This year marks the 14th anniversary of the nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. On May 17, the No. 2 reactor unit at Pingtung County’s Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant is to be decommissioned as required by law, which would signal the formal farewell to nuclear power in Taiwan, allowing the nation to become the first Asian country to do away with nuclear power. Taiwan is approaching a critical moment for whether it could smoothly say goodbye to this risk-fraught energy source and advance toward a nuclear-free homeland.
On March 11, 2011, the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami struck northeastern Japan, damaging the electric grid and the majority of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant’s backup power sources, preventing the cooling and shutdown of four of the plant’s reactor cores, which led to three reactor meltdowns and hydrogen gas explosions and the consequent mass leak of radioactive contaminants.
The Japanese government immediately ordered the evacuation of 140,000 residents from areas within a 20km radius of the power plant, situated on the coast. It has been 14 years since this major disaster occurred, yet in the aftermath of improvements to containment structures shielding the damaged reactors and efforts to decontaminate local areas with high amounts of radiation, there has otherwise been no evident progress for victims and resettled residents who left everything behind. Residents from seven districts near the plant are prohibited from returning to their homes. Up until the middle of last year, 30,000 residents remained displaced. The dangers of nuclear disasters are ongoing.
The Fukushima meltdown follows the disasters at Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union. It is the latest in a slew of nuclear accidents to occur in an advanced nation. Fukushima has utterly debunked the myth of “safe nuclear power” and should serve as a warning to Taiwan. Taiwan and Japan are situated along the seismically active Pacific Ring of Fire. If such a compounded disaster like Fukushima occurred in Taiwan, with its dense population centers, the result is easy to imagine, and perhaps such a disaster would be existential. Nuclear power is a highly worrisome point within Taiwan’s national security. It is even more difficult to respond positively to the issue of nuclear waste handling.
Taiwan has gradually reached a consensus: It will not redevelop or restart nuclear power; instead, it would follow the aim of achieving a “non-nuclear homeland,” as written in Article 23 of the Basic Environment Act (環境基本法) and Article 5, Paragraph 3, Item 2 of the Climate Change Response Act (氣候變遷因應法), which stipulate that the government must uphold the gradual realization of a “nuclear-free homeland.” There is a tangible time frame — zero nuclear by this year — and measures for energy transition.
Exasperatingly, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a public statement in February that, during this legislative session, the KMT would promote legal amendments in the name of public welfare that are in actuality the party’s political ideology, including revisions to the two acts. Their proposals would switch out the language of the laws from using the wording “nuclear-free homeland” in favor of “carbon-free homeland,” as well as require an amendment of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法), with an aim to extend the operating licenses and service life of nuclear power plants from 40 years to 60 years, to open a door to further draw out the lifespan of aging nuclear power plants.
However, in terms of critical issues, such as the advancing age of these plants, the costs needed to extend their service life, the looming threat of earthquakes, as well as contentious storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel rods, the KMT has inadvertently proposed turning back the clock and retreating from Taiwan’s commitments to denuclearizing the nation.
There are no words to fully describe what the party is doing. Its disregard for nuclear safety is a reluctance to face issues of denuclearization and a betrayal of the public’s broad consensus that no Taiwanese would ever agree to build a nuclear reactor or waste storage site next to their home.
Any amendments that undermine the rigorousness of nuclear safety would only heighten the risks of a nuclear accident, and would harm the lives and assets of Taiwanese. Even if Taiwan is spared disaster and blessed with no mishaps, posterity would still inherit even more nuclear waste that they would have to somehow dispose of somewhere. The KMT’s “reforms” are an attack on posterity and betray the sustainable development of the nation. Thus, Taiwan must do more to say goodbye for good to nuclear power, and not be forced to cling onto decaying power plants.
The public is supposed to be in charge. Going “non-nuclear” protects the sustainability of Taiwan, and legislator recalls could protect its hard-won democracy. Taiwanese can recall legislators who cling to old nuclear power plants, and prevent nuclear power from being resurrected and once more causing risk. They should keep in mind the memory and hard lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, realize Taiwan’s goal of a nuclear-free homeland and implement the most critical actions toward realizing a sustainable vision for the nation.
Lin Ren-bin is a Taiwan Environmental Protection Union academic member and an associate professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Tim Smith
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
RSS