Much of the discussion about the power outage on Tuesday last week centers around whether it could have been avoided if the nation relied more on nuclear power.
This argument is clearly meant to highlight nuclear power as a solution to future energy problems. However, would having more nuclear power truly prevent power outages triggered by a safety power cutoff mechanism?
A major power plant cannot afford to have even one incidence of power failure due to the triggering of a safety mechanism. Last week’s power disruption was caused by a human error that triggered a safety power cutoff and shut down not only six generators at the Datan Natural Gas Power Plant, but also the fifth generator at the coal-fired Taichung Power Plant, eliminating 4.7 gigawatts (GW) from the power supply.
The safety mechanism, designed to prevent the power distribution system from breaking down, is automatically activated when there is a sudden drop in the power supply.
Even if all the nuclear power plants had been operating, providing an additional 2.2GW, the total power supply would still have fallen below demand, making a blackout inevitable.
The fundamental problem is not adding nuclear power but coping with a failure at a major power plant. Nuclear power does not allow for more flexible response measures when a failure occurs at a major power plant.
When a transmission tower at Ho-Ping Power Co’s plant was toppled by Typhoon Nesat, causing a power crisis, many people claimed that the solution was more nuclear power. They have apparently forgotten about torrential rain that toppled a transmission tower at the Jinshan Nuclear Power Plant in June, causing a power failure.
Data provided by the Atomic Energy Council show that since 2002, the nation’s three nuclear power plants have experienced a total of 29 trigger events.
As with other power plants, nuclear power plants are susceptible to unexpected power cuts or transmission tower damage.
Emphasizing nuclear power distracts the nation from more pressing issues: the crisis posed by a centralized power grid and reliance on a few big power plants.
The government should review every aspect of the nation’s power system and enact comprehensive improvements.
Measures could include increasing system redundancy and risk diversification, developing smart power grids and regional power grids, as well as preparing energy storage for emergency situations to prevent large-scale power failures triggered by a single accident. If human error is inevitable, then the power supply system must be more resilient.
The recent power failure could serve as a timely reminder that the nation must consider new energy sources.
A classic example of clean energy transformation is Seoul. Following a large-scale power outage in 2011, which mayor Park Won-soon said was caused by the city’s overreliance on external energy sources and a vulnerable power grid, he launched a project to phase out a nuclear power plant. The project is aimed at creating a self-sufficient and “green” energy system for the city.
Taiwanese have long heard that nuclear power is the cure-all to the nation’s energy problems.
However, many types of problems can occur anywhere within the power system — from the generation and transmission of power to its distribution, delivery and consumption. None of those problems can be easily solved by either relying on nuclear power or eliminating it.
Whether Taiwan will be able to move toward developing more clean energy depends on whether Taiwanese can look beyond the controversy over nuclear power and think further ahead.
Tseng Hung-wen is a researcher at the Green Citizens’ Action Alliance.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS