On April 17, the legislature’s Economics Committee invited Chen Wen-shan (陳文山), a professor at the Geosciences Department at National Taiwan University, Lee Chao-shing (李昭興), a professor at the Institute of Applied Geosciences at National Taiwan Ocean University, Lee Chyi-tyi (李錫堤), a professor at the Institute of Applied Geology at National Central University, and Lin Ching-weei (林慶偉), a professor at the Earth Sciences Department at National Cheng Kung University, to comment on Taiwan Power Co’s (Taipower) report on the geological conditions around the sites of the nation’s three operational nuclear power plants and on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市).
The four geologists concurred that the report was seriously flawed, was missing an overall evaluation and lacked clarity in its wording, adding that they had no confidence in it.
This highlights the difficulty of maintaining the safety of nuclear power in Taiwan in the face of the nation’s geological makeup.
As early as in July 1978, Japanese constitutional expert Naoki Kobayashi published an article saying that the biggest concern for Japan’s nuclear power policy was accidents caused by earthquakes. He wrote that Japan experiences the highest frequency of earthquakes in the world, so it would be almost impossible to build nuclear power plants in areas that were unaffected by such activities.
Kobayashi added that despite a nuclear plant’s quake-resistant design, by building one on an inappropriate site a catastrophe could occur if an earthquake that is stronger than planned for occurred. It is therefore necessary to make comprehensive plans for a secondary disaster in case a reactor breaks or a cooling unit fails.
Kobayashi concluded that the danger inherent in Japan’s nuclear power policy had increased significantly due to geological factors, saying that this deserved close attention.
His statement about the risk of broken or failing power and cooling units was echoed in the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in March 2011. On reading his article, one cannot help but admire Kobayashi’s foresight.
Taiwan’s geological conditions are similar to Japan’s. There are frequent earthquakes and the speed of its orogeny — mountain formation — is the world’s fastest. In March, Atomic Energy Council (AEC) Deputy Minister Huang Tsing-tung (黃慶東) claimed that Taiwan’s nuclear power plants are as safe as Buddhas sitting on their stable lotus platforms. This remarkable comment clearly shows Taiwanese nuclear officials’ arrogance and neglect of geological risks.
According to Article 4 of the AEC’s safety design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities, the design of the structures, systems and parts of related facilities should allow them to operate safely during natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons and floods.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) have repeatedly pledged that there will be no nuclear power without nuclear safety. In that case, I would like to know whether Taiwan’s three operational nuclear power plants, as well as the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, meet the safety design criteria 100 percent? Can nuclear safety be ensured if a natural disaster strikes the nation?
If the government is unable to answer these questions, then promises of so-called nuclear safety are nothing but a myth.
Lo Cheng-chung is an assistant professor in the Department of Financial and Economic Law at the Chungyu Institute of Technology.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with