The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) path to a “nuclear-free homeland” has been a long one. The party is now turning a corner, unsure of the road ahead.
The removal of nuclear power from Taiwan’s energy mix has been a part of the DPP’s energy policy right from its first administration, with then-president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) decision to halt construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in 2000.
Former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) suggested the adoption of the nuclear-free homeland policy in 2011 during her first presidential campaign. Her idea was to allow the completion of the fourth plant, but not enable it to go into commercial operation, and for the other three nuclear power plants to be decommissioned at the end of their operational life by next year, with no extensions.
In 2011, 2025 still seemed far off. Tsai lost that election to then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and would not initiate the non-nuclear policy until she became president in 2016. There was still just under a decade to go then, but the clock was ticking.
The road ahead looks conspicuously shorter now and the nation’s energy needs are changing with the increased importance of chip manufacturing and the anticipated growth of artificial intelligence, both of which are energy-intensive. Chip manufacturing requires a steady energy supply and any interruption in the manufacturing process has knock-on effects on the international supply chain.
The public was generally on board with the DPP’s non-nuclear policy, especially after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster and tsunami in Japan in March 2011.
Just as Japan cannot escape its geological realities, neither can Taiwan, being in an earthquake zone, with people concentrated in densely populated areas near its nuclear power plants. The question is how to balance geological reality, public safety, energy needs and economic policy with the DPP’s nuclear policy, as well as the threat of climate change and the government’s commitment to zero carbon emissions by 2050.
There is a change in the mood on transitioning to a nuclear-free nation, not just among the public, but also among academics and experts, and even within the DPP itself.
President William Lai (賴清德) on Thursday last week convened the first meeting of the National Climate Change Response Committee. He said that the “nuclear-free homeland” was not an ideological stance that the DPP is necessarily wedded to, and that he is willing to take a science-based practical approach to Taiwan’s energy mix needs with regards to the nation’s economy, industry, public interest and national security. Lai also specified that any changes would require social consensus, taking into account nuclear safety and the disposal of nuclear waste.
Lai invited former Academia Sinica president Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) — who agrees with proposals to continue using nuclear energy and that “the potential disasters that it could bring cannot compare with the complete destruction of the human race” — as a consultant and Pegatron Corp chief executive officer Tung Tzu-hsien (童子賢) to serve as deputy convener of the committee. Tung has called for an extension to operations at the Jinshan and Guosheng nuclear power plants in New Taipei City, and having nuclear power supplement the energy mix until renewable energy sources are mature enough to supplant it. He is an example of someone who has changed his position on the nuclear issue, saying that 30 years ago he was also opposed to nuclear power, but now believes, as Lee does, that global warming is the more pressing issue.
There will continue to be disagreements between groups on either side of the nuclear power debate. However, there should also be questions about why this debate is only happening now, so near to 2025.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS