Scientists are using A.I. to analyze vast troves of photos, videos, and audio recordings to identify animals and track their movements. The technology could revolutionize conservation, researchers say.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
"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.
China is planning a massive dam project in the longest and deepest canyon in the world, a remote gorge in eastern Tibet. The project has alarmed ecologists and neighboring India, which fears China will weaponize the river water it depends on.
Foreign trawlers are exhausting fish stocks in Senegal, driving an exodus of small fishers to Spain. Said one migrant, “If I was able to gain enough money in fishing, I would never have come to Europe.”
Coral reefs can supply the sediment needed for small islands to stay above water, even as oceans rise. To shore up vulnerable islands, experts are working to restore the native trees and wildlife that keep reefs healthy.
