This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Third Nuclear Power Plant (Taiwan) | |
|---|---|
| Name | Third Nuclear Power Plant |
| Country | Taiwan |
| Location | Su-ao, Yilan County |
| Status | Never completed / Suspended |
| Construction began | 1980s |
| Owner | Taiwan Power Company |
| Reactor type | ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor) |
| Reactors | 2 planned |
| Capacity | ~2,700 MW (planned) |
Third Nuclear Power Plant (Taiwan) is a nuclear power project located in Su-ao, Yilan County, intended to expand Taiwan's electricity supply during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The project became a focal point of engineering planning, environmental controversy, legal challenges, and political mobilization involving Taiwanese institutions and international technology suppliers. Its prolonged suspension and partial construction have influenced energy policy debates in Taipei, New Taipei, and across East Asia.
Planning for the plant was initiated amid rapid industrialization and urbanization that involved actors such as the Taiwan Power Company, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the Atomic Energy Council. Early proposals drew on models used in facilities like the Kuosheng Nuclear Power Plant, the Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant, and international projects in Japan and the United States. Site selection in Su-ao referenced geological surveys by Academia Sinica and hydrological assessments related to the Pacific Ocean coastline near Yilan County, with input from the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research and consultants experienced with General Electric and Hitachi designs.
The plant was designed around two advanced boiling water reactors (ABWRs) with technology influenced by models built by General Electric, Toshiba, and Hitachi. Planned specifications included enhanced emergency core cooling systems similar to those deployed at Fukushima Daiichi and redundancy features paralleled in designs at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant. Reactor control systems referenced standards from the International Atomic Energy Agency and safety criteria aligned with the Atomic Energy Council's regulatory framework. The projected electrical output was comparable to contemporaneous units at the Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant and targeted integration with Taiwan Power Company's transmission networks serving Taipei, Taoyuan, and Kaohsiung.
Construction work began following contracts negotiated with domestic contractors and international suppliers, including procurement practiced in projects like the Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant. Delays emerged from complex supply chains, financing arrangements involving state-owned enterprises, and technical reviews paralleling those after incidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Earthquake engineering considerations invoked comparisons with Japan's seismic retrofitting at Onagawa and the seismic zoning used in California projects such as Diablo Canyon. Labor disputes, budget revisions, and shifting energy demand forecasts compounded scheduling setbacks.
Safety debates referenced lessons from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the Chernobyl disaster, and regulatory scrutiny under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Environmental impact assessments involved biodiversity surveys by Academia Sinica and fisheries studies affecting communities like Suao Township, Yilan County. Concerns included seismic risk similar to the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, tsunami exposure comparisons to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, and cooling-water discharge effects analogous to issues at the Kashima and Qinshan facilities. Nuclear waste management discussions invoked repositories considered in countries like Finland and Sweden, and policy dialogues involved the Environmental Protection Administration and civil society groups.
Political contention connected to electoral politics involving the Democratic Progressive Party, the Kuomintang, and third parties, with legislative scrutiny in the Legislative Yuan. Public demonstrations echoed tactics seen in movements like the Sunflower Movement and drew support from environmental NGOs, labor unions, and academics from National Taiwan University and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University. Media coverage by outlets such as the Taipei Times and Taiwan News amplified debates alongside statements from international figures connected to anti-nuclear activism and energy policy analysts from think tanks in Taipei and Washington, D.C.
Litigation involved administrative appeals to the Council of Grand Justices and cases in Taiwan's administrative courts, reflecting precedents in judicial review from other infrastructure disputes. Referendums and ballot measures at municipal and national levels invoked procedures under the Civil Referendum Act and echoed civic processes used in other democratic contexts such as Switzerland and New Zealand. High-profile referendums paralleled campaigns involving energy policy in countries like Germany and Japan, and outcomes influenced decisions by the Executive Yuan and the Atomic Energy Council.
Following prolonged suspension, plans shifted toward decommissioning or mothballing procedures overseen by the Taiwan Power Company and regulatory oversight by the Atomic Energy Council, with decontamination and site remediation practices referencing IAEA guidance and practices used at sites like the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Proposals for alternative uses considered renewable projects similar to offshore wind farms in the Taiwan Strait and grid modernization efforts involving Taipower, state ministries, and private utilities. Ongoing debates continue among policymakers in Taipei, environmental groups in Yilan County, and energy experts referencing comparative experiences from South Korea, Japan, and European Union energy transitions.
Category:Nuclear power stations in Taiwan Category:Yilan County, Taiwan Category:Energy infrastructure controversies