We could just do what Japan does, which is ship it off to have it reprocessed elsewhere, but Taiwan isn’t Japan.
I wonder what would Taiwan be like if it were still part of Japan?
I’ve come up with solutions but these are not something any officials are entertaining. And pro nuclear crowd is such a minority, that we might as well not exist.
What Japan does to solve a lot of their problem is basically undemocratic solutions, such as housing shortage, their answer is ignore protesters and have top down zoning regulations based on need. Probably same with nuclear power too.
You will notice most countries investing heavily in nuclear power are Russia and China, these are not democratic countries.
Confused. Are you saying we, Taiwan, should look up to Japan, China and Russia for nuclear safety ideas?
Why not do shit well? And if it can’t be done well, delay doing it until it can be done well.
The argument that we can risk and pollute because we need to is absolutely illogical to me. If anyone could explain it outside of simple selfish greed, I would be super grateful!
Because the fact is, the average IQ of people is something around 90 or 100, while the average IQ of people who deals with nuclear anything is likely above 130. There’s absolutely nothing nuclear scientists can say that will satisfy your average people, and politicians are included in the 90-ish IQ people, they have to or else they’d never be politicians.
So fact is no democratic countries can do anything with nuclear because the propaganda has been so effective, that we should be afraid of banana because it’s slightly radioactive. So yes, only authoritarian countries can do anything with it.
In reality anything nuclear would have to be done with the utmost secrecy, because word gets out people panic like ants on fire.
Or we’ll just go back to burning fossil fuel because that’s all our meat brains are capable of understanding. Climate change is not our problem.
If that is your answer. Then wouldn’t you say we aren’t ready for nuclear if the nation isn’t ready to handle it safely? You are basically agreeing with the points the people you call anti nuclear are making
Can go back and forth all day on science. But science is rarely reality as far as societal decision making. Unfortunately. We have religions, extremists, politics and so on competing for control of the sheep. Is that really the control mechanism you want in charge of somethung like nuclear safety?
One of my factories in Taichung just got solar panels. I don’t own the building but what happened was that the building owner got the property rezoned from an illegal farm building into an industrial building. As part of the process the government required him to lease the roof for solar panels. I like the approach though I don’t know the financial side of the deal (is taipower paying for the space or not I am not sure). But obviously the owner is very motivated to make this happen since the value of the building and land probably doubles after the rezoning so its a good time to make things happen.
Took them about 2 weeks to install (this is a large building roof, over a 1000 ping). Installation even looks very professional unlike the typical stuff here.
Now just repeat 10.000 times and figure out some water uphill pump facilities to get power for the night time…
Our factory is the same, though our landlord paid out of pocket as it was already a legal structure. Go figure. But I don’t even mind corruption so long as it’s at least a benefit to society. Sadly, I’m not so picky about our governments, or society’s, morals.
This is what gets me, why the hell are they putting solar on farmland? I have ranted about this for 15 years, at least. it is beyond dumb. This has little to do with energy security and everything to do with food security and land management. I really wish people would stop confusing this extremely important point!
@Taiwan_Luthiers could you comment in this point before changing the subject? So far the pro nuclear camp here has only deflected and refused to answer any of the basic safety questions posed. Wouldn’t you find that weird? If people are to accept a thing, they should be told how it’s safe, no?
All I can tell you is that so far nuclear power has killed the least number of people per megawatt generated out of everything else. Even hydroelectric has killed many more people (dam failure is pretty spectacular).
The problem is they have to overcome big oil that has been in the game for at least 100 years longer than nuclear industry, and people who heads coal or oil industry has IQ that’s closer to the people’s range. Guys who deal with nuclear anything is highly intelligent, far too intelligent for anything they say to make sense to anyone else.
You want to get officials to say anything, they gotta agree with it first. So unfortunately, no, apart from possible options, I cannot tell you what officials are saying. They really don’t care as far as it goes because they will use whatever most likely to enrich them, and least likely to generate protests.
Really climate change or energy security is really not on anyone’s mind, just like no company CEO thinks “If we lay everyone off and use AI to make everything, how will there be a market for my products when everyone is destitute?”
Our brain is far too small for such thing like energy security or whatever.
Because someone needs to convince politicians with an IQ of 90. How do you do that? From his point of view, nuclear is scary, big boom, scary. Coal is comfortable, makes smoke but it’s comfortable.
Anyone with an IQ of more than 100 knows many plans and proposals out there exists. They just won’t look at them.
How do you overcome that?
How do you tell an ant colony that a flood is coming that’s going to kill all of them? You don’t.
Unfortunately scientist aren’t good at running countries either.
Regardless, if it’s that safe and fool proof, it should be easy to convince the pro nuclear have this job to do. If they can’t, then I guess here we are.
So far, it hasn’t been obvious it is that safe.
All the rhetoric is about just shitting on other energy sources and making comparisons, which is quite the immature way to go about it.
Oil bad. Coal bad. Fully agree. But that’s not the question at hand.
Again, I am ok with nuclear. I am not ok with nuclear in Taiwan.
Then our only choice is coal or covering farmland with solar panels, or just not have anything resembling industry in Taiwan and we should all live as you do, without electricity.
Go ask Germany how their plan to be nuclear free went. They just fired up more coal.
The dp or die, black or white argument doesn’t work either. It’s a common emotional reaction. But simply, nope. We can engineer far better than we are currently.
Solar on farmlands is as fucking retarded as keeping nuclear waste in Taipei city.
Or you can do as the DPP does, make electricity with love.
Because we really need a shit ton of electricity to make stuff like chips, and sunshine isn’t going to cut it.
So we’re going to have to use fossil fuel if nuclear is off the table. Or wait another 50 years for fusion.
And by the way you can calculate how much electricity you can possibly get by covering the entire island with solar panels. You’ll get about 300 watts per square meter out of a solar panel if you have a very good one.
Check out a pie chart, even nuclear isn’t the main one. Again, when people revert to hard no or hard yes…Black or white, they won’t be the people helping to innovate and make change. We don’t need such attitudes to actually improve our country.
No one is saying making energy with love, that’s dumb.
The solar failure is the failure to use absolutely golden real estate on existing roof tops. Outside their production, they also cause said building massive savings in energy based on cooling. Simple engineering strikes again. It isn’t good enough, it needs further development. But it’s a pretty legitimate start.
