Referendum on the restart of Taiwan's Third Nuclear power plant

Today (August 23, 2025) is the polling day for Taiwan's referendum on the restart of the Third Nuclear Power Plant. The referendum statement is: "Do you agree to the continued operation of the Third Nuclear Power Plant after the competent authority has confirmed there are no safety concerns?"

I walked to the polling station a little after 11 a.m. on a sweltering hot day to vote. Even though the station was close by, I was still drenched in sweat from the heat. I walked home and retreated back into my air-conditioned room to rest. Since Unit 2 of the Third Nuclear Power Plant was decommissioned on May 17, 2025, Taiwan has been through more than three months of summer without nuclear power, and I can enjoy the air conditioning comfortably at home with no power rationing issues.

This is a referendum that wastes life and money ($1.1 billion). What does "no safety concerns" even mean? It's not defined, so how can anyone confirm it? The plant is located on a fault line, but its earthquake resistance is insufficient. Situated on a tropical coast at the southernmost tip of Taiwan, it could face the possibility of high water temperatures, leaving it without cooling water. The power generated there has to be transmitted all the way to Taipei in the far north, crossing mountains and valleys. Is the power grid resilient enough? What happens if a single link in the chain is compromised? Most importantly, there's nowhere to store all the low, intermediate, and high-level nuclear waste. With so many problems, which competent authority would dare to guarantee "no safety concerns"?

This is a bogus issue, yet a bunch of people who support restarting the plant and didn't graduate from a science or engineering major are criticizing experts and professors for being uneducated. Geologists, drilling experts, electrical engineering professors and experts, and energy conversion and storage experts are all deemed by these people as uneducated, lacking in professional knowledge, and having no scientific literacy. I have a lot of relatives who are just like that.

今天(8/23/2025)是臺灣的核三重啟公投的投票日，公投主文為「您是否同意第三核能發電廠經主管機關同意確認無安全疑慮後，繼續運轉」。

我在大熱天的上午11點多走去投票所完成投票，雖然到投開票所很近，還是因為很熱而流了一身汗。走回家繼續鑽回開著冷氣的房間裡休息，核三廠2號機組自5/17/2025停役後，臺灣已經過了超過3個月沒有核電的夏天，我可以舒服的在家吹冷氣也沒有限電的問題。

這是一個浪費生命、浪費錢(11億)的公投案，什麼叫做 "無安全疑慮"，沒有定義，沒有定義要怎麼確認呢？從斷層帶上方經過但抗震能力設計不足；位在臺灣最南端的熱帶海邊，要面臨水溫過高沒有冷卻水可用的可能；要將臺灣最南端的發電一路翻山越嶺傳送到最北端的臺北，電網韌性是否充足，中間任何一個環節被破壞要怎麼辦；最重要的是所有的低中高核廢料都無處可去。有這麼多的問題存在，哪個主管機關敢保證說 "無安全疑慮"？

這個假議題，卻有一堆贊成重啟核三廠、非理工科系畢業的人在批評其他專家或教授沒有讀書，地質專家及教授、鑽井專家、電機系教授及機電專家、能量轉換儲存專家，全被這些人認定為沒有讀書、專業知識不足、沒有科學素養。我的親戚也有一堆這樣的人。