Balancing nuclear pros and cons

On Nov. 28, people participating in the nine-in-one local elections will be handed one more ballot. It asks: “Do you support the government using nuclear power to revive the economy, thereby abolishing the ‘nuclear-free homeland’ energy policy?”

The answer will probably be yes. Last year, three in four voters backed keeping the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County open, but turnout was too low. An August poll put support for restarting reactors near 70 percent, and a local election ballot should solve the turnout problem. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party proposed the referendum question, and President William Lai’s (賴清德) government has said it can accept restarts if the plants are safe, there is a solution on safely disposing of nuclear waste and the public agrees. A yes vote would settle only the third. It would not, on its own, tell Taiwan what nuclear power is worth or how soon it can return.

Yet much of the groundwork is already laid. In November last year, the Ministry of Economic Affairs accepted Taiwan Power’s (Taipower) finding that the Guosheng Plant in New Taipei City and the Ma-anshan Plant could be restarted. Taipower filed a restart plan for Ma-anshan in March, began inspections with Westinghouse Electric Co, which supplied its reactors, in May, and won the Nuclear Safety Commission’s approval in September. Ma-anshan could produce power again in 2028.

In 2016, nuclear power supplied 12 percent of Taiwan’s electricity. The four reactors at Ma-anshan and Guosheng produced about 30 billion kilowatt-hours a year, roughly what Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co uses, or close to one-10th of Taiwan’s electricity by 2030.

The first and most important benefit is fuel that lasts. Gas stocks last days, while a fueled reactor runs for 18 to 24 months. The four reactors would produce more than half of what all of Taiwan’s households use in a year. In a crisis, including a blockade, that could keep hospitals, water, communications and government running for more than a year without a fuel delivery, making it harder to squeeze Taiwan through its energy supply. It would also cut gas imports by about one-sixth, or 50 to 60 fewer tanker deliveries a year.

The second is a steadier grid. Between 2017 and 2022, Taiwan had three major blackouts, hitting more than 6 million households in 2017, about 4 million in 2021 and 5.49 million in 2022. Most power is generated in the south and used in the north, so one fault can spread across the network; Kuosheng sits near Taipei. This is not an argument against renewables, which supplied 13.1 percent of electricity last year, short of the 20 percent target. Choosing one option does not mean rejecting the others. With little land and few resources, Taiwan has to weigh every option on its merits.

The third is stable prices. Nuclear power cost NT$1.41 per kilowatt-hour in 2024, against NT$2.94 for gas. Because fuel is a small part of a reactor’s running cost, spikes in world gas prices would hit bills less.

The fourth is room to grow. Electricity demand is rising with artificial intelligence and chipmaking, and Taiwan has written a 2050 net-zero target into law. Meeting both with gas as the main backup would be hard.

Meanwhile, the fears around nuclear power are understandable, and each deserves a straight answer.

Earthquakes worry people most. Fukushima failed because a tsunami flooded its backup power, not because the quake broke the reactors, and Taiwan’s plants have added protections since then. Still, a member of Pingtung’s nuclear safety oversight committee has asked that geologists review a fault near Ma-anshan. Taipower’s plan does not clearly include a fresh seismic study. Commissioning one, with outside experts and published results, would cost little and answer the most common fear. Apart from perhaps security concerns, nothing else would stop such a study getting published.

Age is the next concern. US regulators have licensed several plants of similar age to run for 80 years, though restarts are slower, as delays at Michigan’s Palisades show. Taipower and Westinghouse are testing every major reactor component, and a foreign specialist body must also review the restart.

Waste is less dangerous than its reputation, but politically more problematic. Dry casks in the US have not released radiation affecting the public since 1986. Ma-anshan’s cooling pool has room for only a few more years of used fuel. Guosheng’s outdoor dry storage, first due in 2017, is tied up in three lawsuits with New Taipei City over a soil and water permit, and until it opens, 1,248 fuel assemblies cannot leave its reactors. For permanent disposal, the ministry is reportedly drafting a siting law, after a search stalled since 2012. South Korea, which pays its waste-hosting city of Gyeongju generously and shares the site’s revenue, offers a model.

Then there is the threat of war. Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant, the largest in Europe, has been occupied and attacked since 2022. Drones have struck its buildings and it has lost outside power 21 times, yet backup generators have kept its reactors cooled and radiation has stayed within normal limits. The risk is real, but it is not unique to nuclear power: Gas terminals and power stations are targets, too. Defending the plants should be part of Taiwan’s wider defense planning.

Cost is a fair question. Taipower has not published the restart cost and says figures would follow its inspections. Part of that cost is best seen as insurance: power that keeps flowing when ships cannot arrive.

The last concern is trust, especially near the plants. Pingtung, home to Ma-anshan, gave the lowest yes vote of any county in last year’s referendum, 57 percent against 74 percent nationally. At an April briefing in Pingtung’s Hengchun Township (恆春), the mayor asked for full safety and higher, permanent benefits, while some residents felt forced to choose between money and safety. Defining what “safe” and “an answer on waste” mean, as civic groups ask, and agreeing a lasting deal on benefits, jobs and a seat on the oversight committee before the restart, would make the community a partner.

None of this can be rushed, and a yes vote does not change that. Senior operators would fall below the required minimum by the end of this year, so younger staff must be trained now, and new fuel from Westinghouse should be ordered early. Guosheng can follow once its fuel is in dry storage, using Ma-anshan’s lessons. Each plant should return when it is safe and ready, not on a political timetable.

Taiwan is not alone. In the US, a closed Three Mile Island reactor is being restarted to supply Microsoft by next year. India aims for 100 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2047, has set aside 200 billion rupees (US$2.12 billion) for small modular reactors and opened the sector to private firms in December last year. In February, Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) said Taiwan would accept such reactors under the same three conditions, though the first are not expected before 2030 and cost more than twice as much per unit of power. Both restarts and new builds need what Taiwan is short of: fuel, parts and trained personnel. The countries expanding nuclear power are building up all three.

Whichever way the vote goes, Taiwan’s energy problem will still be there on Nov. 29. Brought back one plant at a time, as each is ready, nuclear power can ease that problem rather than add to it.

Mihir Shete is a PhD scholar at National Chengchi University.