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.
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?
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.
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?
Angelica, meant to leave a comment earlier. Thanks again so much for working with us. Looking forward to the next time! What an excellent piece.