Multiple environmental groups and legal experts this week urged citizens to vote “no” in the nuclear power referendum, which is to be held alongside the nine-in-one local elections on Nov. 28. The referendum asks voters whether they support the government using nuclear power to boost the economy, with the aim of abolishing the “nuclear-free homeland” energy policy. Opposition groups argue that holding another referendum so soon turns a complicated energy policy question into a partisan campaign issue. Holding the referendum alongside local elections could help the proposal secure the support it failed to obtain last year, when a majority of valid votes favored restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County’s Hengchun Township (恆春), but turnout fell short of the required threshold. Environmental activists have also warned that restarting nuclear power could divert investment from renewable energy and storage, while still failing to address the problem of radioactive waste — all concerns that deserve serious consideration. It also raises a more fundamental question: What, exactly, are voters being asked to authorize?The wording presents nuclear power as an instrument of economic revitalization, inviting voters to treat its return as an obvious route to greater economic prosperity. Although the government and Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) have already undertaken preliminary assessments and begun the process of preparing the Ma-anshan and Guosheng plants for a possible restart, important questions remain about the costs, conditions and practical challenges involved. Projections of potential electricity generation and restart timelines are useful, but they are not guarantees of the benefits and costs the plants would ultimately deliver. President William Lai (賴清德) has said that any restart would depend on nuclear safety, solutions for waste management and public consensus. The result of the referendum might provide a measure of public endorsement, but the remaining questions are essential prerequisites for determining whether and how nuclear power should be incorporated into the nation’s energy mix.
The waste issue is especially difficult to dismiss given Taiwan’s history. Orchid Island (Lanyu, 蘭嶼) is a primary example, as the Tao community has for decades opposed the storage of radioactive waste on their homeland. The facility began receiving low-level radioactive waste in 1982 after being established without the islanders’ consent. Although the waste drums have since been repackaged to improve storage safety, they have not been removed. More than 100,000 drums remain on the island, and the government has yet to secure a permanent solution for their disposal. More than just a technical issue, the handling of nuclear waste is a question of environmental justice and public trust. Policymakers should be cautious of treating waste management as an afterthought if a decision to continue using nuclear power is made. Taiwan’s communities should not be expected to accept the risks of a national policy without meaningful consultation, clear safeguards and a feasible plan for nuclear waste management. However, this does not mean nuclear power should be entirely ruled out. Given the rapid development of artificial intelligence, Taiwan simultaneously faces rising electricity demand, pressure to reduce carbon emissions and the challenge of maintaining a reliable power supply. Thus, it is reasonable to examine every viable low-carbon energy source. However, a serious assessment must account for the full costs of nuclear generation, including plant refurbishment, safety upgrades, decommissioning and long-term waste storage. It must also explain how nuclear power would complement, rather than displace, investment in renewable energy, storage and grid resilience. The upcoming referendum asks voters to endorse the abandonment of an existing policy even as important questions about implementation remain unresolved. A “yes” vote would express support for abolishing the nuclear-free policy, but it would not make an unsafe reactor safe, identify permanent waste-disposal sites and resolve the concerns of communities expected to host them, guarantee a substantial increase in energy supply or bring immediate and sustained economic growth. Reducing such a complex policy decision to a simple yes-or-no question obscures the many practical and political considerations that must be addressed before any tangible change is implemented. Ultimately, the decision belongs to voters. However, the nation should be wary of treating a referendum as a universal solution to the difficult work of energy planning. Before Taiwan commits itself to a renewed nuclear future, it must develop a comprehensive and credible plan for getting there — and for dealing responsibly with the consequences.