The transition to a low-carbon energy system is critical for achieving climate mitigation goals while maintaining energy security and economic feasibility. This study examines the role of nuclear energy in Taiwan's long-term energy transition using four optimization frameworks—Min Carbon, Min Cost, Max Power, and a greedy heuristic–based strategy—to evaluate trade-offs among cumulative CO 2 emissions, total system costs, and structural power supply reliability over the 2025–2050 planning horizon. The results show that the Min Carbon and Max Power scenarios achieve the lowest cumulative emissions (200 Mt) but at higher system costs, whereas the Min Cost scenario minimizes expenditure while producing the highest emissions (8000 Mt). In contrast, the greedy heuristic yields a balanced outcome, reducing emissions to approximately 1000 Mt while maintaining moderate costs and long-term system reliability. Sensitivity analyses indicate that these relative performance patterns remain robust under alternative electricity demand growth assumptions. The findings highlight the importance of dispatchable low-carbon technologies, particularly nuclear power, in carbon-constrained electricity systems, while noting that outcomes are conditional on the assumed availability of small modular reactors (SMRs). From a cost modeling perspective, the framework adopts an activity-based costing (ABC) logic to transparently attribute long-run system costs to technology-specific capacity expansion decisions, providing a policy-relevant tool for exploring pragmatic, path-dependent energy transition strategies under uncertainty. • Develops a multi-scenario energy planning framework integrating carbon, cost, and supply security objectives. • Compares minimum-carbon, minimum-cost, maximum-power, and greedy heuristic transition pathways. • Shows that cost-driven strategies can lead to extremely high long-term CO2 emissions. • Demonstrates the strategic role of nuclear power as a firm low-carbon resource. • Identifies a greedy-based hybrid pathway that balances emissions, system cost, and energy security.
Tsai et al. (Sun,) studied this question.