One of the main points of contention between the government and environmental groups with regard to nuclear power is whether atomic energy is really as cheap as Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) says it is. This issue involves the question of whether Taipower has been underestimating the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations and of processing nuclear waste.
Since Taiwan has never decommissioned a nuclear power plant, Taipower can only estimate how much the process costs. However, precedents from other countries are available for reference. For example, in the US, the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant is about twice the cost of construction. The Green Citizens’ Action Alliance says that Taipower estimates the total cost of decommissioning the nation’s three operational nuclear power plants at NT$67.5 billion (US$2.26 billion), but using the US’ decommissioning experience as a basis, the cost of decommissioning the three plants would be closer to NT$360 billion.
We can also consider the situation in the UK. Britain’s oldest nuclear site is the Sellafield complex, whose reactors started operating in the 1950s. The site includes a nuclear power plant, and storage pools and processing facilities for spent fuel and other nuclear waste.
In 2008, the British government outsourced the operation, management, decommissioning and waste processing at Sellafield. The contract, which is valid until 2025, was awarded to Nuclear Management Partners, a multinational consortium consisting of three companies: URS of the US, AREVA of France and AMEC of the UK. At the time, the Guardian newspaper described it as “one of the most lucrative government contracts ever,” paying the contractors ￡1.3 billion (US$1.98 billion) each year.
However, high profitability does not necessarily mean high efficiency. Since the Sellafield cleanup program started, its costs have exceeded the budget significantly and it has encountered serious delays. In February, the British parliament’s Public Accounts Committee reported that the estimated lifetime costs of dealing with the Sellafield site had climbed to ￡67.5 billion, with no sign of when the projected costs would stop rising. Some experts predict that the total cost will be in the region of ￡100 billion.
Admittedly, Sellafield is bigger than Taiwan’s nuclear power plants and has been in operation for much longer. Nevertheless, Sellafield shows that the task of decommissioning nuclear installations can easily involve huge hidden financial risks.
Another thing about the UK’s experience that Taiwan would do well to consider is the predicament posed by the huge amount of atomic waste that has accumulated at Sellafield. A report published by Britain’s National Audit Office says that nuclear waste stored in buildings on the site poses significant risks to the people and the environment in nearby areas.
Taiwan’s situation is even worse because, while all its nuclear power plants will eventually have to be decommissioned, a proper storage facility for its spent fuel remains no more than a mirage.
Greenpeace UK has criticized the Sellafield decommissioning program as being yet another blank check handed to the nuclear energy industry by the British government. However, while construction of a new nuclear power plant can be halted, decommissioning of old plants is an unavoidable task.
If the cost of decommissioning Taiwan’s nuclear power stations keeps going over budget and the work keeps being delayed, what will Taiwanese be able to do about it? Taxpayers will be forced to hand over not just a blank check, but a cash card with no limit.
Considering how the cost of building the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市), has kept rising, can one really believe Taipower’s forecast of how much decommissioning will cost? If the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant has been a money pit, decommissioning the other three plants could turn out to be a black hole. Does the nation really want to dig yet another hole to throw its money away in?
Li Shang-jen is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of History and Philology.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS