On Thursday last week, a magnitude 5.3 earthquake hit Ibaraki Prefecture in Japan. It was not a massive quake, but Japanese media have been following the aftermath closely, as the nation’s first large nuclear power plant (Tokai No. 2 Power Station) is near the earthquake’s epicenter. Only one reactor is left there, and it has stopped functioning since the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in the Tohoku area.
The Tokai No. 2 Power Station was commissioned in 1978, the same year that Taiwan’s Jinshan Nuclear Power Plant was commissioned. The two share quite a few similarities. Tokai No. 2 is the only nuclear power plant in the Greater Tokyo Area. In the middle of 2018 — 40 years after the plant was commissioned — Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority approved its reactivation.
The application for its extension was swiftly approved within a year, and a 20-year license was issued.
However, the plan to reactivate and extend the plant’s life did not go smoothly. As the facility is in the Greater Tokyo Area, about 960,000 people live within a 30km radius from the facility. Japanese law states that reactivating the plant requires the approvals not only of residents of Tokai Village in Ibaraki, but also the surrounding five cities.
The operator of the nuclear power plant had to work hard on its safety measures to earn the public’s trust and support. Yet, after two-and-a-half years, residents still had doubts. The extension plan could not be put into practice without the support of the public.
The Tokai No. 2 Power Station could not be reactivated and its extension plan was abandoned, because the facility is in a densely populated and earthquake-prone area. The operation would cause enormous distress and anxiety to nearby residents.
In Taiwan, there are three nuclear power plants close to Taipei, which is also an earthquake-prone area.
When it comes to debating whether Taiwan’s nuclear power plants should be reactivated, we could observe the Japanese protocols. That is, once a plan has been drafted, it must be approved by greater Taipei residents. If concerns about its safety issue are raised, the plan should be abandoned.
It is worth noting that after a magnitude 7.5 earthquake struck Ishikawa Prefecture at the beginning of this year, plans to reactivate a nuclear power plant ran into severe public opposition.
A survey conducted by the Mainichi Shimbun showed that 45 percent of respondents were against the plant’s reactivation, while 36 percent supported it. It was the first time within two years that more people opposed rather than supported a plant’s reactivation.
Japan’s case provides a lesson — from the way the government tried to extend a nuclear power plant’s service life, but was denied, to how Japanese’s perception about nuclear power plants shifted after an earthquake.
Some people in Taiwan have been advocating for the reactivation or extension of nuclear power plants. They also believe that the nation should rely more on nuclear energy. They must consider Japan’s case and think again.
Chen Kuan-lin is a research manager from Taipei.
Translated by Emma Liu
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath