The crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant has shaken the global nuclear power community and caused many people and national governments to engage in careful reflection on the security and possible future costs of nuclear power.
Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who is vying for the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) presidential nomination, has put forward a plan to make Taiwan nuclear-free by 2025. It is clear that the issue of nuclear power will not be possible to avoid in the next legislative and presidential elections.
Tsai’s call for a “nuclear-free homeland” is not new. The DPP has always opposed nuclear power, and former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) set off a fierce clash with the then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) opposition when he halted construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in 2000. Construction later resumed following a constitutional interpretation, but the then-DPP government focused on creating a “non-nuclear homeland” by unambiguously restricting the development of nuclear power in Article 23 of the Basic Environment Act (環境基本法), the first part of which reads: “The government shall establish plans to gradually achieve the goal of becoming a nuclear-free country.”
Tsai’s suggestion for a nuclear-free homeland does not call for an immediate halt to construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant or closure of the three plants that are in operation. Instead, as halting construction would be more expensive than completing it because of breach-of-contract costs, Tsai proposes that construction should be completed, but that the plant not be operated commercially after completion. Also, the three existing plants would not have their operations extended when they reach the end of their operational life by 2025.
Nuclear power is a very sensitive topic and Tsai’s proposal immediately drew both positive and negative responses. The government and Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) said that if all nuclear power were shut down, 20 percent of Taiwan’s factories would have to close. Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-shiang (施顏祥) said nuclear power would remain a necessary option for the next several decades and that not using it would be very costly, adding that electricity prices would shoot up and that carbon emissions would increase sharply if we were to rely on natural gas and coal power, while the cost of closing down all nuclear reactors would be NT$335.3 billion (US$11.38 billion). Even former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has expressed doubt about how a nuclear-free country would be possible and what alternative energy sources could replace it.
Lee hit the nail on the head when he identified the problem with the nuclear-free homeland concept. Nuclear energy accounts for 20 percent of Taiwan’s electricity. What alternative energy source could replace such a shortfall? If economic development and demands for electricity keep increasing, energy use could increase in step with GNP, leading to even higher electricity prices. Taipower’s policies and the Ministry of Economic Affairs have always focused on nuclear and coal-fired power. Alternative energy sources have rarely been considered. If Tsai wants a non-nuclear homeland, she will have to come up with a new energy policy.
A nuclear-free homeland requires a set of energy saving and carbon reduction strategies to overcome the growing need for electricity, to improve the efficiency of coal-fired power and to increase the proportion of wind, water and solar-generated energy sources. It also requires public debate on the pros and cons of nuclear power. Some of the problems with nuclear power are economically related and easily addressed through quantitative analysis, while others such as safety risks and cost of human life are immeasurable. These are the crucial issues.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS