How War Shattered the Non-Nuclear Ideal
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany began to reconsider its no-nuclear stance. Facing the possibility of an energy blockade by China, what path should Taiwan take?
By ｜ Kolas Yotaka
In April 2023, anti-nuclear activists gathered at Berlin’s iconic Brandenburg Gate to celebrate the final shutdown of Germany’s last nuclear power plants — the long-awaited arrival of a“non-nuclear homeland.” At the center of the rally stood a massive, bright-yellow T-Rex — painted the same vivid color as radioactive-waste barrels — lying belly-up atop a pile of mock waste drums, its mouth twisted in pain. Above the fallen dinosaur stood a triumphant, red-painted “solar warrior,” smiling with sword raised, a symbol of renewables defeating nuclear power. But even as the celebrations swelled, one hard truth remained: Germany still had 1,900 barrels of high-level radioactive waste with no permanent repository.“Where to put the waste?”has become the common language of anti-nuclear activists worldwide.
Then came the war.
After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Germany — once a global role model for phasing out nuclear energy — reversed its stance. By 2024, Berlin was working with France to secure nuclear power’s equal status alongside renewables within the European Union. In May 2025, newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz, facing rising energy prices, public discontent, and the economic shock of American tariffs, formed a new government that, while not explicitly abandoning the“non-nuclear homeland,”publicly backed research into next-generation nuclear technologies such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and nuclear fusion.
“They didn’t say yes or no,” said Thomas Seipolt, Chairman of the German Nuclear Technology Association. “They said they would be in favor of fusion, that it may come to that later.”
Seipolt grew up in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Two years after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, he chose to study nuclear engineering at the Zittau University of Applied Sciences, earned his engineering credentials, and began work in energy-technology firms. He joined Nukem Technologies in 2002 and has served as CEO since 2015. Since 2022, he has also chaired the German Nuclear Technology Association (Kerntechnik Deutschland e.V.), whose mission is to advocate for clean energy, conduct scientific research on advanced nuclear technologies, and provide policy guidance on whether nuclear power should be opened or restricted.
During his tenure as chairman of the German Nuclear Technology Association, the Russia–Ukraine war broke out. Military and energy experts noted that Russia’s very first major move was to seize the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
Built during the Soviet era, the Chernobyl plant lies about 100 kilometers north of Kyiv, the capital of today’s Ukraine. In 1986, fuel rods in Reactor No. 4 ruptured and exploded, leading to a core meltdown. The blast caused severe nuclear contamination across what are now Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, with radioactive fallout drifting into Western, Eastern, and Northern Europe, the United Kingdom, and even the eastern United States — inflicting immense harm on human life and ecosystems.
Now, with Russia once again seizing Chernobyl during the war, fears of a nightmare repeating itself have returned. People worry whether Ukraine’s nuclear plants could become bombing targets, triggering a catastrophe even worse than Chernobyl.
Thomas, however, believes this will not happen.
“The question is always how desperate you are when it comes to the cost of destruction. I believe that if you want to destroy it on purpose, it’s quite easy to do that. The question is whether you want to do it or not. Because the consequences could be the same as dropping a nuclear bomb,” he explained.
The Chernobyl disaster remains the core reason anti-nuclear groups are so adamant in their opposition — the damage to human life was simply too great. In 1986, design flaws and human error caused a reactor explosion at Chernobyl, leading to deaths and severe environmental contamination. Afterward, the government hastily built a massive concrete structure over the destroyed No. 4 reactor, the so-called “sarcophagus,” to contain the radiation. Even today, 11 reactors continue to operate in Ukraine, scheduled for decommissioning only by 2030, and nuclear still supplies 55% of the country’s electricity. Thomas lived through Chernobyl and has watched Russia’s bombardment of Ukraine; many worry that if Russia grows desperate and bombs a nuclear plant to seize Ukraine, the result could be catastrophic. But with his training in nuclear engineering, Thomas argues that deliberately bombing a nuclear power plant has never happened in human history — because while technically possible, the risks are far too great.
According to Thomas, “If you want to occupy that region, if you destroy the nuclear plant the risk is quite huge. You will live in that spot and it’ll be a contaminated area so you will be left with nothing. You would occupy a region which is completely spoiled and could not be used for anything else.”
Are nuclear plants the target of attack? No — the real target is the grid.
In wartime preparedness, distribution matters more than generation.
For scientists, the 1986 Chernobyl explosion was never caused by an earthquake or tsunami, nor by war. It was the result of design flaws and human error. In February 2022, at the outset of the Russia–Ukraine war, Russian forces occupied the Chernobyl nuclear plant in an attempt to choke off Ukraine’s energy supply. Soldiers dug trenches and set up temporary camps there, but they never bombed the plant itself.
As the fighting dragged on for three years, by February 2025 — while European leaders were gathered in Munich for a security conference — news broke that Chernobyl’s “sarcophagus” had been hit by a Russian drone. Ukraine accused Russia of using a suicide drone to strike the protective structure, blowing a 15-meter hole in its surface. Russia denied responsibility, claiming that Ukraine had staged the incident. Fortunately, inspections found that although the protective structure was damaged, the reactor core was not.
Despite the heightened tensions, Thomas does not believe either side would truly bomb a nuclear plant.“From a pragmatic standpoint, the Russians have good reason not to do it because the disadvantages are higher than the advantages. But no one who is not out of his mind would do that. But as I said, it’s a matter of how desperate you are. Of course, if you want to leave that area behind in a condition that you are not able to live there for the next ten million years, of course you could do it.”
Thomas also emphasized that while a nuclear plant could certainly be destroyed if someone deliberately set out to bomb it, from another perspective, these facilities are not fragile structures.“It’s quite unlikely that you can do it just by coincidence” he explained.“It’s not that fragile, let’s put it that way. Nuclear plants are built to stand incidents like that.”
In wartime, destroying nuclear plants is not the objective — cutting off energy supplies is. The claim that “operating nuclear plants only makes them easier targets” doesn’t hold up. Once war begins, not only nuclear plants but also hydro, thermal, gas, and solar plants all become targets. The most lethal strikes, however, are against the grid itself.
When the war broke out in February 2022, Russia first occupied the Chernobyl plant, and in March seized Zaporizhzhia, Europe’s largest nuclear facility, which supplied 25% of Ukraine’s electricity. In May 2023, it used drones to destroy Chernivtsi’s grid. In June, it bombed a hydro dam, flooding Kherson’s substations and thermal plants, as well as Mykolaiv’s solar farms. Later that month, Russian’s strikes again crippled power infrastructure across Ukraine, including Kyiv.
But nuclear plants are not the target.“I believe Russia did not target the power plants, they target the distribution facilities,” Thomas pointed out.
Indeed, energy facilities have consistently been prime targets for Russian forces. According to Ukraine’s energy sector assessment and damage reports, released every six months since the start of the war, by 2024 Russia had occupied, damaged, or destroyed about 50% of Ukraine’s generators, natural gas networks, transformers, fuel stations, heating boilers, and refineries.
At the start of the war, 55% of Ukraine’s electricity came from nuclear power. Three years later, over 70% of the nation’s electricity is supplied by cheap, stable nuclear energy — yet it is still insufficient, forcing Ukraine to keep importing power from neighboring countries to sustain both the war effort and civilian needs.
During wartime, seizing or bombing facilities around power plants is a means of controlling energy and putting “pressure” on the opponent.But Ukraine, for its part, did not sit idly by. On September 7, 2025, Ukraine’s General Staff confirmed that its forces had used drones to strike Russia’s largest refinery — the strategically significant “8-N” pipeline control station. The refinery was not only a key source of Russian revenue but also directly tied to the production and transport of diesel for military use.
In war, electricity itself becomes a weapon. Without it, a country and its military cannot move — defeat is inevitable. Thomas explained: “We are all relying on communication, but even producing weapons — even nuclear or military equipment — requires reliable energy 24 hours a day. I can’t believe you could stand against an aggressor for more than a couple of days without energy. It’s not only about heating; it’s about production, communication — everything, more or less. Even the people going to the factory every day to produce grenades or whatever — they need trains, they need transport to get there. It’s hard to imagine a total blackout, no energy at all, and still resisting an aggressor. Energy is essential.”
He went on to note that if a country depends on a single large power plant, once that supply is cut off, the entire nation is effectively cut off — a grave risk. To be fair, he does not argue that only nuclear power is suited for wartime; any source of generation becomes a weapon in war, and thus a target. Which is why, instead of debating which form of energy is “best” for preparedness, strengthening decentralization of power supply is far more important.
Thomas argued:“I believe that a decentralized energy system would be more suitable to withstand a war. It’s more difficult to destroy. But this is not only for nuclear — it would be the same for a coal-fired or a gas-fired plant. Any huge power plant could be a target.”
At present, he noted, the design of many countries’ plants and grids was conceived in peacetime, not with war in mind. A thorough re-examination is needed.“The question would be how to refurbish the energy supply system to make it more resistant in war. And here, I guess that decentralization — smaller sources which could be hidden more easily — would certainly be more appropriate,” he said.
Then came the war.
After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Germany — once a global role model for phasing out nuclear energy — reversed its stance. By 2024, Berlin was working with France to secure nuclear power’s equal status alongside renewables within the European Union. In May 2025, newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz, facing rising energy prices, public discontent, and the economic shock of American tariffs, formed a new government that, while not explicitly abandoning the“non-nuclear homeland,”publicly backed research into next-generation nuclear technologies such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and nuclear fusion.
“They didn’t say yes or no,” said Thomas Seipolt, Chairman of the German Nuclear Technology Association. “They said they would be in favor of fusion, that it may come to that later.”
Seipolt grew up in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Two years after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, he chose to study nuclear engineering at the Zittau University of Applied Sciences, earned his engineering credentials, and began work in energy-technology firms. He joined Nukem Technologies in 2002 and has served as CEO since 2015. Since 2022, he has also chaired the German Nuclear Technology Association (Kerntechnik Deutschland e.V.), whose mission is to advocate for clean energy, conduct scientific research on advanced nuclear technologies, and provide policy guidance on whether nuclear power should be opened or restricted.
During his tenure as chairman of the German Nuclear Technology Association, the Russia–Ukraine war broke out. Military and energy experts noted that Russia’s very first major move was to seize the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
Built during the Soviet era, the Chernobyl plant lies about 100 kilometers north of Kyiv, the capital of today’s Ukraine. In 1986, fuel rods in Reactor No. 4 ruptured and exploded, leading to a core meltdown. The blast caused severe nuclear contamination across what are now Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, with radioactive fallout drifting into Western, Eastern, and Northern Europe, the United Kingdom, and even the eastern United States — inflicting immense harm on human life and ecosystems.
Now, with Russia once again seizing Chernobyl during the war, fears of a nightmare repeating itself have returned. People worry whether Ukraine’s nuclear plants could become bombing targets, triggering a catastrophe even worse than Chernobyl.
Thomas, however, believes this will not happen.
“The question is always how desperate you are when it comes to the cost of destruction. I believe that if you want to destroy it on purpose, it’s quite easy to do that. The question is whether you want to do it or not. Because the consequences could be the same as dropping a nuclear bomb,” he explained.
The Chernobyl disaster remains the core reason anti-nuclear groups are so adamant in their opposition — the damage to human life was simply too great. In 1986, design flaws and human error caused a reactor explosion at Chernobyl, leading to deaths and severe environmental contamination. Afterward, the government hastily built a massive concrete structure over the destroyed No. 4 reactor, the so-called “sarcophagus,” to contain the radiation. Even today, 11 reactors continue to operate in Ukraine, scheduled for decommissioning only by 2030, and nuclear still supplies 55% of the country’s electricity. Thomas lived through Chernobyl and has watched Russia’s bombardment of Ukraine; many worry that if Russia grows desperate and bombs a nuclear plant to seize Ukraine, the result could be catastrophic. But with his training in nuclear engineering, Thomas argues that deliberately bombing a nuclear power plant has never happened in human history — because while technically possible, the risks are far too great.
According to Thomas, “If you want to occupy that region, if you destroy the nuclear plant the risk is quite huge. You will live in that spot and it’ll be a contaminated area so you will be left with nothing. You would occupy a region which is completely spoiled and could not be used for anything else.”
Are nuclear plants the target of attack? No — the real target is the grid.
In wartime preparedness, distribution matters more than generation.
For scientists, the 1986 Chernobyl explosion was never caused by an earthquake or tsunami, nor by war. It was the result of design flaws and human error. In February 2022, at the outset of the Russia–Ukraine war, Russian forces occupied the Chernobyl nuclear plant in an attempt to choke off Ukraine’s energy supply. Soldiers dug trenches and set up temporary camps there, but they never bombed the plant itself.
As the fighting dragged on for three years, by February 2025 — while European leaders were gathered in Munich for a security conference — news broke that Chernobyl’s “sarcophagus” had been hit by a Russian drone. Ukraine accused Russia of using a suicide drone to strike the protective structure, blowing a 15-meter hole in its surface. Russia denied responsibility, claiming that Ukraine had staged the incident. Fortunately, inspections found that although the protective structure was damaged, the reactor core was not.
Despite the heightened tensions, Thomas does not believe either side would truly bomb a nuclear plant.“From a pragmatic standpoint, the Russians have good reason not to do it because the disadvantages are higher than the advantages. But no one who is not out of his mind would do that. But as I said, it’s a matter of how desperate you are. Of course, if you want to leave that area behind in a condition that you are not able to live there for the next ten million years, of course you could do it.”
Thomas also emphasized that while a nuclear plant could certainly be destroyed if someone deliberately set out to bomb it, from another perspective, these facilities are not fragile structures.“It’s quite unlikely that you can do it just by coincidence” he explained.“It’s not that fragile, let’s put it that way. Nuclear plants are built to stand incidents like that.”
In wartime, destroying nuclear plants is not the objective — cutting off energy supplies is. The claim that “operating nuclear plants only makes them easier targets” doesn’t hold up. Once war begins, not only nuclear plants but also hydro, thermal, gas, and solar plants all become targets. The most lethal strikes, however, are against the grid itself.
When the war broke out in February 2022, Russia first occupied the Chernobyl plant, and in March seized Zaporizhzhia, Europe’s largest nuclear facility, which supplied 25% of Ukraine’s electricity. In May 2023, it used drones to destroy Chernivtsi’s grid. In June, it bombed a hydro dam, flooding Kherson’s substations and thermal plants, as well as Mykolaiv’s solar farms. Later that month, Russian’s strikes again crippled power infrastructure across Ukraine, including Kyiv.
But nuclear plants are not the target.“I believe Russia did not target the power plants, they target the distribution facilities,” Thomas pointed out.
Indeed, energy facilities have consistently been prime targets for Russian forces. According to Ukraine’s energy sector assessment and damage reports, released every six months since the start of the war, by 2024 Russia had occupied, damaged, or destroyed about 50% of Ukraine’s generators, natural gas networks, transformers, fuel stations, heating boilers, and refineries.
At the start of the war, 55% of Ukraine’s electricity came from nuclear power. Three years later, over 70% of the nation’s electricity is supplied by cheap, stable nuclear energy — yet it is still insufficient, forcing Ukraine to keep importing power from neighboring countries to sustain both the war effort and civilian needs.
During wartime, seizing or bombing facilities around power plants is a means of controlling energy and putting “pressure” on the opponent.But Ukraine, for its part, did not sit idly by. On September 7, 2025, Ukraine’s General Staff confirmed that its forces had used drones to strike Russia’s largest refinery — the strategically significant “8-N” pipeline control station. The refinery was not only a key source of Russian revenue but also directly tied to the production and transport of diesel for military use.
In war, electricity itself becomes a weapon. Without it, a country and its military cannot move — defeat is inevitable. Thomas explained: “We are all relying on communication, but even producing weapons — even nuclear or military equipment — requires reliable energy 24 hours a day. I can’t believe you could stand against an aggressor for more than a couple of days without energy. It’s not only about heating; it’s about production, communication — everything, more or less. Even the people going to the factory every day to produce grenades or whatever — they need trains, they need transport to get there. It’s hard to imagine a total blackout, no energy at all, and still resisting an aggressor. Energy is essential.”
He went on to note that if a country depends on a single large power plant, once that supply is cut off, the entire nation is effectively cut off — a grave risk. To be fair, he does not argue that only nuclear power is suited for wartime; any source of generation becomes a weapon in war, and thus a target. Which is why, instead of debating which form of energy is “best” for preparedness, strengthening decentralization of power supply is far more important.
Thomas argued:“I believe that a decentralized energy system would be more suitable to withstand a war. It’s more difficult to destroy. But this is not only for nuclear — it would be the same for a coal-fired or a gas-fired plant. Any huge power plant could be a target.”
At present, he noted, the design of many countries’ plants and grids was conceived in peacetime, not with war in mind. A thorough re-examination is needed.“The question would be how to refurbish the energy supply system to make it more resistant in war. And here, I guess that decentralization — smaller sources which could be hidden more easily — would certainly be more appropriate,” he said.
Taiwan Must Avoid a Chinese Energy Blockade
At Nukem Technologies, the company Thomas serves as CEO, the specialty is not building nuclear power plants but handling their end-of-life. After the Chernobyl explosion, Nukem constructed the current nuclear waste storage facilities there, sealing the radioactive debris from the disaster into containers. Decommissioning and waste management, not plant construction, is his expertise.
From a purely scientific standpoint, he said, much of humanity’s “fear” stems from a lack of accurate information. In Taiwan, some invoke the argument that nuclear plants themselves become wartime targets — that in the name of avoiding war and protecting human life, nuclear power should be opposed. This line of reasoning fuels resistance to both building new plants and extending the life of existing ones, on the grounds that a country prone to earthquakes, fault lines, and war should not rely on nuclear energy.
But in Thomas’s view, such worries are overstated.“There are fifty thousand people dying in coal mines every year, and the environment is being spoiled by fracking in the oil industry,” he noted. “Compared with that, nuclear is a well-known and well-regulated source of energy, even if it has the potential for destruction. We saw this in Chernobyl — if you don’t use it wisely, the consequences can be huge. The question is: what would be the cause — the human cause — of a safe and reliable energy supply? And here, I believe nuclear is not as bad as most people think.”
For three years, Beijing has closely observed the Ukraine war, treating the battlefield as a laboratory for new weapons, information warfare, and energy blockades. At the same time, it has steadily escalated military pressure on Taiwan — a danger that cannot be ignored. Taiwan imports 96% of its energy and remains unable to achieve energy independence; its energy defenses are fragile. U.S. and Taiwanese think tanks, as well as scholars, generally estimate that Taiwan’s reserves could sustain the country for only 8 to 10 days in the event of a blockade.
In August, former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor and retired Admiral Mark Montgomery came to Taiwan to participate in an energy security war game. The exercise examined how the Chinese Communist Party might use cyber and economic warfare to block Taiwan’s imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal. It tested how Taiwan, the United States, and their allies would respond to such pressure, and to attempts by Beijing to impose an energy blockade on Taiwan’s ministries.
After the exercise, Montgomery was blunt: both Taiwan and the United States underestimate the vulnerability of their own cyber systems, while overestimating their capacity to withstand cyberattacks. He noted that more than half of Taiwan’s electricity comes from natural gas — and if storage capacity remains limited, it will become a liability in wartime.
Ukraine, when targeted by Russia’s energy blockade strategy, could at least purchase energy overland from other European countries. Taiwan, as an island, would face far greater peril: if China’s coast guard, maritime militia, or navy were to intercept LNG tankers bound for Taiwan, the consequences would be dire. What then? The war game also exposed many other weaknesses in Taiwan’s energy security — including malware attacks on Taipower’s grid that crippled power stations. What happens if that scenario becomes reality?
Montgomery noted that, to this day, senior naval commanders from the United States and Taiwan have yet to establish a close communication platform. China, he warned, would only need to intercept seven or eight LNG carriers to put Taiwan under severe pressure. His advice was blunt: restarting Taiwan’s shuttered nuclear plants is a key step to strengthening energy security and countering Beijing’s threats. At the same time, Taiwan must expand LNG storage facilities, enlarge its tanker fleet, and carry out energy preparedness exercises with gas-producing allies such as the United States, Australia, and Japan. In his view, once the Chinese Communist Party exerts pressure on Taiwan’s energy infrastructure — whether by cutting off supplies or imposing a naval blockade — Taiwan would be driven into crisis from the outside in.
This direct call by an American military expert to revive nuclear power in the name of national security has placed Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in a painful dilemma. The party has long relied on U.S. military support while also championing anti-nuclear policy at home. At a recent hearing on whether to extend the life of Nuclear Plant No. 3, Taipower Chairman Tseng Wen-sheng, speaking for the opposition side (“against extension”), said that in the event of a Chinese blockade, Taipower’s plan was to“retain coal-fired units, secure coal reserves, and keep nuclear units in good condition.”The Ministry of National Defense has also stated that its preparations to counter blockade scenarios will only be complete by 2035. These plans stand in sharp contrast to Montgomery’s blunt recommendations —“restart nuclear plants,” “expand LNG storage,”and“enlarge the LNG tanker fleet.”
New Nuclear Technologies Can Diffuse and Mitigate Risk
At the time of my conversation with Thomas, Germany had just elected its new chancellor, Friedrich Merz. The platform of his governing coalition emphasized “economic recovery”and “faster decision-making,” but what caught my attention most was the pledge to “lower energy prices.” Since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war in 2022, Germany has refused to buy Russian natural gas, leading to domestic shortages. Renewable energy has proven expensive, electricity prices have risen, and public frustration has grown.
Although Germany officially entered its “non-nuclear homeland” in April 2023, when the last three nuclear plants were shut down according to schedule, the war forced Berlin into mounting pressure, and by 2025 the possibility of a policy reversal could no longer be ignored.
Since 2023, three-quarters of German energy has come from fossil fuels. Because Germany produces neither oil nor natural gas domestically, it has had to rely heavily on imports, which in turn has caused high electricity prices, severe air pollution, and growing public anger. Since taking office in May 2025, Merz has openly questioned whether Germany, after abandoning nuclear, can still achieve its 2045 carbon neutrality goal while burning so much fossil fuel. He has also criticized the EU’s requirement that all rental cars be converted to electric vehicles by 2030.
Katherina Reiche, Merz’s newly appointed Minister of Economic Affairs and Energy, announced upon taking office that renewable energy and grid infrastructure must undergo a “reality check.” Citing the blackouts in Spain and Portugal as a warning, she said: “The Iberian Peninsula’s power outage shows just how fragile energy systems can be. We must be prepared and minimize such risks.” While Germany has made progress in wind and solar power, she argued that “systemic risks and costs have been underestimated.”
It is undeniable: Germany, once firmly on the path toward a non-nuclear homeland, is now wavering. The Merz government has even openly declared its support for developing advanced nuclear technologies, including fusion and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
“It will allow you to build them like washing machines. They are small and can be built in a factory. That means you are independent from the weather. The parts are smaller, so it’s like producing a washing machine, not an airplane.”
Trained as a nuclear engineer, Thomas is no stranger to this technology. But he points to one core problem: cost.“They will cost you twenty billion euro in your nuclear power plant. It involves a lot of people, authorities, and whatever. And this makes it complicated and will produce some cost over a custom time .”
In fact, SMRs aren’t new. They’ve long appeared in various nuclear-powered military systems.“The technology is actually quite old — it comes from nuclear submarines, though of course it has developed further since then. But that is also the other side of the coin. I believe they may face a problem with the cost of producing energy, because it will be higher than from a normal economy of scale. That much is quite obvious. The first pilot project already cost more than a regular nuclear plant, which could be used as an argument against it.”
Thomas believes that producing SMRs isn’t technically difficult — he himself learned about the technology back in university 30 years ago. The real issue is cost, and there’s only one solution.“On the other hand, if you produce a thousand of them, it would be different.”
Still, SMRs won’t come cheap.“If the cost of SMRs will drop, this will bring energy prices down. But someone needs to take the risk of building the first one to prove it. We know that if you build the first airplane it will be incredibly expensive, but if at the beginning you start producing them, the price drops to ten percent or even less of the original.”
Thomas is not fully optimistic about new nuclear technologies. In his view, they won’t become mainstream in the coming years. The challenge isn’t technical feasibility, but immense costs and political obstacles. As far as he knows, there are about 300 SMR projects under way worldwide — and he estimates that perhaps only five will succeed.
When asked about the prospects for fusion technology, Thomas noted that it too has been around for 30 years. The key, he argued, lies not in science but in political debate and the scale of budgets. If mass production lowers costs, electricity prices will fall. Otherwise, the world will remain stuck in an endless cycle — those who believe will go on believing, and those who doubt will go on doubting.
At Nukem Technologies, the company Thomas serves as CEO, the specialty is not building nuclear power plants but handling their end-of-life. After the Chernobyl explosion, Nukem constructed the current nuclear waste storage facilities there, sealing the radioactive debris from the disaster into containers. Decommissioning and waste management, not plant construction, is his expertise.
From a purely scientific standpoint, he said, much of humanity’s “fear” stems from a lack of accurate information. In Taiwan, some invoke the argument that nuclear plants themselves become wartime targets — that in the name of avoiding war and protecting human life, nuclear power should be opposed. This line of reasoning fuels resistance to both building new plants and extending the life of existing ones, on the grounds that a country prone to earthquakes, fault lines, and war should not rely on nuclear energy.
But in Thomas’s view, such worries are overstated.“There are fifty thousand people dying in coal mines every year, and the environment is being spoiled by fracking in the oil industry,” he noted. “Compared with that, nuclear is a well-known and well-regulated source of energy, even if it has the potential for destruction. We saw this in Chernobyl — if you don’t use it wisely, the consequences can be huge. The question is: what would be the cause — the human cause — of a safe and reliable energy supply? And here, I believe nuclear is not as bad as most people think.”
For three years, Beijing has closely observed the Ukraine war, treating the battlefield as a laboratory for new weapons, information warfare, and energy blockades. At the same time, it has steadily escalated military pressure on Taiwan — a danger that cannot be ignored. Taiwan imports 96% of its energy and remains unable to achieve energy independence; its energy defenses are fragile. U.S. and Taiwanese think tanks, as well as scholars, generally estimate that Taiwan’s reserves could sustain the country for only 8 to 10 days in the event of a blockade.
In August, former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor and retired Admiral Mark Montgomery came to Taiwan to participate in an energy security war game. The exercise examined how the Chinese Communist Party might use cyber and economic warfare to block Taiwan’s imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal. It tested how Taiwan, the United States, and their allies would respond to such pressure, and to attempts by Beijing to impose an energy blockade on Taiwan’s ministries.
After the exercise, Montgomery was blunt: both Taiwan and the United States underestimate the vulnerability of their own cyber systems, while overestimating their capacity to withstand cyberattacks. He noted that more than half of Taiwan’s electricity comes from natural gas — and if storage capacity remains limited, it will become a liability in wartime.
Ukraine, when targeted by Russia’s energy blockade strategy, could at least purchase energy overland from other European countries. Taiwan, as an island, would face far greater peril: if China’s coast guard, maritime militia, or navy were to intercept LNG tankers bound for Taiwan, the consequences would be dire. What then? The war game also exposed many other weaknesses in Taiwan’s energy security — including malware attacks on Taipower’s grid that crippled power stations. What happens if that scenario becomes reality?
Montgomery noted that, to this day, senior naval commanders from the United States and Taiwan have yet to establish a close communication platform. China, he warned, would only need to intercept seven or eight LNG carriers to put Taiwan under severe pressure. His advice was blunt: restarting Taiwan’s shuttered nuclear plants is a key step to strengthening energy security and countering Beijing’s threats. At the same time, Taiwan must expand LNG storage facilities, enlarge its tanker fleet, and carry out energy preparedness exercises with gas-producing allies such as the United States, Australia, and Japan. In his view, once the Chinese Communist Party exerts pressure on Taiwan’s energy infrastructure — whether by cutting off supplies or imposing a naval blockade — Taiwan would be driven into crisis from the outside in.
This direct call by an American military expert to revive nuclear power in the name of national security has placed Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in a painful dilemma. The party has long relied on U.S. military support while also championing anti-nuclear policy at home. At a recent hearing on whether to extend the life of Nuclear Plant No. 3, Taipower Chairman Tseng Wen-sheng, speaking for the opposition side (“against extension”), said that in the event of a Chinese blockade, Taipower’s plan was to“retain coal-fired units, secure coal reserves, and keep nuclear units in good condition.”The Ministry of National Defense has also stated that its preparations to counter blockade scenarios will only be complete by 2035. These plans stand in sharp contrast to Montgomery’s blunt recommendations —“restart nuclear plants,” “expand LNG storage,”and“enlarge the LNG tanker fleet.”
New Nuclear Technologies Can Diffuse and Mitigate Risk
At the time of my conversation with Thomas, Germany had just elected its new chancellor, Friedrich Merz. The platform of his governing coalition emphasized “economic recovery”and “faster decision-making,” but what caught my attention most was the pledge to “lower energy prices.” Since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war in 2022, Germany has refused to buy Russian natural gas, leading to domestic shortages. Renewable energy has proven expensive, electricity prices have risen, and public frustration has grown.
Although Germany officially entered its “non-nuclear homeland” in April 2023, when the last three nuclear plants were shut down according to schedule, the war forced Berlin into mounting pressure, and by 2025 the possibility of a policy reversal could no longer be ignored.
Since 2023, three-quarters of German energy has come from fossil fuels. Because Germany produces neither oil nor natural gas domestically, it has had to rely heavily on imports, which in turn has caused high electricity prices, severe air pollution, and growing public anger. Since taking office in May 2025, Merz has openly questioned whether Germany, after abandoning nuclear, can still achieve its 2045 carbon neutrality goal while burning so much fossil fuel. He has also criticized the EU’s requirement that all rental cars be converted to electric vehicles by 2030.
Katherina Reiche, Merz’s newly appointed Minister of Economic Affairs and Energy, announced upon taking office that renewable energy and grid infrastructure must undergo a “reality check.” Citing the blackouts in Spain and Portugal as a warning, she said: “The Iberian Peninsula’s power outage shows just how fragile energy systems can be. We must be prepared and minimize such risks.” While Germany has made progress in wind and solar power, she argued that “systemic risks and costs have been underestimated.”
It is undeniable: Germany, once firmly on the path toward a non-nuclear homeland, is now wavering. The Merz government has even openly declared its support for developing advanced nuclear technologies, including fusion and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
“It will allow you to build them like washing machines. They are small and can be built in a factory. That means you are independent from the weather. The parts are smaller, so it’s like producing a washing machine, not an airplane.”
Trained as a nuclear engineer, Thomas is no stranger to this technology. But he points to one core problem: cost.“They will cost you twenty billion euro in your nuclear power plant. It involves a lot of people, authorities, and whatever. And this makes it complicated and will produce some cost over a custom time .”
In fact, SMRs aren’t new. They’ve long appeared in various nuclear-powered military systems.“The technology is actually quite old — it comes from nuclear submarines, though of course it has developed further since then. But that is also the other side of the coin. I believe they may face a problem with the cost of producing energy, because it will be higher than from a normal economy of scale. That much is quite obvious. The first pilot project already cost more than a regular nuclear plant, which could be used as an argument against it.”
Thomas believes that producing SMRs isn’t technically difficult — he himself learned about the technology back in university 30 years ago. The real issue is cost, and there’s only one solution.“On the other hand, if you produce a thousand of them, it would be different.”
Still, SMRs won’t come cheap.“If the cost of SMRs will drop, this will bring energy prices down. But someone needs to take the risk of building the first one to prove it. We know that if you build the first airplane it will be incredibly expensive, but if at the beginning you start producing them, the price drops to ten percent or even less of the original.”
Thomas is not fully optimistic about new nuclear technologies. In his view, they won’t become mainstream in the coming years. The challenge isn’t technical feasibility, but immense costs and political obstacles. As far as he knows, there are about 300 SMR projects under way worldwide — and he estimates that perhaps only five will succeed.
When asked about the prospects for fusion technology, Thomas noted that it too has been around for 30 years. The key, he argued, lies not in science but in political debate and the scale of budgets. If mass production lowers costs, electricity prices will fall. Otherwise, the world will remain stuck in an endless cycle — those who believe will go on believing, and those who doubt will go on doubting.
Protecting Energy, Protecting the Nation
I finished my cup of hot water. Thomas told me that nuclear power has already become a sunset industry in Germany, and few young people still study nuclear engineering, since nuclear energy is so unpopular. Nukem Technologies, founded in 1960 and now 65 years old, has built its reputation on the safe decommissioning of nuclear plants and the management of nuclear waste. Its work extends beyond Germany to Lithuania, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, France, Bulgaria, China, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, where it has dismantled reactors and overseen waste management at decommissioned nuclear facilities.
Even though nuclear power is no longer a favored option, Thomas believes that opposing or supporting nuclear energy should not be treated like religion, an all-or-nothing faith. Germany’s wind and solar power remain unstable, driving up electricity prices. Nuclear, he argued, should serve as a transitional option in the energy shift. When necessary, it should not be ruled out entirely, but kept on the table as one possible choice.
Thomas said:“I do not believe it’s a good idea to scrap one source of energy before you have another reliable one — and that’s what we are doing. In the end, we will fall back to the opposite, something like coal-fired plants.”
Energy Preparedness
As I write these words, autumn has arrived in Ukraine: temperatures are falling, daylight hours are shrinking, and energy demand is rising. On September 7, 2025, Ukrainian forces struck an important Russian oil refinery. The very next night, September 8, Russia launched another large-scale attack on Ukraine, damaging a thermal power plant in Kyiv and destroying civilian infrastructure and energy systems. President Zelenskyy declared that Russia continues to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, but Ukraine’s top priority is to protect critical facilities — especially energy facilities — to ensure that air defense systems and weapons can keep functioning.
It may feel like this has little to do with Taiwan. It does not. As early as April 2025, the PLA Eastern Theater Command carried out a “Joint Multi-Service Exercise” and the Strait Thunder-2025A drill, which included simulated strikes on Taiwan’s LNG receiving terminals.
A battlefield without electricity is the worst of all possible worlds.
I finished my cup of hot water. Thomas told me that nuclear power has already become a sunset industry in Germany, and few young people still study nuclear engineering, since nuclear energy is so unpopular. Nukem Technologies, founded in 1960 and now 65 years old, has built its reputation on the safe decommissioning of nuclear plants and the management of nuclear waste. Its work extends beyond Germany to Lithuania, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, France, Bulgaria, China, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, where it has dismantled reactors and overseen waste management at decommissioned nuclear facilities.
Even though nuclear power is no longer a favored option, Thomas believes that opposing or supporting nuclear energy should not be treated like religion, an all-or-nothing faith. Germany’s wind and solar power remain unstable, driving up electricity prices. Nuclear, he argued, should serve as a transitional option in the energy shift. When necessary, it should not be ruled out entirely, but kept on the table as one possible choice.
Thomas said:“I do not believe it’s a good idea to scrap one source of energy before you have another reliable one — and that’s what we are doing. In the end, we will fall back to the opposite, something like coal-fired plants.”
Energy Preparedness
As I write these words, autumn has arrived in Ukraine: temperatures are falling, daylight hours are shrinking, and energy demand is rising. On September 7, 2025, Ukrainian forces struck an important Russian oil refinery. The very next night, September 8, Russia launched another large-scale attack on Ukraine, damaging a thermal power plant in Kyiv and destroying civilian infrastructure and energy systems. President Zelenskyy declared that Russia continues to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, but Ukraine’s top priority is to protect critical facilities — especially energy facilities — to ensure that air defense systems and weapons can keep functioning.
It may feel like this has little to do with Taiwan. It does not. As early as April 2025, the PLA Eastern Theater Command carried out a “Joint Multi-Service Exercise” and the Strait Thunder-2025A drill, which included simulated strikes on Taiwan’s LNG receiving terminals.
A battlefield without electricity is the worst of all possible worlds.
成為台灣人間魚詩社文創協會 贊助會員
台灣人間魚詩社文創協會為依法設立、非以營利為目的之社會團體。以推廣現代詩、文學及其它藝術創作，推動文化創意產業發展為宗旨。
本會推動及執行任務以現代詩為主體，詩文創作為核心，透過出版、網路及多媒體影音的形式，讓詩文創作深入現代社會生活，增進大眾對文學及創作的興趣，豐富社會心靈。
贊助用途：
•支持協會運作及詩文創作出版
• 舉辦金像詩獎、多媒體跨界影像
• 文學、文化行動與國際推廣
贊助帳號：第一銀行 (007) 大安分行 168-10-002842 社團法人台灣人間魚詩社文創協會
台灣人間魚詩社文創協會為依法設立、非以營利為目的之社會團體。以推廣現代詩、文學及其它藝術創作，推動文化創意產業發展為宗旨。
本會推動及執行任務以現代詩為主體，詩文創作為核心，透過出版、網路及多媒體影音的形式，讓詩文創作深入現代社會生活，增進大眾對文學及創作的興趣，豐富社會心靈。
贊助用途：
•支持協會運作及詩文創作出版
• 舉辦金像詩獎、多媒體跨界影像
• 文學、文化行動與國際推廣
贊助帳號：第一銀行 (007) 大安分行 168-10-002842 社團法人台灣人間魚詩社文創協會
|
姐妹詩社：秋水詩社｜ 竊竊詩語｜新詩路 ｜掌門詩學社
|
補助單位：
|
|
Copyright © Peoplefish Poetry & Life, all rights reserved.