Having decommissioned the country’s final nuclear reactor earlier this year in May when its 40-year license expired, Taiwan will hold a national referendum on 23 August, to decide whether to restart the Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant “upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Hoping to provide Taiwanese voters with state-of-the-art scientific knowledge and latest information on global trends in the energy transition, Taiwan Climate Action Network has reached out to leading energy scholars worldwide for their views on Taiwan’s nuclear phase-out policy—especially in the context of the climate crisis, national security concerns under geopolitical tensions, and the so-called “nuclear renaissance”. You can find their full statements below:
Taiwan Must Not Turn Back: A Message of Solidarity for a Post-Nuclear Future
Dr. Sun-Jin Yun | Professor and Dean, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University
Taiwan has made history as the first country in Asia to phase out nuclear power. Even before its formal policy decision, Taiwan had already halted construction of two nearly completed reactors at the Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant. Then, following its bold commitment to denuclearization in 2016, Taiwan laid out a clear roadmap and proceeded to permanently shut down all six of its operating nuclear reactors by 2025. In total, eight reactors were removed from Taiwan’s energy future. This achievement stands as a global milestone—one that not only reflects the wisdom and determination of the Taiwanese people, but also shows what democratic leadership and civic engagement can accomplish in energy policy.
As a Korean educator and researcher who has supported Taiwan’s anti-nuclear movement—traveling across the island to share the experience of Seoul’s “One Less Nuclear Power Plant” initiative—I have seen firsthand the strength of Taiwan’s civil society. I was deeply inspired by how communities organized, informed, and mobilized to ensure that energy decisions would be made not by technocrats or corporations alone, but by the people. Taiwan’s experience became a source of hope and pride for many of us in Asia, proving that an energy transition rooted in justice and public engagement is indeed possible—even in societies with high electricity demand and heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels, where renewables are still being developed.
Taiwan’s nuclear phase-out was not just a policy—it was a people-powered choice for the future. Let’s not turn back. Let Taiwan lead again.
But today, that progress is under threat. Taiwan’s opposition parties have proposed a national referendum to restart the final two reactors that were recently shut down. On August 23, Taiwanese citizens will be asked to vote on whether to undo what they have so carefully and courageously accomplished. That is why I write this statement—not only to express concern, but to offer international solidarity.
While nuclear energy is often framed as a low-carbon tool for addressing climate change, the reality is more paradoxical: the worsening climate crisis itself is undermining the viability of nuclear power. As the crisis worsens, rising ocean temperatures reduce reactor cooling efficiency, while extreme weather events—such as typhoons and wildfires—and jellyfish blooms, fueled by ocean warming, increasingly threaten plant operations. And in a region prone to typhoons and earthquakes, the risk of catastrophe is never far away. Above all, nuclear energy produces radioactive waste for which no nation on Earth has found a safe, long-term solution.
Meanwhile, Taiwan has made remarkable strides in expanding solar and offshore wind. Your country is already charting a path toward a resilient, renewable energy future. To reverse course now would not only be scientifically and economically unwise—it would undermine the very civic spirit that brought you this far. The world is watching. Taiwan has led before, and you can lead again.
Please stay the course. A nuclear-free Taiwan is not only possible—it is already underway. Let us not go backward, but forward together.
Older reactors more susceptible to accidents; Nuclear is not a viable climate solution
Dr. M.V. Ramana | Professor; Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs (SPPGA), University of British Columbia
There is a debate in Taiwan about possibly extending operations of its nuclear reactors that have been shut down. Doing so poses risks and will not help with mitigating climate change.
Risks Associated with Nuclear Power Plant Extensions
As they age, nuclear plants become more susceptible to accidents. The likelihood of failures at reactors is often described by something called the bathtub curve. The failure rate is initially high due to manufacturing problems and operator errors associated with new technology. Then curving like a tub, the failure rate declines with experience. But then eventually it starts rising again as aging related wear and tear starts increasing. So, after some point in time, the dangers of continuing operations at nuclear reactors start increasing. As the examples of Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan in 2011 show, the consequences of a nuclear accident can be catastrophic with long-lasting and financially expensive impacts.
Nuclear Power is not a Solution to Climate Change
Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. This is the reason the share of the world’s electricity produced by nuclear power plants has been declining consistently since the mid 1990s. If one were to think about nuclear power as a solution to climate change, that share should be increasing while the share of fossil fuels must be decreasing. That is simply not happening. Investing in cheaper low-carbon sources of energy will provide more emission reductions per dollar. Second, it takes about a decade to build a nuclear plant. If you add the time needed for all the necessary preparatory steps—obtaining environmental and safety clearances, getting consent from a community that has to live near a hazardous facility for decades, and raising the huge amounts of funding necessary—you’re looking at 15-20 years. This timeline is incompatible with the urgent demands of climate science. Thus, nuclear power fails on two key metrics for evaluating any technology claiming to deal with climate change.
Solar corruption shows how we need to do solar better – not a reason to return to nuclear
Dr. Benjamin Sovacool | Director, Institute for Global Sustainability; Professor of Earth and Environment, Boston University
Ahead of Taiwan’s upcoming national referendum on restarting its last nuclear power plant, I write in support of the nuclear phase-out policy and accelerating the transition towards a more resilient, renewable energy-based energy system.
I understand that a recent research I led on patterns of corruption within the solar energy market in California has inspired quite some discussion in Taiwan, and that some have misinterpreted the results as a condemnation of solar power and the renewables-led energy transition ahead of the referendum. I would like to reiterate, unequivocally, that our research is a plea to do solar in more socially responsible, better designed ways that maximise the benefits of its decentralised nature—it is not a call to reject solar, let alone to reject it in favour of nuclear.
I have long written about how inherent characteristics of nuclear technology, and the industry that has been painstakingly but unsuccessfully pushing for a so-called nuclear renaissance for decades now, make it the opposite of what we need in response to energy demand under the climate crisis. To name a few of these reasons: the centralised nature of nuclear power generators means they require costly and expansive transmission and distributions systems; the nuclear system is subject to highly uncertain projections about uranium availability, needs to be centrally administered by a technocratic elite, and remains vulnerable to fluctuations in international politics.
In contrast, and perhaps particularly relevant to your challenges in Taiwan, renewable energy technologies reduce dependence on foreign sources of fuel, creating a more secure fuel supply chain that minimises exposure to external economic and political changes. They also decentralise electricity supply so that outages affect a smaller amount of capacity than an outage at a larger, centralised facility. They can also improve the reliability of power generation by conserving or producing power close to the end-user, and minimising the need to produce, transport, and store hazardous and radioactive fuel.
The choice of the energy future you want in Taiwan thus boils down to one simple question: do we want to return to a nuclear economy—centrally administered by technical specialists, completely reliant on government subsidies, waste fully generates and distributes electricity, remains based on uncertain projections about available fuel, fouls the nation’s water and land, and trashes the planet for generations to come? Or, do we want to continue on with our path towards a decentralised energy system that—despite its own current vices and throes of transition—is more efficient, will become independent from government funding, encompassing commercially viable technologies, that operates with minimal harm to the environment, builds resiliences to disruptions and terrorist assaults, and can be equally available and beneficial to all generations and income groups with the right governance systems in place?
While decisions regarding the energy system are hardly ever a simple multiple-choice question, this choice between returning to nuclear and accelerating the renewables-led energy transition cannot really be answered with “do everything”, either. In another research I led that analysed national carbon emissions and renewable and nuclear electricity production across 123 countries over 25 years, we found that not only do large-scale national nuclear attachments not tend to associate with significant lower emissions while renewables do, but there is also a negative association between the scales of national nuclear and renewables attachments, meaning that nuclear and renewables tend to crowd each other out.
In a world where averting of catastrophic climate disruption is so imperative and the complexities of meeting growing energy demand so stark, policymakers and voter should peek beyond the smoke-and-mirrors used to obscure the obvious advantages of renewable technologies and the obvious costs of nuclear systems. Any effective response to electricity demand in a world facing climate change involves enormous expansion in our use of renewable technologies and a steady abandonment of nuclear power.
The energy future is renewable
Dr. Sven Teske | Professor and Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney (UTS)
Achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement (2015) will require the total decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050, with an emissions peak between 2020 and 2025 and a drastic reduction in non-energy-related greenhouse gases (GHGs), including land-use-related emissions.
The One Earth Climate Model research project led by Prof. Dr. Sven Teske, University of Technology Sydney, Institute for Sustainable Futures clearly demonstrates that the goals of the Paris Agreement are achievable and feasible with current efficient and renewable energy technology and are beneficial in economic and employment terms. The research results are essential reading for anyone with responsibility for implementing renewable energy or climate targets internationally or domestically, including climate policy negotiators, policy-makers at all levels of government,
businesses with renewable energy commitments, researchers and the renewable energy industry.
The OECM 1.5 °C decarbonization scenarios are based on the most efficient utilisation of all forms of renewable energies and energy efficiency technologies and were developed for over 50 countries, regions, and the world to provide possible mitigation pathways with high technical resolution and system boundaries that reflect the sector definitions used by the global finance industry.
In a recent report, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) confirms that renewables maintained their price advantage over fossil fuels, with cost declines driven by technological innovation, competitive supply chains, and economies of scale.
“The levelized cost of electricity for solar PV, onshore wind, and offshore wind is expected to keep decreasing. Solar PV has already dropped by 90%, which was a very steep slope. We cannot expect that same intensity to continue. In the case of onshore wind, costs have fallen by 70%’. IRENA, May 2025
The advantages of solar and onshore wind energy generation are not limited to decarbonisation. They can also offer many more advantages, such as strengthening of energy security, equity and resilience, and the socio-economic development of remote and rural communities in many countries.
German experience shows transition to renewables possible for Taiwan and the world
Dr. Ortwin Renn |Professor emeritus of Environmental Sociology and Technology Assessment, Stuttgart University; Scientific Director emeritus, Research Institute for Sustainability at GFZ, Potsdam , Germany (RIFS)
I am writing to express my full support for your initiative to keep Taiwan’s nuclear power reactors permanently shut down and to accelerate the transition toward renewable energy. This position is not only grounded in scientific evidence but also in practical experience from countries such as my home country Germany that have successfully advanced toward a sustainable energy future.
In 2011, I served as a member of the German Federal Government’s Ethics Committee on a Safe Energy Supply, established after the Fukushima disaster. Our task was to assess the future role of nuclear energy in Germany. After extensive consultations with leading scientists, economic stakeholders, and civil society organizations, the Committee reached a consensual recommendation: to phase out nuclear energy within ten years while investing heavily in renewable energy sources. This decision was not only an ethical imperative but also based on sound economic and technological reasoning.
The results speak for themselves. Between 2011 and 2025, Germany’s share of renewable energy in electricity generation rose from 23% to over 54%—an increase of 230%. Nuclear power, which contributed less than 18% in 2011, was more than compensated for by renewables. In addition, the expansion of renewables significantly reduced reliance on fossil fuels, thereby contributing to climate protection and energy sovereignty.
Today, renewable energy is not only clean but also cost-competitive. The production of electricity from wind and solar power is now cheaper than generating electricity from coal or gas and even cheaper than nuclear power when comparing the costs of building new facilities. It is true that the transition requires substantial upfront investment in grid upgrades, storage systems, and backup solutions. However, once this infrastructure is in place, the long-term costs of renewable energy generation are lower than those of fossil or nuclear alternatives.
Germany’s relatively high electricity prices are not a consequence of renewables, but largely due to global gas price spikes and the cost of imported electricity. The long-term trend is clear: renewable energy is becoming the most economical, environmentally sound, and politically stable source of power.
The lessons for Taiwan are evident. A transition to renewable energy is possible, economically viable, and ultimately beneficial for society. It contributes to climate protection, environmental quality, and public health. It reduces dependence on imported fuels and avoids the long-term risks and costs associated with nuclear energy, including waste management and potential catastrophic accidents. Most importantly, it enables a decentralized and resilient energy system that benefits local communities.
Achieving this transformation requires significant investment and strong political will, but the German experience demonstrates that it is both feasible and advantageous. I strongly encourage Taiwan to seize this opportunity and prioritize a renewable-based energy future over a return to nuclear power.
Clinging on to Maanshan diverts the attention from real and urgent Climate Action
Jan Haverkamp | Senior Expert, Nuclear energy and energy policy, Greenpeace
The post-Fukushima stress tests revealed the large nuclear risk in case of earthquakes in Taiwan. The nuclear-free homeland policy is the right choice.
Upgrading Maanshan nuclear power plant to enable longer operation will be very costly. That money is better spent on a really clean energy transition of Taiwan: more renewables, more storage, a better grid, intelligent demand management.
The nuclear-free homeland policy is the right choice. By consistent implementation, Taiwan can become a shining model for the energy transition in East-Asia and the Pacific.
Clinging to Maanshan nuclear power plant is old policy. Really clean, really sustainable, really high tech solutions like solar, wind, geothermal deliver more, faster and cheaper than this backward looking proposal.
Clinging to Maanshan nuclear power plant diverts the attention of real and urgent #ClimateAction. Maanshan delivers too little, against too high risk and too high cost.
Clinging to the past does not solve the climate problem. The nuclear-free homeland policy fits into a forward looking energy transition.’
The future backbone of global power supply is renewable
Dr Paul Dorfman |Bennett Scholar, Bennett Institute for Innovation & Acceleration, University of Sussex; Chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group; Member, Irish Govt Radiation Protection Advisory Committee
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that renewables are now 10 times more efficient than new nuclear at CO2 mitigation. The fact is, 92.5% of all new power capacity added worldwide in 2024 was renewables, with new nuclear virtually nowhere. All new nuclear builds are vastly over-cost and over-time. Large reactors on offer are the same ones offered 25 years ago – no new designs have been developed this century. Since all small modular reactors (SMRs) are in the design stage, industry forecasts must be treated with scepticism – and radioactive waste, proliferation and siting problems are all deeply unresolved.
A new report by the United Nations (UN) ‘Seizing the Moment of Opportunity’ confirms that renewables costs have plummeted due to scale economies and widespread deployment. Last year, renewables investment totalled $2 trillion – vastly more than nuclear. The result is 582 GW renewable energy additions to the global energy system, comprising record annual growth of 15.1% and raising total renewables capacity to 4,448 GW. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that global annual renewable capacity additions will rise to 935 GW each year by 2030 due to low generation costs compared to fossil and fissile fuels. These numbers are compelling and carry meaning.
Time is key to mitigating global heating – and it’s running out. So it makes good sense to choose the swiftest, most practical, flexible, and least-cost power generation options available. Unlike new nuclear, renewables are here and now – on-time and cost effective. The fact is, it’s entirely possible to sustain a reliable power system by expanding renewable energy in all sectors, rapid growth and modernisation of the electricity grid, storage technology roll-out, faster interconnection, and using power far more effectively and efficiently via smart energy management.
There is a climate emergency, and we need to secure affordable, low-carbon energy to power industry, transport, homes and businesses that can be deployed quickly, economically and reliably. We have the knowledge, the technology and the means. The compelling economics of renewables unmask those nuclear. All key international energy organisations and institutes agree that renewables will do the heavy lifting for the energy transition. The future backbone of the global power supply system will be renewable, sustainable and cost-effective.
A Message of Solidarity for Taiwan’s Nuclear-Free Path
Dr. Tetsunari Iida |Chairperson, Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies
Taiwan’s decision to pursue a nuclear-free future is a beacon of hope for East Asia. It is a rational and logical judgment in line with the historic global energy transition towards 100% renewable energy. From here in Japan, we offer our heartfelt support.
In contrast, Japan, despite having caused one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents, should not be emulated. Its regression to a pro-nuclear stance is merely a product of the “nuclear village”—an old-guard, deeply entrenched pro-nuclear establishment fixated on outdated dogma—that dominates the core of Japanese politics.
The reality of Japan’s nuclear policy is a complete stalemate, evident in the following ways:
- The “40-year decommissioning” plan for the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi plant is blatantly unrealistic.
- Consequently, TEPCO’s survival in its current form is impossible.
- The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and the nuclear fuel cycle are clear failures—systemically, technologically, and economically.
- Before any ” utilization of nuclear power,” a clear pathway and consensus on the disposal of nuclear waste are essential, yet none exist.
- The national dispersal of “decontaminated” soil (which remains heavily contaminated) distorts the science and ethics of radiation safety that have been historically established.
On the other hand, a future powered by 100% renewable energy is achievable anywhere in the world, including Taiwan and Japan. The ever-improving performance and decreasing costs of solar and wind power, coupled with the accelerating adoption of battery storage and electric vehicles, will not only help avert the climate crisis but also enhance energy independence worldwide, mitigating the risks of conflicts over oil and the threat of nuclear war.
This transition empowers regions and individuals, fostering energy autonomy and giving rise to sustainable and democratic societies.
Taiwan’s choice to phase out nuclear power is a wise investment in the future. We wholeheartedly support this courageous decision.
The Irrationality of Japan’s Nuclear Power Maintenance Policy and the True Reasons Behind It
Dr. Jusen Asuka |Professor, Environmental Policy, Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University
On July 19, Kansai Electric Power announced its plan to construct a new nuclear power plant on the premises of the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant in Mihama Town. It is clear that this announcement was timed to avoid becoming major news, as it came during the final stage of the House of Councilors election (with voting day on the 22nd).
Japan narrowly avoided a catastrophic scenario during the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and the subsequent disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which could have forced tens of millions of people in eastern Japan to evacuate. However, the recovery in Fukushima has stalled, and tens of thousands of people are still unable to return to their homes.
The decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant remains far from on schedule. Recently, on the 29th, TEPCO announced that full-scale removal of the melted nuclear fuel (fuel debris) in Reactor No. 3—originally slated to begin in the early 2030s—has been pushed back to fiscal year 2037 or later. This is because method reviews have revealed that preparations will take 12 to 15 years longer than initially expected. It is now virtually impossible to meet the goal of completing decommissioning by 2051, as targeted by TEPCO and the government.
Currently, as noted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the U.S. Department of Energy, and numerous investment banks and research institutions, both the construction of new nuclear power plants and the restarting (life extension) of existing ones are more expensive—both in terms of electricity generation cost and CO₂ abatement cost—than renewable energy. Accordingly, from the perspectives of economic rationality and climate policy, the world is choosing renewables. In 2024, 92.5% of newly added global power capacity came from renewable sources.
In other words, nuclear power is economically irrational. In fact, in so-called Western democratic nations, only four new reactors were added between early 2017 and the end of 2024 (two in the UK and two in South Korea). Among them, the construction cost of one of the UK’s Sizewell C nuclear reactors has reached £19 billion (approx. 3.8 trillion yen), with half (about 1.9 trillion yen) covered by government subsidies. However, the same amount of power generation can be achieved at a fraction of the cost with renewables. Moreover, investing the same amount into renewables would yield six times the CO₂ emissions reductions compared to restarting (or extending the operation of a nuclear reactor.
To date, the Japanese government has provided several times more subsidies to nuclear power than to renewable energy, and is currently considering new subsidy schemes for nuclear construction. The government estimates the cost of building a new reactor to be around 700 billion yen per unit, which is a fraction of the cost in countries like the UK and U.S.—an underestimated figure, arguably a form of “greenwashing.”
This preferential treatment of nuclear power by the Japanese government diverges sharply from global trends. It increases public burden through higher electricity costs and taxes, while delaying effective climate action. Needless to say, nuclear power carries inherent challenges such as safety risks and radioactive waste disposal.
Thus, government support for new nuclear construction and restarts is an irrational policy. So why does the Japanese government continue down this path? The reasons boil down to two very simple factors:1) Vested interests, 2) Latent nuclear weapons potential.
Regarding 1), in Japan, not only power companies but also reactor manufacturers, steel producers, and plant engineering firms maintain strong vested interests and exert enormous political influence.
As for 2), while policymakers rarely discuss it openly, current Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, in an interview with the magazine SAPIO after the 2011 Fukushima disaster, stated: “We must maintain nuclear power in order to retain latent nuclear deterrence.” Additionally, on May 13, 2002, then-Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe stated in a speech at Waseda University: “As long as it does not exceed the minimum necessary for self-defense, possessing nuclear weapons is not prohibited by the Constitution.”
Clearly, there are policymakers in Japan who link nuclear power maintenance to nuclear armament. Unfortunately, for such individuals, economic rationality, the Japanese Constitution, and the Three Non-Nuclear Principles hold little significance.
