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.
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
RSS