4 ms·

Hard to believe the DPP followed through with this plan, especially in light of the aggressive "exercises" by the PLA in recent years. What's the opportunity f

Hard to believe the DPP followed through with this plan, especially in light of the aggressive "exercises" by the PLA in recent years. What's the opportunity for solar? Abundant sunshine most of the year, declining interest in family farming. Taiwan has offshore wind power, but the cost is twice as much as renewables: Taiwan’s offshore wind projects are paid for by Corporate Power Purchase Agreements (CPPAs) from large tech companies. They might be willing to pay above and beyond the usual price for the renewable energy they need for their supply chain commitments, but they are balking at paying what the offshore wind industry says they will need to sustain the Taiwan projects, above NTD$5 per kilowatt hour. That is almost twice as much as the rates they usually pay through Taipower for non-renewable energy. https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=3623 https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=3623

gpm 1y ago
> especially in light of the aggressive "exercises" by the PLA in recent years. As we've seen with Russia targeting them in Ukraine, nuclear plants are the last thing you want around during a war.
- ktgkdodfm 1y ago
  >As we've seen with Russia targeting them in Ukraine, nuclear plants are the least thing you want around during a war. I don't recall any nuclear incidents as a result of the war in ukraine? Attacking the power infrastructure in general is bad, but hardly relevant to the type of generation
  - collinmcnulty 1y ago
    There has been a great deal of concern over the Russian takeover of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants in Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_on_nuclear_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_Russian_invasion...
    - ktgkdodfm 1y ago
      I can believe there are lots of concerns, but have any disasters actually materialized as a result? At least according to the wiki article posted I can't spot one. If we're using war on Ukraine as an example of why not, I'd expect there to be some incidents to prove the point. Right now it doesen't seem like there are any real issues to having relied on nuclear.
      - collinmcnulty 1y ago
        It’s spread out over years of updates, but iswresearch.org has documented the operational developments of the war since the beginning and talked about the many ways Ukraine has been constrained militarily by the need to avoid fighting that could damage the reactors. Russia effectively uses the plant as a shield for a base of operations.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - gpm 1y ago
    Nuclear incidents, not really. There has been some mild spread of radioactive material near Chernobyl. However there has been strategic use of them against Ukraine. Russia attacked and captured Zaporizhzhia and then used it as a base of operations on the front line that Ukraine couldn't attack back, because Ukraine is much less willing to risk a nuclear incident on their own territory than Russia is. Nuclear reactors strategically favour the invading army, because they care less about being careful. It's also really not valid to say "the really bad thing didn't happen this time, so it's fine". Avoiding any meltdowns ever means even "that looked vaguely close to something bad happening" is something that must be avoided, and there have been several times in this war where it's looked more than vaguely close.
- snozolli 1y ago
  Russia took Chernobyl by force, then gave it back. They attacked Zaporizhzhia, seemingly only with small arms, and no reactor was damaged. Compare that to the outright destruction of Ukrainian thermal and hydroelectric power plants: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2024-04-17/russias-new-large-scale-attacks-ukraines-energy-infrastructure https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2024-04-17/rus...
- godelski 1y ago
  It sounds like you might be misunderstanding the situation. I'm including a link that has a full timeline and discussion of radiation levels [0]. Important note, the Geneva Convention states that one cannot attack a nuclear power plant, though it may be a military objective. You can take control of a plant, but you cannot use force in a way that risks releasing radiation. It is also a pretty stupid idea for an invading force to do so. Invaders don't want scorched earth tactics. It undermines their own objectives of taking over some territory. Who cares if you're king of a nuclear wasteland. Rather these tactics are much more likely in non-invasion situations. Like if Russia and US duked it out in the Cold War, or India and Pakistan where it's become about much more than land. This isn't the type of tactic you'd expect with PRC invading Taiwan. They want that land. They want the territory. They want the waters in the region and don't want to contaminate their own fishing supply. Nor do they want to incur the image of violating the Geneva Conventions. They maintain the claim that Taiwan is and always has been their territory, that the island is controlled by rebels. Such violations would invite global forces to come to Taiwan's aid and it would be much harder to paint the U.S. (or others) as aggressors interfering in internal matters. Remember, war is still highly political. Russia still depends on allies and should the PRC invade Taiwan, they too cannot operate in isolation. [0] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/ukraine-russia-war-and-nuclear-energy https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
  - gpm 1y ago
    Yes, I understand the situation, your condescension is unnecessary. You are completely ignoring a) That Russia did attack multiple nuclear sites with troops, missiles, and drones without significant international pushback b) That Russia has used Zaporizhzhia as an unattackable forward operating base housing over a thousand troops, munition dumps, and so on. Demonstrating that nuclear power plants are a strategic liability to the defending side even should no nuclear incident occur. c) That it isn't sufficient to say "nothing bad happened this time", but you must also say "it is very unlikely something bad could have happened", and that you can undeniably not say that here. Here are a few statements by the IAEA (international regulator) > This [thing that did not happen] is the only way to ensure that we do not face a nuclear accident. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/director-generals-statement-on-serious-situation-at-ukraines-zaporizhzhya-nuclear-power-plant https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/director-generals... > This situation is untenable, and we are playing with fire. We cannot continue this situation where we are one step away from a nuclear accident. The safety of Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant is hanging by a thread. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/situation-at-zaporizhzhya-nuclear-power-plant-untenable-protection-zone-needed-iaeas-grossi-tells-board https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/situation-at-zaporizhzh...
arthurz 1y ago
Just want to recommend Apocalypse Never, a book I am finishing reading. The author explains the faulty logic behind decommissioning Nuclear as a source of power very eloquently. Big mistake.

gpm 1y ago

> especially in light of the aggressive "exercises" by the PLA in recent years. As we've seen with Russia targeting them in Ukraine, nuclear plants are the last thing you want around during a war.

ktgkdodfm 1y ago
>As we've seen with Russia targeting them in Ukraine, nuclear plants are the least thing you want around during a war. I don't recall any nuclear incidents as a result of the war in ukraine? Attacking the power infrastructure in general is bad, but hardly relevant to the type of generation
- collinmcnulty 1y ago
  There has been a great deal of concern over the Russian takeover of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants in Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_on_nuclear_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_Russian_invasion...
  - ktgkdodfm 1y ago
    I can believe there are lots of concerns, but have any disasters actually materialized as a result? At least according to the wiki article posted I can't spot one. If we're using war on Ukraine as an example of why not, I'd expect there to be some incidents to prove the point. Right now it doesen't seem like there are any real issues to having relied on nuclear.
    - collinmcnulty 1y ago
      It’s spread out over years of updates, but iswresearch.org has documented the operational developments of the war since the beginning and talked about the many ways Ukraine has been constrained militarily by the need to avoid fighting that could damage the reactors. Russia effectively uses the plant as a shield for a base of operations.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- gpm 1y ago
  Nuclear incidents, not really. There has been some mild spread of radioactive material near Chernobyl. However there has been strategic use of them against Ukraine. Russia attacked and captured Zaporizhzhia and then used it as a base of operations on the front line that Ukraine couldn't attack back, because Ukraine is much less willing to risk a nuclear incident on their own territory than Russia is. Nuclear reactors strategically favour the invading army, because they care less about being careful. It's also really not valid to say "the really bad thing didn't happen this time, so it's fine". Avoiding any meltdowns ever means even "that looked vaguely close to something bad happening" is something that must be avoided, and there have been several times in this war where it's looked more than vaguely close.
snozolli 1y ago
Russia took Chernobyl by force, then gave it back. They attacked Zaporizhzhia, seemingly only with small arms, and no reactor was damaged. Compare that to the outright destruction of Ukrainian thermal and hydroelectric power plants: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2024-04-17/russias-new-large-scale-attacks-ukraines-energy-infrastructure https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2024-04-17/rus...
godelski 1y ago
It sounds like you might be misunderstanding the situation. I'm including a link that has a full timeline and discussion of radiation levels [0]. Important note, the Geneva Convention states that one cannot attack a nuclear power plant, though it may be a military objective. You can take control of a plant, but you cannot use force in a way that risks releasing radiation. It is also a pretty stupid idea for an invading force to do so. Invaders don't want scorched earth tactics. It undermines their own objectives of taking over some territory. Who cares if you're king of a nuclear wasteland. Rather these tactics are much more likely in non-invasion situations. Like if Russia and US duked it out in the Cold War, or India and Pakistan where it's become about much more than land. This isn't the type of tactic you'd expect with PRC invading Taiwan. They want that land. They want the territory. They want the waters in the region and don't want to contaminate their own fishing supply. Nor do they want to incur the image of violating the Geneva Conventions. They maintain the claim that Taiwan is and always has been their territory, that the island is controlled by rebels. Such violations would invite global forces to come to Taiwan's aid and it would be much harder to paint the U.S. (or others) as aggressors interfering in internal matters. Remember, war is still highly political. Russia still depends on allies and should the PRC invade Taiwan, they too cannot operate in isolation. [0] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/ukraine-russia-war-and-nuclear-energy https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
- gpm 1y ago
  Yes, I understand the situation, your condescension is unnecessary. You are completely ignoring a) That Russia did attack multiple nuclear sites with troops, missiles, and drones without significant international pushback b) That Russia has used Zaporizhzhia as an unattackable forward operating base housing over a thousand troops, munition dumps, and so on. Demonstrating that nuclear power plants are a strategic liability to the defending side even should no nuclear incident occur. c) That it isn't sufficient to say "nothing bad happened this time", but you must also say "it is very unlikely something bad could have happened", and that you can undeniably not say that here. Here are a few statements by the IAEA (international regulator) > This [thing that did not happen] is the only way to ensure that we do not face a nuclear accident. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/director-generals-statement-on-serious-situation-at-ukraines-zaporizhzhya-nuclear-power-plant https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/director-generals... > This situation is untenable, and we are playing with fire. We cannot continue this situation where we are one step away from a nuclear accident. The safety of Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant is hanging by a thread. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/situation-at-zaporizhzhya-nuclear-power-plant-untenable-protection-zone-needed-iaeas-grossi-tells-board https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/situation-at-zaporizhzh...

arthurz 1y ago

Just want to recommend Apocalypse Never, a book I am finishing reading. The author explains the faulty logic behind decommissioning Nuclear as a source of power very eloquently. Big mistake.