Tsai Ing-wen Must Take a Stand on Energy Security

Tsai Ing-wen Must Take a Stand on Energy Security
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 10, 2015

Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen is the DPP's 2016 presidential candidate. Naturally she has a responsibility to tell voters where she intends to lead Taiwan in the event she is elected. How would she handle cross-Strait policy? On that she hasn't uttered a peep. How would she hanlde industrial and consumer energy policy? On that she is also opaque and unaccountable. The party platform stipulates a non-nuclear homeland. Last year, as the nine in one elections loomed, her only statement on energy was a tap dance about "keeping one nuclear power plant open" and "launching a new energy policy". 

Full Text Below:

Tsai Ing-wen is the DPP's 2016 presidential candidate. Naturally she has a responsibility to tell voters where she intends to lead Taiwan in the event she is elected. How would she handle cross-Strait policy? On that she hasn't uttered a peep. How would she hanlde industrial and consumer energy policy? On that she is also opaque and unaccountable. The party platform stipulates a non-nuclear homeland. Last year, as the nine in one elections loomed, her only statement on energy was a tap dance about "keeping one nuclear power plant open" and "launching a new energy policy". 

Frankly, her rhetoric was worse than shallow. It was nothing more than propaganda. It showed that she is far from prepared to govern. True, the slogan "Keep one nuclear power plant open" was copied from protests in Seoul, South Korea during 2012, when protestors objected to the construction of high tension pylons. Over two years we saved the same amount of equipment contained in Nuclear Power Plant Number One. But that required detailed planning. Tsai Ing-wen's "new energy policy" remains a giant question mark.

Energy security affects the nation's economy. Tsai Ing-wen must submit a detailed energy policy white paper for everyone to evaluate. Voters can then decide whether she is preparted to govern. Before drawing up such a white paper, please tell voters your premise. Let them know the thrust of your White Paper, and where you stand.

Fine suspended particles fill the atmosphere (PM2.5). Should this be part of energy policy? Elementary schools in Taichung's Huiwen district and Kaohsiung's Wenfu district are located next to industrial areas. Teachers and students must wear masks during class. They are often forced to cancel outdoor activities. They often cannot see the sky. This harsh teaching and learning environment must be improved. But that involves energy policy. That involves policy changes for energy intensive industries. Small problems often point to bigger ones. Should they be a part of energy policy? Does Tsai Ing-wen have a clue?

On March 11, the fourth anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Tsai Ing-wen vowed to "retain one nuclear power plant." Taiwan was retroceded to the ROC 70 years ago. Demand for electricity has grown rapidly, without interruption. It has increased rapidly despite the global oil crisis of the 1970s, and the financial crisis of the 1990s. In fact, it has skyrocketed. Demand for electricity is directly correlated with economic growth and higher living standards. It is difficult to deliberately resist. Energy-saving is a good thing. But how should one go about it? Tsai Ing-wen must tell us how. She must offer us policies.

Tsai Ing-wen said that "upon taking power, 13 counties and municipalities would begin saving energy and promoting green energy". The words were pretty enough. But voters remember the DPP's broken promises.They will decide whether they wish to believe in the DPP, or refuse to be deceived.

Take the "promotion of green energy". The government began promoting green energy last July. According to the Bureau of Energy, Tsai Ing-wen's name is not on the list of subscribers. Among the green ruled counties and municipalities, Pingtung County Chief Tsao Chi-hung is the sole subscriber. If the DPP fails to support green power when it is out of power, can voters really expect them to support it once they are in power?

The DPP party platform includes calls for a non-nuclear homeland. In August, the DPP legislative caucus, led by Tsai Ing-wen, vigorously promoted preliminary review of a "non-nuclear homeland Law".  The Legislative Yuan would then have the authority to establish a non-nuclear Taiwan by 2025. Tsai Ing-wen praised Germany's commitment to eliminate nuclear power. But the SPD/Green Party coalition government established in 1998, sought legislation and public support for the abolition of nuclear power plants. This, and the Fukushima nuclear disaster enabled Germany to call for a non-nuclear homeland by 2022. Contrast this with Taiwan. Even if the "non-nuclear homeland Law" passes its Third Reading tomorrow, do voters actually think Tsai Ing-wen can eliminate all nuclear power plants within 10 years?

Achieving a non-nuclear homeland requires comprehensive preparations. Only then can one talk about denuclearization. Anything less will result in catastrophic energy shortages. In 2000, the German parliament passed the "Renewable Energy Law". The goal would be to create green electricity and reward green technology development. In 2002, the "Energy Conservation Law" established residential, commercial, transportation, energy subsidies and incentives to reduce the nation's total energy consumption by 30%. We believe Tsai Ing-wen is determined to promote a nuclear-free homeland. But de-nuclearization is not something that can happen overnight.

Energy security is a national security issue. If the "non-nuclear homeland Law" passes its third reading, Nuclear Power Plant Number 4 will not be issued a license. The previous three nuclear power plants will cease operation. How will electricity shortages be made up? The DPP rejects nuclear power and coal power, the two main sources of base load power. Taiwan already suffers a baseload power crisis. Power generation is a money losing proposition. Privately owned power plants abroad would already have shut down. Taipower is a state-owned enterprise. Losses are passed on to taxpayers and electricity users.If President Tsai comes to power, will she continue this unfair and unjust practice, in perpetuity?

Energy security determines the investment environment. We can look forward to frequent rolling blackouts, power outages without warning, voltage fluctuations, elevators stopped between floors, and manufacturing processes subject to random stoppages. This is not alarmism. Such incidents are certain to increase, creating problems in everyday life, public safety, and foreign investor confidence. Does Tsai Ing-wen have any response to these problems?

The headaches hardly end here. How will a smart energy grid be upgraded? Late this year, the UN will hold a climate summit in Paris. Suppose Taiwan is listed as a "polluting entity", and subject to sanctions? How will we meet our carbon reduction commitments? All of these have a bearing on energy security, President Tsai must be able to tell voters, "I'm ready."

能源安全 蔡英文必須說清楚了

2015年04月10日 中國時報

身為代表民進黨競逐2016大位的蔡英文，當然有責任明確的告訴選民，執政後要將台灣帶向何方？一如兩岸政策的吞吐不語，攸關產業、民生的能源政策同樣是不交代、不透明。除了黨綱載明的非核家園，去年九合一勝選迄今，能源陳述僅有「省下一座核電廠」、「執政後將啟動新能源政策」，打迷糊仗的寥寥數語。

不客氣地說，這寥寥數語，內容連淺碟都談不上，僅係文宣層次，離執政準備差得遠。沒錯，「省下一座核電廠」是抄自南韓首爾2012反高壓鐵塔興建行動的口號，兩年也確實省下相當我們核一廠的一個機組，但這是靠後續綿密的執行計畫；蔡英文的「執政後啟動新能源政策」，卻是不折不扣的填空題。

能源安全攸關國計民生，蔡英文有必要提出詳細的能源政策白皮書供各界檢視，讓選民理解她是有準備的。製作白皮書前，一些前提請先向選民報告，讓大家確認她有製作白皮書的基本知識，以及持什麼態度。

細懸浮微粒（PM2.5）惡化的改善，要列入能源政策嗎？看看台中惠文、高雄文府等毗鄰工業區的國小，師生全天得戴著口罩上課，取消戶外活動，甚至不曾看過藍天……，要改善惡劣的教學環境，卻牽涉到能源政策、高耗能工業政策的調整。這個由小看大的問題要不要列入能源政策，蔡英文想清楚了嗎？

311福島核災4周年記者會，蔡英文宣示要「省下一座核電廠」。請問蔡主席，台灣光復迄今70年，電力負載曲線無一刻不是快速成長，就連1970年代兩次全球石油危機，1990年代的金融危機，用電也不斷成長，甚至陡直攀高，您知道嗎？用電成長與經濟發展、民生富庶呈正相關，很難刻意壓抑。節電是好事，但怎麼節？要講出方法、訂出政策。

蔡英文說「執政後將率執政13縣市開始節能、推動綠能……。」話說得漂亮，但選民會檢視民進黨過去的表現，選擇信任，或拒絕唬弄。

就以「推動綠能」來看，政府去年7月開始推動綠色電價認購，依據能源局公布的資訊，認購名單並未見到「蔡英文」的名字，執政縣市也僅見屏東縣長曹啟鴻認購。在野時不支持綠電，選民如何相信執政後會「痛改前非」？

倒是黨綱的非核家園蔡英文大力推動，8日還在立法院主導黨團通過《非核家園法》初審，立法授權台灣2025年達成非核目標。蔡英文推崇德國推動廢核的決心，但可知道社民黨、綠黨1998年成立聯合政府後，就推動一連串立法、尋求人民共識做好廢核準備；即便如此，還因福島核災衝擊，德國才訂出2022完成非核目標的期程。對照台灣，就算明天《非核家園法》三讀，選民如何相信蔡英文能在10年內完成廢核準備，進而非核？

必須強調先要有完善廢核準備，才夠資格談實現非核，否則將因能源供應危機導致大災難。德國國會2000年通過《再生能源法》，營造綠電環境並獎勵綠電科技發展；2002年通過《節能法》，給予住、商、運輸節能的補貼與獎勵，達到減少全國能源總消耗量3成的目標。相信蔡英文推動非核家園的決心，但廢核準備決不是一蹴可幾。

能源安全是國安層次。《非核家園法》若三讀，核四不發照，前面3個核電廠不延役，缺的電要怎麼補上？民進黨拒絕核電，拒絕燃煤火力，這兩項是供應基載電力的主力，台灣已因此陷於基載嚴重偏低的供電危機；發一度，賠一度的惡劣局面，若是國外民營電廠，早就關門了；台電是國營事業，虧損可以轉嫁給納稅人、用電戶，蔡主席若執政，還要繼續這麼不公平、不正義下去嗎？

能源安全決定投資環境，如果三不五時分區輪流停電、無預警斷電、電壓忽高忽低、電梯停在半空中、製程中半成品隨時可能報銷……，這不是危言聳聽，發生機率勢必攀升，帶來日常生活的困擾，治安敗壞，外商不敢來投資……，這些，蔡英文可有因應腹案？

傷腦筋的絕不僅此，升級智慧型電網怎麼推？年底聯合國巴黎氣候峰會台灣若以「汙染實體」列入管制，又該怎麼繳出我們的排碳減量承諾？這些全都涉及能源安全，蔡主席有責任告訴選民「我準備好了」。