President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is fond of saying that the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市), would not continue unless the plant’s safety can be guaranteed. However, even international industrial nuclear power organizations like the World Nuclear Association (WNA) cannot guarantee nuclear safety, so how can Ma?
Given the public’s strong opposition to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, there is no need to hold a referendum to decide if it should be finished. The right thing to do is to halt construction of the plant straightaway.
Just a few days ago, Ma and Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) said that “direct public opinion” — a referendum — should take precedence over “indirect public opinion” and that the government’s legislative and administrative bodies cannot make the decision to halt construction unilaterally, because this would be “unconstitutional.”
Legal academics from National Taiwan University condemned these remarks as absurd.
As long as the legislature respects public opinion and agrees to suspend the construction, the Cabinet can implement that decision.
Recently, the Atomic Energy Council invited experts from the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to Taiwan to inspect the nation’s power plants. According to information provided by Taiwan Power Co and the Atomic Energy Council, stress tests conducted on the nation’s three operational nuclear power plants did not follow the strict protocols that caused Germany to close down eight nuclear plants that had been operational for more than 30 years.
Taiwan’s geology shows that there are active faults 7km from the three operational nuclear power plants, and active volcanoes within 20km. There are more than 70 underwater volcanoes within an 80km radius of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, 11 of which are active. If these factors were combined with extreme weather, the consequences could be terrible.
The WNA has said that the US does not have a safe place to permanently store the more than 70,000 tonnes of nuclear waste that it has produced so far. More than three-quarters of the waste is kept in long-term storage in temporary spent fuel pools like those used at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. A problem with the cooling system would have terrible consequences.
Since Taiwan already has problems processing its nuclear waste at the three operational power plants and since the seismic coefficient at these plants fall between 0.3G and 0.4G, compared with the Fukushima plant’s 0.6G, how can the government consider continuing construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant?
Will it really be possible to evacuate the residents of New Taipei City, Keelung, Taipei and Taoyuan County, referred to collectively as the “Fourth Nuclear Power Plant evacuation zone,” in the event of a nuclear disaster?
There is no need for the Ma administration to use its propaganda machine to intimidate the public. Instead, it should immediately halt construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
A referendum on the issue would not solve the problems that could be caused by natural disasters and human error. New energy sources need to be developed to replace nuclear power and gradual steps must be taken toward making the nation a nuclear-free country. This is the only way to guarantee public safety and quality of life.
Lu I-ming is a former publisher and president of the Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News, and previously served as a member of a watchdog monitoring Taipower.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers