(X) 에너지 기후변화 보도자료

대만 경제부장관의 제4 핵발전소 건설 중단을 환영한다.

첨부파일 열기첨부파일 닫기

ns_001003_01.hwp

“대만 경제부장관의 제4 핵발전소 건설 중단을 환영한다.”

지난 9월 30일(금요일) 오전 10시 대만 경제부 장관 린신이(Lin Hsinyi)는 기자회견을 열고 대
만 북부 연안에 공사 중인 제4 핵발전소 건설 중단을 발표했다. 환경연합 한성숙, 이상훈 두 활
동가는 지난 9월 29일, 30일 양일 간에 거쳐 타이빼이에서 국책연구원이 주최한 ‘지속가능 에너
지 및 환경전략 국제회의'(제4 핵발전소 건설 중단의 합리성 및 에너지 대안 수립이 목적)에 참
가하여 역사적인 대만 경제부의 탈핵선언을 목격하였다.

린신이 장관이 내세운 제4 핵발전소 건설 중단의 이유는 두 가지. 심각한 방사능오염을 낳고 있
는 핵폐기물 처분의 방법이 없고 핵발전이 아닌 다른 대안을 통해 충분한 전력공급을 할 수 있다
는 것. (15년 전부터 핵폐기물을 처분해 온 란위섬은 방사능에 심각하게 오염되었고 반핵여론에
떠밀려 대만전력공사는 핵폐기물을 북한에 반출하려고 시도하고 있다.) 그는 “만약 행정원이 제
4 핵발전소 건설 중단을 결정한다면 나는 산업계와 국민들에게 충분한 전력 공급을 확실히 약속
할 수 있다.” 물론 이 발표가 있기까지 대만 환경보호연맹을 중심으로 한 지식인과 시민들의 완
강하고 헌신적인 지난 15년간의 반핵운동이 있었다.
린 장관이 말한 제4 핵발전소 중단의 대안은 세가지. 첫째, 전국 전력공급의 균형을 맞추고 대
만 남부에서 북부로 전력을 송전하는 문제를 해결하기 위해 북부 대만 지역에서 독립적인 LNG발
전설비의 건설한다는 것이다. 제4 핵발전소 건설에 추가해야 할 비용은 약 4조 3천억원(NT$1200
억)이지만 독립형 전력설비를 짓는데는 약 2조5천억원(NT$700억)이면 된다고 한다. 둘째, 지진
등에 따른 정전 사태를 막기 위해 전력 송전체계를 대폭 개선한다는 것이다. 마지막으로 그는 발
전소가 공업단지와 에너지소비가 높은 도시지역 주변에 입지하도록 현행 전기법을 고쳐 전력산업
을 자유화할 것을 제안했다.
물론 핵없는 대만으로 가기에는 몇 가지 난관이 있다. 우선은 핵발전소 건설을 당론으로 내세
우고 있는 국민당의 반발이다. 그리고 미국이나 유럽 등지에서는 더 이상 핵 사업을 하지 못하
고 있는 미국과 미국 핵산업계의 반발이다. 이제 선진국의 대표적 사양산업인 핵산업계는 오직
동아시에서의 핵발전소 건설에 자신의 사활을 걸고 있다. 그러나 대만의 이러한 탈핵 정책은 이
웃한 국가들에게도 영향을 미칠 것이기 때문이다.
하지만 행정원에서 제4 핵발전소 건설 중단 결정이 내려진다면 핵발전소 건설 중단을 공약으로
내건바 있던 천수이벤 (Chen Shui-bian) 총통은 국민당의 반발과 미국의 압력을 과감히 제압하
고 손실 대책을 마련하여 핵없는 대만을 위한 항해를 지휘할 것이다.

에너지 해외 의존율이 높고(94%), 6기의 핵발전소가 전력공급의 상당부분(1989년 35%, 1999년
27%)을 차지하는 대만의 탈핵 움직임은 에너지수급구조가 유사한 일본과 한국의 에너지정책에 시
사하는 바가 크다. 게다가 중국도 지난 3월에 신규 핵발전소 건설에 대해 최소 4-5년의 모라토
리움을 선언했다. 1998년 7월 퀸샨 핵발전소에서 중국 최초의 핵발전소 사고가 발생한 이후 더
이상 핵발전소의 안전성을 신뢰할 수 없게 된 주룽지 총리는 신규 핵발전소 건설을 중단하고 핵
대신 다른 에너지원에 중심을 두겠다는 방침을 밝혔다. 이제 핵발전소와 핵산업계는 자신들이 유
일하게 기대하고 있던 아시아에서마저도 입지를 잃어가고 있는 것이다.

대만이 핵발전소 건설 중단을 선언한 9월 30일은 두 명의 사망자와 수 천명의 잠재적 방사능 희
생자를 만들어 낸 일본 도카이무라 핵연료 공장에서 임계사고가 일어난 날이었다. 그 누구도 선
핵 핵연료 주기에 속하는 이 공장에서 핵사고가 일어나리라고는 상상도 하지 못했었다. 핵은 이
제 핵연료 공장, 핵발전소, 핵폐기장 어디를 막론하고 인간과 환경을 위협하는 존재가 되고 있
다. 그리고 이때문에 전세계는 인류 역사상 가장 위험하고 가장 처치곤란한 에너지인 핵을 포기
하고 있다.

핵은 우리의 환경과 미래를 파괴한다. 대안은 확실하다. 이미 많은 사람들이 핵을 대신할 수
있는 친환경적이고 지속가능한 에너지 대안의 확실한 청사진을 우리에게 보여주고 있다. 한국 정
부도 더 늦기 전에 핵발전 위주의 전력 정책을 전면 수정하고 합리적이고 환경친화적인 핵없는
한반도 대안 마련에 착수해야 한다.

※ 별첨 : 대만 경제부 기자회견문 (Linda Gail Arrigo 번역(Green Party Taiwan International
Affairs Officer))
2000년 10월 3일
환경운동연합

■담당: 환경조사국 반핵평화 담당 한성숙 간사 / 에너지대안센터 이상훈 사무국장
■연락처: 02-735-7000(대표) / 02-733-7018(직통) / 011-9041-1188, 016-247-7034 / E-mail:
hanss@kfem.or.kr

MINISTRY OF ECONOMICS PRESS RELEASE

September 30, 2000
Taipei, Taiwan

Concerning the issue of the Nuclear Power Plant No. 4 (NPP4), after deep consideration I
have as of this morning submitted my “Recommendations following the Conclusion of the Re-
evaluation of the NPP4 Plan” to the Executive Yuan, recommending that the construction of
NPP4 be halted. My process of decision and rationale are as follows:

I have taken on the position of Minister of Economics, and my background is the
industrial sector. Economic development is of course my priority in my administration of
government, and I thoroughly know that the government has the responsibility to provide a
sufficient and stable supply of electric power to the people and to industry; and it
likewise has the duty to assure a safe and non-harmful environment for the consumption of
electric power.

Although the budget for the NPP4 plan was passed by a legal process and is now in the
period of execution, looking back on its process of legislation, it is an undeniable
reality that contention has never stopped and conflict has been unceasing. The
proponents and opponents of nuclear energy have long both insisted on their own
positions, without dialogue, and the common people do not have adequate knowledge of
nuclear power and other power. The government does in reality have the need to provide a
more complete explanation to the people. In order to coalesce a consensus among the
people of the country and to dispel dissension, I considered that there was a necessity
to re-evaluate whether the Nuclear Power Plant No. 4 plan should be continued in
execution, and I recommended that the plan be submitted to re-evaluation.

In order to achieve a practical understanding of the matter, in the period of the re-
evaluation I myself, accompanied by staff of my own ministry and of Taipower, separately
visited and inspected Nuclear Power Plants Nos. 1 and 2, and the site of NPP4 in Kung
Liao, Taipei County. I had discussions with the local residents, and I deeply sensed
their apprehensions; it made me feel what they felt. If there are feasible alternatives
for providing electric power, why don’t we earnestly consider them? Is it necessarily
the case that providing the people a living environment in which they can feel safe is
totally at odds with economic growth and development? I saw with my own eyes how the
residents at the site of NPP4 have engaged in a prolonged and vehement struggle against
the plant, reacting to every move of the NPP4 plan with virtually a scorched-earth war
strategy, to a degree that outsiders perhaps find hard to understand, or would even
deride as irrational. But I look into my own heart and ask myself, if NPP4 were in my
own backyard, would I be able to deal with it with such happy “rationality”?

If we wish to halt the construction of NPP4, we must as a precondition be certain that
there are feasible alternatives. After going through discussions with our Energy
Commission in the Ministry of Economics, the National Industry Committee, Taiwan Power
Corporation, and China Petroleum Corporation, the following measures have been arrived at
as alternatives to continuing construction of NPP4:

1. Actively plan a regional balance in the supply of electricity, and promote the
building of privately-operated electricity generation plants in north Taiwan…

2. Reinforce the power grid: Speed the completion of the construction of the Third
Power Transmission Line…

3. Expedite the revision of the laws governing the electricity generation industry,
and liberalize (privatize) the industry…

If we stop the construction of NPP4, it is estimated that the loss will be NT$75.1-90.3
billion [about US$2.5-3 billion] (this includes the expenditures already paid and those
items that by contract must still be paid), which will be written off over five years.
Installments for 2000 and 2001 will be written together into the (current) final budget,
and those for 2002 through 2004 will be planned ahead into the later budgets. As to
whether the reactors (NT$52.2 billion [about US$1.7 billion]) and the turbines (NT$4.0
billion [US$130 million]) can be sold to other parties, one of the following two
circumstances will result:

1. If the reactors and the turbines cannot be sold, then the loss will be about
NT$82.7 billion (average of the extremes of the estimated range above), which will mean
an increase for the next five years of NT$0.12 per kilowatt-hour, i.e. an increase of
5.49%, thus an increase of about NT$39 [about US$1.25] per month for an average family.

2. If the reactors and the turbines can be sold, then the loss will be about NT$47.6
billion (including the estimated loss on resale…), which will mean an increase for the
next five years of NT$0.07 per kilowatt-hour, i.e. an increase of 3.16%, thus an increase
of about NT$23 [about US$0.70] per month for an average family. After five years, this
source of increase will be removed.

Aside from this, due to the future need for Taipower to buy electricity from private
producers to substitute for the power supply that would have been provided by NPP4, since
the cost of buying electricity produced from fossil fuel rather than nuclear power will
increase the annual cost by NT$9.8 billion [US$320 million], this will be reflected in an
increase in the cost of power by about 1.29% in the fifth year hence.

Concerning the loss described above, there is also the opinion of some experts that the
loss can be written off over a period of 16 years, which would be a much lower write-off
per year, and could possibly be absorbed by internal economies within Taipower, in which
case the customers would suffer no additional burden. However, this remains to be
further evaluated.

On the other hand, if we were to decide to continue building Nuclear Power Plant No. 4,
we would need to make further investment of over NT$120 billion [US$4 billion] (note: the
total estimated budget for completion of NPP4 has increased from NT$169.7 to NT$208.2
billion…). If this investment were then unable to be put to economic use because of
continued protest by anti-nuke groups, this capital cost would then still have to be
borne by all users of electricity. Aside from this, according to the estimate of those
in the industry, if the electricity that would have been produced by NPP4 is substituted
for by privately-operated power plants, the estimated required investment is only NT$75
billion. This path not only realizes the energy policy of liberalization and
privatization, and puts into operation private capital and ingenuity; it provides a
feasible alternative.

In the future, our country’s economic development must give equal consideration to
environmental protection. The Ministry of Economics will emphasize industries that
provide “two large, two high, two low” (large market potential, large effect of
industrial linkages, high added-value, high technical level, low energy use, low
pollution), in order to bring about our industrial evolution in the direction of a “Green
Silicon Island”.

After our country makes efforts for the development of the information economy, it can be
hoped that the industrial structure will move towards the development of technologically-
intensive industry. With this, the average requirement for water, electricity, and CO2
emissions for each unit of value produced should decrease. Efforts in this direction can
increase the efficiency of use of energy and resources, while accelerating economic
development.

After considering the opinions of both the proponents and opponents of NPP4, discussing
the future direction of industrial development, and evaluating the need for the supply of
electric power and the alternatives and their cost analysis, I have determined that
halting the construction of NPP4 and utilizing alternatives will not create a power
shortage. Nuclear power generation is not the only choice. Therefore I have decided to
recommend to the Executive Yuan that the construction of Nuclear Power Plant No. 4 be
halted.

Finally I would like to emphasize that under the heavens there is no perfect solution,
none without blemishes. But “limiting conditions” and “difficulties and obstacles”
cannot be given the same weight. “Limiting conditions” are objective conditions that
cannot be altered, but “difficulties” and “obstacles” are subjective and can be overcome
or circumvented. I have no political entanglements or obligations to be beholden to; I
just require that my decision stands up to my conscience and does right by the nation and
the people. I guarantee that I will devote all my efforts to bringing the alternatives
to fruition, and really carry out the provision of a sufficient and stable supply of
electric power to industry and to the people of the country. I have confidence that this
will bring to Taiwan the expansion of economic prosperity.

Thank you.

Translated by
Linda Gail Arrigo, Green Party Taiwan International Affairs Officer
E-mail: arrigo@tpts8.seed.net.tw, Cell phone: 09928899931

admin

(X) 에너지 기후변화 보도자료의 최신글

댓글 남기기