Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Jnlin/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0
THE KMT HAS again called for extending the lifespan of Taiwan’s existing nuclear reactors, citing a poll conducted by the party that found that 73.6% of the public supports such an extension, while this was only opposed by 20.7% of the public.
As such, the KMT has called for extending the lifespan of Taiwan’s current nuclear power plants from 40 years to 60 years, by adding an additional 20 years of operation. Otherwise, the KMT has sought to cast doubt on the authority of the central government in managing nuclear energy, in suggesting that the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ Energy Administration acts according to the dictates of the central government.
In response, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has stated that Taiwan’s current nuclear power plants were only designed to be operated for 40 years. Consequently, the government has suggested that it would be dangerous for Taiwan to extend the lifespan of Taiwan’s current nuclear power plants.
Taiwan has historically been cautious of nuclear energy. Much of the early contention regarding nuclear energy was due to waste disposal. Given Taiwan’s limited land, few constituencies have wished to take on nuclear waste. Indeed, consecutive KMT presidential candidates who were mayors of New Taipei were criticized for opposing nuclear waste disposal facilities in New Taipei when they were mayor, but then calling for nuclear energy as presidential candidate.
The history of the KMT foisting nuclear waste on local communities, without adequate consultation or even consent, has not helped with nuclear energy’s image problems in Taiwan. The most famous case in point is Indigenous-majority Orchid Island, also known as Lanyu, which had a nuclear waste disposal facility illegally foisted upon it. Local residents were originally told that the facility was a canning facility.
Photo credit: Ellery/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0
The 2011 Fukushima disaster led to a renewed wave of anti-nuclear activism, as one of the major social movement demonstrations in the years before the Sunflower Movement. Like Japan, Taiwan also sees frequent seismic activity. Similar to Japan, Taiwan also has limited land mass that could potentially be contaminated in the event of a nuclear disaster, as occurred in Fukushima prefecture.
Historically, anti-nuclear activism in Taiwan dovetailed with trends in national identity, in that the DPP framed its anti-nuclear stance as defending Taiwan’s environment against the KMT–a party that only wished to exploit Taiwan’s natural resources to return to China. By contrast, the KMT’s nuclear advocacy leverages on nostalgia for a past era in Taiwanese politics, in which nuclear energy constituted the majority of the energy mix in Taiwan–currently it only constitutes 5% of the energy mix–and in which economic growth was high.
Indeed, the KMT’s nuclear advocacy often brings up the need for a stable power supply to keep industry operating. But other dimensions of its nuclear advocacy are not rational, such as suggesting that economic prosperity will return to Taiwan if Taiwan returns to nuclear energy, or even suggesting that the burden of nuclear waste disposal be shared among the citizenry through outlandish proposals such as every household having a bottle of nuclear waste.
Ironically, the DPP has recently compromised on its historic anti-nuclear position, with suggestions by the Lai administration calling for the use of small-scale reactors and advanced nuclear technology. The DPP hazards retaliation from its support base in shifting on its longstanding anti-nuclear position but is motivated to do so because of Taiwan’s lack of energy resources that it would need in the event of a Chinese invasion.
As such, it may be for this reason that the KMT is reaching for the policy platform of extending Taiwan’s current nuclear reactors. The KMT may be searching for means to distinguish its nuclear platform from that of the DPP, then.