Three years after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster, the Taiwanese government is still convinced it is doing the right thing with nuclear power stations although, of all the countries in the world, Taiwan’s situation is the most similar to Japan’s. The government has chosen to ignore domestic opinion and international warnings.
A look at international reports pointing to Taiwan’s nuclear risks shows that German media outlets have issued repeated warnings, and that warnings also have come from publications that are better known in Taiwan such as the British journal Nature and the Independent newspaper, the French newspaper Le Monde and the Wall Street Journal in the US.
The various international reports on Taiwan’s nuclear power stations have pointed out several reasons nuclear power is particularly risky in Taiwan.
First is the proximity of nuclear plants to densely populated areas. It is always difficult to come up with a “safe” distance between nuclear power stations and cities, and the only real factor here is the potential effect a disaster could have. For example, at one stage, the nuclear fallout that occurred as a result of the Chernobyl disaster traveled as far as 1,000km and reached most of Europe.
When the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster happened, the US embassy in Tokyo recommended that US nationals evacuate to 80km from the plant. The most conservative distance recommended internationally is 30km. However, 5.5 million people live within 30km of Taiwan’s second plant and 4.7 million people live within 30km of the first plant. This ranks second and third in the world respectively, after only the Karachi nuclear power plant in Pakistan, where 8.2 million people live within the 30km limit.
However, do not for a second think that just because Taiwan is not first on the list that there is reason to rejoice.
The scale of a nuclear power plant, including the number of reactors, also adds risk. Just 170,000 people lived within 30km of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, but it is a large plant with six reactors. In the Fukushima disaster, four of those units exploded. The Karachi plant has only a single reactor and a low output of 125 megawatts, although further units are planned to be built by China. Comparatively, Taiwan’s first and second plants have a total of four reactors with a combined output of 3,141 megawatts, more than 25 times that of Karachi.
Furthermore, of Pakistan’s population of more than 180 million, just 5 percent reside near the Karachi plant. As such, an accident there would not spell the end of Pakistan.
However, almost one-quarter of Taiwan’s population lives near the nation’s second plant. Without including the potential number of people who could suffer from a disaster at the first or fourth plants, this means the nation ranks first in the world for this saddening statistic.
Furthermore, the Karachi plant is about 1,000km from Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, so a disaster would not cripple the central government’s relief effort. In contrast, Taiwan’s first, second and fourth nuclear power plants are in Greater Taipei so, unfortunately, the nation is a world leader in terms of the proximity of nuclear power plants to its capital city.
The age of a plant also influences the risk it represents. While this is not absolute, generally speaking, the newest and oldest nuclear power plants represent the highest risk. For newer plants, the risks lie in incomplete testing and inexperienced technicians. For example, the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in the US occurred after just three months of operation and Chernobyl’s happened after just two years in service.
This is followed by a more stable period, but as equipment ages and experienced technicians retire from their jobs, risk gradually increases again. This is especially true for plants more than 30 years old, like the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.
Considered this way, Taiwan’s plants are either brand-new, like the fourth plant which is not yet operational, or old, like the first, second and third plants that are about to turn 30 years old or even older. These types present the highest risk.
Also, if the operational life span of an old nuclear power plant is extended for 20 years, this is tantamount to extending the greatest possible risk for another 20 years.
This is precisely why the EU is pressuring European countries to retire old nuclear plants, like Ignalina in Lithuania. Even if old plants are reinforced, it is hard to guarantee that they will continue operating safely. Here, it must be remembered that the disaster at Fukushima occurred just after operations were extended.
Furthermore, Taiwan’s plants were originally designed with a seismic coefficient — a measure of a structure’s ability to withstand an earthquake — of just 0.3G to 0.4G. There is no way they can reach the average 0.6G of Japanese nuclear power plants, regardless of how much work is done. Also worth noting is that a nuclear disaster occurred in Japan despite the higher seismic coefficients.
Earthquakes and tsunamis are the least predictable natural disasters that can affect nuclear power stations. Stations built along the coast of the Pacific Ocean that bring both these risks into play are the most dangerous. This is why the Wall Street Journal cited information from the World Nuclear Association and said that the world’s 14 most dangerous nuclear power plants are in Japan and Taiwan, with each of Taiwan’s four nuclear power plants making the list.
The four reactors at Taiwan’s first and second plants are just like the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, in that they face the combined risk of earthquakes and tsunamis. They were built by the sea to make cooling more convenient, but after the Fukushima disaster this has been widely regarded as a major mistake. The only remaining question is whether authorities will continue to make the same mistake.
Furthermore, poor design and corruption increase the risk at nuclear power stations. These have caused concern regarding Taiwan’s fourth plant. In addition, when Chernobyl was built, its design was changed several times to speed construction; the same thing occurred at the fourth nuclear power plant, where Taiwan Power Co arbitrarily changed the design. Corruption is also a risk factor, and considering the bidding and procurement irregularities as a result of the government-business relationship in connection to construction and operation, it is clear that nuclear power plants will not be safe, regardless of design safety.
The worst threat to any nuclear power station is posed by an overly confident nuclear management and monitoring culture. For example, in March of last year, Atomic Energy Council 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.”
More recently, Environmental Protection Administration Minister Wei Kuo-yen (魏國彥) wrongly stated that nuclear power is merely a scientific issue. Even more preposterous was how the Ministry of Economic Affairs Web site misquoted Nature by claiming that Taiwan Power Co has several decades of experience operating nuclear power stations and that they have always performed well.
There are far too many examples of this carelessness to list here, but they all highlight the over-confidence pervading Taiwan’s entire nuclear management and monitoring culture.
The nation’s nuclear power plants meet all the criteria the international community uses to define high-risk nuclear power stations.
If any major natural disaster strikes Taiwan, the nation will be set for serious trouble.
Lin Yu-hsiung is a professor in the College of Law at National Taiwan University.
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry