*Editor’s Note: This article was first published in Chinese. It has been translated with AI assistance and carefully reviewed and edited for international readers.
By Hui-An Ho, Wei-Ting Chen
On August 23, 2025, Taiwan held a national referendum on whether to restart the Third Nuclear Power Plant (NPP-3). The result was a “No,” putting an end to one of the island’s most controversial energy debates—at least for now.
The vote came less than a month after a major recall election for legislators, and with another nuclear referendum held as recently as 2021, it was clear that voter fatigue had set in. Voter turnout was under 30%, the third lowest in Taiwan’s referendum history.
According to monitoring by the Taiwan FactCheck Center (TFC), online discussion around the referendum remained relatively muted until late July. When discussion did emerge, the narratives were largely familiar: anti-nuclear voices focused on nuclear waste, radiation risks, and Taiwan’s seismic vulnerabilities, often citing cases, sometimes questionable, from Fukushima and Finland. Pro-nuclear narratives emphasized energy costs, economic competitiveness, and—given rising cross-strait tensions—national security.
Unexpectedly, a typhoon in early July caused damage to offshore solar farms in southern Taiwan, sparking a flurry of false or misleading claims. Viral videos suggested toxic water and mass fish deaths caused by broken solar panels. One widely shared clip showed a bird allegedly dropping dead after drinking water near solar panels—but the video was AI-generated. Taiwan’s Ministry of Environment stepped in to debunk the rumors.
While nuclear-related content showed a fairly balanced split between pro- and anti-nuclear stances, solar-related posts overwhelmingly criticized Taiwan’s solar policy. Videos were more commonly used in these messages, often traced back to a single online news channel.
A Multi-Dimensional Issue
Energy policy in Taiwan has never been solely a scientific debate. It’s deeply entangled with political, economic, and national security concerns, which complicates the work of fact-checkers. To navigate this complexity, TFC’s Editor-in-Chief Wei-Ting Chen partnered with science communication and science education researcher Ying-Kai Liao to develop a new methodology: anchoring claims in international peer-reviewed research and databases to provide evidence-based analysis.
TFC’s online hub on the nuclear power plant referendum
Taiwan’s Nuclear History in Brief
Taiwan has four nuclear power plants. The first and second were decommissioned in 2019 and 2023, respectively. The fourth plant was mothballed in 2014 following public opposition after the Fukushima disaster. Until recently, the Maanshan plant—the third nuclear power plant located in Pingtung County—was still in operation. But with its second reactor shut down in May 2025, Taiwan officially entered a “nuclear-free” era. On April 18, 2025, the opposition Taiwan People’s Party proposed a referendum to extend the plant’s operation.
Although Taiwanese society had known since late May that a referendum would be held, the issue initially attracted little attention. Public focus was instead drawn to the country’s first large-scale nationwide legislator recall on July 26.
It was not until late July that online discussions on nuclear power began to heat up. Beyond the usual pro- and anti-nuclear messaging, several new narratives also emerged following the five televised public forums, quickly becoming popular talking points.
From late July to the vote, TFC identified dozens of viral claims on social media. Pro- and anti-nuclear stances were evenly split. Besides that, some posts criticized the cost and process of the referendum—implicitly targeting the opposition party that initiated it.
Common Narrative Techniques
Both pro- and anti-nuclear sides drew on foreign examples to bolster their arguments. Pro-nuclear advocates cited Europe and the U.S. to portray nuclear power as clean and mainstream; anti-nuclear voices emphasized Fukushima. Testimonials from alleged former employees of Taiwan Power Company and nuclear plants were frequently shared, but their authenticity was difficult to verify.
Celebrity endorsements were also manipulated. Old statements by popular figures like model Chi-ling Lin and TV host Matilda Tao were recycled to promote anti-nuclear messaging. Tao later publicly objected to her old remarks being taken out of context.
Anti-Nuclear Narratives: Safety Concerns and Radiation Risks
A closer look at the narratives shows that the anti-nuclear side focused primarily on safety concerns—long-standing controversies over nuclear waste storage and disposal, the risks of radiation, and Taiwan’s vulnerability as a seismic and typhoon-prone island. Another common argument warned that in the event of cross-strait conflict, nuclear power plants could become prime military targets, leading to catastrophic and irreversible consequences.
Some also claimed that extending the lifespan of nuclear plants would be prohibitively expensive, arguing that nuclear power is not as cheap as often portrayed.
Anti-nuclear messages centered on:
- Economic arguments, suggesting that nuclear is neither cheap nor cost-effective
- Safety concerns, including waste disposal, radiation, earthquakes, and typhoons
- War scenarios, claiming a Chinese attack could target nuclear facilities
One widely discussed narrative centered on a 2001 blackout at the Third Nuclear Power Plant. On August 11, an anti-nuclear representative raised the issue during a public forum, and by the next day, civic groups had amplified it on social media, portraying the incident as a near-apocalyptic crisis. The story went viral, shared thousands of times on Facebook.
However, after reviewing the independent report by Taiwan’s Atomic Energy Council and consulting experts, we found that while a blackout did occur, the emergency was resolved once backup generators kicked in. The reactor had already been shut down for more than 21 hours, meaning there was no overheating. Our investigation found that the situation was under control, and no radiation leak, contrary to what the rumors suggested.
Viral Fukushima Letters and Conflicting Narratives
A particularly impactful moment came during the fourth public forum, when an anti-nuclear representative read a letter from a young Japanese in Fukushima claiming over 300 children had developed thyroid cancer. The claim went viral but contradicted scientific consensus. A review of 57 studies and reports by the UN and WHO found no evidence linking radiation exposure to increased thyroid cancer in Fukushima.
In response, pro-nuclear advocates circulated a contrasting letter from another “Fukushima girl,” denying any radiation effects. The accompanying image, however, showed signs of being AI-generated.
Another rumor falsely claimed Finland’s underground nuclear waste site had contaminated water supplies for 200,000 years. TFC clarified that Finland uses a different disposal method (Deep Geological Disposal, DGD) than the one discussed in Taiwan (Deep Borehole Disposal, DBD), and the site in question is still in its testing phase with no signs of pollution.
Pro-Nuclear Narratives: Economic Growth and Clean Energy
Pro-nuclear advocates, by contrast, emphasized electricity costs and economic development, stressing the need for affordable and stable power to sustain Taiwan’s technological edge. Another frequent claim was that nuclear power is a cleaner option, with fossil fuels creating far greater pollution than nuclear waste.
Many narratives also pointed to advances in nuclear technology and safety, noting that Taiwan’s nuclear plants have operated without major incident for decades.
Pro-nuclear advocates emphasized:
- Economic stability, citing the need for cheap, reliable energy for Taiwan’s tech sector
- Environmental cleanliness, comparing nuclear to fossil fuels
- National security, warning that Taiwan’s energy imports—especially natural gas—are vulnerable to blockades
Amid rising cross-strait tensions, “national security” and “energy resilience” emerged as key arguments from the pro-nuclear camp. Many narratives emphasized Taiwan’s heavy reliance on imported natural gas for power generation, warning that a blockade could disrupt imports and cripple essential societal functions.
Interestingly, anti-nuclear voices also cited the same geopolitical risks—arguing that in the event of war, nuclear power plants could become prime military targets, potentially resulting in catastrophic radiation leaks.
Some narratives had little to do with nuclear energy itself and were instead driven by political preferences or opposition to specific parties or policies. These cases highlighted how discussions around the referendum were often highly politicized.
For example, some critics accused the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of pushing energy policies that unfairly benefited solar power companies or blamed the party for Taiwan Power Company’s financial losses.
Solar Energy: A Misinformation Magnet
The DPP government set a target of generating 20% of Taiwan’s electricity from renewable sources by 2025, actively promoting wind, solar, and geothermal power. Yet the expansion of solar and wind has been accompanied by negative messaging—claims of industrial conflicts, damaged rural landscapes, ecological harm, and disruptions to aquaculture—all of which have fueled public skepticism toward renewables.
As noted earlier, typhoons that hit central and southern Taiwan in July severely damaged solar farms. Images of wrecked installations spread through the media and online platforms, turning solar power into an unexpected flashpoint during the referendum. Rumors quickly circulated, alleging that broken panels had caused “toxic water” and “poisoned fish.” TFC published an explanatory piece to address these widespread doubts and questions about solar panels.
A noteworthy trend was the use of AI to fabricate such rumors. By late June, a video showing dead fish beneath solar panels was circulating online, marked with the letters “VEO,” indicating AI generation.
The controversy intensified after news reports revealed damaged solar panels piled near farmland in Chiayi, where mysterious red-colored wastewater appeared. Soon after, a viral video showed a bird drinking from puddled water near solar panels and collapsing immediately, with captions claiming it had been poisoned by solar panel pollution.
However, closer investigation showed the video bore watermarks linking it to AI creation. The original uploader even acknowledged it was AI-generated. Careful viewing also revealed inconsistencies: the bird’s beak appeared dark while upright but suddenly turned pale after it fell. Taiwan’s Ministry of Environment also stepped in to debunk the rumors.
In fact, solar energy has long been a target of disinformation in Taiwan. Misleading content has repeatedly portrayed solar panels as toxic. In 2023, photos of dead animals, and in 2024, videos of bright blue fishponds, were falsely attributed to solar contamination. Other narratives have claimed solar panels could alter the climate, change rainfall and temperature patterns, or even trigger dengue fever outbreaks. These claims, however, lack scientific evidence and rely on faulty reasoning.
Fact-Checking Complex Energy Debates isn’t Easy
Although public engagement around the referendum was low, the week before the vote saw a spike in complex, often misleading narratives. Many involved specialized scientific or technical issues that are difficult for the public—and even fact-checkers—to verify quickly. TFC published an online hub to consolidate fact-checks and explanatory articles, helping voters navigate the claims.
One of the biggest challenges was electricity pricing. Debates comparing green and nuclear energy prices have circulated since April, but even experts disagree on what costs should be included in these calculations.
Fact-checking such polarized, technical topics is inherently difficult. Fact-check reports are often criticized for perceived bias, even when grounded in evidence. Even within the expert community, opinions differ depending on methodological or ideological lenses.
Toward a New Methodology
To navigate these limitations, TFC experimented with a new approach: removing local bias by turning to global academic research. With support from science communication and science education researcher Ying-Kai Liao, we used the Web of Science database to analyze international literature on issues such as Fukushima-related thyroid cancer and deep borehole disposal for nuclear waste.
Despite the low turnout, the referendum served as a national energy lesson. TFC not only monitored online discourse but also crowdsourced public questions, publishing an article addressing the top eight concerns. Released the day before the vote, it helped drive website traffic to four times the usual rate—showing that when it matters, the public still seeks accurate, high-quality information.
Hui-An Ho is the Head of International Affairs at the Taiwan FactCheck Center.Wei-Ting Chen is the Editor-in-Chief of the Taiwan FactCheck Center.