Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant

The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant was first proposed in 1978,{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2000/09/10/0000052791/1 |title=Power play |author1=Lassen, Jonathan |date=September 10, 2000 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} and Taipower selected the ABWR in 1996 after a competitive bidding process.{{cite web |url=http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lungmen/ |title=Lungmen (Dragon Gate) Nuclear Project, Taiwan |author= |date=2012 |website=Power Technology |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} The reactor is designed by General Electric, but is supported by Hitachi, Shimizu Corporation, Toshiba, and other American, Taiwanese, and other Chinese and international companies.{{cite report |title=Status report 97 - Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) |chapter-url=https://aris.iaea.org/sites/..%5CPDF%5CABWR.pdf |publisher=IAEA |access-date=15 July 2014 |chapter=12.3 Entities involved (Taiwan, China) |quote=The Lungmen project is supported by the GE Team, including: Black & Veatch, Hitachi, Shimizu, Toshiba, and other US, Taiwan, China and international participants.}}

The application to start construction was submitted on October 16, 1997, and after the license was granted on March 17, 1999,{{rp|15}} construction of the plant began in 1999{{cite web |url=http://world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/reactordetails.aspx?id=27570&rid=8C21AF2F-C273-40F3-971A-C43C114982D0&country=Taiwan |title=Lungmen-2, Taiwan |website=World Nuclear Association |year= 2013 |access-date=29 October 2013}} and was expected to be completed in 2004. The preceding four ABWR units in Japan were completed in four to five years each. Taipower, however, did not award the contract to a single architect/engineer, but hired General Electric to build the reactors, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to supply the turbines and the generators, and other contractors for the rest,{{cite report |chapter-url=http://www.aec.gov.tw/english/nuclear/psar/lm_document_psar_01_04.pdf |title=Lungmen Units 1&2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report |author= |publisher=Atomic Energy Council |location=Taipei |chapter=1.4 Identification of Agents and Contractors |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} making the project difficult to manage. Construction has been delayed by legal, regulatory and political obstacles.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Lungmen-1-passes-pre-operational-tests-0108144.html |title=Lungmen 1 passes pre-operational tests |author= |date=August 1, 2014 |work=World Nuclear News |access-date=November 24, 2014 }} The delays in schedule also have increased the cost of the project, due to the inflation of the costs of raw materials.{{cite book|last1=Lee|first1=Min|title=Nuclear Energy Development in Asia Problems and Prospects|publisher=Palgrave|isbn=978-0-230-22150-5|pages=182|edition=Energy, Climate and the Environment Series}}

The 921 earthquake in 1999 prompted three legislators to inspect construction progress; they cited rusty rebar and potential seawater seepage into the plant's foundation as potential issues.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/1999/10/29/0000008580 |title=Activists ask for delay of nuke plant |author1=Chiu, Yu-tzu |date=October 29, 1999 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} President Chen Shui-bian was elected along with other Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators in March 2000 on an anti-nuclear platform which included stopping plant construction.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/05/08/0000084816 |title=Construction delays condemned |author1=Chiu, Yu-tzu |date=May 8, 2001 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} DPP legislators called for a halt to the project in April 2000,{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2000/04/09/0000031590 |title=Nuclear plant in question |author1=Chiu, Yu-tzu |date=April 9, 2000 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} which led to the suspension of construction in October 2000 by Premier Chang Chun-hsiung when it was approximately 10–30% complete,{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2000/10/28/0000058936 |title=Activists applaud killing of nuclear plant plan |author=Chiu, Yu-tzu |date=October 28, 2000 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} only to restart the following year. Contractors were idled for 111 days (from 27 October 2000 to 14 February 2001), which caused a 576-day delay towards commercial operation.{{cite book|last1=Lee|first1=Min|title=Nuclear Energy Development in Asia Problems and Prospects|publisher=Palgrave|isbn=978-0-230-22150-5|pages=180|edition=Energy, Climate and the Environment Series}}

Taipower constructed a wharf in 2003 to accommodate delivery of heavy components, such as the reactor vessel. The wharf was beset with construction delays and may have contributed to local beach erosion, prompting further protests.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2003/05/10/0000205404 |title=Taipower wants to import a nuclear reactor in June |author1=Chiu, Yu-tzu |date=May 10, 2003 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }}{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2003/07/03/2003057825 |title=Government considers redesigning wharf |author1=Chiu, Yu-tzu |date=July 3, 2003 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} Each reactor vessel delivery was greeted with activist protests{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/07/07/2003178012 |title=Activists protest Japan reactor |author1=Chiu, Yu-tzu |date=July 7, 2004 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} and construction delays resulted in the vessels being stored longer than expected, with Unit 1's reactor vessel not installed until 2005.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/03/16/2003246440 |title=Old reactor unit sparks concern |author1=Chiu, Yu-tzu |date=March 16, 2005 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }}

File:Nuclear Power Plant Lungmen.jpg

Design of the plant was carried out by Stone & Webster (S&W), but Taipower canceled its contract with S&W in 2007, leading to protracted litigation from 2007 to 2011.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/03/10/2003497827 |title=Taipower must pay US$29m: court |author1=Tang, Chia-ling |date=March 10, 2011 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} In 2010, aboriginal artifacts were found at the construction site, prompting calls to halt construction again.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2010/04/28/2003471695 |title=Aboriginal artifacts found at site of nuclear plant |author1=Huang, Shelley |date=April 28, 2010 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }}

In 2011 the Taiwan Atomic Energy Council (AEC) criticized Taipower's management of the project.{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/Nuclear-Power-in-Taiwan/ |title=Nuclear Power In Taiwan |publisher=World Nuclear Association |date=February 2013 |access-date=28 October 2013 |archive-date=28 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128085352/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-profiles/others/nuclear-power-in-taiwan/ |url-status=dead }} Taipower was fined by the AEC twice, in 2008 and 2011, for completing design changes without first obtaining approval from the plant's designer, General Electric.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/11/08/2003517784 |title=Taipower fined by AEC NT$15 million |author1=Lee, I-chia |date=November 8, 2011 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }}{{cite tech report |url=http://www.aec.gov.tw/english/nuclear/files/2012-01.pdf |title=Overview of Recent Regulatory Activities in Taiwan |author= |publisher=Atomic Energy Council, Department of Nuclear Regulation |page=27 |date=May 19, 2012 |access-date=December 4, 2014 }} Taipower later stated the changes were executed to stay on schedule, and approval was later obtained from GE for 97% of the changes.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/01/21/2003581790 |title=Taipower mulling filing an appeal |author1=Lee, I-chia |date=January 21, 2014 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }}

The temporary cancellation by the Government and other project management difficulties caused significant delays, pushing the price tag of the plant to more than US$7.5 billion by 2009. {{as of|2014}}, the total price tag was close to US$10 billion, or NT$300 billion.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2014/04/26/2003588911 |title=Ma and Su discuss nuclear plant, remain far apart |author1=Shih Hsiu-chuan |date=April 26, 2014 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 25, 2014 }}

Environmental groups called for a national referendum in April 2011, following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/04/12/2003500553 |title=Groups call for nuclear referendum |author=Chang, Rich |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=April 12, 2011 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} By obtaining the signatures of a certain percentage of registered voters, or by legislative action, a referendum may be referred to the national ballot for voter action. However, due to the politically sensitive nature of the Fourth Nuclear Plant issue, legislatively-referred and voter-referred referendums had failed to enter the national ballot.

File:臺灣2013年3月反核四活動 Taiwanese Protest against the 4th Nuclear Power Plant.jpg

Because of the controversy over the plant, in February 2013 the Kuomintang (KMT)-led government proposed that a referendum should be issued, which would allow the people of the country to decide the fate of the plant.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/02/26/2003555734 |title=Nuclear referendum receives go-ahead |author=Shih, Hsiu-chuan |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=February 26, 2013 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} The proposed referendum was sponsored by 32 KMT lawmakers led by Lee Ching-hua{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/20/2003560199 |title=Nuclear referendum question protested |author=Lee, I-chia |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=April 20, 2013 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} and asked "Do you agree that the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant should be halted and that it not become operational?"{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/03/08/2003556550 |title=KMT unveils text of nuclear referendum |author=Shih, Hsiu-chuan |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=March 8, 2013 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} Referendums must have good voter turnout (greater than 50% of registered voters must participate in the referendum vote), and a majority of participating voters must vote yes in order for the referendum to become binding, meaning that poor voter turnout would ensure referendum defeat (and in the case of the Lee referendum, continued construction).{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/09/2003556653 |title=Nuclear Power Debate: Academics slam referendum question |author=Shan, Shelley |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=March 9, 2013 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} The opposition DPP claimed that getting better than 50% voter turnout in a non-Presidential election year was too difficult, and barricaded the legislative chamber to prevent a vote to place the Lee referendum on the national ballot. This led to a scuffle when KMT legislators attempted to break through the barricade, and the Lee referendum was not voted on.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Taiwanese_nuclear_vote_turns_violent-0208135.html |title=Taiwanese Nuclear Vote Turns Violent |work=World Nuclear News |date=August 2, 2013 |access-date=October 29, 2013 }} In the following legislative session, protesters called on the government to withdraw the Lee referendum,{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/09/18/2003572423 |title=Activists want no referendum and no nuclear plant |author=Lee, I-chia |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=September 18, 2013 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} and it was subsequently withdrawn.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/09/11/2003571849 |title=KMT's Lee withdraws nuclear poll proposal |author1=Shih, Hsiu-chuan |author2=Wang, Chris |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=September 11, 2013 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }}

Annette Lu used the local referendum process to debate the plant's fate as early as 2012.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/07/18/2003538044 |title=Lu launches bid for nuclear referendum |author=Wang, Chris |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=July 18, 2012 |access-date=November 26, 2014 }} Her petition for a local referendum gathered 50,000 signatures by March 2013,{{cite news |url=http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2013/03/12/372794/Ex-Vice-President.htm |title=Ex-Vice President Annette Lu delivers referendum petition in New Taipei |author=Li, Lauly |newspaper=The China Post |date=March 12, 2013 |location=Taipei |access-date=November 26, 2014 }} but the proposed referendum was rejected by the Executive Yuan {{ill|Referendum Review Committee|zh|行政院公民投票審議委員會}} in May 2013, ruling the issue was of national importance, and could not be decided by local referendum.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/05/26/2003563212 |title=Annette Lu moots another nuclear referendum bid |author=Wang, Chris |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=May 26, 2013 |access-date=November 26, 2014 }} She launched another local referendum in June 2013{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/06/07/2003564188 |title=Lu launches new petition for nuclear referendum |author=Mo, Yan-chih |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=June 7, 2013 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} in opposition to the KMT-authored Lee referendum. Meanwhile, Lu filed suit in 2014 in the Taipei High Administrative Court over the Executive Yuan's rejection of the earlier referendum.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/01/23/2003581942 |title=Annette Lu files injunction over rejected nuclear poll |author=Wang, Chris |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=January 23, 2014 |access-date=November 26, 2014 }} The court's decision is expected in August 2014.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/07/16/2003595238 |title=Annette Lu vows pursuit of anti-plant referendum |author=Wang, Chris |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=July 16, 2014 |access-date=November 26, 2014 }} Taipower applied for the initial fuel loading of Unit 1 on December 31, 2013.{{cite report |url=https://www.aec.gov.tw/share/file/regulation/2WD6sOr9itke587y0auHEw__.pdf |title=The Republic of China national report for the Convention on Nuclear Safety |date=September 2016 |publisher=Taiwan Atomic Energy Commission |access-date=28 January 2022}}{{rp|iii}}

A competing referendum was launched in 2012 by National Taiwan University professor Kao Cheng-yan, initially as a local referendum{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/07/10/2003537394 |title=Anti-nuclear-group plans rock fest signature drive |author=Lee, I-chia |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=July 10, 2012 |access-date=November 26, 2014 }} and then a national one in July 2014, once sufficient signatures had been gathered.{{cite news |url=http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201407150037.aspx |title=Referendum on fourth nuclear plant passes initial threshold |author1=Tang, Pei-chun |author2=Su, Justine |author3=Wu, Lilian |newspaper=Focus Taiwan News Channel |date=July 15, 2014 |access-date=November 26, 2014 }} The language of the Kao referendum was formulated to require positive action: "Do you agree to allow Taiwan Power Co to insert fuel rods into the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City for a test run" so poor voter turnout would result in referendum defeat, and thus create binding opposition to starting the plant.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/04/30/2003589237 |title=NUCLEAR POWER DEBATE: Proposal for referendum on fuel rods gets support |author=Lee, I-chia |date=April 30, 2014 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 24, 2014 }}

In April 2014, the government decided to halt construction. The first reactor was sealed after the completion of safety checks, and construction of the second reactor was halted. A final decision on whether to proceed with construction would be subject to another referendum.{{cite news |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/taiwan-nuclear-idUKL3N0NJ08C20140427 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160112113116/http://uk.reuters.com/article/taiwan-nuclear-idUKL3N0NJ08C20140427 |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 12, 2016 |title=Taiwan to halt construction of fourth nuclear power plant |work=Reuters |date=28 April 2014 |access-date=28 April 2014}} The ruling KMT stated the purpose of a new referendum was to have the people decide the plant's fate while weighing the consequences of not bringing a major power source on-line.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/04/23/2003588689 |title=Nuclear plant 'must be seen in context' |author=Hsiao, Alison |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=April 23, 2014 |access-date=November 25, 2014 }} Electricity prices are estimated to rise by 14–40%, and electricity rationing could be imposed as early as 2021.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/04/29/2003589160 |title=NUCLEAR POWER DEBATE: Scrapping plant would ruin Taipower: Duh |author=Lee, I-chia |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=29 April 2014 |access-date=5 March 2015 }} Completely cancelling the plant would force Taipower to book the construction budget as a total loss and force it into insolvency.

Meanwhile, also in April 2014, the opposition DPP planned to introduce special legislation to bypass the provisions of the Referendum Act, allowing a simple majority vote (with no threshold of participation) to decide the plant's fate.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/04/17/2003588237 |title=DPP plans new law to resolve nuclear dispute |author=Wang, Chris |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=17 April 2014 |access-date=5 March 2015 }} Premier Jiang Yi-huah cited the prior 2000 precedent when construction was interrupted by executive order which was later ruled unconstitutional{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2014/04/22/2003588590 |title=Jiang rejects DPP nuclear statute |author=Wang, Chris |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=22 April 2014 |access-date=5 March 2015 }} as the reason why he rejected the proposed special legislation. The Executive Yuan stated the plant could start operations if the referendum on halting construction was not held, assuming safety tests were passed first. Former DPP chairman Lin Yi-hsiung went on a hunger strike for two weeks to oppose continued construction,{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2014/05/01/2003589291 |title=Lin ends anti-nuclear hunger strike |author1=Wang, Chris |author2=Lee, I-chia |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=1 May 2014 |access-date=5 March 2015 }} reflecting a popular poll, which favored lowering the threshold of participation and opposed continued construction.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/04/30/2003589235 |title=NUCLEAR POWER DEBATE: Majority wants no plebiscite threshold |author=Wang, Chris |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=30 April 2014 |access-date=5 March 2015 }}

The proposed Kao referendum was rejected by the Executive Yuan Referendum Review Committee in August 2014, citing the language as confusing and contradictory, since the reason given for the referendum is in opposition to nuclear power, while the referendum itself asks to start a nuclear reactor, despite the referendum gathering more than 120,000 signatures.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2014/08/23/2003598052 |title=Committee rejects referendum proposal |author1=Loa, Iok-sin |author2=Lin, Sean |date=August 23, 2014 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 24, 2014 }} Undaunted, supporters of the Kao referendum vowed in October 2014 to initiate another referendum.{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/10/17/2003602286 |title=Groups plan second referendum |author= |agency=CNA |date=October 17, 2014 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=November 24, 2014 }} That same month, Unit 1 completed the required safety tests before the start of operations. 126 systems were tested including cooling, shutdown, containment, control and power generation. Minister of Economic Affairs Chang Chia-juch said, "Passing the rigorous review illustrates the high standards of care invested in the design and construction of the facility."

File:Gongliao Coast 貢寮海岸 - panoramio.jpg

Past polls in Taiwan have shown more support for nuclear power among educated than uneducated people. The China Times poll taken in 2000 showed 60% support among those with higher degrees, and only 40% among those with only primary education.{{cite book|last1=Lee|first1=Min|title=Nuclear Energy Development in Asia Problems and Prospects|publisher=Palgrave|isbn=978-0-230-22150-5|pages=183|edition=Energy, Climate and the Environment Series}}

The Ministry of Economic Affairs proposed in August 2014 that further construction be halted for three years until a national referendum could be held;{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2014/08/01/2003596370 |title=MOEA unveils three-year nuclear power plant plan |author= |date=1 August 2014 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=5 March 2015 }} Taipower estimated the three-year cost of sealing Unit 1 as less than {{dollarsign|TWD|lk=on}}2 billion.

In September 2014 Taiwan Power Co. submitted its plan to the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) to mothball Unit 1 and halt construction on Unit 2 of the No. 4 nuclear power plant for three years, beginning in 2015.{{cite news |url=http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2014/12/327432.html |title=Taiwan ready to defer construction of new nuclear power plant |author=Ko, Shu-ling |date=15 December 2014 |publisher=Kyodo News |access-date=5 March 2015 }} The plan, written in accordance with the April 2014 government directive to halt construction, underwent several revisions until its final submission in January 2015; the AEC approved Taipower's final plan in February, and it will take effect in July 2015 and run through 2017.{{rp|9}}{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2015/02/04/2003610768 |title=AEC approves plan to shutter fourth nuclear facility |author=Lin, Sean |date=4 February 2015 |newspaper=Taipei Times |access-date=5 March 2015 }} Of the 126 systems which passed safety testing, 80 will remain in operation, 14 require periodic testing to ensure they can support their safety functions and 32 will be kept in low-humidity storage. It was estimated the cost of maintaining the mothballed reactor is 1.3 billion NT Dollars per year. With the formal entry into mothball status on July 1, Unit 1 is required to resubmit the application for initial fuel loading.{{rp|38}}

In September 2015 GE started International Court of Arbitration proceedings over withheld payments.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-GE-seeks-arbitration-over-Lungmen-payments-1412154.html |title=GE seeks arbitration over Lungmen payments |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=14 December 2015 |access-date=1 November 2016}}

In 2018, Taipower started shipping unused fuel rods back to the US. Taipower is required to remove all fuel rods from the plant by 2020. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party plans to shut down all nuclear plants in Taiwan by 2025. The removal of the fuel rods may mean that the plant's construction will never be restarted.{{cite web |url=http://m.focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201809050007.aspx |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181018003026/http://m.focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201809050007.aspx |archive-date=2018-10-18 |title=Taipower readies 2nd batch of nuclear fuel rods for U.S. return {{!}} Society {{!}} FocusTaiwan Mobile - CNA English News}}{{cite web |url=http://m.focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201807040018.aspx |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181017203433/http://m.focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201807040018.aspx |archive-date=2018-10-17 |title=Taipower allegedly starts shipping nuclear fuel rods back to U.S. {{!}} Society {{!}} FocusTaiwan Mobile - CNA English News}} Taipower stated it would take at least six years to start commercial operations at Unit 1 due to fuel removal, obsolescence of components in the ABWR NSSS, and startup testing.{{cite news |url=https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newstaipower-rules-out-operation-of-lungmen-6970272/ |title=Taipower rules out operation of Lungmen |date=6 February 2019 |work=Nuclear Engineering International |access-date=28 January 2022}}

In December 2021, the proposal of the re-construction of the plant was rejected, further ensuring that the construction would not be restarted in near future.{{cite web |url=https://www.icis.com/explore/cn/resources/news/2021/12/28/10720195/taiwan-2021-referendum-an-instigation-for-power-crisis |title=Taiwan 2021 Referendum: an instigation for power crisis?}}

Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant consists of two identical ABWR units, each with a rated thermal power of {{cvt|3926|MW|BTU/hour}}; the core is composed of 872 GE14 fuel assemblies, and water is circulated using ten reactor internal pumps at a rate of {{cvt|52.2e6|kg/h}}, generating {{cvt|7.637e6|kg/h}} of steam at full power.{{cite report |url=https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1903/ML19035A005.pdf |title=The Ultimate Response Guideline Simulation and Study for Lungmen (ABWR) Nuclear Power Plant Using RELAP5/SNAP |author1=Shih, Chunkuan |author2=Wang, Jong-Rong |author3=Huang, Wen-Shu |author4=Chen, Shao-Wen |author5=Wang, Ting-Yi |author6=Yu, Tzu-Yao |author7=Chiu, Hsien-Lang |date=February 2019 |publisher=U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission / National Tsing Hua University / Taiwan Power Company |access-date=28 January 2022}}{{rp|xi}}

A Generation III nuclear reactor has a 72-hour capability of passive cooling to prevent damage to its core should the plant face a total blackout after an emergency shut down. If core overheating and meltdown became unavoidable, these reactors have core catchers that will trap the molten fuel and stop the nuclear reaction (although Lungmen, as other ABWR does not have a core catcher but rely on passive cooling of the corium{{cite web |url=http://www.aec.gov.tw/english/nuclear/psar/lm_document_psar_19_04.pdf |title=Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Assessment of Severe Accident Mitigation}}). Finally, a tight containment ensures that no evacuation zone is required around a Generation III nuclear power plant.

The ABWR was designed to a 0.3G earthquake acceleration standard with the Lungmen units seismic hardening increased to 0.4G.

Some custom made power plants have lower reliability in the first few years of operation. Some parts may prove unsuitable and need replacement or modifications may be necessary. ABWR uses standardized parts to avoid this, but the 3rd and 4th units displayed low reliability (45% - 70%). It is believed this experience provided knowledge that will give better results in future units. The first two units built, Kashiwazaki Kariwa 6{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/KASHIWAZAKI%20KARIWA-6|title=Kashiwazaki Kariwa-6, Japan |website=World Nuclear Association |year=2017 |access-date=19 February 2017}} & 7{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/KASHIWAZAKI%20KARIWA-7 |title=Kashiwazaki Kariwa-7, Japan |website=World Nuclear Association |year=2017 |access-date=19 February 2017}} fared much better than the following two, Hamaoka 5{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/HAMAOKA-5 |title=Hamaoka-5, Japan |website=World Nuclear Association |year=2017 |access-date=19 February 2017}} and Shika 2.{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/SHIKA-2 |title=Shika-2, Japan |website=World Nuclear Association |year=2017 |access-date=19 February 2017}}

{{stack|{{Portal|Taiwan|Energy|Nuclear technology}}}}

• Nuclear power in Taiwan
• List of power stations in Taiwan
• Electricity sector in Taiwan

{{Reflist|30em}}

{{Commons category|Longmen Nuclear Power Plant}}

• [http://www.aec.gov.tw/english/ Taiwan AEC website]
• [http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lungmen/ Power Technology - Lungmen (Dragon Gate) Nuclear Project, Taiwan]
• {{cite journal |doi=10.1080/02533839.2020.1777203 |title=Technical and non-technical challenges for the Lungmen nuclear power plant project in Taiwan |author1=Liu, Tai-Yi |author2=Chen, Po-Han |author3=Chou, Nelson N.S. |author4=Hsieh, Ting-Ya |date=July 2020 |pages=666–680 |volume=43 |issue=7 |journal=Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers|s2cid=221521250 }}

{{Power plants of Taiwan}}

Category:Nuclear power stations in Taiwan

Category:Nuclear power stations with reactors under construction

Category:Nuclear power stations using advanced boiling water reactors

Category:Buildings and structures in New Taipei