IMO, the security argument is the strongest one in a Taiwanese context, and why I wouldn't rush to make Taiwan nuclear-power-free (as a hedge against blockades). But I do not trust the people who run the nuclear power plants to operate them safely in the long term, especially in a seismically active area. Yes, it is technologically possible to have a safe nuclear power plant, but it's cheaper for the plant operators to use deception and corruption to get away with lower standards. And here in California, we had a nuclear power plant built on a place which was supposed to be appropriate... but after they built it and put it in operation, they discovered it was on top of an earthquake fault. Oops.
You also didn't mention the nuclear waste issue on Lanyu. They lied to the people about putting nuclear waste there, and they didn't inform, let alone try to obtain the consent, of residents, and they didn't bother to store the waste properly, so the containers are rusted and cracking. Though I didn't go inside (why would I) I've passed by the nuclear storage waste facility and seen it with my own eyes. Why should we trust these people with nuclear safety?
That said, I've long thought that Tsai Ing-wen's advocacy of natural gas was, at best, politically expedient, not a good long-term solution.
Better solution: energy conservation. Much better for the environment, reduces reliance on energy imports, and much safer. A step towards energy conservation would be to raise electricity prices, with perhaps subsidies/assistance for the poorest households.
Hi Sara, thanks for your comment. I believe the Lanyu question is in fact very connected to the authoritarian association with nuclear power. Those people were disrespected, not consulted. Now, if you take a Geiger counter to Lanyu, you’ll find that the radiation level there is lower than in Taipei. This is because the waste that was disposed of there is low-level, not high level.
What plant are you talking about in California? Diablo canyon? As far as I know that’s very safe. Nuclear plants both in Taiwan and in general have had an exceptional safety record. When climate change is a known existential risk, it doesn’t make sense for me to worry about hypothetical risks.
The point of my essay is that it is in fact difficult for people to assess risk associated with nuclear power plants, and so it often seems sensible to err on the side of caution. But if you actually look at the numbers, rather than let fear and cynicism run rampant, they are statistically a very safe way of obtaining power, including in Taiwan. Certainly much more so than fossil fuel plants. You say you do not trust people who run the nuclear power plants. But the alternative, like gas and coal, have catastrophic costs baked in.
While energy conservation sound great, for an export-oriented economy like Taiwan, it would be devastating economically. I agree with you about raising electricity prices to discourage waste. But I suspect to get a good reduction on volume you will need to raise it up so high that Taiwan’s key industries like chip-making would be wounded. This in and of itself creates another national security risk.
Greetings! After I finished a post on a counterfactual Taiwanese nuclear program, I discovered this post, and from that both your blogs. Really excellent work! I am now a follower. (I work on energy issues and teach about it at GWU in DC.)
Since you know far more about the Taiwanese context than I ever will, I humbly submit this post for your criticisms and brickbats:
It's frustrating to watch. In the US and Germany, nuclear sentiment seems largely driven by degrowth-type environmental activists. I'm curious to what degree the DPP's anti-nuclear position stems from the same environmentalist concerns vs. a reaction to the KMT's pro-nuclear position?
There's a lot of fearmongering as in the case for nuclear energy everywhere. But the partisan nature of the way this issue breaks on top of the usual NIMBYism is a really bad combination.
IMO, the security argument is the strongest one in a Taiwanese context, and why I wouldn't rush to make Taiwan nuclear-power-free (as a hedge against blockades). But I do not trust the people who run the nuclear power plants to operate them safely in the long term, especially in a seismically active area. Yes, it is technologically possible to have a safe nuclear power plant, but it's cheaper for the plant operators to use deception and corruption to get away with lower standards. And here in California, we had a nuclear power plant built on a place which was supposed to be appropriate... but after they built it and put it in operation, they discovered it was on top of an earthquake fault. Oops.
You also didn't mention the nuclear waste issue on Lanyu. They lied to the people about putting nuclear waste there, and they didn't inform, let alone try to obtain the consent, of residents, and they didn't bother to store the waste properly, so the containers are rusted and cracking. Though I didn't go inside (why would I) I've passed by the nuclear storage waste facility and seen it with my own eyes. Why should we trust these people with nuclear safety?
That said, I've long thought that Tsai Ing-wen's advocacy of natural gas was, at best, politically expedient, not a good long-term solution.
Better solution: energy conservation. Much better for the environment, reduces reliance on energy imports, and much safer. A step towards energy conservation would be to raise electricity prices, with perhaps subsidies/assistance for the poorest households.
Hi Sara, thanks for your comment. I believe the Lanyu question is in fact very connected to the authoritarian association with nuclear power. Those people were disrespected, not consulted. Now, if you take a Geiger counter to Lanyu, you’ll find that the radiation level there is lower than in Taipei. This is because the waste that was disposed of there is low-level, not high level.
What plant are you talking about in California? Diablo canyon? As far as I know that’s very safe. Nuclear plants both in Taiwan and in general have had an exceptional safety record. When climate change is a known existential risk, it doesn’t make sense for me to worry about hypothetical risks.
The point of my essay is that it is in fact difficult for people to assess risk associated with nuclear power plants, and so it often seems sensible to err on the side of caution. But if you actually look at the numbers, rather than let fear and cynicism run rampant, they are statistically a very safe way of obtaining power, including in Taiwan. Certainly much more so than fossil fuel plants. You say you do not trust people who run the nuclear power plants. But the alternative, like gas and coal, have catastrophic costs baked in.
While energy conservation sound great, for an export-oriented economy like Taiwan, it would be devastating economically. I agree with you about raising electricity prices to discourage waste. But I suspect to get a good reduction on volume you will need to raise it up so high that Taiwan’s key industries like chip-making would be wounded. This in and of itself creates another national security risk.
Greetings! After I finished a post on a counterfactual Taiwanese nuclear program, I discovered this post, and from that both your blogs. Really excellent work! I am now a follower. (I work on energy issues and teach about it at GWU in DC.)
Since you know far more about the Taiwanese context than I ever will, I humbly submit this post for your criticisms and brickbats:
https://www.noelmaurer.com/p/taiwan-apopyrenistes
It's frustrating to watch. In the US and Germany, nuclear sentiment seems largely driven by degrowth-type environmental activists. I'm curious to what degree the DPP's anti-nuclear position stems from the same environmentalist concerns vs. a reaction to the KMT's pro-nuclear position?
There's a lot of fearmongering as in the case for nuclear energy everywhere. But the partisan nature of the way this issue breaks on top of the usual NIMBYism is a really bad combination.