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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS