In a 2018 referendum, voters said no to phasing out nuclear energy. So why are they being asked the same question again? Is this truly about public interest or simply repeating the vote until the result aligns with an agenda?
I am not blindly pro-nuclear. I am pro-reason. If we want a greener future, I support that.
However, replacing nuclear power before we have stable alternatives is reckless.
Taiwan’s electricity demand is rising. With electric vehicles, semiconductor expansion and growing digital dependence, we need more energy, not less. So what happens when nuclear generators are shut down? We turn to coal.
Taiwan has limited land, inconsistent wind patterns and seasonal sunlight. Even with rapid investment, renewables cannot yet provide round-the-clock stability. Battery technology is not mature enough. Natural gas is cleaner than coal, but we import nearly all of it at volatile prices, vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.
Are we ready to bet our energy future on that?
People complain about rising electricity prices, but have we asked why? Nuclear power generation is low-cost and stable. Removing it increases our dependence on expensive imports and intermittent renewables, driving prices higher. Burning more coal leads to more asthma, heart disease and premature deaths. Yet somehow, we treat it as the “less risky” option.
Globally, we see a different picture. In 2022, the EU labeled nuclear energy a green investment. France generates about 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is not turning back.
Even Japan, after the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, is restarting reactors. Tokyo understands the price of energy insecurity.
If countries that have suffered from nuclear accidents are choosing to return, what does that say about the balance of risk?
Critics argue that nuclear power is dangerous, citing waste and accidents.
However, modern reactor designs are significantly safer and the volume of nuclear waste is tiny compared with the pollutants from fossil fuels. Nuclear waste is contained and monitored; coal waste is invisible and inhaled.
We should demand better safety protocols, not surrender to fear.
Why the urgency? Why abandon nuclear power before a viable replacement exists? If this is truly about the environment, then decisions should be based on data, not dogma.
It seems that politics is driving policy. Environmental decisions have become political branding. Green symbolism has taken precedence over energy realism.
We also have to reflect: Are we, the people, making informed choices? Or are we being nudged by fear-based messaging and selective framing? Supporting a policy because it aligns with our political side — without fully understanding the trade-offs — is not democratic maturity, it is passive tribalism.
If this were truly about sustainability, we would be improving nuclear safety, managing waste responsibly and transitioning only when ready. Instead, we are rushing into a future powered by gas and coal, and calling it clean.
I do not hold a rigid position. I care about what is true. If someone can present a convincing, evidence-based case for phasing out nuclear power that addresses stability, affordability and health, I will listen — and even change my mind. I want to be proven wrong, because that means I have learned something.
However, so far most arguments feel political, emotional or incomplete. That is why I am asking these questions — not to provoke, but to understand: Are we truly prepared? Is this what’s best for Taiwan? Or are we just following slogans?
Tales Hou is a student in the Department of International Affairs at Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS