The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) path to a “nuclear-free homeland” has been a long one. The party is now turning a corner, unsure of the road ahead.
The removal of nuclear power from Taiwan’s energy mix has been a part of the DPP’s energy policy right from its first administration, with then-president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) decision to halt construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in 2000.
Former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) suggested the adoption of the nuclear-free homeland policy in 2011 during her first presidential campaign. Her idea was to allow the completion of the fourth plant, but not enable it to go into commercial operation, and for the other three nuclear power plants to be decommissioned at the end of their operational life by next year, with no extensions.
In 2011, 2025 still seemed far off. Tsai lost that election to then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and would not initiate the non-nuclear policy until she became president in 2016. There was still just under a decade to go then, but the clock was ticking.
The road ahead looks conspicuously shorter now and the nation’s energy needs are changing with the increased importance of chip manufacturing and the anticipated growth of artificial intelligence, both of which are energy-intensive. Chip manufacturing requires a steady energy supply and any interruption in the manufacturing process has knock-on effects on the international supply chain.
The public was generally on board with the DPP’s non-nuclear policy, especially after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster and tsunami in Japan in March 2011.
Just as Japan cannot escape its geological realities, neither can Taiwan, being in an earthquake zone, with people concentrated in densely populated areas near its nuclear power plants. The question is how to balance geological reality, public safety, energy needs and economic policy with the DPP’s nuclear policy, as well as the threat of climate change and the government’s commitment to zero carbon emissions by 2050.
There is a change in the mood on transitioning to a nuclear-free nation, not just among the public, but also among academics and experts, and even within the DPP itself.
President William Lai (賴清德) on Thursday last week convened the first meeting of the National Climate Change Response Committee. He said that the “nuclear-free homeland” was not an ideological stance that the DPP is necessarily wedded to, and that he is willing to take a science-based practical approach to Taiwan’s energy mix needs with regards to the nation’s economy, industry, public interest and national security. Lai also specified that any changes would require social consensus, taking into account nuclear safety and the disposal of nuclear waste.
Lai invited former Academia Sinica president Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) — who agrees with proposals to continue using nuclear energy and that “the potential disasters that it could bring cannot compare with the complete destruction of the human race” — as a consultant and Pegatron Corp chief executive officer Tung Tzu-hsien (童子賢) to serve as deputy convener of the committee. Tung has called for an extension to operations at the Jinshan and Guosheng nuclear power plants in New Taipei City, and having nuclear power supplement the energy mix until renewable energy sources are mature enough to supplant it. He is an example of someone who has changed his position on the nuclear issue, saying that 30 years ago he was also opposed to nuclear power, but now believes, as Lee does, that global warming is the more pressing issue.
There will continue to be disagreements between groups on either side of the nuclear power debate. However, there should also be questions about why this debate is only happening now, so near to 2025.
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS