全國能源會議之核能風險論述分析

Abstract

全球化氣候變遷下，各國必須發展屬於自己國家在地脈絡的治理典範，本文目的在於反思我國能源政策，提出我過舊有治理典範來到必須轉變之際。以三次全國能源會議為主要的分析場域，試著分析核能為何紮根於我國能源結構中而無法將其抽離。從風險論述分析出發，本著Fischer（1990）與Hajer（1995）「技術官僚統合主義」為基礎，將行動者依在三次全國能源會議中之論述分為「擁核論述聯盟」與「反核論述聯盟」來分析其各自的核能論述主張與核心。而後，再從Jasanoff（2005）「公民認識論」的概念來比較兩造間的論述差異與論述變遷，試著勾勒出反核論述聯盟挑戰擁核論述聯盟的論述交鋒。 一九九八、二○○五與二○○九年三次全國能源會皆圍繞著「減碳」議題打轉，其中，「核能」被擁核論述聯盟視為「減碳能源」而推崇，但卻受到反核論述聯盟的反對與抗議，核能成為能源會議中討論的核心與焦點。觀看三次全國能源會議的興辦與結論，「核能」逐步從減碳能源擺盪並提升至無碳能源，擁核與反核兩造的論述競爭越為激烈。本文先找出並釐清「擁核論述聯盟」與「反核論述聯盟」的行動者組成，而後分析，核能與減碳風險論述上兩造的論述競爭。先從「核能減碳爭議」來分析擁核論述聯盟與反核論述聯盟論述的核心與競逐，而後再形塑出「核能與經濟爭議」、「核能穩定與成本低廉爭議」、「核能安全爭議」兩造間論述的攻防的火花，最後，再從「核能永續爭議」來看永續發展下三次全國能源會議的永續能源立場與差異。 隨著世界風險社會的來臨，越來越多的複合式災害、科技風險等逐漸帶來失控的風險災害。過去我國因著菁英、威權統治，所承襲下來的以技術官僚集結的論述聯盟封閉性推動我國能源政策的發展，面對反核論述聯盟對於核能安全的擔憂、核能不減碳與成本不低廉等地抨擊，擁核論述聯盟仍然封閉的將自身認為是理性的觀念當作準則、教條架構來凌駕於其他論述與行動者，技術官僚間彼此交織成一系統而排出了其他學科之專家與公民知識的參與，營造出封閉的治理典範，才會造就成核能在極度爭議下，仍然從減碳能源躍進為無碳能源，並堅守在我國能源結構中而不動搖。

Given the fact of global climate change, every country needs to develop its own governance paradigm. This thesis aims to reflect on Taiwan’s energy policy, suggesting that we are at a turning point when changing our existing governance pattern has become possible.Using the three National Energy Conferences as a basis for analysis, I examine how nuclear power was able to put down roots in our energy infrastructure in a way that has become so difficult to uproot. Analyzing the discourse of risk and applying Fischer(1990) and Hajer(1995)’s theory of “techno-corporatism,” this thesis identifies the actors forming pro- and anti-nuclear coalitions and evaluates their positions on the issue. Then, using the concept of civic epistemology (Jasanoff, 2005) to compare the discourses of the two camps and their evolution over time, this thesis outlines the ways that anti-nuclear discourse has challenged ideas put forth by advocates of nuclear power in the course of political conflict between the two camps. The three national energy conferences revolved around discussion of cutting carbon emissions, with nuclear power promoted by its advocates as a low-carbon source of energy, but encountering opposition from the anti-nuclear camp, bringing nuclear power to the center of the debate. Examining the reasons for organizing these three national energy conferences and their conclusions, it becomes clear that advocates of nuclear power have gradually moved from claiming it is a low-carbon source of energy to promoting it as a carbon-free energy source, with the discourse of the pro- and anti-nuclear coalitions growing ever more extreme as their competition intensifies. This paper identifies the actors and organizations composing the pro- and anti-nuclear coalitions, using the discourses surrounding nuclear power and cutting carbon emissions to analyze the competition between the two camps. Starting from the controversies over nuclear power and carbon emissions, this thesis analyzes the core ideologies and competition between the pro- and anti-nuclear camps, then goes on to describe the controversies over the role of nuclear power in the economy, the reliability of nuclear power and the question of its lower costs, the safety of nuclear power, and then finally explores the different points of view that emerged in the three conferences about whether or not nuclear power offers a sustainable mode of development. Risk is increasingly worldwide and escalating out of control as a result of climate change, multiple disasters and the risks that accompany the development of high technology. Taiwan’s energy policy is inherited from a period of oligarchy and authoritarian rule when policy was formulated by a discourse coalition of technocrats and experts behind closed doors. In the face of the anti-nuclear coalition’s concerns that nuclear power is not in fact safer or cheaper, the advocates of nuclear power continue to regard their position as the only rational basis for developing policy guidelines and criteria, attempting to exclude other discourses and actors.The members of the technocracy continue to act as a closed organization excluding experts from other disciplines and citizens’ voices, as they shape a policy paradigm in isolation. Therefore, despite the intense controversy over nuclear power, they continue along their trajectory moving from arguing that nuclear power reduces carbon emissions to promoting it as a carbon-free source of energy, while keeping a tight grip on our country’s energy infrastructure.