Pegatron Group chairman Tung Tzu-hsien (童子賢) has strongly advocated for the continued use of nuclear power in Taiwan to supplement the transition to renewable energy sources, portraying himself as a missionary spreading the good news.
In a June 20 report on energy allocation and development, Tung laid out his concerns regarding global warming, a low-cost stable power supply, the effectiveness of Taiwan’s carbon reduction efforts and the possible environmental impact of developing renewable energy sources.
Unfortunately, his use of false data, which has already been fact-checked, makes him more like a rumormonger spreading fake news. It is clear that the misinformation comes from pro-nuclear advocates who are out of touch with reality.
Tung has even publicly compared nuclear waste to a wild beast in a cage, seemingly dangerous, but actually of no jeopardy to the public. This received praise from nuclear supporters and fueled rumors that the government is reluctant to deal with nuclear waste. Once dealt with, there would be no reason to stop using nuclear power, they say.
The problem is that proponents of nuclear power misunderstand the nature of waste disposal. They discuss the issue from technological, economic or environmental perspectives, but fail to realize that nuclear energy is a social issue in Taiwan. Most baffling is that they continue to spread false information that using nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions is the only cure-all for climate change and energy problems.
We should be asking the important questions: Can Taiwan’s nuclear power plants withstand frequent earthquakes? Can the possibility of a nuclear disaster be ruled out? How should nuclear waste, which remains toxic for thousands of years, be dealt with? However, nuclear supporters conveniently turn a deaf ear to these concerns, dismissing them with a smile.
Tung does not like political manipulation, but he seems to have been accepted by pro-nuclear advocates as a “nuclear-loving” pioneer and forgotten that he is heading Taiwan’s carbon reduction initiative. Tung and others see nuclear power as superior to renewable energy sources, implying that the latter have many environmental and ecological problems of their own. Are there no other solutions?
Taiwan has already implemented plans and achieved concrete results in creating a circular economy, as well as in areas such as land planning, sustainable agriculture, environmental protection and tourism.
The nation should work together to find even more comprehensive and feasible approaches.
It must be acknowledged that, like nuclear power plants, the construction and operation of renewable energy plants produce pollutants and waste that are not completely harmless, but after weighing every issue, including Taiwan’s small, densely populated area, frequent earthquakes and societal risk tolerance, it is clear that the positive impacts of renewable energy are far greater than those of nuclear power.
We must keep a practical mindset in facing the challenge of ensuring a stable electricity supply and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Using nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions is not a magic solution.
To ensure Taiwan’s sustainable future and fulfill carbon reduction goals to combat global warming, renewable energy development and energy conservation is the way to go.
Lin Ren-bin is an academic committee member of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union.
Translated by Nicole Wong
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in