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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS