Much of the discussion about the power outage on Tuesday last week centers around whether it could have been avoided if the nation relied more on nuclear power.
This argument is clearly meant to highlight nuclear power as a solution to future energy problems. However, would having more nuclear power truly prevent power outages triggered by a safety power cutoff mechanism?
A major power plant cannot afford to have even one incidence of power failure due to the triggering of a safety mechanism. Last week’s power disruption was caused by a human error that triggered a safety power cutoff and shut down not only six generators at the Datan Natural Gas Power Plant, but also the fifth generator at the coal-fired Taichung Power Plant, eliminating 4.7 gigawatts (GW) from the power supply.
The safety mechanism, designed to prevent the power distribution system from breaking down, is automatically activated when there is a sudden drop in the power supply.
Even if all the nuclear power plants had been operating, providing an additional 2.2GW, the total power supply would still have fallen below demand, making a blackout inevitable.
The fundamental problem is not adding nuclear power but coping with a failure at a major power plant. Nuclear power does not allow for more flexible response measures when a failure occurs at a major power plant.
When a transmission tower at Ho-Ping Power Co’s plant was toppled by Typhoon Nesat, causing a power crisis, many people claimed that the solution was more nuclear power. They have apparently forgotten about torrential rain that toppled a transmission tower at the Jinshan Nuclear Power Plant in June, causing a power failure.
Data provided by the Atomic Energy Council show that since 2002, the nation’s three nuclear power plants have experienced a total of 29 trigger events.
As with other power plants, nuclear power plants are susceptible to unexpected power cuts or transmission tower damage.
Emphasizing nuclear power distracts the nation from more pressing issues: the crisis posed by a centralized power grid and reliance on a few big power plants.
The government should review every aspect of the nation’s power system and enact comprehensive improvements.
Measures could include increasing system redundancy and risk diversification, developing smart power grids and regional power grids, as well as preparing energy storage for emergency situations to prevent large-scale power failures triggered by a single accident. If human error is inevitable, then the power supply system must be more resilient.
The recent power failure could serve as a timely reminder that the nation must consider new energy sources.
A classic example of clean energy transformation is Seoul. Following a large-scale power outage in 2011, which mayor Park Won-soon said was caused by the city’s overreliance on external energy sources and a vulnerable power grid, he launched a project to phase out a nuclear power plant. The project is aimed at creating a self-sufficient and “green” energy system for the city.
Taiwanese have long heard that nuclear power is the cure-all to the nation’s energy problems.
However, many types of problems can occur anywhere within the power system — from the generation and transmission of power to its distribution, delivery and consumption. None of those problems can be easily solved by either relying on nuclear power or eliminating it.
Whether Taiwan will be able to move toward developing more clean energy depends on whether Taiwanese can look beyond the controversy over nuclear power and think further ahead.
Tseng Hung-wen is a researcher at the Green Citizens’ Action Alliance.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS