◎ Lin Renbin
Whenever energy issues heat up, public discussions in Taiwan quickly return to a few familiar slogans: "Without nuclear power, there will be power shortages," "Non-nuclear equals more coal burning," and "Energy transformation means generating electricity with the lungs." Those who support and oppose different energy options may seem to be in opposing positions, but they often share the same thinking pattern: the belief that a highly complex energy problem can be solved with a simple answer. This is the root cause of the long-term deadlock in energy discussions in Taiwan.
The problem is not simply a lack of consensus between different positions, but that many discussions are based on oversimplified premises from the outset. When the problem is misdefined, no matter how much policy debate you have, you may just be looking for answers around the wrong question.
Energy policy is difficult not because of a lack of technological options but because it is inherently a multi-risk management problem. Stable power supply, carbon reduction goals, energy costs, industrial demand, environmental impact, geopolitics and social affordability are all interrelated. No single energy source can meet all goals at the same time.
Therefore, for a mature energy discussion, the first thing that needs to be changed is not the energy formula, but the method of understanding energy issues.
From “single answer” thinking to systems thinking
"Without nuclear power, there will inevitably be a shortage of electricity." This is a typical single-causal inference. The stability of a modern power system is never determined by the existence of a certain energy source, but depends on the overall system capabilities, including power generation mix, backup capacity, transmission and distribution network, energy storage configuration, demand management, energy efficiency and dispatch capabilities. Regarding nuclear power as the only guarantee of energy security, what is overlooked is that the modern power system has gradually shifted from relying on a few large centralized power sources to multiple energy integration and system management. True energy security does not mean reducing the proportion of a certain energy source, but preventing any energy source from becoming a "single point of failure" in the system.
Similarly, although expressions such as "using lungs to generate electricity" reflect society's concerns about air pollution, the problem is that it simplifies the energy transition into a straight line of cause and effect, as if denuclearization will inevitably lead to increased coal burning. In fact, energy system transformation is a process of continuous adjustment. The increase in renewable energy requires grid upgrades and energy storage support; the increase in gas-fired power generation requires the face of import dependence and price fluctuations; if nuclear energy is discussed again, it must also face issues such as safety, nuclear waste, and social trust. No energy comes without a cost, and there is no energy option that is completely risk-free. What really matters is not which energy source is deified, but whether the system has the ability to manage the different risks brought by different energy sources.
The real danger is not different answers, but the same false premise
The biggest dilemma in Taiwan’s energy debate is not that there are different opinions in society, but that many different opinions are often based on similar simplified logic. Some people believe that as long as nuclear power is restored, all energy problems will be solved; some believe that as long as renewable energy is added, the energy transition will be completed naturally. But the real world never works like this. The energy system is a highly complex system. It is affected by the international fuel market, technological development, industrial structure, climate change, geopolitics and social choices.
In recent years, the rapid development of artificial intelligence, high-performance computing and the semiconductor industry has created new challenges in energy issues. What really needs to be answered in the future is not just "which type of power generation to add", but how to improve the resilience of the power grid, how to manage peak demand, how to establish a more efficient energy usage model, and how to equitably distribute the costs of energy transition. There is no single slogan that can answer these questions.
The core of energy governance is managing uncertainty
The energy issue in the 21st century is different from the simple pursuit of "increasing supply" in the past. Today's challenge is how to maintain system stability in a highly uncertain environment. Extreme climate may affect energy facilities; international situations may change fuel prices; technological revolution may rapidly change electricity demand; new energy technologies may also bring new opportunities and risks. Therefore, what energy policy really needs to establish is not an answer that is always correct, but a system that can be continuously revised. These include more transparent information disclosure, more complete risk assessment, more mature public discussions, and a mechanism for different interest groups to share the consequences of decision-making.
A mature society does not pursue uncontroversial energy policies, but establishes institutional capabilities that can still make rational decisions even in the face of controversy.
What Taiwan really needs to update is its ability to govern a complex world.
Energy is just one example of Taiwan facing complex governance challenges. From energy, environment, transportation to the development of artificial intelligence, Taiwan is facing more and more problems that cannot be solved with a single answer. However, we are still often accustomed to using simple slogans to deal with complex systems, replacing risk analysis with political stances, and replacing long-term system construction with short-term choices. The energy debate is important not just because it is about electricity supply, but because it illuminates a deeper question: As the world becomes increasingly complex, does a society have the capacity to understand complexity, manage uncertainty, and make responsible choices?
What really determines Taiwan's energy future is not which power plant, which energy source, or even a certain policy attack or defense. What really determines Taiwan's future is whether we are willing to give up the temptation to find simple answers and start cultivating the ability to govern a complex world.
