In the 1980s, the now disbanded Long Island Lighting Company was working with the US federal government on plans to turn the eastern half of Long Island, in New York state, into a nuclear park, with a total of 11 plants to be built. They failed in their efforts and thankfully so.
Then-US president Ronald Reagan’s energy secretary was insistent on opening the plants that had been built in Shoreham on the island.
He said that if the already constructed plants did not open, the nuclear industry would be in trouble, while if they did, the industry would celebrate a new era.
Driving past the defunct plant today, the first “stillborn” of its kind in the US, one can eerily sense what might have been.
In October last year, Hurricane Sandy would have knocked out the power supplies to at least a few of those 11 planned sites. The US would then have had its very own Fukushima Dai-ichi-style nuclear disaster on the outskirts of its most populated and economically significant city.
The key reasons these plants were not finished were the grassroots efforts and a combination of legal, political and activist initiatives, including New York state’s use of eminent domain. These activists were able to get the Suffolk County legislature to vote against the required evacuation plan.
The densely populated island, which includes two boroughs of New York City, has more than 7 million inhabitants. Evacuating this many people would have been impossible. Does this situation not sound familiar?
Taiwan’s history of nuclear power, and Taiwan Power Co’s role in it, has been marred by accidents, mismanagement and corruption, according to environmentalists throughout the nation.
Considering the regularity of typhoons and intensity of recent storms, Taiwan’s position as a nuclear state is precarious.
In the days after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster, then-premier Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) statement about the fourth-generation reactors that were operational in the nation revealed precisely the kind of overconfidence that was visible in Japan before the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster.
WikiLeaks released US State Department documents that revealed the concern the International Atomic Energy Agency had about Japan’s reactors and their ability to withstand major earthquakes. It also showed the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency’s reaction to a judicial order to close down a plant in the western part of the country because it was only capable of handling an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 or below. That court order was eventually overturned.
Moreover, David Yuen, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at the University of Minnesota, and other scientists have pointed out that the world’s most problematic earthquake and tsunami area, where a triple disaster like Japan’s could occur, is located south of Taiwan.
These experts are referring to the huge buildup of energy in the Manila Trench, where a major earthquake has not occurred in hundreds of years and is expected in the foreseeable future.
This should have Taiwanese concerned for their homeland.
The nation’s innovative recycling schemes and remediation of the environment has impressed the world over. Yet it seems this hard work in righting the wrongs of modern industrialism has been overshadowed by the threat of the use of a dangerous source of energy. As one Taiwanese economist said two years ago, the nation would be destroyed by a level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale.
As in the case of Long Island, the Atomic Energy Council knows that it cannot successfully stage an evacuation of the Taipei metro area, so why is a 17 percent amount of the power supply worth such a risk?
This failure to guarantee safety is salient when innovation, conservation and renewable energy sources could easily become the deciding factor for Taiwan as they are in Germany’s ongoing nuclear phase-out, and Japan’s successful weathering of two months without nuclear power last year.
Instead of continually looking at costs that would result from a breach of contract at the Longmen (龍門) plant the nation’s leaders should consider the potential costs that would result from what some experts think could be an inevitable catastrophe.
Long Island’s activists have been eager to share their successful strategies with other states trying to close down dangerous nuclear plants. Perhaps Taiwan’s activists can learn from them. Maybe those lessons could hold the key for a nuclear-free Taiwan.
The undeniable powers of logic, justice and hope are squarely on the side of the antinuclear movement in Taiwan and the rest of the world. On this upcoming anniversary of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster and with a fateful referendum on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s (新北市) Gongliao District (貢寮) likely, now is the time for Taiwanese to win a victory that will become a reference point for other movements around the world.
Adam Chimienti is a doctoral candidate at National Sun Yat-sen University’s Institute of China Asia Pacific Studies.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US