Right, I’d blame alcohol.
Wait did @Taiwan_Luthiers hack into your account? 
EDIT: I see from the post above that alcohol may be at play here. Thanks for clarifying!
Guy
Ready for that manual work?
I’d be up for some stronger incentivizing of energy use reduction. We could clearly do way better here.
Guy
Cutting like 90%?
Just see the numbers, renewables only won’t add up. Need something else.
Isn’t it the progression will be all buses will be electric? That alone will increase electricity demand by Maradona knows how much….
What if we just find a small island that is uninhabited and build a super powerful, 100gw nuclear power plant there, and transmit it to Taiwan with HVDC cable or whatever? That way if it ever have problems, it wouldn’t be in inhabited lands.
That would be the best solution if applicable.
No idea if this is just AGW denial… but I don’t think cooler temperature (especially ocean temperature) is that much of a good thing. I think big droughts around Australia is reportedly caused by cooler water around Australia (from an El Nino where the warmth gets shifted to around S America). Cool water = less evaporation means drier weather, hotter weather.
Also the dry weather from cooling will probably mean crop failure and famine…
At least from this perspective, AGW is actually good for life in general.
I’m not saying keep burning fossil fuel, in fact we should burn less of them because fossil fuel contains a lot of nasty stuff aside from carbon.
Feel free to move this post to Global Warming and Climate Change Discussion
another fact is often ignored: global greening is happening faster than climate change.
enjoy the fact that green vegetation is changing faster than global average temperatures.
I can’t help noting the lack of units for these nonsensical comparisons.
Anyway this is a standard denialist talking point. Yes, more CO2 means more greenery. No, it doesn’t compensate for everything else.
I was pondering on this the other day (as one does).
Wikipedia indicates about 1000 bus routes serving Taipei and environs - so about 3m people? On any given route there are perhaps 3-10 buses (at least that’s how it looks from the tracker app). Which suggests a total stock of maybe 6000 buses. If they were all electric, they’d be averaging maybe 20kW each, or about 300kWh over a 14-hour day. That suggests an additional (peak) load on Taipei’s power supply of 0.1GW, and a crude scale-up to the whole population would be something approaching 1GW.
While I’m generally in favour of solar panels and electric transport in the right context, I’d like to see one of our net-zero supporters complete the calculation: how many solar panels are needed to provide a reliable 1.8GWh/day for Taiwan’s putative electric-bus fleet, and how much pollution will be generated by the construction and maintenance of this system. I’m not suggesting it could not be done; merely that (if you run the numbers) the “emissions” claim for BEVs is fraudulent, and there are better options available.
I wouldn’t worry too much.
Taipower is almost like a government agency here, meaning if they’re pushing electric buses they will find the power for it.
It may not be the most environmentally friendly way (probably lots of fossil fuel) but I think electric buses have to have less emission compared to their diesel counterpart. It’s also smoother and quieter, and a lot less residual heat to get rid of (floor on a diesel bus is hot because of the engine).
Matt Ferrel went to a solar panel recycling plant.
Thing is solar panels is still a lot of resource and carbon emission from manufacture and recycle of it, I’m not sure how long they are good for but I’m sure it’s not 50 years (this is how long most nuclear power plants have operated).
But nuclear power plant has very low operating cost once it’s built. It’s expensive to build though, politics against it not helping (it means stuff that should take a few year takes a few decades because of obstructions and protests).
Tesla Powerwall now available in Taiwan
Didn’t read the whole thread, was there an answer to the question of waste management yet?
I think a lot of people calling people anti nuclear are just emotional. Many are not anti nuclear, they just want clears answers as to the actual plans for safe very long storage, amongst others such as safer plants in situations like massive earthquakes and very high tsunamis. These are legitimate questions everyone should ask. It is not anti nuclear to want something done well.
Taiwan west coast is literally immune to tsunami unless they’re very big, if it gets that big we got bigger problems to worry about.
Also nuclear reactor containment is damn near indestructible. You can crash a 747 into it and it won’t even scratch the paint. The weak link is the cooling system which is why they develop reactor that doesn’t use water.
As for waste, reprocess it if it gets to be a problem.
Or do you think climate change is a smaller problem than nuclear waste? Or would you prefer good farmland wasted on solar panels?
So again, has the waste question been answered yet? Do you have an answer? That is to say, what is actually being done, not your opinion on what should be done. As in officially, by the authorities. Genuinely interested to know.
And so we should do nothing until they have a plan? Is reprocessing even on the table? If Taiwan can have tsmc they can reprocess.
Anyone asked? Because governments attitude seems to be do nothing except build ever bigger coal fired plants and kick tenant farmers off their land so they can put solar panels on them.
In my opinion green energy is a fraud.
It already is a problem, with high level waste accumulated without a designated storage site in Xinbei and in Pingtung and low level waste piled up against the Indigenous residents’ will on Orchid Island.
And you have already been asked to provide a source, any source, to demonstrate that your “reprocessing” solution is actually a thing. And as always, you cannot do so, as this solution does not exist in Taiwan. So here we are again, with you repeating this outright falsehood without a second thought.
And to answer @Explant 's question: no, there is no designated storage site for the considerably amount of nuclear waste already produced in Taiwan. So the “waste question” has not been answered, only given hand waves by nuclear enthusiasts on this island.
Guy
So what is your solution? More farmland wasted for solar power? That’s the solution currently being used. Why won’t they use rooftops? Who knows, probably because paying farmland owners is a lot cheaper than goyu owners.
Or we can continue burning coal forever. I mean as far as greenpeace is concerned, that’s preferable compared to nuclear power.
What does Taiwan official want to do about this? Or they don’t care?