On April 17, the legislature’s Economics Committee invited Chen Wen-shan (陳文山), a professor at the Geosciences Department at National Taiwan University, Lee Chao-shing (李昭興), a professor at the Institute of Applied Geosciences at National Taiwan Ocean University, Lee Chyi-tyi (李錫堤), a professor at the Institute of Applied Geology at National Central University, and Lin Ching-weei (林慶偉), a professor at the Earth Sciences Department at National Cheng Kung University, to comment on Taiwan Power Co’s (Taipower) report on the geological conditions around the sites of the nation’s three operational nuclear power plants and on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市).
The four geologists concurred that the report was seriously flawed, was missing an overall evaluation and lacked clarity in its wording, adding that they had no confidence in it.
This highlights the difficulty of maintaining the safety of nuclear power in Taiwan in the face of the nation’s geological makeup.
As early as in July 1978, Japanese constitutional expert Naoki Kobayashi published an article saying that the biggest concern for Japan’s nuclear power policy was accidents caused by earthquakes. He wrote that Japan experiences the highest frequency of earthquakes in the world, so it would be almost impossible to build nuclear power plants in areas that were unaffected by such activities.
Kobayashi added that despite a nuclear plant’s quake-resistant design, by building one on an inappropriate site a catastrophe could occur if an earthquake that is stronger than planned for occurred. It is therefore necessary to make comprehensive plans for a secondary disaster in case a reactor breaks or a cooling unit fails.
Kobayashi concluded that the danger inherent in Japan’s nuclear power policy had increased significantly due to geological factors, saying that this deserved close attention.
His statement about the risk of broken or failing power and cooling units was echoed in the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in March 2011. On reading his article, one cannot help but admire Kobayashi’s foresight.
Taiwan’s geological conditions are similar to Japan’s. There are frequent earthquakes and the speed of its orogeny — mountain formation — is the world’s fastest. In March, Atomic Energy Council (AEC) Deputy Minister Huang Tsing-tung (黃慶東) claimed that Taiwan’s nuclear power plants are as safe as Buddhas sitting on their stable lotus platforms. This remarkable comment clearly shows Taiwanese nuclear officials’ arrogance and neglect of geological risks.
According to Article 4 of the AEC’s safety design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities, the design of the structures, systems and parts of related facilities should allow them to operate safely during natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons and floods.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) have repeatedly pledged that there will be no nuclear power without nuclear safety. In that case, I would like to know whether Taiwan’s three operational nuclear power plants, as well as the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, meet the safety design criteria 100 percent? Can nuclear safety be ensured if a natural disaster strikes the nation?
If the government is unable to answer these questions, then promises of so-called nuclear safety are nothing but a myth.
Lo Cheng-chung is an assistant professor in the Department of Financial and Economic Law at the Chungyu Institute of Technology.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations