有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
stan yang
Thank you for the information.
I would recommend Ms. Tsai get full and complete facts before sealing off nuke 4 after its construction is completed. I would also reconmend Ms. Tsai bring in more business and industrial people as her advisors.
目前台灣的備用電量是德國的兩倍. Does this means that the reserve of Taiwanese electric generation is twice that of Germany? Does Germany have better and more morden electric power generators that requires less maintenance schedule? Does Germany have so many Taphoon and quake annually as in Taiwan that may potential damage and stop the operation of power plants. Ask the engineers in Tai Electric Corporation and get the fact straight first. Why Taiwan needs such high ratio of reserve capacity.
難道所有的產業都支持核電嗎？答案是否定的。長榮集團的張榮發董事長，就是一個鮮明的例子。 Does Evergreen need a lot electricity in its operation? The answer is no. Why ask an non-affected person about this issue? Why not ask the guys in Semiconductor industries? Do you want to raise the electric utility fees, frequently having blackout, and drive the last big industry out of Taiwan? Get the full facts from all industrial sectors before setting the policy.
What is the perception of other nations about Taiwan after spending $250 billion in a decade and then shutting down upon its completion? Bravo???
Does Taiwan have a consistent industrial policy? Is the in-fighting between DDP and KMT still going on? Will Taiwan have sufficient electric capacity to meet future industrial expansion needs. Is DPP pro or against business? Is this a good, attractive sign to invest in Taiwan from a business perspective?
To the majority Taiwanese perspective, is this a rational approach? Did Japan announce shutting down all nuke within 13 years after such a huge nuclear event? Did any major nations announce shutting down all nuke within 15 years without any idea of replacing the nuke power?
Last comments I live within 25 miles of San Onofre nuclear power plants in Southern California. The affluent San Clemente, the city where President Richard Nixon lived after his exit from the White House, is within 5 miles of the power plant. San Onofre is located in an active quake zone and set on the beach. There have been several reports of safety violations about the plant’s procedures. But I have not heard of any mass active demands to shut down the nuke plant even after the Japanese earth quake and nuclear power plant disaster. Every summer, people still camps and swims at San Onofre beach.
People have different needs, views and tolerance about the nuclear power plants. If DDP does not plan to govern, it can call any shots it wants. Otherwise, our advice to DPP should be “prudent, pragmatic and get the all the facts straight before setting up the policy”. If the policy does not have the buy-in from over 60% of the population, then be extra prudent. We all would like to build Taiwan into an Asian Switzerland. A nation that is beautiful, neutral and independent. However, it is a far reaching goal given the situations that Taiwan is in. Let us keep it in mind, but do it with time, and do it right.
|
Shin Liu
In the light of recent nuclear disaster at Fukuchima Daiichi plants, we should re-balance our thinking in terms of the nuclear power. In the past, our understanding is that the reliability of the nuclear plant design is in the 10 to the -9, it means it (a melt down) never would happen in our life time, or in the life of the plant. However, the reality shows us wrong.
In the risk management, other than the probability of happening, another element is the consequence of happening. If it ever happen, Taiwan's situation is even worse in terms of the situation of the plants geographical location, and the smallness of the country.
In the past, we balance the nuclear calculation by calculating the cost of nuke vs alternatives, in economical terms, the risk that exposed to the nuclear accident just is a footnote to the total calculation. If we calculate that Taiwan can not bear any accident of this scale, all thought should be in how can we abolish the nuclear power in the realistic terms (ie to correct the past erroneous assumptions about the nuclear accident and its consequences).
As in the previous mail, once we recognized that Taiwan can not survive any nuclear accident of melting down, we should focus our effort in getting the consensus to accelerate the abolishing of the nuclear power in Taiwan. All calculation should based on this, not the other way around.
Shin
From: Ed Huang <edhuan...@yahoo.com>
To: natpa...@googlegroups.com; stan yang <stanya...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, March 31, 2011 8:53:45 AM
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
| Stan: In general, I am in agreement with your view. I gave a talk on Taiwan Energy at the 2004 NATPA Annual Conference. A summary of my talk was published in the NATPA Sept 2004 Newsletter. I believe that what I said then is still valid in today situation. To discuss nuke or no-nuke, we need to look at the over all situation of Taiwan energy need and supply. On the supply side, Taiwan imports 98% of energy. More than ~85% of the import are fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas). Nuclear power was 7.3% based on the 2003 data. With the shortage of world oil supply, there is no guarantee that Taiwan can get its share of fossil fuels. One benefit of nuclear power is that a small quantity of fuel can last a long time. But the safety aspect of the nuke plant needs to be carefully dealt with. On the need side, as you all know that Ma is still pushing very hard to build Kuo-kuang Petro-chemical plant (so-called 8-chin ??). This is a high energy hunger beast. If Taiwan can get rid of heavy industries such as petro-chem and steel plants, Taiwan could be free of the nuclear power. Therefore Taiwan needs to decide the direction of its economic expansion plan, then they can deal with the nuclear issue. Ed Huang --- On Wed, 3/30/11, stan yang <stanya...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
--
This forum is restricted to NATPA members only. The views and opinions expressed in every post are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of NATPA.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "NATPA Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to natpa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
Shin Liu
Shin
From: Chung-Chih Li <cl...@ilstu.edu>
To: CP Yeh <cpy...@gmail.com>; Jerome F. Keating <taiw...@hotmail.com>
Cc: chihmei chen <chihmei...@gmail.com>; stan yang <stanya...@yahoo.com>; ed huang <edhuan...@yahoo.com>; natpa forum <natpa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, April 2, 2011 4:49:23 PM
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
I'm not an idealist. I agree with Jerome that it can be a losing battle. The exciting mood of anti-nuke folks probably are sinking to the trap without knowing it. Let's put facts on the table (please save those scientific numbers and research, I don't care).
1. The nuke-4 is almost done, at least more than 200 billion NT has been casted. Will Taiwanese swallow it for nothing? On
the 2nd day of Fukushima disaster, the answer must be yes; one month later, may be; one years? I guess so; 5 years? Hell no! Well, unless they don't have a chance to whine.
2. Given the fact above, once the reactor is activated (started up), the DPP will totally lose its position to ask tax payers not to make use of it while they are under the same threat, or we have to spend another 100 billion NT to "deactivate" it; again, for nothing but just a peace of mind.
3. Given 1 and 2, while the schedule has been pushed back to mid or late 2012 for commercial operation, it is perfectly doable for Ma's government to run nuke-4 into the test phrase and turn on the reactor. What are you going to do about it?
For all other questions, they may generate 100 PhDs to find the answers, but they are all minor in this political arena; All that matters is: Does DPP (or Tsai) have a plan to stop 3 described above? If yes, it will be a full scale battle; Tsai needs to be ready with a much tougher position and much clearer manifesto before the battle breaks. One "不商轉"- many "各自表述" is a weak sign to the enemy. And, can we win? We may, but I don't know. In fact, it is very risky, I must admit.
Tsai is smart. I believe that she has already assessed the situation and concluded that the odd is not with her; So, she doesn't really want to charge in a full scale; Same to Su's assessment, but he is not under KMT's gun sights; so he can just talk baloney and keep breathing. But Tsai needs to dodge the bullets from both sides; and her solution is "不商轉"。Does it work? So far so good as anti-nuke folks are happy about it and the KMT still stays low at this moment. But wrong. This is just the quiet night before the storm. KMT's real move will be 3, and challenge DPP with 2 and 3. Then, what will be the DPP's counter strategy? I'm afraid that the DPP then will have no choice but be forced to accept the KMT's nuke policy.
So, what is my suggestion? Personally, and blindly, I suggest a full engagement on this issue, but win or lose the election is one thing, even so I still don't think we have a chance to stop the reactor from being activated (3. above) unless you can mobilize militants to seize the plants which is a "hahaha", means just dream but not possible. Then, 1 and 2 just follow 3 for the DPP to handle.
Therefore, a head-on conflict can turn into a lose-lose situation (note, not both sides will lose, but we lose both: election and nuke policy). Alternatively, Tsai may have decided not to have a full engagement due to a more precise political calculation; if so, then, I urge, she should clean up "各自表述" of "不商轉". She should not blur her position, make it clear that she will allow nuke-4 to operate under certain reasonable conditions; the chance that Taiwan may be spared from disasters like the one in Fukushima is not guaranteed but it is stastically feasible in the next 20 years or so (but not so if we double the period or make it indefinite); just have our fingers crossed. We should lay down a comprehesive and feasible plan (as Stan Yang suggested, with KMT) to get rid of nuke power for good, or waiting for a more promising technology. (By the way, where does this current magic number 2025 came from?)
Again, the bottom line is, don't blur the position to make everybody happy. I agree that "where there is will, there is a way", but first, Where is the will?
Finally, I don't mind to share with you a private exchange (on another issue) with a friend in Taiwan. I admire those anti-nuke folks from my heart and I'm with them untimately, but....
......... 這那有違反言論自由？這大概就是專業認證的技術問題，我是贊成的；除非我們認為記者證的慨念也違反言論自由，因為它限制你採訪發表言論的自由。不過採訪記者的危害其實不大，水準再怎麼低也就是事實陳述，最多加些讓你很沒力的comments。真正危害的還是主編，專欄作家，一些學者和意見領袖。不過實在一點辦法也沒有，這的確是言論自由的範疇。
我其實也一直在想問題出在哪裡，後來我發現是那句「中學為體西學為用」害慘了幾代人。例如「言論自由」是「西學為用」，但讓「言論自由」變得有意義背後的「理性主義」卻沒有生根，而「理性主義」是西學幾千年來的主體，即使是在中世紀，而中學的主體是「教化」，於是民主以後人人突然有了機會「教化人民」，於是無所不用其極，即便完全違反理性主義起碼的實證原則。(你去聽聽高成炎上call-in的言論，雖然我們立場相同，但其言論之誇張，簡直是妖言惑眾，還有那個姓徐的台大大氣科學教授也是，我只能忍受五分鐘。) 還有那個指頭識字的台大校長，我的媽啊！越想越沒力。
我完全看不到我國思想界對此有較深刻的反省，就算有，大概也關在象牙塔理，無法以庶民語言形成一種庶民哲學在生活裡實踐。
Regards,
Chung-Chih Li
----- Original Message -----
From: CP Yeh
To: Jerome F. Keating
Cc: chihmei chen ; stan yang ; ed huang ; natpa forum
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
Here are three reports made by three different newspaper regarding Tsai's approach toward nuke-4. In my view, they are all different. Which one is correct?
The Asia Times (3/29):
Responding to a growing anti-nuclear voice, Tsai Ing-wen, chairwoman of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), said she "tends" toward not allowing the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (Nuke 4) to start commercial operations if she is elected.
The China Post (3/25):
Tsai said during a tea party with reporters yesterday afternoon that if she wins the 2012 presidential election she will not allow the commercial operation of Taiwan’s No. 4 nuclear power plant.
Taipei Times (3/26):
DPP defends Tsai’s nuclear strategy.
DPP lawmakers said the decision on whether to terminate construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant should be settled by a national referendum.
2011/4/1 Jerome F. Keating <taiw...@hotmail.com>
This can be a losing campaign issue for the DPP, not because of lack or conviction or rationale,
but because there is so much vague knowledge out there, that things can be twisted.
i.e. if you are against nuclear power, you want to return to the stone age.
DPP has to say it understands the value, but that it needs more discussion.
Ma managed to ram through ECFA without discussion;
I think that is the issue that should be played; that Ma does not allow rationale discussion.
Jerome F. Keating
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:51:41 -0400
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
To: stanya...@yahoo.com
CC: edhuan...@yahoo.com; natpa...@googlegroups.com; taiw...@hotmail.com
I appreciate very much Stan's tireless effort to provide us with a different view on this issue. Stan has helped me to understand the extent of how much disturbance and disappointment 核四不商轉 could bring to those who were involved in the design and construction of this 4th nuclear plant.
However, I would like to raise the question for those who spent their time, effort and talent in this project so far. To be honest, has the extent of the Fukushima unfortunate series of tragic events been previously envisioned and considered during the course of design and construction of this 4th nuclear plant so far?
In the light of the new development occurred like what has been happening in Japan now, shouldn't the project of Nuke 4 on Taiwan be re-evaluated and re-considered?
To me, not even one single life deserves to be born deformed by design intentionally.
To me, no matter how huge the amount of money previously invested on Nuke 4 can justify that we now knowingly choose a path that may lead to the total destruction of Taiwan.
Sure, I don't know about Nuke plant. But, doesn't Japan have experts about their nuclear plants?
Chihmei
2011/4/1 stan yang <stanya...@yahoo.com>
Ed and Jerome,
My thought tells me that Tsai is heading toward a losing battle with
核四不商轉, unless there is a nuclear disaster happen in Taiwan before election.
Tsai should turn the conflicting role into a constructive role by instilling the sense that nuke 4 is a necessary devil that Taiwan needs to embrace until a replacement can be found, and that nuke 4's risk and reward are to be shared by all the Taiwanese, and whatever happens, Taiwanese need to deal with it and help each other together as a nation? Tsai can further indicate that DPP will work with KMT and all the Taiwanese to improve nuclear safety, emergency rescue planning and seek the replacement of nuclear energy ASAP.
--- On Thu, 3/31/11, Jerome F. Keating <taiw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Jerome F. Keating <taiw...@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
To: "ed huang" <edhuan...@yahoo.com>, "natpa forum" <natpa...@googlegroups.com>, "stan yang" <stanya...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 11:14 AM
I encourage both of you to work for a viable solution/answer; I do believe that this will be a major campaign issue.
Jerome F. Keating
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:53:45 -0700
From: edhuan...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
Frank S T Hsiao
I met a lady just back from Taiwan yesterday. She said that the radioactive materials are already found in the Taiwan coastal area, and the business of the seafood restaurants are done 50%, and the condition is worsening.
This is the fact the green camp should take up and point out that if it happened in Taiwan, seafood problems is relative minor as compared with complete wiping out of the living place (no place to run), and convince the Taiwanese that Ma’s policy of going nuclear is wrong and they should not elect the colonial masters as their President AND the Legislators.
The green needs a strong message to the Taiwanese. The blue will fight back, and smear the green, but the green need statistical data to back up their claim.
From: natpa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:natpa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chung-Chih Li
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 6:52 PM
To: Shin Liu; CP Yeh; Jerome F. Keating
Cc: chihmei chen; stan yang; ed huang; natpa forum; I Love Taiwan
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
Dear Shin,
No, you do not understand my point. As an anti-nuke guy, I know all these. (I'm the first one here question that "no commercial operation" is not equivalent to "not being activated") My question is, look at the reality, like it or not, how do we stop the train? Please convince me there is a way that we can keep nuke-4 reactor from being activated AND the DPP/Tsai is preparing such battle. My question is: Where is such will?
Regards,
Chung-Chih Li
----- Original Message -----
From: Shin Liu
To: Chung-Chih Li ; CP Yeh ; Jerome F. Keating
Cc: chihmei chen ; stan yang ; ed huang ; natpa forum ; I Love Taiwan
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 7:32 PM
J. C. Jay Chen
Chung-Chi, Frank, Shin, C.P., Jerome and friends:
I saw that we have a lots of discussions on “有關非核家園文章”.
Forwarded is the website that you can download and read through the Tai-Power project summary regarding Tai-Power Nuclear-4. In that summary, you can find a lots of information. At the same time there is one section on the “非核家園” (starting on Page 4), which may be of interest to you.
核能四廠相關資訊彙編
http://info.gio.gov.tw/public/Attachment/51191114971.doc
I did some design analysis works on the cooling water system of Tai-Power Nuclear-4 when I worked for Bechtel in San Francisco after my graduate studies. Before that, during my graduate studies at Caltech’s Keck laboratory, my water basin/tank had been used to simulate model studies of cooling water ocean outfall studies for SONGS (San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station) Unit 2 of Southern California Edison. Due to that studies, I was lucky having a chance in visiting SONGS Unit 1 operation site and Unit 2 during construction with Caltech professors in 1974 (with security clearance, that time SONGS is not open to public yet).
Those Edison’s workers on-site told us they saw the former President Nixon usually took a walk with his dog along the seashore during sunset. President Nixon lived at and owned that seashore property just next to SONGS.
Jay
From: natpa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:natpa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chung-Chih Li
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 11:32 AM
To: Frank S T Hsiao; 'Shin Liu'; 'CP Yeh'; 'Jerome F. Keating'
Cc: 'chihmei chen'; 'stan yang'; 'ed huang'; 'natpa forum'; 'I Love Taiwan'
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
Indeed. But we just land our eyes on nuke-4; any of the other three got hit by a 1000 times weaker earthquake (means 3 degrees less) can cause exactly the same, if not worse, damage to Taiwan.
Regards,
Chung-Chih Li
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank S T Hsiao
To: 'Chung-Chih Li' ; 'Shin Liu' ; 'CP Yeh' ; 'Jerome F. Keating'
Cc: 'chihmei chen' ; 'stan yang' ; 'ed huang' ; 'natpa forum' ; 'I Love Taiwan'
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 12:36 PM
J. C. Jay Chen
Chung-Chih:
You are absolutely right. 福島一號機was in that 60 years of extension of permit for operation.
Now those 福島4 units are among the lists with US’ Three Miles Island and Russian’s Cher? In the world (a total of 6 failed units).
Jay
From: Chung-Chih Li [mailto:cl...@ilstu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:26 PM
To: Chung-Chih Li; jcc...@crb.ca.gov; 'Frank S T Hsiao'; 'Shin Liu'; 'CP Yeh'; 'Jerome F. Keating'
Cc: 'chihmei chen'; 'stan yang'; 'ed huang'; 'natpa forum'; 'I Love Taiwan'
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
Sorry, I mistook Dr. Jay Chen as Dr. JC Han. (Both are splendid in their profession; Caltech and MIT and many).
Regards,
Chung-Chih Li
.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chung-Chih Li
Cc: 'chihmei chen' ; 'stan yang' ; 'ed huang' ; 'natpa forum' ; 'I Love Taiwan'
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
Dear JC.
Thank you for the link. Correct me if I'm wrong that this docuemnt was created 10 years ago under CSB adminstration to backup his decision. Unfortunately, CSB failed, but the docuemnt is very comprehensive and still worth a lot to read. All in all, CSB had done his homework before he boldly shut down the project, and that's why I proposed Tsai to visit CSB for this issue if she really mean it; we don't have to treat him like leprosy if there is a good reason; we can learn from him.
What sounds very ironic in this document is that, Japan then was a good boy in this industry. Just quote a few:
核能發電的技術已在進一步研究改良，日本已於1987年5月宣佈有突破性發展, page 23
延長運轉年限至60年........以日本為例，通產省1999年核准敦賀一號機、美濱一號機及福島一號機等三部的核能機組延長服務年限至60年（資料來源：日本原子力發電株式會社於第23屆中日工程技術研討會之發表資料）。 page 81
Really, you never know who will be sorry next .
CC Li
----- Original Message -----
From: J. C. Jay Chen
Cc: 'chihmei chen' ; 'stan yang' ; 'ed huang' ; 'natpa forum' ; 'I Love Taiwan'
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:11 PM
Shin Liu
Thanks for this very informative document.
Shin
Cc: chihmei chen <chihmei...@gmail.com>; stan yang <stanya...@yahoo.com>; ed huang <edhuan...@yahoo.com>; natpa forum <natpa...@googlegroups.com>; I Love Taiwan <i_love...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, April 5, 2011 2:26:21 PM
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
----- Original Message -----From: Chung-Chih LiSent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:12 PMSubject: Re: [NATPA Forum] 有關非核家園文章,敬請酌參
Dear JC.Thank you for the link. Correct me if I'm wrong that this docuemnt was created 10 years ago under CSB adminstration to backup his decision. Unfortunately, CSB failed, but the docuemnt is very comprehensive and still worth a lot to read. All in all, CSB had done his homework before he boldly shut down the project, and that's why I proposed Tsai to visit CSB for this issue if she really mean it; we don't have to treat him like leprosy if there is a good reason; we can learn from him.What sounds very ironic in this document is that, Japan then was a good boy in this industry. Just quote a few:核能發電的技術已在進一步研究改良，日本已於1987年5月宣佈有突破性發展, page 23延長運轉年限至60年........以日本為例，通產省1999年核准敦賀一號機、美濱一號機及福島一號機等三部的核能機組延長服務年限至60年（資料來源：日本原子力發電株式會社於第23屆中日工程技術研討會之發表資料）。 page 81Really, you never know who will be sorry next .
CC Li
----- Original Message -----From: J. C. Jay Chen