At the end of April, legislators exposed how the state-owned Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) was misusing its nuclear back-end management fund.
However, because of a string of even more astonishing incidents within President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government at the same time, the media covered the nuclear decommissioning issue for just one day.
The nation’s six nuclear generators are currently scheduled to be phased out in five years and time is tight. Yet Taipower avoids any discussion of the decommissioning.
The decommissioning fund is not being used for what it is meant for and other complex technical problems are not being dealt with, such as the dismantling of the plants and the final disposal of nuclear waste.
The complexity of decommissioning nuclear power stations has always been overlooked: The relevant laws are incomplete and the costs involved are gravely underestimated.
In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires nuclear power firms to establish special decommissioning funds and provide the commission with a financial report on these funds every two years while in operation.
In the last five years before the reactors are permanently shut down, the companies are required to provide annual reports to ensure that they have adequate funds for decommissioning.
Despite this, a report submitted by the US Government Accountability Office to the US House of Representatives last year stated that for the 12 nuclear reactors presently being prepared for decommissioning, a conservative estimate shows a US$1.2 billion gap between decommissioning funds and actual cost estimates.
In Taiwan, in addition to the lack of insight into how Taipower uses its nuclear management fund, the official response has been contradictory.
According to information on the Atomic Energy Council’s (AEC) Web site, it is estimated that decommissioning the six nuclear generators will cost NT$60 billion (US$2.01 billion). Compared with the experience of Western nations, this is a clear underestimation and it is conceivable that the budget for decommissioning would be increased four or five times.
Even more contradictory is that when the nuclear crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant occurred in 2011, to silence calls for the earlier decommissioning of Taiwan’s nuclear power plants, then-minister of economic affairs Shih Yen-shiang (施顏祥) said that decommissioning three plants would cost as much as NT$335.3 billion, a figure clearly intended to scare the public into submission.
Now, we have the AEC claiming that the decommissioning cost has been calculated according to the regulations and that there will be no problem with the necessary funding.
Just who should we trust? Where is the decommissioning fund? Are its funds earmarked? Was it reinvested? Have risk evaluations been done? Who is auditing the fund?
Over the past year, everyone has been fixated on the national pensions issue, but the six nuclear generators are a very serious matter that will affect us for a long, long time.
The government must hurry up and prepare funds for nuclear decommissioning. Otherwise, future generations will suffer.
However, if we add to this the money that has been spent on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市), and the costs of permanent storage of nuclear waste, just how willing will we be to pay the more than NT$1 trillion that all this will likely cost?
Li Chung-chih is a professor at Illinois State University’s School of Information Technology.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs