On Oct. 8, the Environmental Protection Administration’s Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee approved a plan submitted by CPC Corp, Taiwan to build the nation’s third liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Taoyuan’s Guantang Industrial Park (觀塘工業區). In the same week, the Ministry of Economic Affairs halted construction by Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) of a new Shenao (深澳) Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Rueifang District (瑞芳), while a proposal for a pro-nuclear referendum failed to get enough signatures to go ahead.
These developments are connected to a key factor in the process of energy transition, namely how to gradually move away from coal-fired and nuclear power generation using LNG as a transitional fuel.
However, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is opposed to nuclear power, has lost the confidence of the environmental protection groups that are also against nuclear power.
If the confusion continues and the proponents of the referendum relaunch it next year, it might give nuclear power a chance to make a comeback.
Following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Russia, global nuclear installed generation capacity leveled out, and since the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident, less generation capacity has been added than has been decommissioned. Nuclear power is on the way out. What was already a sunset industry is fading into the night.
The past three or four years have also seen climate change enter the international political agenda and groups with an interest in nuclear power are using this issue to trumpet the absurd idea of using nuclear power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The real global trend is to cut carbon dioxide emissions without using nuclear power, and of course Taiwan can do the same by speeding up its adoption of energy-saving measures and its development of green industries, while using LNG as an alternative fuel during the transitional period.
However, nuclear interest groups are trying to go against this worldwide trend by denigrating green energy, resisting energy transition and obstructing the competitiveness of industries involved in transitioning toward a circular economy.
After the Shenao plant’s environmental impact assessment was approved this year, the Cabinet and some legislators upset environmental groups by talking about which was worse between nuclear and coal-fired power. This motivated the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to launch a referendum campaign designed to take advantage of the issue to influence the outcome of the Nov. 24 nine-in-one elections.
Now that the CPC plan has been approved, some people say they are so angry that they can no longer bring themselves to vote for the DPP.
Some pundits say that as soon as there is a power shortage, the idea of a nuclear-free homeland will crumble.
This idea implies that environmentalists are fundamentalists who do not want any kind of electricity, a wedge issue to widen splits in the anti-nuclear camp and help the pro-nuclear lobby to sow discord.
These issues have added uncertainties to next month’s elections.
The DPP’s bogus panic about “electricity shortages” arises from the pro-nuclear lobby’s successful decades-long campaign to brainwash society. Adrift in a fog of confusion about power supplies, the DPP is being led by the nose by the two energy giants — Taipower and CPC.
On Oct. 12, Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs Tseng Wen-sheng (曾文生) told the business community that the nation could achieve an operating reserve of 10 percent next year.
This shows that the crisis of tight electricity supply since the DPP government took office in 2016 is over. As long as Taipower does a good job regarding power scheduling and management, outages will become less likely.
The DPP government aims to achieve a nuclear-free homeland by 2025 and the Cabinet plans for there to be an operating reserve of 15 percent in the same time frame.
Without the Shenao plant, there would be a gap of just 0.1 percent between supply and demand. The Cabinet’s target is achievable as long as electricity is used sparingly, not to mention that Taipower has for several decades been overestimating with a straight-line compound growth rate in demand.
Another point to consider is that the coal-fired Hsieh-ho (協和) Power Plant in Keelung is to be replaced with a new one that will burn LNG instead.
The new plant will have a total generation capacity of 5.2 gigawatts (GW). Each of its four generators, which are expected to start commercial operations in 2025, are to have a capacity of 1.3GW, more than the combined 1.2GW the Shenao plant’s two generators would have provided.
As long as construction of the new Hsieh-ho plant goes according to plan, the Shenao plant will be completely unnecessary. Construction would also provide a buffer for the government and social groups to work out a plan for CPC’s third LNG terminal.
CPC and Taipower, both state-owned companies, have been exaggerating their own crises and drawing the DPP into a political storm to gain a dominant position in LNG procurement.
The most basic and important aspect of energy resource policy is demand-side management. The government is to save NT$100 billion (US$3.2 billion) by not building the Shenao plant. Given these savings, it should invest more in developing frugal ways to use energy resources.
The government should uphold the core values of energy transition and not get confused by the noise and threats coming from CPC and Taipower.
Pan Han-chiang is chairman of the Trees Party.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS