◎ Lin Renbin
The Kuomintang recently held a press conference on the "Nuclear Energy Referendum". National Policy Research Foundation Vice Chairman Li Hongyuan (from right), Deputy CEO Wu Yijing, Nuclear Energy MythBusters founder Huang Shixiu and others attended. (Provided by the Kuomintang)
The nuclear power referendum has entered the stage of public debate, which should have been an opportunity to test the quality of Taiwan's energy policy arguments.
However, Huang Shixiu’s recent comments on the opposition representatives linked the representative qualifications, photovoltaic disputes and energy technology into a set of policy discussions, and then deduced the necessity of restarting nuclear power from the limitations of photovoltaics. The problem is that questioning the qualifications of the opposition representatives does not prove that the nuclear power policy is correct; pointing out the shortcomings of solar photovoltaics does not mean completing the argument for restarting nuclear power.
The first logical gap is the replacement of professional inspections with political labels
Huang Shixiu used words such as "miscellaneous fish" and "fan editor" to disparage the opposition representatives, and used their industrial connections to question their stance and credibility. However, political participation, industrial contacts and professional capabilities are inherently issues at different levels. If a conflict of interest is involved, specific information such as equity ownership, contracts, remuneration, and decision-making relationships should be submitted for verification instead of using labels instead of investigations.
Referendum representatives should of course be subject to social scrutiny, but the criteria should be quality of argumentation, reliability of data and policy responsibility. The election committee has confirmed the list of representatives for the pros and cons of the 22nd case, and five opinion conferences will also be held one after another. What the people really need is not who is better at mocking his opponent, but whether both sides can produce evidence that can be tested.
The second logical gap is that the photovoltaic case and land demand negate the overall renewable energy plan.
Taiwan's ground-based photovoltaics do have disputes over land use, ecological protection, agricultural and fishery rights, and distribution of development benefits. Environmental groups and industry players should also accept interest disclosure and public supervision. However, there are disputes in individual cases, which does not mean that all environmental groups are involved in profit transfer, nor can it be inferred that the entire renewable energy industry is a land speculation.
Huang Shixiu questioned rooftop photovoltaics by saying "solar photovoltaics have no power at night". This statement is correct in terms of power generation characteristics, but it is not a complete energy argument. Modern power systems do not inherently require each power generation device to independently supply power around the clock, but rather support each other through dispatchable power sources, energy storage, pumped hydropower, grid dispatch and demand management. The output of solar photovoltaics is high during the day and needs to be supplemented by other resources at night. This is a problem that must be dealt with by system scheduling, and is not a reason to directly deny photovoltaics. Of course, energy storage, power grids and dispatch facilities all have costs, which must be calculated truthfully.
Net-zero technology research data from Academia Sinica shows that the density of ground-based photovoltaic devices in Taiwan is about 0.7GW per 1,000 hectares, and the average capacity factor is about 13.35%. If we estimate a 1GW nuclear power unit with a capacity factor of 90%, the annual power generation will be approximately 7.88 billion kilowatt-hours. To achieve a similar annual power generation, approximately 6.74GW of solar photovoltaics will be needed. If all ground-based power generation is adopted, the land requirement will be approximately 96 square kilometers. However, this is only a conversion of annual power generation and does not mean that the two have the same power supply timing, dispatching capabilities or system value. Using "three-fifths of Taipei City" as a metaphor for photovoltaic land demand cannot be directly regarded as a policy conclusion without explaining whether the comparison is a single nuclear power unit or an entire power plant, as well as the capacity factor and land density.
The output of solar photovoltaics is high during the day and needs to be supplemented by other resources at night; this is a problem that must be dealt with by system scheduling, and is not a reason to directly deny photovoltaics; schematic diagram. (File photo)
The third and most critical logical gap is to directly deduce the necessity of restarting nuclear power from AI’s need to stabilize power.
AI data centers and semiconductors do require large amounts of reliable and uninterrupted power, but what really matters is not just the power consumption throughout the year, but also the location of power consumption, peak loads, power supply quality, backup capabilities and when new power will be available. Taipower also pointed out that as the proportion of renewable energy increases, the focus of power supply dispatch gradually shifts from daytime to nighttime, which must be addressed through gas units, energy storage, pumped hydropower, and grid dispatch.
Therefore, AI requires electricity, which does not mean that AI can only rely on nuclear power. Nuclear power has the characteristic of stable power generation, but restarting existing units still involves equipment improvement, safety review, operation testing, statutory licensing, nuclear waste management and costs. We cannot just talk about the advantages of stable power supply without explaining the price that must be paid to achieve this stability. What really matters to a data center is reliable power at a specific location at a specific time, not how stable the name of the power source sounds.
Taipower pointed out that as the proportion of renewable energy increases, power supply dispatch must be coordinated through gas units, energy storage, pumped hydropower and the power grid. (File photo)
Responsible energy policy should compare different power supply scenarios: how the existing non-nuclear infrastructure can be supplemented by renewable energy, energy storage, gas and demand management; how much cost, time and safety conditions will be required to restart nuclear power; what engineering, commercialization and regulatory challenges new nuclear energy technologies face. Each solution should answer: How much power can it provide? When will power be available? Who bears the cost? How is risk allocated? Who is responsible if something goes wrong?
Renewable energy cannot be required to independently prove round-the-clock power supply, but nuclear power cannot be required to fully explain the restart schedule, nuclear safety, nuclear waste and decommissioning responsibilities; nor can it be criticized that photovoltaic development may harm the environment, but exclude nuclear power's long-term environmental and generational responsibilities from the discussion. Different energy sources can have different technical characteristics, but different evidence standards cannot be used.
The nuclear power referendum on November 28 can express the people's opinions on energy policy, but it cannot replace nuclear safety review, cost assessment and complete energy planning. AI needs stable power, but what Taiwan needs is not to first set nuclear power as the answer and then look back for reasons to support it; rather, it needs to first spread out demand, supply, cost, risk and responsibility, and then decide what kind of energy mix truly serves the national interest. Energy policy cannot be justified by mocking opponents, and nuclear power cannot be exempted from the obligation to accept scientific, institutional and public accountability tests just because it is called a stable energy source.
(The author is the founder of the Taiwan Sustainable Governance Forum and an associate professor at the Cultural University)
