The first reactor at the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County is to be decommissioned on July 27, bringing Taiwan one step closer to becoming a “ nuclear-free” country, but also raising concern over the risks of an electricity shortage.
Following the expiration of the operating licenses of the reactors of the Jinshan and Guosheng nuclear power plants in New Taipei City between 2018 and last year, the government recently finalized the shutdown of the first reactor of the Ma-anshan plant, which would reduce the country’s electricity generation by 6 percent, or about 15 terrawatt-hours a year.
On Monday, the Ministry of Economic Affairs released its latest report on the nation’s power consumption, forecasting that it would increase at a faster compound annual growth rate of 2.8 percent over the next 10 years — versus its original estimate of 2 percent — driven mainly by a surge in power usage by artificial intelligence devices and climate change.
Facing the escalating demand for electricity and the nation’s goal of achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050, calls have been growing to extend the service life of nuclear power plants — similar to how the US extended 50 nuclear power plants’ lifespan by 40 years. Even President William Lai (賴清德) has said that he would not rule out “the use of safe, waste-free nuclear power” as a backup in case of emergency.
However, nuclear power has long been politicized in Taiwan. The nation’s first three plants were built during the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) military dictatorship, which were not only an ambitious conflation of developing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, but also prioritized economic development over human rights and environmental justice.
Following the meltdown of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, then-president Ma Ying-Jeou (馬英九) of the KMT rejected nuclear power plant extension plans proposed by the Cabinet and vowed to reduce the use of nuclear power in Taiwan. In 2016, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government further pledged to make Taiwan a “nuclear-free homeland” by 2025, which later was postponed to 2026.
Taiwan has also long been stuck on the issue of how to dispose of spent nuclear rods and waste. No matter which party was in power, no long-term nuclear waste storage projects could get a green light. All parties should share the responsibility of making the life extension of nuclear power plants almost impossible.
The DPP government proposed building dry storage sites for spent fuel from the Jinshan and Guosheng plants to maintain their operations and possibly prolong their lifespan, but New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT opposed their construction by disapproving their water and soil conservation plans. This delayed the completion of the storage sites, leading to an upfront termination of the two plants’ nuclear reactors before their licenses expired as their used-fuel pools were overloaded.
Even if the legislature had passed the KMT’s proposed amendment to the Nuclear Reactor Facility Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) last year and eased regulations governing the license renewal of nuclear power plants, it would take up to five years to process license extensions and review safety requirements.
Taiwan is at a crucial point of deciding whether nuclear power plants should be completely decommissioned or partially extended in case of need, or to research more advanced and safer nuclear facilities that might be an option in the future. The decision should be based on professional technological expertise and pragmatic feasibility devoid of political interference.
The government also needs to work out a new energy road map to scale up power generation from renewable sources of energy, as well as encourage energy saving, to secure the nation’s energy supply.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Japan and the Philippines on Monday signed a defense agreement that would facilitate joint drills between them. The pact was made “as both face an increasingly assertive China,” and is in line with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s “effort to forge security alliances to bolster the Philippine military’s limited ability to defend its territorial interests in the South China Sea,” The Associated Press (AP) said. The pact also comes on the heels of comments by former US deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger, who said at a forum on Tuesday last week that China’s recent aggression toward the Philippines in
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which