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.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS