The first reactor at the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County is to be decommissioned on July 27, bringing Taiwan one step closer to becoming a “ nuclear-free” country, but also raising concern over the risks of an electricity shortage.
Following the expiration of the operating licenses of the reactors of the Jinshan and Guosheng nuclear power plants in New Taipei City between 2018 and last year, the government recently finalized the shutdown of the first reactor of the Ma-anshan plant, which would reduce the country’s electricity generation by 6 percent, or about 15 terrawatt-hours a year.
On Monday, the Ministry of Economic Affairs released its latest report on the nation’s power consumption, forecasting that it would increase at a faster compound annual growth rate of 2.8 percent over the next 10 years — versus its original estimate of 2 percent — driven mainly by a surge in power usage by artificial intelligence devices and climate change.
Facing the escalating demand for electricity and the nation’s goal of achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050, calls have been growing to extend the service life of nuclear power plants — similar to how the US extended 50 nuclear power plants’ lifespan by 40 years. Even President William Lai (賴清德) has said that he would not rule out “the use of safe, waste-free nuclear power” as a backup in case of emergency.
However, nuclear power has long been politicized in Taiwan. The nation’s first three plants were built during the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) military dictatorship, which were not only an ambitious conflation of developing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, but also prioritized economic development over human rights and environmental justice.
Following the meltdown of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, then-president Ma Ying-Jeou (馬英九) of the KMT rejected nuclear power plant extension plans proposed by the Cabinet and vowed to reduce the use of nuclear power in Taiwan. In 2016, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government further pledged to make Taiwan a “nuclear-free homeland” by 2025, which later was postponed to 2026.
Taiwan has also long been stuck on the issue of how to dispose of spent nuclear rods and waste. No matter which party was in power, no long-term nuclear waste storage projects could get a green light. All parties should share the responsibility of making the life extension of nuclear power plants almost impossible.
The DPP government proposed building dry storage sites for spent fuel from the Jinshan and Guosheng plants to maintain their operations and possibly prolong their lifespan, but New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT opposed their construction by disapproving their water and soil conservation plans. This delayed the completion of the storage sites, leading to an upfront termination of the two plants’ nuclear reactors before their licenses expired as their used-fuel pools were overloaded.
Even if the legislature had passed the KMT’s proposed amendment to the Nuclear Reactor Facility Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) last year and eased regulations governing the license renewal of nuclear power plants, it would take up to five years to process license extensions and review safety requirements.
Taiwan is at a crucial point of deciding whether nuclear power plants should be completely decommissioned or partially extended in case of need, or to research more advanced and safer nuclear facilities that might be an option in the future. The decision should be based on professional technological expertise and pragmatic feasibility devoid of political interference.
The government also needs to work out a new energy road map to scale up power generation from renewable sources of energy, as well as encourage energy saving, to secure the nation’s energy supply.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS