Nuclear Power in Taiwan is a Matter of Public Trust

Not long after the Fukushima disaster, I was driving with my husband and a friend around Orchid Island off the southeast coast of Taiwan. We routinely passed anti-nuclear protest signs and graffiti, including a memorable pair of middle fingers sprayed on a cement guardrail.

“Why is it such a big issue here?” my visiting friend asked.
“There’s a spent fuel storage site here,” I said.
“Is it safe?”
“I don’t know. Probably. But the issue is that the residents of Orchid Island weren’t asked. They were lied to about what it was.”

In the years since, anti-nuclear sentiment has only grown, from being an issue taken up by Indigenous activists to a popular view among the supporters of the 2014 Sunflower Movement and associated civil society groups, to a more central platform of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). A 2018 referendum would confirm support for extending Taiwan’s active nuclear power plants, but in 2021, voters defeated an initiative to re-start construction on Taiwan’s 4th nuclear power plant, which had been halted, re-started and halted again for almost two decades.

Nuclear power in Taiwan has been this contentious, with no clear public consensus, since Taiwan’s democratic transition in the 1990s. Supporters have pointed out Taiwan’s energy needs, as well as its insecurity: Taiwan imports most of the fossil fuel needed to power its electric plants, which might present a massive energy crisis were China to blockade Taiwan. This dirty energy significantly impacts Taiwan’s air quality, especially in Taichung. The promise of a renewable energy transition lags behind targets, and won’t produce nearly enough to meet Taiwan’s power needs for some time. Nuclear, they say, is safe, carbon-neutral and provides sufficient power.

Some opponents point out that it would be difficult to re-start construction on a shuttered plant, and the fuel rods that would have been used at the 4th plant have long since been sent back to the United States. Mostly, however, they worry about safety. Taiwan’s nuclear power plants are aging, and Taiwan is prone to earthquakes, typhoons and occasionally, tsunamis. Even Japan, with its cutting-edge technology, couldn’t prevent Fukushima from happening; although there were no deaths from radiation, it was unclear for some time if the surrounding area was habitable. A similar disaster, even with no fatalities, would be even more severe for Taiwan given its smaller size. Where would all of those displaced people go, even temporarily?

For that matter, where should we store the waste? Orchid Island certainly doesn’t want it: the original spent fuel storage facility remains there, and activists remain furious about it. The government pays residents, but hasn’t moved the waste. They likely don’t know where else it might go. Nobody else wants it, either, and while spent fuel reprocessing is possible, it’s a complicated and costly process.

A Question of Trust

Both of these arguments ignore the glowing green elephant in the room. The nuclear question in Taiwan isn’t simply one of safety, it’s one of public trust. Most people are not scientists or engineers; ideally, they would trust experts in the field. They can vote, however, and they do have a say in whether nuclear energy in Taiwan should continue. Faith in elected leaders to listen to those experts is crucial. Leaders, in turn, must demonstrate that beyond a hardline pro- or anti-nuclear stance, public safety and overall transparency is paramount.

Most of the engineering questions and safety concerns over nuclear power are solvable. Nuclear waste can be stored safely. It is possible to build plants that can withstand the strongest earthquake or typhoon that might hit Taiwan. Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) can alleviate some of the construction difficulties. In theory, they can be built safely, even in earthquake-prone Taiwan, but the technology is still relatively new; only two SMRs have been built and put into operation. All other designs remain theoretical.

For that matter, with sufficient funding, renewable energy might actually meet government targets were sufficient research and development funds poured into it. There is no good reason why Taiwan has not done more to tap into  the massive geothermal energy resource quite literally under its feet. It’s complicated, but possible.

If safe nuclear energy is possible, then the issue isn’t what if Fukushima happened in Taiwan? That is preventable, and most rational people can be convinced that the technology exists to ensure this level of safety. The real question is, can we trust the Taiwanese government to build such safe nuclear reactors? On that question, the Taiwanese electorate still seems unsure – and the government has done little to reassure them. The DPP, generally opposed to nuclear power, has no political reason to develop public service campaigns to assuage public fears. If safe nuclear power is possible in Taiwan, then fearmongering that it simply cannot be done is irresponsible.

The KMT, as usual, doesn’t seem to care much whether they have the public’s trust, and has not demonstrated that safety and transparency are core concerns. They want nuclear power, therefore it must be a good idea, and they don’t seem to take the need to persuade voters beyond this. These same politicians then wonder why their proposals to extend the lifespan of the current reactor at Ma’anshan (the 3rd plant), eventually re-start operations of shuttered plants as well as construction on the unfinished Lungmen (4th) plant are met with controversy.

The KMT has backed proposals for SMRs, but has done very little to convince the public of their safety. The DPP has shown some interest in the technology as well. Neither party has shown deep interest in actually funding the research and development of SMRs in Taiwan, however, let alone engaging in public discussions that might alleviate safety concerns about both reactors and waste. KMT policies still orient toward re-opening old plants, and the DPP seems unenthusiastic about wavering from its “nuclear-free homeland” stance.

Some in the KMT have promised that no re-activation or new construction will occur without a proper safety review. Perhaps this is true. However, the KMT’s emphasis seems to be on relaxing restrictions in order to revitalize Taiwan’s nuclear program, which implies prioritizing speed over safety – all at a time when the public is particularly concerned about safety. Given the KMT’s history of deceit regarding nuclear power, their love of handouts to construction-industrial complex and the alleged mismanagement of some of the plants, this is hardly sufficient reassurance.

Lies and Alleged Mismanagement

The deceit that played out on Orchid Island alone should be enough to raise alarm bells. In fact, one of the masterminds behind the Orchid Island waste storage plan was Sun Yun-hsuan, the revered statesman and ‘father’ of the Hsinchu Science Park. While we don’t know if Sun himself thought that Orchid Island’s Indigenous residents were told the storage facility would be a pineapple cannery, that such a highly-respected figure was involved in an issue so embedded in falsehood should cause merits at least a second thought regarding the respectability of Taiwan’s nuclear sector.

The spent fuel storage on Orchid Island hasn’t led to any known increase in local cancer rates, but that’s not really the point: the lack of trust comes from the original deception. Taiwan wasn’t a democracy then, but it is now, and public trust must be earned, not trampled by diktat.

Will the dry storage facility meant to house waste from the decommissioned Kuosheng (#2) plant in Wanli be safe for local residents? Probably, but doubts linger. After the drawn-out conflict over water and soil safety permits and focus on speed over safety, does the public feel entirely at ease? Likely not, but at least this time nobody is being lied to about it being a fruit cannery.

Mismanagement is a nebulous term, so let’s look at a specific example. In 2010 an American company, Midco Diving and Marine Services, was subcontracted to carry out maintenance on the suppression pool at Wanli’s Kuosheng nuclear power plant. The suppression pool is a vital component of plant safety, and must be kept clean. This is not what Midco discovered, however:

According to foreign material exclusion (FME) rules, any object that is taken into a suppression pool must be taken out. With sediment naturally accumulating at the bottom of a pool, underwater maintenance must be carried out regularly, Greenspan said, which is usually every one or two years.

However, as the operators of the Kuosheng power plant were treating the pool as a “garbage dump” and maintenance had not been done in years, the need was much greater, as foreign objects could clog the pool, he said.

Usually, about 30cm of sediment is found at the bottom of a pool, but in Kuosheng’s case, [Midco president Robert] Greenspan’s team found “feet of sediments” and “massive corrosion” of the tank, he said.

Due to the unexpected amount of garbage, the Midco team was not able to finish the job, but were “told not to say anything”. They were then locked out of the plant, losing access to their own equipment, and never paid for their work.

Would you trust nuclear power plants allegedly run this way to continue to be built around your geographically-small nation? Does this scenario describe the actions of a nuclear power program that focuses on safety?

Mismanagement may also occur in a plant’s inception. Anti-nuclear groups point out that the #3 plant at Ma’anshan received no environmental impact assessment when construction began in the late 1970s. There has been no Fukushima-like natural disaster to test Maanshan’s resilience. While advocates for extending operations at Maanshan promise proper safety reviews, given this history, public trust must be earned.

Taiwan’s nuclear ambivalence has also been blamed on deceit that is even more embedded in Taiwanese history. Proponents may insist that Taiwan’s nuclear program was developed with peaceful intent by benevolent KMT infrastructure gurus, to provide a stable source of power for the developing country’s growing energy needs.

There is some truth to this, but also a dark side: to remain in Washington’s good graces and retain access to American resources and technical expertise, the KMT dictatorship made exactly such promises. At the same time, they quietly developed the expertise necessary to build nuclear weapons while conducting covert research. In doing so, they risked not only sanctions and cutting off of all military assistance, but potentially total US abandonment of Taiwan. This illicit nuclear weapons program ran through much of the second half of the 20th century and risked the safety of all Taiwanese.

The KMT dictatorship is gone, but the current crop of nuclear advocates are their disciples. Why should the Taiwanese public trust the same party that lied for years about weapons research to be nuclear stewards now?

The 20th century was a long time ago, but this also means the KMT has had decades to polish its image as the builders of safe, cutting-edge nuclear technology. This might even give them an edge over the DPP, given public concerns over air pollution and energy security. And yet, they have not done so.

Future Directions

Taiwan’s energy future is not necessarily a question of whether to keep or abandon nuclear power. The pro-nuclear side must convince the public that safety does indeed matter more to them than speed, that they don’t want nuclear simply for the sake of some rusty party legacy, and that the history of lies and mismanagement are truly that – history. That not only can a power plant or storage facility be built safely enough that one might live next door to it, even in an earthquake or tsunami, but that the facilities built will actually be that safe.

The anti-nuclear side, if it is to prevail, must not only convince the public that it will do more to meet renewable energy targets and reduce dependence on polluting, mostly-imported fossil fuels – it must actually do so. Handing the construction-industrial complex fistfuls of cash to build solar and wind farms that don’t meet Taiwan’s energy needs isn’t much better than handing it to them for nuclear power facilities that may or may not meet safety protocols. Renewables need more research and development. While programs such as subsidies for replacing old appliances with energy-efficient ones are a good start, they are insufficient.

Beyond this, reducing the demand for power may ameliorate some of Taiwan’s energy woes. This is unlikely, however, as Taiwan seems intent on bolstering its most successful businesses as a conduit for greater international recognition, and deserved or not, the public still admires most (though perhaps not all) of its “gazillionaires”. Everyday residents, in general, seem fairly conservative with their electricity use. However, ending artificially low energy prices might indeed persuade those gazillionaires to implement more efficient manufacturing operations and perhaps set the air conditioning in their offices and shopping malls to something above Arctic temperatures.

All sides would do well to consider more advanced nuclear technology, including passive safety systems and sincere interest in SMRs. This may allow the DPP to embrace nuclear power to an extent, while maintaining its credible accusations that Taiwan’s current reactor safety and reliability are, at the very least, still a matter worthy of public discussion.

(Featured photo from Taipower Exhibit Center in Northern Taiwan)