safe environment instead of under the threat of a nuclear accident," says Lanny Leu (呂美鸞), executive secretary of the foundation. "We are not confident in the quality of major government constructions. We are not sure of the safety of the new nuclear plant. If a nuclear accident happens, we don't think the government has the ability to handle the problem."
The anti-nuclear movement received much publicity this spring as the Legislature prepared to vote on a budget for the fourth nuclear power plant. In May 1994, a public vote was held among the residents of the village of Kungliao, near the planned site of the new plant. About 58 percent of the adult population voted, and 96 percent of the votes were against the project. In Taipei, several major protests were also waged against the project. In the largest, also in May, an estimated thirty thousand people protested near the Legislature. "It was one of the largest demonstrations for a non-political issue," Chang says. "Both the vote at Kungliao and the demonstration sent a clear message to policy makers that Taiwan residents don't want nuclear power." But the budget passed by a 4 to 3 margin in June. Afterward, a violent street demonstration ensued in which a police officer was injured and several demonstrators were arrested.
Local nuclear technicians adhere to painstakingly detailed regulations, but anti-nuke activists stress that accidents can happen no matter how many precautions have been taken.
The primary issue fueling opposition to nuclear power is safety. "Taiwan is the worst place for nuclear power plants," Chang says. "We cannot afford a serious nuclear accident, and no one can guarantee it won't happen." He points out that the island is small, only 36,000 square kilometers, but densely populated, with ten thousand people per square kilometer in some urban areas.
Those who oppose nuclear power are determined to continue their fight. "The budget was passed, but that doesn't mean we have lost," Chang says. "We are working on freezing the budget." Anti-nuclear activists are also pushing for a recall of the legislators who voted for the bill.
But there is also a strong body of support for the new nuclear power plant. Those in the power generation industry believe that an additional nuclear power plant is not only necessary, but is more friendly to the environment than thermal plants. In June, as the budget vote neared, the presidents of several major industrial groups visited the Legislature to voice their support for the new plant. Later that month, about two thousand Taipower employees also held a pro-nuclear demonstration in Taipei.
T.R. Ho, superintendent of the Second Nuclear Power Station, says those who work in nuclear power plants experience harmless amounts of radiation—"I myself would quit immediately if it wasn't safe."
"We are not saying that nuclear is the only power source," says Richard Hsu (徐錦棠), a chief engineer at Taipower. "But it is an option that Taiwan can't afford not to exploit." Hsu points out that hydropower is unreliable due to Taiwan's seasonal droughts, and that all of the resources used to create thermal power—coal, oil, and natural gas—must be imported. More than half of Taiwan's electrical power now comes from oil and coal. If shipments of these were cut off because of, say, war in the Middle East, local power would be seriously affected. Thus, Hsu believes it is necessary for Taipower to develop alternative power sources, including nuclear power.
Besides providing a stable power supply, nuclear energy is also Taiwan's least expensive power resource. From 1982 to 1993, the average cost of producing one kWh was 3.6 cents from nuclear power, 3.9 cents from coal, and 4.7 cents from oil. (These costs include the expense of building a nuclear plant and of storing radiation waste.) The two reactors in the Second Nuclear Power Station require 60 tons of nuclear fuel every year. To generate the same amount of electricity, a thermal plant needs 4.2 million tons of coal, 2.8 million tons of oil, or 2 million tons of natural gas. Put another way, while a nuclear power plant refuels once a year, a thermal plant requires a constant supply equal to a 20-ton coal tender arriving every two minutes.
But it is safety, not financial issues, that has anti-nuclear activists concerned. "No other country in the world would build nuclear power stations so close to big cities," says Professor Chang. "If the Chernobyl accident happened in Taiwan and we had to evacuate residents in the surrounding thirty-kilometer area, we would be talking about a huge evacuation of five to six million people. We don't have the ability to undertake such a big evacuation."
Power to the people—No one wants to return to the darker days of less electricity, but Taipower says the alternatives to nuclear power are either inefficient or unreliable.
Chang also points out that after the nuclear accidents at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, many countries have postponed or canceled plans for nuclear power plants. Some have even transformed completed nuclear power plants into thermal plants.
Taipower argues that many of these cancellations were caused by economic, not safety, reasons. Even after the Three-Mile Island accident, the United States continued building new nuclear plants. In addition, Taipower stresses that it agrees with the stricter laws and regulations adopted abroad as a result of these nuclear accidents. "The most important thing is safety, and the most basic way to ensure safety is to follow the operational procedures exactly," says T.R. Ho (何存仁), superintendent of the Second Nuclear Power Station. For each piece of machinery in Taiwan's existing nuclear power plants, there are more than two thousand technical regulations explaining every detail of operation.
But no matter how detailed the technical specifications are, accidents happen. Huang Tsing-tung (黃慶東), director of the Department of Nuclear Regulation at the Atomic Energy Council (AEC), Executive Yuan, says 30 to 40 percent of the instances when a reactor stops due to an abnormality are caused by human error. And some mistakes cause serious accidents. The accidents at both Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by employees, and Taiwan has also experienced some minor mishaps. Last March, a technician at the Second Nuclear Power Station allowed a radioactive machine part to bob out of its isolation tank. Several staff members were exposed to radiation, and one received 30 rems—the amount equal to having three thousand medical x-rays in one second. The victims have undergone extensive medical exams and Taipower says that to date no effects are yet apparent.
In another incident last April, a staff member at the Third Nuclear Power Station released 2,200 gallons of wastewater into the sea near the popular resort beach of Kenting. This caused above-normal radiation levels along the beach, but officials reported that the beach was still within safety standards and a recent exam shows that the area is back to normal.
"Even with the best prevention system, accidents can happen," says Taipower's Richard Hsu. "The question is whether we can control the situation in case of a serious accident." He uses the accidents at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl to explain Taiwan's capabilities. In the Three-Mile Island accident, no deaths have been directly linked to the incident and Hsu says that area residents received a harmless amount of radiation. But the Chernobyl accident caused loss of life and property damage within a radius of one hundred kilometers. The main difference between the two accidents, according to Hsu, is that the Three-Mile Island reactor was surrounded by a 48 inch concrete wall that contained the radiation, while the reactor in Chernobyl had a very thin protective wall with no ceiling. All of Taiwan's nuclear power plants are enclosed by the same protective structures as those used at Three-Mile Island, and Hsu argues that even in the case of a serious accident, nearly all radiation leaks would be contained.
How do anti-nuclear activists respond to these claims? "It is not true that Chernobyl could not happen in Taiwan," Chang says. "Although Western and Russian reactors are designed differently, the basic principle is the same for any nuclear reactor. Currently, all Taiwan's nuclear technology is imported, thus we still rely heavily on foreign engineers. That means our nuclear technology is not mature enough, which increases the chance for a serious accident."
Even without an accident, many people fear that the normal operations of a nuclear power station release radiation. Taipower's Richard Hsu says that radiation does leak out, but in miniscule, harmless amounts. People living next to a nuclear plant experience the same amount of extra radiation every day that they would receive spending an hour in front of a color TV, he says, and even those who work in the plants experience insignificant amounts of radiation. "No one would dare to work in a nuclear power plant if the amount of radiation would cause cancer or other health problems," T.R. Ho says. "I myself would quit immediately if it wasn't safe." In fact, Taipower representatives stress that nuclear power plants are not only safe for humans but are kinder to the environment than thermal plants.
Storage of radioactive waste, or radwaste, is another major area of concern. There are two types of radwaste: low-level, including the tools and materials used at a nuclear power plant; and high-level, primarily spent fuel from nuclear plants. Taiwan's low-level radwaste is now mixed into concrete blocks, sealed in iron barrels, and stored in an "interim" site on the offshore island of Lanyu. But the 15-year-old site, which holds one hundred thousand 55-gallon drums, will be full in twelve to eighteen months and AEC officials are having a tough time finding a new site. Lanyu residents have long opposed the existing storage site, making an expansion difficult, and residents of other areas are likely to have the same attitude. The director of the AEC's Radwaste Administration, Tsai Chao-ming (蔡昭明), stresses that properly stored low-level radwaste is harmless, but he knows the public perceives otherwise. "There are several places in Taiwan that fit the requirements [for a storage site]," Tsai says. "It's the 'not in my backyard' concept that troubles us."
Storing high-level radwaste, or spent fuel, is even more problematic. It is currently stored within the nuclear power plants. After cooling for ten years, it will be sealed in metal containers and kept at the plants until it can be shipped to final, as yet undetermined, disposal sites. Since the spent fuel is still highly radioactive, many people are concerned about its potential effect on the environment. Professor Chang points out that even nuclear-advanced countries such as the United States and France are struggling with this issue. But officials at Taipower and the AEC insist that storage is not a problem. In other countries, spent fuel is now stored under several hundred meters of stable rock. "It is just like a natural uranium mine," says Tsai Chao-ming "But again, we have a hard time finding storage sites because of public opposition. This is our biggest and most urgent problem."
Neither those for nor against the fourth nuclear power plant are likely to back down on their position. To resolve the conflict, many anti-nuclear activists, along with some politicians, are calling on the government to hold a public vote and to make the results of the vote binding. Says Lanny Leu of the Homemakers' Union, "We are disappointed that the government is not taking public will into consideration in making such a big decision."
Meanwhile, Taipower argues that holding such a vote now would be pointless since the budget for the new nuclear power plant has already been approved and construction has begun. Company officials also believe that much of the opposition to the plant is the result of misunderstanding. "It is not right to let such issues be decided by public vote since most people don't have the professional knowledge," says Taipower's Richard Hsu. In March, Taipower set up a special public relations department focusing on nuclear power issues. The company has also worked with local and foreign nuclear scientists and engineers to discuss the safety of nuclear power in TV commercials and newspaper advertisements and at public seminars.
Meanwhile, the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union and other anti-nuclear groups are continuing their own educational campaigns through newspaper ads, posters, public hearings, and seminars. "Taipower and the Atomic Energy Council have asked domestic and foreign nuclear engineers to evaluate the safety and influence of building a nuclear power plant, but this is not fair because these experts have built their careers on nuclear development," Chang says. "There is no doubt that they are in favor of building new power plants—without them, many would be out of a job."
Both sides are struggling to cut through public misconceptions, half-truths, and fears in order to bring accurate information to the public. As Taipower's Huang Tsing-tung points out, nuclear power seems very far from people's everyday lives. For many in Taiwan, their impression of nuclear power is what the two atomic bombs did to Japan. In the process of bringing public perception up to date, it may be that whichever side presents the best case to the public will come out ahead.