Taiwan Votes for Nuclear Power

Taiwanese voters on Saturday decisively rejected the government’s phase-out of nuclear power, 59% to 41%.

After shutting down a nuclear reactor, Taiwan had a black-out in 2017 that threatened the vital semiconductor industry.

A Trend Survey Research poll commissioned by pro-nuclear activists before the vote found that one of the strongest arguments for nuclear was, “Solar and wind are not stable, and are expensive,” attracting 71% agreement.

Nuclear Myth Busters is the Facebook site of the pro-nuclear movement in Taiwan.

Nuclear power in Taiwan accounts for 5,028 MWe of capacity by means of 3 active plants and 6 reactors, which makes up around 8.1% of its national energy consumption, and 19% of its electricity generation as of 2015. President Tsai Ing-wen said in January 2015 that her party aimed to phase out nuclear power in Taiwan by 2025

30 thoughts on “Taiwan Votes for Nuclear Power”

  1. I think Vuukle is not a good commenting platform. Not that it worries me, but it seems to lose upvotes, I gave some to a few comments to this article and now they are gone

    Reply
  2. Speak of the devil, Minesto is on a swedish trade delegation to Taiwan right now, and they are much further along on their 80MW array in Scotland than I thought…

    Reply
  3. Taiwan is in a funny place energy wise. Theoretically they have some geothermal, but not much. Their mountain ranges could support onshore wind, but the steep incline from shore makes offshore wind, even fully floating ones, unattractive due to mooring costs. Not a lot of flat land area to support solar, though putting it into the building codes could claw back some space. There is ocean current (through a system like Minesto’s Deep Green underwater kite turbine). You are then left with imported fuels and nuclear. Not a great place to be. With the earthquake threat, one could make the argument a floating barge type nuclear powerplant could better deal with theoretical tsunamis. Hell, russia and mainland china is gearing up to make those right now, and there is ThorCon as an outside alternative.

    Reply
  4. Our idiot green ideologue Democrat administration just approved an off-shore wind project producing intermittent power for an obscene 78 cents / kw-hr. That’s not a misplaced decimal. Oh, and it’s in the main east coast hurricane / northeaster path. Right now, in the UK, 20GW of oh-so-green wind is producing less than 5GW of actual power according to the UK national grid real time status website.

    It’s the virtue signaling that matters for Greentards, not actual outcomes.

    Reply
  5. I like you mentioning the cost, who does not want to pay less for electricity? Like the Danes, Germans, Californians. With the high penetration of renewables in these places, one would think they get their electricity for nothing or really cheap at least, and their greenhouse gas emissions are very low. No?? not so? then why not.
    As for waste storage, isn’t that and decommissioning already paid for?? And regarding availability, Nuclear is there 90% of the time, can you give us some figures for renewables? How much does solar electricity cost at night when I need my lights on. Or at 17.30h in the northern winter, when I need to cook my supper? And grid scale batteries…”Thanks oh Elon” who gives them away free of charge.

    Reply
  6. Trolls to the right, trolls to the left. Here in mid-Atlantic, reliable clean nuclear power wholesales for 3 cents /kw-hr. Our idiot green ideologue Democrat administration just approved an off-shore wind project producing intermittent power for an obscene 78 cents / kw-hr. That’s not a misplaced decimal. Oh, and it’s in the main east coast hurricane / northeaster path. Right now, in the UK, 20GW of oh-so-green wind is producing less than 5GW of actual power according to the UK national grid real time status website.

    Reply
  7. Finally, this also looks to me like an example of broke nuclear scientists trying to force someone, ANYONE, to buy their junk. Nuclear really is worse for power generation IN EVERY WAY than renewables. Whether it be cost, waste generation (none for renewables), waste storage, accident clean up, radioactive isotopes, huge water requirements, etc. you name it the cost is higher, and there is no factor in which nuclear comes out on top.

    Reply
  8. Cuz sometimes you got too much electricity on the grid you have to turn off if you don’t want to fry everything. This is becoming more so true with renewables and their intermittent power generation. Being able to shut down/turn on power at a second’s notice is becoming a thing with grid-scale battery storage, and its proving to be very useful.

    Reply
  9. Because sometimes there is too much electricity on the grid and you have to turn power off if you don’t want to fry it. This is becoming more so true with renewables and their intermittent power generation. Being able to shut down/turn on power at a second’s notice is becoming a thing with grid-scale battery storage, and its proving to be very useful.

    This looks to me like an example of broke nuclear scientists trying to force someone, ANYONE, to buy their junk. Nuclear is worse for power generation IN EVERY WAY than renewables. Whether it is cost, waste generation (none for renewables), waste storage, accident clean up, radioactive isotopes, huge water requirements, etc. There is no factor in which nuclear comes out on top. Nuclear guys need to go into another field already and let this wasteful power generation technique go to sleep.

    Reply
  10. LOL. Nuclear power is not a scientific venture, it is a business one. Nuclear power has done miracles for France, Japan, Taiwan and many other countries, providing cheap and clean energy for decades, even accounting for the two “terrible” accidents, overblown by the media (which have actually released a lot less radiation than the nuclear weapon tests).

    Electric power is civilization, and carbon dioxide-free electric power is its future.

    Even the craziest among the so-called “greens”, who for decades engaged in spreading fake news – outright lies – and disinformation about nuclear power, are now starting to flip over.

    Only the most uneducated dimwits with a flat-earther mentality have still not figured out that because of 50 years of “OMG WE ALL GONNA DIE FROM CANCER” we’ve wasted an opportunity to advance the state of the art and have even better, cleaner and safer nuclear energy.

    You’ve contributed as much to the global climate change, folks, as your fossil fuel industry brethren.

    Reply
  11. Nuclear power is welfare for scientists who picked the wrong major. Nuclear is expensive, dangerous, wasteful, slow to ramp up/down, slow to build, can’t be deployed just anywhere, etc. etc. Knowing these people, they probably sabotaged the power grid in order to make nuclear seem attractive, these guys use deception/false-flags in order to manipulate public sentiment. They’re liars and shouldn’t be in charge of breakfast, let alone the power supply to nations.

    Reply
  12. I like you mentioning the cost, who does not want to pay less for electricity? Like the Danes, Germans, Californians. With the high penetration of renewables in these places, one would think they get their electricity for nothing or really cheap at least, and their greenhouse gas emissions are very low. No?? not so? then why not.
    As for waste storage, isn’t that and decommissioning already paid for?? And regarding availability, Nuclear is there 90% of the time, can you give us some figures for renewables? How much does solar electricity cost at night when I need my lights on. Or at 17.30h in the northern winter, when I need to cook my supper? And grid scale batteries…”Thanks oh Elon” who gives them away free of charge.

    Reply
  13. Trolls to the right, trolls to the left. Here in mid-Atlantic, reliable clean nuclear power wholesales for 3 cents /kw-hr. Our idiot green ideologue Democrat administration just approved an off-shore wind project producing intermittent power for an obscene 78 cents / kw-hr. That’s not a misplaced decimal. Oh, and it’s in the main east coast hurricane / northeaster path. Right now, in the UK, 20GW of oh-so-green wind is producing less than 5GW of actual power according to the UK national grid real time status website.

    Reply
  14. Finally, this also looks to me like an example of broke nuclear scientists trying to force someone, ANYONE, to buy their junk. Nuclear really is worse for power generation IN EVERY WAY than renewables. Whether it be cost, waste generation (none for renewables), waste storage, accident clean up, radioactive isotopes, huge water requirements, etc. you name it the cost is higher, and there is no factor in which nuclear comes out on top.

    Reply
  15. Cuz sometimes you got too much electricity on the grid you have to turn off if you don’t want to fry everything. This is becoming more so true with renewables and their intermittent power generation. Being able to shut down/turn on power at a second’s notice is becoming a thing with grid-scale battery storage, and its proving to be very useful.

    Reply
  16. Because sometimes there is too much electricity on the grid and you have to turn power off if you don’t want to fry it. This is becoming more so true with renewables and their intermittent power generation. Being able to shut down/turn on power at a second’s notice is becoming a thing with grid-scale battery storage, and its proving to be very useful.

    This looks to me like an example of broke nuclear scientists trying to force someone, ANYONE, to buy their junk. Nuclear is worse for power generation IN EVERY WAY than renewables. Whether it is cost, waste generation (none for renewables), waste storage, accident clean up, radioactive isotopes, huge water requirements, etc. There is no factor in which nuclear comes out on top. Nuclear guys need to go into another field already and let this wasteful power generation technique go to sleep.

    Reply
  17. LOL. Nuclear power is not a scientific venture, it is a business one. Nuclear power has done miracles for France, Japan, Taiwan and many other countries, providing cheap and clean energy for decades, even accounting for the two “terrible” accidents, overblown by the media (which have actually released a lot less radiation than the nuclear weapon tests).

    Electric power is civilization, and carbon dioxide-free electric power is its future.

    Even the craziest among the so-called “greens”, who for decades engaged in spreading fake news – outright lies – and disinformation about nuclear power, are now starting to flip over.

    Only the most uneducated dimwits with a flat-earther mentality have still not figured out that because of 50 years of “OMG WE ALL GONNA DIE FROM CANCER” we’ve wasted an opportunity to advance the state of the art and have even better, cleaner and safer nuclear energy.

    You’ve contributed as much to the global climate change, folks, as your fossil fuel industry brethren.

    Reply
  18. Nuclear power is welfare for scientists who picked the wrong major. Nuclear is expensive, dangerous, wasteful, slow to ramp up/down, slow to build, can’t be deployed just anywhere, etc. etc. Knowing these people, they probably sabotaged the power grid in order to make nuclear seem attractive, these guys use deception/false-flags in order to manipulate public sentiment. They’re liars and shouldn’t be in charge of breakfast, let alone the power supply to nations.

    Reply

Leave a Comment