Taiwan to ramp up gas imports after shuttering last nuclear plant | Hacker News Reader

Taiwan to ramp up gas imports after shuttering last nuclear plant

e360.yale.edu

73 pointsYaleE36070 comments

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

> 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.

>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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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/rus...

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-profil...

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...

> 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-zaporizhzh...

  > your condescension is unnecessary.

There is no condescension.

Believing you might not understand the situation is a legitimate and reasonable belief.

Providing historical records and operational context is not patronizing.

These are important details with high relevance to the topic at hand, especially considering the noisy information environment around these sensitive topics where there are large amounts of accidental and intentional misinformation or propaganda. It warrants letting the record be set straight. What I have stated are facts or well discussed beliefs of military strategy and the underlying ideas of what has led to such treaties and global policies. The conjectures made are not of my own but of general consensus by military scholars. And to clarify, the conjecture is with respect to what might happen, not with what did. Conjecture only exists where is necessary: predicting future events.

  > You are completely ignoring

  > a) That Russia did attack multiple nuclear sites 

  > b) That Russia has used Zaporizhzhia

I am not. These events are well documented in the link I provided. Which also includes a link to the IAEA's current statements and status.

Clarification: you should differentiate site from reactor and infrastructure necessary to maintain radioactive containment.

I made such a clarification in stating what is permissible under the Geneva Conventions and what is not.

Note that linked page's summary highlights that the IAEA has had permanent presence at the facilities since January 2023.

I would also like to request you read the linked material in full and pay careful attention to the targets and tactics used. I made a point about the Geneva Conventions not just for sake of the PRC but because it strongly clarifies the difference between what is allowed and what isn't. It is clear Russia is toeing this line and I'll agree may have even crossed it. But we must be clear that there is a large distinction between targeting the reactors or structure critical to ensuring reactor containment is maintained from taking operational control. These are wildly different situations, notably the former leading to the nuclear disaster you suggested and continue to.

Again, I want to stress conjecture occurs only in relation to future events and does not deviate from the general consensus of (global) military scholars. Only summarized for brevity.

  > 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*** SAY THAT HERE.
  
  [emphasis my own to draw focus to an obtuse accusation]

*THE MAJORITY OF MY POST IS DEDICATED TO THIS*

Here is a summary that may be more easily parsed:

  - unlikely when:

    - invading or seeking occupation
      (b/c you destroy the "goods" you seek) 

    - do not wish to incur outside involvement 
      (i.e. retaliation or direct armed conflict with additional countries/organizations (i.e. NATO))

    - must maintain strategic alliances in global politics 
      (i.e. PRC undermines its most important objective of replacing US as global leader by obtusely violating many international laws and creating a physical reminder of these autocracies that will last for centuries)

  - likely when:

    - willingness to use nuclear weapons

      - No intention of invasion AND believe can withstand global political ramifications

      - MAD
        (mutually assured destruction)

      - intent to commit genocide regardless of global ramifications and harm to self 
        (i.e. India and Pakistan)

We must also make clear distinctions to note that threats have and will be made regardless of intent to actually act upon. I also will say that such threats must always be treated as serious. We have seen this with Putin.

  > Here are a few statements by the IAEA

The IAEA statements are congruent with what I've stated. Previously and currently. They acted in a reasonable manner. I am in agreement that action must be taken if there are any risks or threats made. But seeking involvement of third party international organizations to prevent risks of escalation is substantially different than such tragedies having occurred. There is no question that tragedy did not occur and I do not make claim that we should not be closely monitoring the situation nor that we should be dismissive of such risks.

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.

Having shuttered its last nuclear plant on Saturday, Taiwan is pivoting toward natural gas. Critics say the move will leave Taiwan more reliant on imported fuels and more vulnerable to a blockade by China.

Whether it's a net win or loss probably depends on where they were buying their nuclear fuel. E.g., from Russia? I don't imagine Taiwan has a lot of uranium mines.

In the event of conflict with China, they can buy LNG from any number of sources, unlike uranium.

There's lots of uranium producers (e.g. Australia, Canada)

Fuel rods in nuclear reactor last 3-7 years giving high level of reliability in case of a blockade, while LNG storage is enough only for a few months in the best case.

They say 11 day storage....

Taiwan had one nuclear plant. That's like having zero backups of your data.

You can also stock up a lot of fuel in a small amount of space for a long time with uranium. I can't imagine China striking a nuclear power plant since the radiation would spread over to large parts of China.

"I can't imagine" does a lot of heavy lifting these days. A couple of years ago I couldn't imagine Russian troops bivouacking at Chernobyl or attacking Zaporizhzhia with drone strikes.

It is easy to call Putin a reckless dumbass and say that Xi is much more rational, but the two leaders have gone out of their way to put on a conspicuous show of friendship and shared interests.

I think you really misunderstand the situation in Ukraine and with PRC-Taiwan. I made a much more in-depth comment here that you may want to read. Both are still carefully maintaining a very specific image, though yes Putin is becoming more desperate, but that's resulting in Xi lowering support.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44032181

Well, the same logic about nuclear radioactivity spreading on their own territory did not stop the Russians from shelling the Zaporojnya nuclear plant. Your mileage may vary…

In the event of conflict with China, LNG transport can be easily blockaded, unlike uranium.

Uranium is also much easier to stockpile.

Big win for the environmental movement, big loss for the environment.

How is shutting down an already built nuclear power plant in favor of natural gas a big win for the environment?

He said loss for the environment. It's a win for the "environmental movement" which has a hate boner for nuclear. For every nuclear power plant they got delayed or canceled in the 20th century, many megatons of carbon dioxide were added to the atmosphere.

These days it's arguably different, insofar as solar is viable, but evidently it's not viable enough for Taiwan to not expand their use of natural gas. Still, it's better than in the 20th century when a nuclear power plant obstructed by activists almost always meant coal was burned instead.

Honest question here. Which _specific_ environmental movement considers a switch from nuclear to NG a win? I'm only aware of movements who want solar/wind/hydro and other sustainable sources to replace nuclear, never have I seen a movement call for gas to replace it, which is why I ask.

Sierra Nevada Club and Green Peace.

The former famously has taken significant funds from natural gas companies with the explicit shared anti nuclear interests.

Green Peace may not (always) tell you gas is better, but they do not operate in a way where they don't effectively believe that. They focus on shutting down first and dealing with ramifications later. Historically, those ramifications are installing more NG or coal, not solar. Clearly the NG companies understand this, with their findings of SN (and many believe funding of GP too but I'm not aware of any confirmations)

Sierra Club wanted NG as a "bridge" fuel for a few years while other sources took it's place, as a replacement for oil and coal, not nuclear. They have since grown more hostile to NG.

Example sources: https://www.energyindepth.org/sierra-clubs-latest-attack-on-...

https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra...

Can you give a specific example where Green Peace activities have resulted in NG being used instead of nuclear power? In all historical records I can find they seem pretty consistent on actively protesting gas power plants. The most "gas-positive" quote I can find is here https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/default/files/publications/e... where they say

> "A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventional applications will lead to a further reduction of CO 2 emissions"

Which seems pretty consistent with their actions, no?

  > Can you give a specific example where Green Peace activities have resulted in NG being used instead of nuclear power?

Because I cannot provide specific examples where Green Peace's efforts unequivocally have led to the shutdown of nuclear reactors.

But it is not difficult to demonstrate that they have been highly involved in creating negative public sentiment of nuclear reactors and are one of the leading public organizations making efforts to do so. I believe our conversation and the fact that Green Peace is a household name is evidence enough. But if it isn't you can search their own website and their wiki page says as much.

AND the claim that shutting down nuclear leads to increases NG and coal production is trivially verifiable. The two most prominent cases being Germany[0,1] and Japan[2].

By the graph's at the top of the wiki articles you can see that nuclear was not exclusively replaced by renewables. I should have stated the claim with this wording for clarity, I apologize.

It is also important to note that they dedicate efforts to closing plants where nuclear provides at least half the zero carbon energy generated by a region. If you wish to confirm I suggest pulling up electric emission maps[3], look in the American East (south and north) and google the name of those nuclear facilities along with green peace. The TVA is a great place to start followed by PJM and SCS.

  > Which seems pretty consistent with their actions, no?

The contention is about prioritization.

I do not claim that GP (nor SNC) states they seek to increase global emissions. Only that they disproportionately dedicate resources to close down nuclear plants compared to those of coal and oil.

The claim is that:

  - historical evidence shows shutting down nuclear power coincides with increased carbon emissions as the combined effect of growing energy demands with an energy production deficit leads to production of additional carbon emitting facilities
  - current economic conditions do not lead to strong preferences of renewable power production over carbon emitting ones.

I'm fine with shutting down nuclear plants in favor of renewables, but only after we have eliminated the significantly higher priority carbon emitting facilities and can ensure our energy demands can be met through current renewable technologies. Neither of these conditions are currently being met.

[0] https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/natural-gas-balance-...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_German...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan

[3] https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly

This move sort of parallels what Germany did in the last decade or so, and we can already see how that worked out for them. I remember seeing research in Japan about extracting Uranium from sea water. It's not very economically feasible, but it's still possible, and can't be blockaded. With breeding and reprocessing, reactor fuel can be used for much longer than it currently is.

Sorta, but Germany's mistake was depending on an arguably rogue state for energy. Taiwan wouldn't be doing that, and it's already vulnerable to a blockade. This isn't an added threat.

It does however increase the risk.

If blockade from China will cut power after the 11 day storage runs out then your are out of power completely.

If blockade from China cuts 90% power after 11 days, then you still have power of emergency operation.

This is assuming that China would not be attacking the power plants in either scenario, which is reasonable given the premise that China wants to take over not destroy Taiwan.

You can’t conquer a country by force without destroying it. The whole point is to make sure you’re the ones running the place when they eventually rebuild. Although I think there’s a good chance the CCP gets their way without having to do more than a blockade.

  > You can’t conquer a country by force without destroying it.

Citation needed

I can think of plenty of conquests that did not result in the destruction of the invaded country. Instances all throughout WWI, WW2, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and many more. You don't destroy the country because you want the country. You want the resources. Those resources include both the existing infrastructure and the existing people.

WW2, famously not destructive towards infrastructure and people. Are you trolling?

I think we might be using "destroy" in different contexts. The ggp said

  >>>> the premise that China wants to take over not destroy Taiwan.

Which I interpreted as "they want the territory, they do not want to make the area unusable". Given the context of nuclear power and the implication that attacking that nuclear power plant would lead to a nuclear exclusion zone across a significant region of such a small island, I'm not interpreting "destroy" as "bombs were dropped" or "some buildings were destroyed". It's pretty clear they mean "they don't want to scorch the earth and salt it so no one can use it ever again."

So, that's what you were responding to. The destruction you're referring to is "more" complete. Not

  > famously not destructive towards infrastructure and people

This is certainly not the case and clearly not what is being referred to. You're right, that would be preposterous! But I'll suggest, if something sounds absolutely insane, chances are people are miscommunicating. Words hold multiple meanings after all...

I don't think it would be accurate to interpret them as saying there would be no blood spilt nor structure tumble. I think we all expect bombs to drop and bullets to fly in this conflict. So we should operate from this expectation.

But also, yes, there have been conquests that have been (almost) entirely peaceful. It's hard to be purely peaceful, but you could look at Russia's original invasion of Crimea. Only a few people were killed. But there are also examples of entire armies defecting or leaders deposed without killing them or destroying buildings. So even in the weaker usage of "destruction", yes, you can definitely conquer a territory without destroying a single building or a single life. Wikipedia even has a list of some of the more famous instances. You'll notice that in many cases control of territory changes[0].

Not to mention we have the entire class of conquests that are over uninhabited regions. But I think we'd agree that's out of scope of the conversation and not really relevant here. Just mentioning as we're talking about how easy it is to miscommunicate. Especially if we were to get into the complicated nature of determining what is a country or not. Taiwan being a perfect example, because clearly the PRC doesn't consider it a country while the ROC does.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bloodless_wars

It’s extraordinarily common to bomb enemy power infrastructure in a war. Even if you didn’t want to bomb the nuclear reactors themselves you’d bomb substations and things of that nature. So if Taiwan wants to keep the lights on they will need to defend their airspace.

Taiwan has the three gorges dam nuke though..

Germany's use of gas in its grid grew faster as they were rolling out nuclear than it did as they were phasing it out.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...

This brings up the related point that since seawater is actually pretty radioactive, releases of tritium water that people fear is not something to worry about because the diluted tritium is less radioactive than the seawater

Germany drops opposition to nuclear power in rapprochement with France (ft.com) - http://archive.today/7pwlY

It's easy to stockpile enough Uranium for the next 100 years. Unlike any other non-renewables like natural gas.

It's the end for this nuclear plant, but it appears that Taiwan is looking to build advanced modular reactors in the future:

"NARI launches NT$100m nuclear technology project"

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2025/05/12/...

Lots of countries are "looking to" building modular reactors, but it's in very much in the we'll see -phase. From the article I can't really spot any concrete plans for materializing this looking to into action

That's like USD $3m. Good luck building anything nuclear for that budget.

The stupidity if relinquishing your own freedom for nothing is unbelievable.

What were the reasons cited for shutting it down? I could see "the earthquake risk is too big and the island too small if things go bad" as a justification.

No one in Taiwan wants to live near the radioactive waste storage, and they can't find an other country to pay to store it for them.

Its an improvement now, they can now be completely without electricity because they can be embargoed by another country.

Its still wild to me people are perfectly happy to offload their food and energy production in today's world.

Nothing out of the norm. Just look at the united states to see plenty more stupidity. Also see China and every other country.

At least in this particular regard China's got a bunch of nuclear reactors and is still building more.

Taiwan is facing a potential invasion. As demonstrated in the Ukraine invasion, NPPs can become high value targets, a bargaining chip, and a base of operations.

Another facet of this is that current US foreign policy sort of coerces Taiwan into buying American natural gas. Not the only factor, but I think a major one going forwards (unless trade policy randomly flips again).

i.e.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/taiwan-plans-response-t... ("Taiwan plans response to Trump tariffs with energy imports, tariff cuts")

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-says-trump... ("Taiwan could buy $200 billion more from US, increase LNG imports as part of trade deal")

> "Asked about raising the proportion of Taiwan's imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States from 10% to 30% of the total, Kuo said that was the "direction" being eyed."

> "Most of Taiwan's LNG now comes from Australia and Qatar."

What would it take to keep the current nuclear plan up and running while also importing gas? Having more energy could be used productively for their industries

Similar to Germany, huh.

Germany isn't ramping up gas imports, it's replacing both nuclear and coal with renewables.

And even though gas power plants are the designated backup power plants for times when there is neither enough sun nor wind, this doesn't actually happen often enough that you need even more gas. So gas consumtion in Germany is actually projected to decline by at least 50% until 2040 [0].

[0] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/energie-nachfrage-nach-gas...

Germany’s gas consumption is going down because someone blew up the natural gas pipelines from Russia to Germany, and Germany had no choice but to cut industrial production to make up the shortfall.

>And even though gas power plants are the designated backup power plants for times when there is neither enough sun nor wind,

Doesen't that mean that they need to build the capacity to cover their full use regardless(expensive), just that less fuel(cheap) is burned?

No, unless you're anticipating that winds will drop to 0 not just across entire Germany, but across the EU.

What kind of capacity can Germany rely on to receive from other countries when it's own production is zero? Someone has to have reliable capacity somewhere, usually basic infrastructure such as electricity is built on guarantees, unless Germany has decided it's okay to get blackouts when it's not windy and neighboring countries would rather use their power themselves

There are no guarantees in life, only probabilities. People much smarter than us can determine how much spare capacity the EU needs from non-intermittent sources to make electric blackouts a 500-year event, just like they do with building standards related to earthquakes.

I don't know what the number is, but it's probably greater than 0 and definitely less than the total peak EU demand, and if I had to guess I would say it's probably closer to 20%.

I do wonder if this might actually be some sort of effort by China. With the closing of this last plant, the door is closed on Taiwan ever developing nuclear weapons. They've been infiltrating Taiwan ever since 1947, who knows what pressure such agents have had over the years. Quite possibly enough to shift policy in this direction.

This seems like a very poor move given their issues with China. I don't know what renewables other than nuclear favor Taiwan's environment.

Taiwan relying on energy imports is a major strategic weakness.

People think China will invade Taiwan. I think they’ll just put it under siege until it surrenders.

Very sad :(. Normally very happy about things the DPP does, but not this.

Korea is close by, and they make them pretty cheap and fast also.

The DPP talks a big game about resisting a Chinese takeover but they are comically ineffectual about realistically preparing to do so.

Yes, fair

Big brain moment here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com