Taiwan's Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant (NPP3) Unit 2 was officially shut down on May 17. A referendum on Aug. 23 will play a decisive role in determining whether the country continues to use nuclear power. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Unit 2 of the Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant (NPP3) in Pingtung County, Taiwan’s last operating nuclear reactor, was decommissioned on May 17, marking the beginning of the country’s nuclear-free era. Just three days later, however, the Legislative Yuan approved a proposal for a referendum to restarting the plant, scheduled for Aug. 23, giving its future a new twist.
Japan’s Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011 sparked worldwide opposition to nuclear power, and Taiwan was no exception. In recent years, however, the rapid growth of AI and the push for net-zero emissions have driven up demand for electricity, putting nuclear power back in the spotlight.
Regarding the nuclear power referendum, which asks “whether NPP3 should continue operating if approved by regulators as safe,” RECCESSARY outlines four key points of public concern to explain both sides of the debate.
Question 1: Can Taiwan achieve net-zero emissions without nuclear power?
- Proponents: Taiwan needs nuclear power to supply low-carbon, stable electricity, especially in the face of carbon tariffs.
- Opponents: A nuclear-free policy does not mean power shortages. Taiwan is earthquake-prone, densely populated, and still lacks a solution for nuclear waste, making it unsuitable for nuclear development.
Amid the AI boom, Taiwan’s rising energy consumption has drawn growing attention. Supporters of restarting nuclear point to delays in renewable energy development, arguing that stable, low-carbon electricity is essential to achieve the 2050 net-zero goal. Opponents counter that the nuclear power’s carbon footprint should be assessed over its entire life cycle, not just during generation.
In its 2023 National Electricity Supply and Demand Report, the Ministry of Economic Affairs projected an average annual growth rate of 2.8% in energy demand from 2024 to 2033. (Chart: RECCESSARY; Source: Ministry of Economic Affairs)
Yeh Tsung-kuang (葉宗洸), professor of the National Tsing Hua University’s Department of Engineering and System Science, said that while countries around the world are pursuing net-zero emissions, no one can guarantee the goal will be met by 2050. Therefore, many have designated nuclear power as a key energy option.
“Taiwan must have nuclear power,” Yeh said, noting that the country’s independent grid makes securing stable, low-carbon electricity the biggest challenge to achieving net-zero emissions. Renewable energy development has lagged behind, and under the government’s current plan, 80% of electricity would come from thermal power generation. Without extending nuclear power, he argued, meeting the target would be nearly impossible.
Taiwan must not only extend but also expand its use of nuclear power, Yeh said. If all four nuclear plants and their eight reactor units were restarted by 2030, they could supply at most 18% of the country’s electricity. With annual electricity demand growing by 2%, that share would fall to around 16%. This means low-carbon sources would still account for less than half of the total generation even when combined with renewable energy.
Yeh said that all existing nuclear plants could be expanded. The original plan envisioned the four plants housing a total of 20 units, which would raise the nuclear power’ share to as much as 40%.
Environmental groups argue that energy policy should not be framed as a choice between nuclear power and electricity shortages. Nuclear researcher Lin Cheng-yuan (林正原) of Green Citizen’s Action Alliance said the notion that that thermal power would be the only option once nuclear is phased out misleads the public and undermines support for energy generation.
He stressed that the next decade will be critical for renewable energy growth, and the government should ensure opportunities for participation by civil society, businesses, and local governments, rather than turning back to nuclear power.
Citing the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024, Lin noted that the global share of nuclear electricity is declining rather than increasing. Only a few countries see nuclear energy as a transitional option, while the prevailing trend is to rely on renewables, energy storage technologies, and grids improvements to achieve net zero.
“Taiwan is earthquake-prone, densely populated, and has nowhere to store nuclear waste, making it unsuitable for nuclear development,” Lin said. Taiwan already has a concrete energy transition plan, and resources would be better spent on renewables rather than extending the life or restarting high-risk, aging reactors, he added.
While nuclear power is often seen as low-carbon, stable, and affordable, Lin identified three major risks. First, its carbon footprint should be calculated across the entire life cycle, including uranium mining, fuel processing, plant construction, decommissioning, and waste management. Second, the apparent low cost ignores construction and decommission expenses, as well as the transfer of insurance and accident risks to society. Lastly, when factoring in risk, nuclear power is far more vulnerable to war and natural disasters than decentralized sources such as wind, solar and energy storage.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs plans to fill the gap with electricity generated from renewables and natural gas to meet rising electricity demand. (Image: Ministry of Economic Affairs)
Question 2: Is NPP3 located on a fault line and lacking sufficient earthquake resistance?
- Proponents: Nuclear plants are built to high seismic standards and, after reinforcement, have comprehensive “Ultimate Response Guideline (URG)” measures in place.
- Opponents: Reactor aging is irreversible, and the risks from earthquakes and fault lines remain high.
Records show that since beginning operations in 1984, NPP3 has experienced several accidents, raising public concerns over the safety of restarting the facility. Lin outlined three major risks:
- Reactor aging is irreversible: The embrittlement of steel pressure vessels is caused by long-term neutron irradiation. This material degradation cannot be repaired and is difficult to predict.
- High earthquake and fault-line risks: NPP3 sits on the Hengchun Fault, and recent geological data shows that the potential active fault is longer and younger than previously thought. Even the latest seismic resistance standards may not be sufficient to safely reinforce the aging units, whose original design had lower earthquake resistance.
- No place to store nuclear waste: The spent fuel pool at NPP3 is nearly full, and its dry storage facility has yet to be completed.
The Hengchun Fault is just one kilometer from the main gate of NPP3. This is not a problem that policy changes or structural upgrades can resolve, Lin said. He added that nuclear power is a highly complex system whose risks cannot be fully contained, and that any accident would pose both a national security and ecological crisis.
The two white lines in the image mark the Hengchun Fault, taken from page 20 of Geological Overview of the Hengchun Fault (Including NPP3). The right image is a Google Maps view with the Hengchun Fault indicated in white lines, while the red square outlines the nuclear island area of NPP3. (Source: Professor Chen Wen-shan’s (陳文山) presentation)
Yeh, however, offered a different view, saying that Taiwan’s nuclear plants are built to the highest seismic standards. He added that their structures were further reinforced and emergency drills enhanced after Japan’s Fukushima disaster.
“I can say with certainty that an accident like Fukushima will not happen in Taiwan,” Yeh said. He explained that the Fukushima disaster was triggered by a 12-meter tsunami that flooded basement generators, cutting off cooling to the reactors and leading to a meltdown. In Taiwan, nuclear plants are built more than 10 meters above sea level, equipped with tsunami walls, and have external generators installed at elevated locations.
Yeh noted that Taipower conducted a comprehensive reassessment of seismic hazards after the Fukushima disaster. He said that all structural components of Taiwan’s nuclear plants now meet the highest seismic standards, with resistance levels of 0.6 to 0.7g (see note)—higher than the 0.3g standard for Taipei 101.
In addition, Taipower introduced the Ultimate Response Guideline (URG) after the Fukushima accident. Yeh explained that a reactor core would begin melting within an hour of cooling system failure, so each year the company conducts drills simulating emergency measures such as water injection and power restoration within 45 minutes. Taipower has also published this approach in an international journal.
.png)
Once the seismoscope detects an earthquake exceeding the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) threshold, the safety shutdown system will activate to ensure the reactor is promptly and safely shut down, preventing any release of radiation.
Question 3: How much money and time would it take to restart a nuclear plant?
- Proponents: Restarting a nuclear reactor would cost at least TWD 15 billion.
- Opponents: Restarting California’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant required loans totaling about TWD 46.1 billion.
Restarting a nuclear plant requires going through the full administrative process and carrying out safety upgrades. The public is concerned about whether this can be done in time to meet the interim 2030 decarbonization targets set by the government and businesses, and whether it would add to Taipower’s operational burden.
Yeh said that restarting a single nuclear unit would cost between TWD 15 billion and TWD 25 billion. Each nuclear plant has two units, so restarting three plants would cost about TWD 90 billion. The price difference is mainly due to NPP3’s pressurized water reactors, whose steam generators cost over TWD 10 billion each. Replacing them would be expensive, though such replacements are rare in nuclear life-extension projects worldwide.
Moreover, restarting NPP3 would not take three years, Yeh said, noting that Unit 2 has only just shut down and Unit 1 has been offline for about a year. The existing safety and maintenance procedures can still be applied, and one year of safety checks would be sufficient. However, new nuclear fuel would need to be ordered, with a lead time of about one to two years.
Yeh estimated that Chinshan, Kuosheng, and Lungmen nuclear power plants could all have their operations extended. Kuosheng has not yet received decommissioning approval, and its units remain on site, but after a long shutdown it would take about two years to prepare and procure fuels. Some equipment at Chinshan has been removed, so restarting it would require three to four years. At Lungmen, Unit 1 completed trial operations and Unit 2 is about 90% finished, meaning that procurement, construction, and administrative procedures would together take five to six years.
Global investments in new nuclear plants and life extensions is on the rise. (Source: IEA)
Yeh believes that extending the use of nuclear power is the only way for Taipower to return to profitability. The Green Citizen’s Action Alliance, however, argues that US experience shows restarting nuclear plants would instead increase Taipower’s financial burden.
Lin pointed out that NPP3 would need a thorough inventory and inspection of key equipment and structures, including a comprehensive safety review, lifetime management of structural components, equipment replacement and upgrades, post-Fukushima safety enhancements, and seismic reinforcement assessments. The restart plan would also have to undergo nuclear safety reviews by both international and regulatory authorities. He added that the total cost could far exceed that of building new natural gas or renewable energy facilities.
Lin cited Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in California—the state’s last operating nuclear facility, built by Westinghouse like Taiwan’s NPP3—as an example. To extend operations by five years, utility company PG&E applied to the California government for a loan of USD 1.4 billion to cover equipment upgrades, fuel purchases, and other work.
In addition, data submitted by PG&E to the California Public Utilities Commission in its request for an electricity rate increase showed that the five-year life extension would cost USD 11.8 billion to operate, with generation costs ranging from USD 101 to USD 131 per megawatt-hour, making it far from a cheap option.
The figure shows the relationship between the share of nuclear power, generation costs, and electricity prices over the past decade. Before fuel costs surged in 2022, both generation costs and electricity prices were lower than when nuclear power accounted for 16% of the total. (Source: Green Citizen’s Action Alliance)
Question 4: How can the nuclear waste problem be solved?
- Proponents: Point to South Korea’s model for final disposal of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste.
- Opponents: Taiwan lacks suitable sites, social consensus and legislative framework.
Regarding public concerns over nuclear waste, Yeh said that the process involves three stages. First, spent fuel rods are placed in wet storage pools for cooling. After five to eight years, they are moved to dry storage, where they can remain for up to 40 years. The final stage is permanent disposal, which so far has only been implemented in Finland, while Sweden is building a facility scheduled for completion in 2080.
Under Taiwan’s plan, a permanent nuclear waste disposal site is scheduled for completion by 2055. Yeh acknowledged that while there are still 30 years to go, the government must not remain idle and should take more proactive steps.
In June, Yeh visited the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) and Asia’s first final disposal site for low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste. He said that South Korea decided in 2005 to locate the facility in Gyeongju, allocating a dedicated USD 3.1 billion fund for local benefits. A local referendum showed 80% support, and the government further relocated the headquarters of the state-owned power company to the area and established a branch of KAERI there, creating local job opportunities.
In July, environmental groups released a civil draft of the High-Level Radioactive Waste Siting and Disposal Act, urging the government to give greater attention to the nuclear waste issue. Lin said that Taiwan currently lacks suitable sites, social consensus, and legislative framework, such as a law for siting high-level nuclear waste facilities or legal procedures for restarting NPP3, making it difficult to bring any nuclear unit online before 2030.
Before the referendum on restarting NPP3, the Central Election Commission will hold five public presentations. Opinions remain divided over electricity prices, safety concerns, and nuclear waste management. Faced with a major choice in the energy transition, only by ensuring transparency and open access to information can society have a well-informed debate and reach a rational decision.
Note: Seismic intensity is classified by ground acceleration. A strong earthquake is defined as 0.4g or above. One g equals 1,000 gal, and higher values indicate greater earthquake resistance, a measure of how much shaking a structure can withstand.
.jpg)
