Cutting nuclear not feasible
In response to Wednesday’s editorial concerning the future of industrial energy production in Taiwan, I want to offer some observations about externalities.
The most significant obstacle to DPP presidential hopeful Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) goal of replacing the nuclear power industry in Taiwan by 2025, assuming she is elected president next year, is the cost of land. Noting that the combined output of Taiwan’s three operating nuclear power stations accounted for 41.5 terawatt hours in 2009, or 18.1 percent of Taiwan’s total energy production, allow me to illustrate the problem with reference to everybody’s favorite renewables: solar and wind.
Extrapolating from the numbers for the pilot solar power plant built in Lujhu (路竹), Greater Kaohsiung, a few years ago, which had a 1MW capacity, cost NT$246 million (US$8.3 million) and covered two hectares, it is possible to clearly envisage the absurdity of constructing solar plants to this and larger scales in Taiwan. In order to reach the target of 41.5TW hours over a year, and making the very generous and unrealistic assumption that such solar plants would generate their maximum power output 50 percent of the time, they would collectively need a capacity of 10,400MW, would be built at a capital cost of NT$250 billion and would require an enormous 180km2 of land — an area substantially larger than Kaohsiung.
Onshore wind farms are far cheaper and more powerful than offshore farms owing to the increased size and power of the turbines, with one turbine alone capable of producing 7MW at an approximate capital cost of NT$23 million. To be capable of producing 41.5TW hours over a year, and assuming an average efficiency of 30 percent, such a wind farm would have to comprise 2,014 such turbines at a capital cost of NT$46 billion — which, compared with the NT$250 billion for the solar plant, would be very cheap. An onshore wind farm on this scale would, however, require an area of 323km2 — which is significantly larger than Taipei.
What each of these two back-of-an-envelope calculations show is the importance of land prices. Flat, open land is at a premium in Taiwan partly because of the nation’s geography, but also partly because of an enormous externality: the state’s protection of rice farmers from both foreign competition and the environmental externalities the farmers themselves create by over-consuming ground water. Unless a Tsai administration would be prepared to extricate the state from agriculture, thus allowing true market competition to induce some farmers to voluntarily sell off their land, then the artificially high price of farmland would leave a Tsai administration unable to afford its commitment to replacing nuclear power and increasing renewable energy.
That is assuming a Tsai administration, along with its environmental supporters, would not favor removing such an “inconvenience” by means of land theft rebranded as “expropriation” — such as was visited upon farmer Chu Feng-min (朱馮敏), who subsequently committed suicide in Miaoli County last year.
That must never be allowed to happen again.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS