Many people have added their names to a signatory drive in support of a referendum on the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving station off Taoyuan’s Datan Borough (大潭). The proposed referendum is to ask: “Do you agree that CPC Corp, Taiwan’s liquid natural gas receiving station should be moved from the Datan algal reef coastal area in Taoyuan?”
The issue also involves the timeline for the gas supply to the seventh, eighth and ninth generators at the Datan Power Plant, whether there would be sufficient energy supply for northern Taiwan or if it would be necessary to transfer energy from southern Taiwan to the north, and if that would increase emissions from coal-fired power generation in central Taiwan.
The issue has angered many people. Proponents of nuclear power are demanding that the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant should be revived.
In addition, the referendum involves the government’s energy transition policy timeline. As an environmental engineer, I am offering a few thoughts on these issues:
First, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has said that moving the project to the Port of Taipei would extend the project by 11 years, and perhaps even more. This raises the question of whether it really would be impossible to handle a delay, and why a delay would be so bad.
The other question is whether other approaches to deal with the urgency or finding more diverse replacement solutions would be ineffective.
Developing a comprehensive energy solution would perhaps take about 30 years, and the facilities and solutions that are considered must therefore be more diverse and resilient to be able to address different scenarios. Many aspects, such as typhoons, air pollution, national security and military conflict, need to be taken into consideration for a long-term or permanent natural gas receiving station.
Second, there is the issue of the current state of the algal reefs, the impact of construction on the reefs, whether they can withstand several years of construction and if they would be able to recover. Whether they would recover is an issue for the experts, and requires further observation and research.
Some say that observations over the past year show that the reefs had been covered by sand due to currents and other factors, but that they have recovered after a while. CPC has pledged to adopt environmentally friendly construction methods. Yet, it has been discovered that boats used in construction have damaged the reefs, but has CPC been fined?
The impact of construction frequently spills over and causes pollution and destruction of the local environment, leading to opposition and protest among local residents.
Third, a delay of the receiving station could lead to coal-fired power plants burning more coal, which raises the question of whether it would be possible to improve end-point controls at those power plants.
From an environmental engineering perspective that is a feasible approach, as reduction of the emission of pollutants such as those smaller than 2.5 micrometers and nitrogen oxide at these end-points can be improved. This is an area where Taiwan Power Co’s power plants, including the Taichung Power Plant, should work hard to make improvements.
Whether or not the receiving station should be built and how construction should proceed is a matter that can be approached from a long-term, more comprehensive point of view.
For example, there are fears that there will be a 2 to 6 percent energy shortage, but the energy system currently has 10 to 15 percent reserve capacity.
Other approaches that could help address the issue include speeding up the construction of renewable energy sources, increased energy savings, distribution through intelligent electricity grids and increased energy storage capacity.
As to the referendum on the construction of the receiving station, Rescue Datan’s Algal Reefs Alliance convener Pan Chong-cheng (潘忠政) said that the reasons for initiating the referendum were a need to abandon nuclear power, reduce coal-fired power generation and concern for the algal reefs, as well as concern for climate change policy and national security.
Everyone is concerned that there will not be enough energy, but there is a group of nuclear power supporters who distort Pan’s calls into support for renewed use of nuclear power.
Even if construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant were to be restarted, it would be too late and would not solve the feared energy shortage. The solution, therefore, is to quickly start an energy transition plan and replace nuclear power with green energy.
Liu Jyh-jian is chairman of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS