Taiwan's Energy "Security" (dependency)

Just started listening to this.

About 98% of Taiwan’s energy is imported and most of that is of fossil fuels. Not new to me as this has always been a favorite topic of discussion.

Co-worker recently referred me to the local Greenpeace after I told her I didn’t agree with her scaring very young learners with climate alarmist videos. These kids are too young to do anything about it and what is worse is the information the video was feeding the audience was complete quackery.

This will be great I’m sure. Just a few minutes in and I’m so excited !!!

3 Likes

The number of 98% does not seem right. About 20% is green energy (water, sun, wind, ect) some is local non green like the rubbish burners and local coal and atomic. I do see solar farms in Pingtung now and more will com. Most is imported oil or other carbons.

Besides the host they’ve had 2 Taiwanese speakers from Taiwan.

Really good history of the politics have been discussed.

Send me proof of the 20% renewables powering Taiwan that you speak of.

link Power generation in Taiwan in 2025 is estimated to be free from nuclear power - Power Technology

should be about 20% in 2025 , it was 8% in 2013.

Yes. One speaker said that the goals for 2025 will likely be adjusted. I would say these goals will most certainly not be achieved by that date.

Near the end of the show, I just finished listening, I’m pretty sure the Taiwanese woman said that Taiwan has less than 20 days of fuels in reserve. Earlier in the show one of them said that years ago typhoons nearly interrupted the energy supply as the ships couldn’t get in.

Taiwan is in a terrible, terrible position.

Really a good listen. I didn’t see the slides they presented but the discussion was very good. None of it was controversial as far as I could tell. Just the facts.

1 Like

Don’t think for a moment China does not already have these type weapons for the very purpose of stopping food, energy, and arms shipments to Taiwan et al

Putting solar fields on food security lands is the dumbest thing ever. I am pro renewables, but not on land we need for food and. water security. Many are made so low people cant even get in to weed them, leading to new problems these morons havent thought of yet, but everyone else can see clearly. Typical spend money doing something wrong so we can spend.more money later redoing it. Frankly, Taiwan, this is getting tiresome.

3 Likes

On the topic of energy “security”: how many of your are happy to be living near the radioactive spent fuel rods in Xinbei and Pingtung, especially after seeing the Russian military horsing around near Chernobyl?

With the PRC’s never ending threats, who among us is certain Beijing would for sure avoid those sites?

Me neither.

Guy

1 Like

I’d be totally fine with it. Living next to it would present no extra safety risk. Instead of fearmongering, just understanding some basics about physics and radiation would behelpful.

Nuclear waste is not a big deal like people make it out to be. Nuclear waste has an excellent safety record. And when safely encased and buried, even bombing it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Here’s a nice video which makes it clear.

Fossil fuels also kill a lot of people and have a far worse safety record than nuclear. The true crazy thing is Taiwan abandoning nuclear for 100% political reasons, but still relying on fossil fuels and imported fuel and energy.

5 Likes

Your confidence in this industry is remarkable.

I guess those “political” issues are unrelated to dumping waste (without permission) on Indigenous territory—and lying about it.

I wonder how much of this history you have understand? Based on your post, I guess this all might be new to you.

Guy

2 Likes

Yes, small, modular nuclear is really the best idea for Taiwan.

1 Like

Cool! Where does the waste go?

Guy

Yes, that is quite literally political. It has nothing to do with scientific realities of nuclear power.

Why would I not have faith in the industry? Nuclear power done right is incredibly safe, efficient and green. Taiwan absolutely has the capability, and if they don’t have the specific expertise right now, they are wealthy enough to pay for it from other countries.

And it’s not like the alternatives don’t have their own problems - coal, oil and gas aren’t exactly ethical or without their own safety concerns. Digging coal out of the ground, transporting it by a ship from Australia (largest source) to Taiwan, then driving it to a power plant, burning it for electricity… it’s insanity.

Unfortunately there is no perfect source of energy to power a modern society. Nuclear is obviously the “least bad” option and it also makes geopolitical sense for a place like Taiwan. Having coal account for 40% of electricity generation is horrible in every single way.

It can go anywhere. Watch the video.

You’re like the KMT guy in the last referendum debate who stated on TV that the waste can go into his apartment! Do you guys share notes?

Interestingly we have seen zero actual solutions proposed or enacted by Taipower, other than trying to move the waste to—wait for it—another Indigenous community.

Guy

Didnt you get the memo? Nuclear is totally safe! Even fukashima only had 0.0001 deaths or something. They know the science, its safe. Trust them! What would you prefer, coal?!? Or, whatever their spiel is now. Everytime the energy conversation comes up people state nuclear is cleaner. But never seem to have any answers for waste material . Seems the countries that do have an answer it is “dig a big hole”.

So, ya…

1 Like

And where does the Uranium come from?

Hint: Russia

Only a handful of facilities in the world convert milled uranium into uranium hexafluoride; Russia produced approximately one-third of the 2020 supply, much of it made with uranium from Kazakhstan.

Russia also has 43% of the global enrichment capacity, followed by Europe (about 33%), China (16%) and the U.S. (7%).

Going full nuclear doesn’t really sound like a well-thought plan to reduce dependency on other countries…

1 Like

Not gonna lie, the worrying part for me is not finding a place to store them, but the fact that they will need to be transported there by road using trucks and driven by taiwanese truck drivers !!

Jokes aside, the issue with nuclear waste is that it comes in small amounts that attracts a lot of attention and cannot be pumped out directly on the atmosphere or the sea.

Back to jokes, they should just keep the waste by the nuclear power plant: no need to transport it by road and when an accident happens it can just be dumped into the sea with the rest of the accidental radioactive material of the failure :+1:

2 Likes

Your tabloid-level news story is nonsense and riddled with bias. It doesn’t prove anything or support your argument.

I note again that you don’t have any sort of science-based rebuttal - only ad hominem attacks against me.

Where the waste goes it an entirely political/education issue because people irrationally say “not in my back yard”. That is due to lack of education and understanding - which you are demonstrating right now.

Please watch the video which explains everything in nice simple terms for you. Nuclear waste from power plants is highly processed. It is not especially more dangerous than other industrial waste which we dispose of. And the alternatives are worse. Coal power plants kill 100,000+ people every year in India alone. Fossil fuels combined kill almost 9 MILLION per year. ('Invisible killer': fossil fuels caused 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, research finds | Pollution | The Guardian)

Try learning something about physics and radioactivity. Waste from nuclear power plants is processed and then sealed so that radiation cannot escape. Note that site in the USA where the nuclear waste is simply stored in containers outside. Living near it would not be hazardous to your health. However, living near to a coal-burning power plant is most certainly hazardous.

Why do you think “dig a big hole” is a bad or silly idea?

We dig big holes all the time - for mining coal, for tapping oil, for getting natural gas out of rocks, for making trains go through mountains. Hell, we dig big holes for landfills and shove tons of crap into those all the time.

So why is it crazy to dig a big hole and put spent, processed nuclear fuel in it?

None of you are making any sort of science-based argument. It’s just hysteria and fear-mongering because the world “nuclear” is scary.

And yes, coal is very bad.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2017936118

“We estimate 112,000 deaths are attributable annually to current plus planned coal-fired power plants.”

Again, please reference the very simple video above which you should be able to understand.

2 Likes

The problems mentioned above have been solved long ago.

Hopefully fusion reactors finally arrive though.