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.
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.
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.
>>>> the premise that China wants to take over not destroy Taiwan.
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
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.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
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.
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)
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?
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.
[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
In the event of conflict with China, they can buy LNG from any number of sources, unlike uranium.
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.
Uranium is also much easier to stockpile.