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
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS