It's 4am and I can't sleep. Mosquitos - can't find that little jar of camphor ointment I bought the other day... so I just got out of bed, toddled off to the Family Mart to get another one (new one from Singapore: "Tiger Balm"... what happened to the "Mentholathum" with the little blue girl...?). Brain is still tick-tocking though, so I'd better write something...
Sirs
In response to Wednesday's editorial concerning the future of industrial energy production in Taiwan, I want to offer some observations about externalities.
The most significant obstacle to Tsai Ing-wen's intention to replace the nuclear power industry in Taiwan by 2025, assuming she is elected to the Presidency next year, is the cost of land. Noting that the combined output of Taiwan's three operating nuclear power stations accounted for 41.5 TW hours in 2009, or 18.10% of Taiwan's total energy production, allow me to illustrate the problem with reference to everybody's favourite renewables: solar and wind.
Extrapolating from the numbers for the pilot solar power plant built in Lhuju, Kaohsiung County a few years ago (1 MW capacity, NT$246 million, two hectares), it is possible to clearly envisage the absurdity of constructing solar plants to this and larger scales in Taiwan. In order to reach the target of 41.5 TW hours over a year, and making the very generous and unrealistic assumption that such solar plants would generate their maximum power output 50% of the time, they would collectively need a power capacity of 10,400 MW to be built at a capital cost of NT$250 billion and requiring an enormous 180 square kilometres of land - an area substantially larger than Kaohsiung City.
Onshore wind farms are far cheaper and more powerful than offshore farms due to the increased size and power of the turbines, with one turbine alone capable of producing 7 MW at an approximate capital cost of NT$23 million. To be capable of producing 41.5 TW hours over a year, and assuming an average efficiency of 30%, such a wind farm would have to comprise 2014 such turbines at a capital cost of NT$46 billion - which, compared to the NT$250 billion for the solar plant, would be very cheap. An onshore wind farm on this scale would however, require an area of 323 square kilometres - which is significantly larger than Taipei City.
What each of these two back-of-an-envelope calculations show is the importance of land prices. Flat, open land is at a premium in Taiwan partly because of the island's geography but also partly because of ... an enormous externality: the State's protection of rice farmers from both foreign competition and the environmental externalities the farmers themselves create by over-consuming ground water. Unless a Tsai administration would be prepared to extricate the State from agriculture, thus allowing the effect of true market competition to induce some farmers to voluntarily sell up, then the artificially high price of farmland would leave a Tsai administration unable to afford its commitment to replacing nuclear power and increasing renewable energy.
That is... assuming a Tsai administration, along with its environmental supporters, would not favour removing such an "inconvenience" by means of land theft rebranded as "expropriation" - such as was visited upon farmers such as Chu Feng Min (who subsequently committed suicide) in Miaoli County last year.
That must never be allowed to happen again.
Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.
(Sent: Thursday 31st March 2011. Published in the Taipei Times, Friday April 1st 2011).
Note on edits: The terms "City" and "County" are clearer designations than e.g "Kaohsiung" and "Greater Kaohsiung". The alteration may confuse some readers, and I see no good reason why the TT eds must stipulate to the government's made-up names which nobody uses.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
On Solar Power In Taiwan
Taiwan does get a bit of sun; I've been sunburned whilst swimming in the sea here in January... That said, Taiwan isn't the Mojave Desert. According to climatetemp.info, there are on average 1644 hours of sunlight per year in Taiwan to California's 3348. Moreover, unlike in the Mojave Desert, Taiwan does not exactly have an oversupply of readily available, flat, open land. Yet, bizzarely, in 2009 the government in Taiwan constructed a pilot solar power plant of only 1 MW capacity comprising two hectares in Lhuju, Kaohsiung County for a cost of NT$246 million. A larger solar plant was planned of 450 MW capacity at a cost of NT$10.5 billion - presumably, we may extrapolate from the 1 MW / 2 hectare ratio to guess that the land area to be taken up is around 9sqkm. The numbers for either the pilot or the full scale project just don't make strict financial sense; in comparison to the solar pilot for example, a single E-126 wind turbine, with a capacity of 7 MW could have been built on 2% of that pilot land area at a capital cost of only NT$23 million - to extrapolate up from that, a wind farm of E-126 turbines at 450 MW capacity (64 turbines) could have been built on just over 7sqkm of land for a capital cost of only NT$1.5 billion - a seventh the cost of the solar plant! But of course all of this is to misunderstand the purpose of the project as you know, electricity generation, instead of just another welfare project for Taiwan's infant solar industry - the sickly child of the semi-conductor industry.
I have no principle objection to any form of energy production per se, and in the case of adding solar panels to large buildings for company headquarters, a solar installation makes economic sense; my objection is to funding solar installations on either the small scale, household level or large scale, power plant level with stolen money.
I have no principle objection to any form of energy production per se, and in the case of adding solar panels to large buildings for company headquarters, a solar installation makes economic sense; my objection is to funding solar installations on either the small scale, household level or large scale, power plant level with stolen money.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Yet More Misconception, Stupidity And Exaggeration
I'm at least seven or eight pieces behind where I should be: three more on energy policy in Taiwan (including a letter), another two on U.S. foreign policy, one on defence and at least two recent photography essays. Were I blogging full-time, these could all be done before this weekend. As it is, I'm about to dash out downtown in a moment and will not realistically get any proper web-time until the weekend.
So very briefly...
From another article about the lunacy taking over Germany...
So very briefly...
“People are concerned about the consequences of the Fukushima accident because what happened was unprecedented.That's Chan Chang-chuan (詹長權) of National Taiwan University quoted in today's headline piece in the Taipei Times. Look here Chan: neither earthquakes or tsunamis are properly designated under the concept "accident". That can only be either a mistranslation, a stupid mistake on your part, or a willful lie in the service of anti-nuclear propaganda - whichever it is, it's more bullshit disgracing Taiwan's top "academic" institutes. There's more...
“If construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is stopped or phased out, the losses will be in [the billions of dollars]. The KMT cannot accept a resolution that would cost the public so much money.”That's Hsieh Kuo-liang (謝國樑), a KMT legislator also quoted in the same piece. Damn it Hsieh: stop thinking like an insect - the issue is much larger than a few hundred billion dollars. What would the economic costs be to Taiwan's industries, and by extension, the lives of thousands of Taiwanese were Tsai's plan to be implemented?
From another article about the lunacy taking over Germany...
"Forty-five percent of voters called nuclear power a key issue in light of the disaster in Japan..."What is happening in Fukshima is bad, but it is most certainly not a "disaster" - yet more dishonest propaganda and willful exaggeration.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Against Bruno Walther (March 2011 Edition)
Names are important - they allow us to identify and differentiate subject and aspect. Well.. it turns out "Pommie" was right: the eco-fascist has indeed written a letter against me, and the Taipei Times have published it.
His faults do not end there though... observe his spluttering attempts at unqualified defence of the anti-nuclear environmentalists from criticism:
Nonetheless, there is a part of Walther's spluttering, semi-literate rant that does need to be taken seriously - which is his raising of the problem of externalities:
On the more general problem, it is true that many externalities can be somewhat captured by economic calculation, but what is prerequisite to that, and which Walther fails to mention, is a legal system(s) which recognizes private property rights. Only under a system of private property rights is there any possibility of identifying polluters and of holding them responsible for the pollution they may cause. Further, whether this can be effectively done essentially depends on the structure of behavioural incentives for all concerned parties. For instance, it may often be attractive to the politicial or civil leadership of a State regulatory agency to accept kickbacks from polluters in return for failing to enforce rules; or even worse, an agency might intentionally set out extremely strict rules and harsh enforcement policies for no other reason than to coerce bribe money out of a given industry. Moreover, there are also many cases where the State itself, via its monopoly control of certain things creates enormous externalities that are almost never challenged: the year-on-year corrosive effect of inflationary monetary policy on price-formation and savings, for instance, is just one of those most egregious externalities. And since the State in many countries often directly owns and manages (or is at least intimately involved with) big businesses such as those in the energy industry - sometimes to the chagrin of the businessmen themselves - we must not overlook the little matter of when the State itself is the largest polluter... (but perhaps in a world run according to Walther's political prescriptions there would never be any more pollution...).
Generally however, and I accept that in some cases there may be no perfect answers, the best way to deal with externality issues is to act on three fronts. The first of those is to seek the gradual removal of the largest aggravator, and often the largest source, of externalities - the State itself with its oughtistic presumption of authority to play God with other people's lives. The second of those action fronts is the chief prerogative of technologists and entrepreneurs who, by thoughtfully considering externality cases in sufficient detail, may be able to produce new technological solutions to market and thereby help to not only solve the externality problem, but to create jobs and further economic opportunity. Finally, a third action front would be to tackle reform of the legal system in terms of the coherence of law to underlying principle, as well as those institutional design factors which sometimes work to distort the consistency of its application.
The remainder of Walther's outrageous claims are not befitting an intelligent response. I submit that the continued publication of Walther's ignorati gibberish is an externality upon the sphere of public debate - but at least readers may know that it is he who is responsible for it.
*My initial reaction to reading the way he phrased this question was ...unprintable.
I have a feeling that if I put these remarks into a letter to the TT, they wouldn't print it.
Just my gut feeling.
"What is wrong with these arguments is that they are based not on what kind of world we want to live in..."What is wrong with Walther's arguments, is his presumptuous arrogation of other people's lives and decisions to his own moral dictate under that royal "we". Look: my life and the lives of other people are not your fucking property Walther - how dare you presume otherwise.
His faults do not end there though... observe his spluttering attempts at unqualified defence of the anti-nuclear environmentalists from criticism:
"Are we morally justified in creating dangerous global warming and acidic oceans, leading to collapsed ecosystems?"... and ...
"Do we really want to burden the coming generations with thousands of tonnes of the most toxic and dangerous waste for hundreds of thousands of years?"There is no sense of measure to such hyperfault verbal terrorism at all. If there is something to the AGW hypothesis (and I'm far from certain that there is) then it would be more accurate to say that global warming is catalysed by human activity, not "created". As for acidic oceans and collapsed ecosystems - I'll take, for the moment, the line that any claim asserted without argument may be dismissed without argument. On radioactive waste: the radioactivity of nuclear waste decays significantly over that time scale and in the case of deep storage of such waste it is in any case heavily shielded and removed as far as possible from human habitation with the utmost precaution. Whilst it is not risk-free, the people working in the nuclear industry take pains to ensure those risks are scrutinized, rationally understood and minimized as far as possible.
Nonetheless, there is a part of Walther's spluttering, semi-literate rant that does need to be taken seriously - which is his raising of the problem of externalities:
"Energy production via fossil fuels and nuclear fission produces lots of external effects, such as air pollution, global warming or cancer, some of which can be economically calculated, but some of which cannot (how do you value a lost human life?)."On his outrageous* question of how to weigh the value of a lost human life into economic calculation, the simple answer is you don't. What must be "weighed" or considered carefully are the risks to human lives.
On the more general problem, it is true that many externalities can be somewhat captured by economic calculation, but what is prerequisite to that, and which Walther fails to mention, is a legal system(s) which recognizes private property rights. Only under a system of private property rights is there any possibility of identifying polluters and of holding them responsible for the pollution they may cause. Further, whether this can be effectively done essentially depends on the structure of behavioural incentives for all concerned parties. For instance, it may often be attractive to the politicial or civil leadership of a State regulatory agency to accept kickbacks from polluters in return for failing to enforce rules; or even worse, an agency might intentionally set out extremely strict rules and harsh enforcement policies for no other reason than to coerce bribe money out of a given industry. Moreover, there are also many cases where the State itself, via its monopoly control of certain things creates enormous externalities that are almost never challenged: the year-on-year corrosive effect of inflationary monetary policy on price-formation and savings, for instance, is just one of those most egregious externalities. And since the State in many countries often directly owns and manages (or is at least intimately involved with) big businesses such as those in the energy industry - sometimes to the chagrin of the businessmen themselves - we must not overlook the little matter of when the State itself is the largest polluter... (but perhaps in a world run according to Walther's political prescriptions there would never be any more pollution...).
Generally however, and I accept that in some cases there may be no perfect answers, the best way to deal with externality issues is to act on three fronts. The first of those is to seek the gradual removal of the largest aggravator, and often the largest source, of externalities - the State itself with its oughtistic presumption of authority to play God with other people's lives. The second of those action fronts is the chief prerogative of technologists and entrepreneurs who, by thoughtfully considering externality cases in sufficient detail, may be able to produce new technological solutions to market and thereby help to not only solve the externality problem, but to create jobs and further economic opportunity. Finally, a third action front would be to tackle reform of the legal system in terms of the coherence of law to underlying principle, as well as those institutional design factors which sometimes work to distort the consistency of its application.
The remainder of Walther's outrageous claims are not befitting an intelligent response. I submit that the continued publication of Walther's ignorati gibberish is an externality upon the sphere of public debate - but at least readers may know that it is he who is responsible for it.
*My initial reaction to reading the way he phrased this question was ...unprintable.
I have a feeling that if I put these remarks into a letter to the TT, they wouldn't print it.
Just my gut feeling.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
On Wind Power In Taiwan
I like wind turbines. What I mean is I like the way they look; they have an aesthetic appeal. As an industrial scale renewable energy source, however, I'm skeptical...
Huang claimed it would take 12,000 wind turbines to replace nuclear energy in Taiwan. Now that depends, because those would be small turbines (i.e. 390KW output capacity), and I know that many companies are already producing very large turbines capable of 7 MW and more, which would almost certainly make them cheaper and more efficient. The Enercon E-126 turbine, which I believe is currently the world's largest in operation, is capable of a 7 MW power output; a wind farm comprising eleven of them was built in Estiennes in Belgium in 2009-2010 at a cost of 6.2 million Euros, or just over NT$257 million. Assuming those numbers are good, we can divide that total cost by the number of turbines installed (11) and we get a cost of about NT$23 million per turbine. In order to get to a capacity of 4,700 MW from these 7 MW turbines, 671 of them would have to be built, which would cost about NT$15.5 billion - and even if the real number would be quite a few billion higher, that is an unquestionably massive improvement on the NT$400 billion calculated using the EU's Windfacts numbers for offshore windfarms.
However, the Estiennes wind farm in Belgium is onshore. The rotor diameter of the E-126 turbines is 126m, and it seems that a lot of space is required between each turbine. I can't seem to find any numbers for this, but - and I readily admit this is from looking at pictures - let's call it a radius of 500m per turbine (the real number will be either more or less of course, but it seems a reasonably accurate guess). Using that number of a 500m distance between turbines, to construct 671 such turbines would require an open land area of 335 square kilometres. That is huge - that is significantly larger than Taipei City (272 square kilometers) and more than twice the size of either Kaohsiung City (154 square kilometers) or Taichung City (163 square kilometers). (Correction: 671 turbines would require an area of over 100 square kilometres - see comments). So, assuming such a windfarm was to be undertaken by Taipower at the behest of the government, then whatever savings might be made by building such mega-turbines would almost certainly be wiped out by land costs alone - unless of course a strategy of land theft is endorsed, and it wouldn't surprise me if many environmentalists actually would endorse that (which would validate my use of the terms "eco-soviet" or "eco-fascist").
Yet let's not get carried away. Limited construction of such mega-turbines on land near existing science-industrial parks in Tainan and Hsinchu might not be a bad idea if captial costs could be kept to within a few hundred million NT$, since a principle advantage would be substantially lower costs than a nuclear plant and a greater efficiency in the transport of electricity from the turbines through a grid to the actual plant buildings. However, this would only become potentially viable if the government in Taipei were to withdraw itself from the subsidization of industrial energy. As a libertarian I would cheer a move like that - so long as it was not accompanied by punitive taxation measures on CO2 emissions - but I'm not holding my breath for the State to get out of the energy business any time soon.
Incidentally, anyone who wants to fact-check my numbers or offer better data or other criticisms is welcome to do so...
"Electricity production grew from 84.1 TWh in 1989 to 229.7 TWh in 2009, an average annual increase of 5.15%. Of the total electricity production in 2009, Taipower's hydro power comprised 3.01%, thermal power 44.09% (coal shared 28.00%, oil 2.67%, LNG 13.43%), nuclear power 18.10%, wind power 0.16%, cogeneration 17.29%, and IPP 17.35%."Those figures are quoted from page 17 of the Energy Statistical Data Handbook (available as pdf download from the website) from the Ministry Of Economic Affairs' Energy Bureau. Attend to that figure for wind power - 0.16% - and then consider this:
"Taipower has installed 162 onshore wind turbines over the past decade, almost the nation’s maximum capacity, Huang said, adding that space for offshore wind turbines was limited... If nuclear energy is to be replaced by wind power... the country needs to install a total of 12,000 wind turbines, Huang said."That's the vice chairman of Taiwan Power Co, Huang Hsien-chang (黃憲章) quoted toward the back end of Saturday morning's headline article in the Taipei Times. Now according to the EU-funded project WindFacts, the expected costs for a new offshore wind farm are currently in the range of 2.0 to 2.2 million €/MW, or about 84 million NT$/MW. So at those numbers how much would it actually cost to replace the existing power capcity of nuclear power in Taiwan with wind power? Well 18.10% of 229.7 TWh is 41.5 TWh, and 41.5 TWh over a year would require... (some arithmetic later) ... a capacity of just shy of about 4700 MW. At a capital cost of NT$84 million per MW, the total capital cost for a wind farm of that size would be somewhere in the region of NT$400 billion, not counting the various problems that may contribute to cost overruns of course (like location issues and externalities).
Huang claimed it would take 12,000 wind turbines to replace nuclear energy in Taiwan. Now that depends, because those would be small turbines (i.e. 390KW output capacity), and I know that many companies are already producing very large turbines capable of 7 MW and more, which would almost certainly make them cheaper and more efficient. The Enercon E-126 turbine, which I believe is currently the world's largest in operation, is capable of a 7 MW power output; a wind farm comprising eleven of them was built in Estiennes in Belgium in 2009-2010 at a cost of 6.2 million Euros, or just over NT$257 million. Assuming those numbers are good, we can divide that total cost by the number of turbines installed (11) and we get a cost of about NT$23 million per turbine. In order to get to a capacity of 4,700 MW from these 7 MW turbines, 671 of them would have to be built, which would cost about NT$15.5 billion - and even if the real number would be quite a few billion higher, that is an unquestionably massive improvement on the NT$400 billion calculated using the EU's Windfacts numbers for offshore windfarms.
However, the Estiennes wind farm in Belgium is onshore. The rotor diameter of the E-126 turbines is 126m, and it seems that a lot of space is required between each turbine. I can't seem to find any numbers for this, but - and I readily admit this is from looking at pictures - let's call it a radius of 500m per turbine (the real number will be either more or less of course, but it seems a reasonably accurate guess). Using that number of a 500m distance between turbines, to construct 671 such turbines would require an open land area of 335 square kilometres. That is huge - that is significantly larger than Taipei City (272 square kilometers) and more than twice the size of either Kaohsiung City (154 square kilometers) or Taichung City (163 square kilometers). (Correction: 671 turbines would require an area of over 100 square kilometres - see comments). So, assuming such a windfarm was to be undertaken by Taipower at the behest of the government, then whatever savings might be made by building such mega-turbines would almost certainly be wiped out by land costs alone - unless of course a strategy of land theft is endorsed, and it wouldn't surprise me if many environmentalists actually would endorse that (which would validate my use of the terms "eco-soviet" or "eco-fascist").
Yet let's not get carried away. Limited construction of such mega-turbines on land near existing science-industrial parks in Tainan and Hsinchu might not be a bad idea if captial costs could be kept to within a few hundred million NT$, since a principle advantage would be substantially lower costs than a nuclear plant and a greater efficiency in the transport of electricity from the turbines through a grid to the actual plant buildings. However, this would only become potentially viable if the government in Taipei were to withdraw itself from the subsidization of industrial energy. As a libertarian I would cheer a move like that - so long as it was not accompanied by punitive taxation measures on CO2 emissions - but I'm not holding my breath for the State to get out of the energy business any time soon.
Incidentally, anyone who wants to fact-check my numbers or offer better data or other criticisms is welcome to do so...
Consequences To Replacing Nuclear Power In Taiwan
Another comment of mine awaiting moderation at I-Fan Lin's latest anti-nuclear piece at GV-Taiwan:
* * *
... "safe" energy sources (e.g. solar and wind) are commercially available right now, but they have significant problems of their own:
1) Solar photovoltaic arrays that rely on silicon are designed to around 20+% efficiency (they will reach technological maturity at 29%), and although solar companies are working on aggressively cutting the costs of manufacturing these arrays they will always require a lot of space to produce power on a significant scale (i.e. >100MW). Attaching them to buildings is a great idea, but that's not going to produce power at the sort of scales required for serious industry: serious solar needs a lot of land.
2) Wind turbines, although it can seem like they produce power almost for free, actually have enormous capital costs - if they are to be built to sufficient size and number to produce serious energy. In order to replace nuclear in Taiwan, a wind farm would have to have a capacity of about 4,700 MW, which, for an off-shore installation, would cost somewhere in the region of NT$400+ billion in capital costs alone (actually not too different from the much delayed Longmen plant). And of course, a wind farm with a capacity of 4,700 MW is not actually going to be producing that much power day-in, day-out; because it's wind, it's intermittent. You'd probably get around 30% of that output, which is 1,410 MW. For NT$400+ billion! You can reduce those costs if you build your wind turbines on land. But then, like solar, you're going to need lots and lots of land.
So guess what? If I was a Taiwanese farmer in Yunlin somewhere listening to the anti-nuclear "environmentalists" I'd be very worried - because if an elected government were to listen to them and agree with them, there's only going to be one outcome:
Land. Theft.
* * *
As of 3pm on Sunday (27th) I-Fan Lin has published a comment by "tun aung" (and one of her own in response) and yet seemingly refused to publish either this comment above or the one preceding it (which I shall reproduce in a comment below). I am being frozen out of the debate presumably because she's afraid of me.
* * *
... "safe" energy sources (e.g. solar and wind) are commercially available right now, but they have significant problems of their own:
1) Solar photovoltaic arrays that rely on silicon are designed to around 20+% efficiency (they will reach technological maturity at 29%), and although solar companies are working on aggressively cutting the costs of manufacturing these arrays they will always require a lot of space to produce power on a significant scale (i.e. >100MW). Attaching them to buildings is a great idea, but that's not going to produce power at the sort of scales required for serious industry: serious solar needs a lot of land.
2) Wind turbines, although it can seem like they produce power almost for free, actually have enormous capital costs - if they are to be built to sufficient size and number to produce serious energy. In order to replace nuclear in Taiwan, a wind farm would have to have a capacity of about 4,700 MW, which, for an off-shore installation, would cost somewhere in the region of NT$400+ billion in capital costs alone (actually not too different from the much delayed Longmen plant). And of course, a wind farm with a capacity of 4,700 MW is not actually going to be producing that much power day-in, day-out; because it's wind, it's intermittent. You'd probably get around 30% of that output, which is 1,410 MW. For NT$400+ billion! You can reduce those costs if you build your wind turbines on land. But then, like solar, you're going to need lots and lots of land.
So guess what? If I was a Taiwanese farmer in Yunlin somewhere listening to the anti-nuclear "environmentalists" I'd be very worried - because if an elected government were to listen to them and agree with them, there's only going to be one outcome:
Land. Theft.
* * *
As of 3pm on Sunday (27th) I-Fan Lin has published a comment by "tun aung" (and one of her own in response) and yet seemingly refused to publish either this comment above or the one preceding it (which I shall reproduce in a comment below). I am being frozen out of the debate presumably because she's afraid of me.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Tim "Maddog"
"It's still a false dichotomy. Opposing nuclear power plants doesn't mean one supports burning coal."I say TimMaddog is right, it is a false dichotomy - people like him have two other options open to them: the first is the application of institutional violence to compel industries vital to so many Taiwanese people's lives to reduce their power consumption. The second option is the construction of renewable energy sources on such an enormous scale as to necessitate... land theft.
Either way, I know exactly what the correct conclusion to draw about Tim Maddog's ethics is.
Update: Oh c'mon Tim - say it ain't so! Look - if you take coal out of the equation (28% of Taiwan's electricity production in 2009 according to the government's own figures) together with nuclear (18.10% of Taiwan's electricity production), then the renewable industries would be left to make up nearly half - 46.10% - of all electricity production in Taiwan. A "Maddog" administration would have no choice but to either force the industries, and by extension, the people of Taiwan to lower their electricity consumption by exactly half, or it would have to seek to make up this electricity shortfall by investing in renewable sources. But consider the sheer scale of the numbers here: 46.10% of electricity production in Taiwan (using 2009 data) is about 106 TW hours, which, as a yearly figure would require an output capacity of about 12 GW (or 12,000 MW). To generate power on that scale from say, wind turbines, would require an area of land large enough to accommodate 1,714 E-126 mega-turbines, or possibly somwhere in the region of 860 square kilometres. That's about three times the size of Taipei City! I don't know what the figures are for solar or hydro yet (I'll look into it...) but they're not going to be small. The point is that a "Maddog" administration simply could not afford to buy that much land at market prices - hence land theft, or if you prefer the euphemism, "expropriation".
(And I've got two words for anyone who does prefer the euphemism...)
To The Anti-Nuclear Brigade
My comment awaiting moderation here. My quotations from I-Fan Lin's article in italics, my responses in regular type face:
* * *
"The supporters of nuclear electricity should convince us why we should take risks because of some high energy-consuming companies."
I will gladly try: you should accept those risks for (a minimum of) three reasons; first, because those risks have been managed successfully for half a century and are even being managed very well now after two enormous natural disasters; second, because those high energy consuming companies are part of a global economy which is what keeps working people alive and well and which relentlessly continues to raise material standards of living everywhere; and third, because the energy needs of those companies cannot be adequately supported by alternative sources of energy without incurring enormous political, social, environmental and financial costs. Good enough?
"Because the price is so cheap for industries, it is easy for them to waste electricity. If we increase the price for industrial electricity, we may be able to eliminate those industries that consume a lot of energy and generate a lot of pollution. After we transform the structure of industries fundamentally, we will solve the energy problems."
Actually, I know some of the people in these industries responsible for plant energy efficiency - and let me tell you, wasting electricity is absolutely not an "easy" thing for them to even think about. They often work 12 hour shifts 6 or 7 days a week trying to further improve their efficient use of water, electricity and gas or to ensure this efficiency is the best they can possibly achieve and to write and evaluate new proposals for further improvements.
And as for "eliminating" industries... what a breathtakingly arrogant thing for Chia-Yang Tsai (蔡嘉陽) to say. He should go and say that to the face of every single one of those thousands of Taiwanese people whose lives and the lives of their children and families depend on the work they do in those industries.
If there is any mistake in [nuclear plant] management, radiation pollution takes place.
Not true - whether radiation pollution occurs depends on the nature and severity of the mistakes or external events; to say it occurs as a result of "any" mistake is simply not true (and I think that in the case of Fukushima, it is worth pointing out that the radiation leakage has not occured as a direct result of "mistakes" in plant management, but as a result of two enormous natural disasters whose effects have been exacerbated by certain design flaws). Radiation may escape, but that is not necesarily the same thing as pollution since, at least in the case of Fukushima, the vast majority of escaped radioisotopes have had insignificant half-lives of seconds or minutes.
* * *
* * *
"The supporters of nuclear electricity should convince us why we should take risks because of some high energy-consuming companies."
I will gladly try: you should accept those risks for (a minimum of) three reasons; first, because those risks have been managed successfully for half a century and are even being managed very well now after two enormous natural disasters; second, because those high energy consuming companies are part of a global economy which is what keeps working people alive and well and which relentlessly continues to raise material standards of living everywhere; and third, because the energy needs of those companies cannot be adequately supported by alternative sources of energy without incurring enormous political, social, environmental and financial costs. Good enough?
"Because the price is so cheap for industries, it is easy for them to waste electricity. If we increase the price for industrial electricity, we may be able to eliminate those industries that consume a lot of energy and generate a lot of pollution. After we transform the structure of industries fundamentally, we will solve the energy problems."
Actually, I know some of the people in these industries responsible for plant energy efficiency - and let me tell you, wasting electricity is absolutely not an "easy" thing for them to even think about. They often work 12 hour shifts 6 or 7 days a week trying to further improve their efficient use of water, electricity and gas or to ensure this efficiency is the best they can possibly achieve and to write and evaluate new proposals for further improvements.
And as for "eliminating" industries... what a breathtakingly arrogant thing for Chia-Yang Tsai (蔡嘉陽) to say. He should go and say that to the face of every single one of those thousands of Taiwanese people whose lives and the lives of their children and families depend on the work they do in those industries.
If there is any mistake in [nuclear plant] management, radiation pollution takes place.
Not true - whether radiation pollution occurs depends on the nature and severity of the mistakes or external events; to say it occurs as a result of "any" mistake is simply not true (and I think that in the case of Fukushima, it is worth pointing out that the radiation leakage has not occured as a direct result of "mistakes" in plant management, but as a result of two enormous natural disasters whose effects have been exacerbated by certain design flaws). Radiation may escape, but that is not necesarily the same thing as pollution since, at least in the case of Fukushima, the vast majority of escaped radioisotopes have had insignificant half-lives of seconds or minutes.
* * *
Decisions, Decisions...
From today's headline article on Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in the Taipei Times:
"On Thursday, Tsai said if she were elected next year, she would seek to end operations at the power plant currently under construction as part of her plan to phase out nuclear energy by 2025..."A short way down in the same article:
“...The United Daily News purposefully misrepresented [my comments],” Tsai said, adding that her plan was to spark discussion to ensure that operations at the plant do not start against the public’s wishes. The NT$273.5 billion (US$9.28 billion) project would still be completed, she said."So which is it? Would a Tsai administration cancel the construction of the Longmen plant or not? Would it wait until the plant was completed and then order it to be shut down or stand idle? Would it wait until alternative plants (e.g. coal, gas, wind, solar) were built and then shut the Longmen plant down? Would it keep the Longmen plant, but shut down the other two in Taipei County? Would it put the issue to a referendum?
Friday, 25 March 2011
On The Beating Of Chen Jiau-hua (陳椒華)
"Chen, an associate professor at Chianan University of Pharmacy and Science and a long-time environmental campaigner, was beaten by two men with sticks on Monday night when she was getting into her car after leaving the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union’s (TEPU) Tainan office, she said."Goddamn it. I don't yet know the details of this garbage dump thing out in Dongshan (I can find out), and although I have no sympathy for politicists like her, two men beating a woman at night with sticks is no less cowardly and stupid than applying coercion through the safe and comfortable leverage of institutional distance.
Further in that story somebody called Sam Lin (林聖崇), who is apparently the Taiwan Hsinchu Foundation chairman (whatever the hell that is), obviously in a pique of anger came out with this little gem:
“...the government is incapable of protecting its citizens and it’s also incapable of protecting the environment.”That is exactly right - but not for the reasons he thinks it is.
The Left's Perennial Argument: "Shut Up"
Ann Coulter tries to explain to that cloth-head Bill 'O Reilly her point that the media will not report on scientific work claiming that a certain degree of exposure to radiation may in fact, help to ward off cancer. The numbers she mentions in the case of some apartment blocks built in Taiwan seem quite impressive, but their scientific merit is the secondary point here. The primary point of course is that the reason the media will not report such claims is because they don't fit with their anti-nuclear and more broadly left-wing environmentalist bias.* Ben Goren naturally can do little more than imply that Coulter should shut up because her remarks are in "bad taste". He's learning, but not from me.
*I vividly recall, for example, how the Taipei Times steadfastedly refused to report anything about the Climategate scandal at the University of East Anglia for as long as they could back in 2009.
*I vividly recall, for example, how the Taipei Times steadfastedly refused to report anything about the Climategate scandal at the University of East Anglia for as long as they could back in 2009.
Taipei Calling
"Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential contender Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) released her first major policy initiative yesterday, saying she intended to phase out operations of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant."I knew it was only a matter of time before one of the DPP candidates would start making noises like this. Perhaps I was overly-optimistic when I said in my piece against Pan Han-shen (潘翰聲) the other day:
"The importance of people like Pan is not that the policies he advocates will be implemented in the short term, but that they begin to acquire the lustre of ideological popularity - which will of course draw political power like moths to a flame."However, there is still some reason to be doubtful that, if elected, Tsai would actually abolish construction of the fourth plant in Longmen - not least because the considerably large sums of money involved would still need to be paid anyway and additional money would have to be found on top of that for renewable power stations elsewhere in order to avoid the risk of blackouts.
From the same piece:
"Statistics from the Bureau of Energy show that Taiwan’s three operational nuclear power plants last year generated about 19.3 percent of the nation’s energy. Tsai said this number could be offset by generating more renewable energy, increasing efficiency of current coal-fired plants and building new natural gas plants."New natural gas plants may well offer a decent FROI but, like the renewables, a lot of them would have to be built thus increasing the scope of their environmental and socio-political impact (read: land-theft) in comparison to a nuke, and they bring with them their own risks chiefly concerning the importation and transportation of gas.
Elsewhere, in the Ko Shu-Ling piece criticized in the post below:
"Shih Shin-min (施信民), a professor of chemical engineering at National Taiwan University, said Taiwan had a chance to become a nuclear-free country. “It is all about political will,” he said... Taiwan would have no problem producing 1GW with solar energy."Another thing about this "debate" which I despise is the presumption that just because someone like Shih Shin-min (施信民) is a professor in a scientific-technical field at NTU, he must therefore be competent to pontificate on the obviously political but ultimately ethical questions of who gets to build what forms of industrial energy production, on whose land and at whose cost. In fact, none of these questions is even made salient in this sort of article since the premise is automatically granted that Taiwan Power should be building whatever the government demands of them at whatever violation of whomsoever's property rights and largely at taxpayer's expense. It's simply outrageous. Attend to the moral collectivism inherent in that sentence from Shih Shin-min (施信民):
"Taiwan would have no problem producing 1GW with solar energy."This is exactly why that man's opinions should be disqualified as rotten commie gibberish by any morally decent person. Look: "Taiwan" is not a person, and to speak in such a manner is a cheap rhetorical ploy to hide the forced collectivization of human lives and values. The salient political question here is not simply whether enough solar plants can be built to produce 1 Gig, but at what cost to whom? I'll say this right now: the children of Taiwan's farmers up and down the west coast better start thinking about another line of business. When the farmers in Miaoli County had their land stolen by the government last year, I wrote this:
"Such abject violations of private property arise, not because the democratic form within which government power sits has been too roughly sculpted, but because the political culture which shapes modern politics continues to try to weave together two incompatible ideological premises - the individualism predicated upon the principle that property be privately owned, and the violent subjugation of some individuals to the interests of particular others which will be falsely proclaimed as collective interests - this is the essence of government power, democratic or not. Ain't no third way."Anybody care to bet against me having to quote this passage again and again in the future?
Oh, and I forgot to mention there was a very short piece in the business section containing snippets of an interview with Edward Chen (陳貴明), the chairman of Taiwan Power, attempting to defend the nuclear industry.
It should have been on the front page...
"Forget it brother, you can go it alone!"
Journalistic Innumeracy
Comment for J.Michael Cole (deputy news chief):
I have made some mistakes recently myself and none of us are infallible. Yet some errors are forgiveable and some are not. I'm sorry to have to bring this to your attention Michael, but the small piece by Ko Shu-Ling in today's edition contains a stunning piece of innumeracy in the subtitle:
Update: oh dear, error and comprehension failures seem to be contagious.
2nd Update: the correct information was further within that report:
I have made some mistakes recently myself and none of us are infallible. Yet some errors are forgiveable and some are not. I'm sorry to have to bring this to your attention Michael, but the small piece by Ko Shu-Ling in today's edition contains a stunning piece of innumeracy in the subtitle:
"Experts say Taiwan can easily generate 1 gigawatt of solar power, far more than the 2,700MW a fourth nuclear power plant is estimated to produce."Of course 2,700 MW means 2.7 GW. You and Vincent Chao ran a piece a couple of weeks back criticizing Premier Wu for not having his facts right on nuclear power stations - which I myself cheered. Perhaps you ought to make sure your own reporters understand elementary concepts like numerical scale before allowing them to report on very serious issues which demand at least some numeracy.
Update: oh dear, error and comprehension failures seem to be contagious.
2nd Update: the correct information was further within that report:
"Wang To-far (王塗發), a professor of economics at National Taipei University, said Taiwan had significant potential to develop renewable energy. Taiwan can generate 5,000MW of wind power..."Sure - nobody doubts that this can be technically accomplished. The salient questions are at what cost and to whom?
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Comment To I-Fan Lin
The following is my second comment to I-Fan Lin (on her piece entitled "The Reassurance Of Nuclear Safety Is Not Convincing") which has been awaiting moderation for well over a full day now, which I consider long enough for a decision to have been made on whether to publish it or not. My quotations of her in italics, my responses in regular typeface:
* * *
“…less than 20km away from the first and second nuclear power plants…”
Granted. My mistake, I had wrongly assumed the comment was in reference to the fourth plant only since your article begins with a focus on that. I would agree that the two aging plants in Taipei County (Xinbei) ought to be closed down; it would be better if they could be replaced with newer, more efficient and safer plants in other locations further away from residential areas but I don’t know whether that would be possible.
“…too high for infants…”
Interesting that that BBC report fails to mention the actual becquerel value recorded in the water and the difference between that value, and the range of values normally found in Tokyo tap water, though isn’t it? No matter, the value is given here in this report as a concentration of 210 becquerels per litre – this is a trace amount. To add a little more context, the highest reported dose level (background rate - ed) of radiation at the edge of the 20km evacuation zone (never mind Tokyo) was 0.16 millisievert/hour – which is similar to that of two dental X-rays (per hour - ed). Why do you think the BBC report only alarming descriptions of the radiation without any supplementary data and explanation of that data?
“I do not know how much risk you want to take, but others may consider something like this as risk.”
Of course, and I wouldn’t dream of telling people what risks they may and may not take. Yet these risks are being deliberately presented in exaggerated form by the mainstream press agencies (and other media) and those who stand to benefit from the political destruction of the nuclear power industry by encouraging psychological panic among the public. This is extremely irresponsible.
“For people in Fukushima, the radiation pollution they face will last much longer.”
Do you have any actual evidence to support that claim?
“Regarding the review for the energy policy, I think any citizen in a democratic country can do it whenever they find it is necessary.”
You call it a “review” of energy policy and I have no argument with a “review” per se. In fact, I am all in favour of further rational criticism and re-think of nuclear plant design. Yet I suspect that what environmentalists really have in mind when they speak of a “review” is an outright demand for abolition of nuclear power in Taiwan. Is that not so I-Fan?
“It is definitely not decided by you.”
Of course not, but it will definitely not decided by you either. And I note that that is the second time you have been rude to me.
* * *
* * *
“…less than 20km away from the first and second nuclear power plants…”
Granted. My mistake, I had wrongly assumed the comment was in reference to the fourth plant only since your article begins with a focus on that. I would agree that the two aging plants in Taipei County (Xinbei) ought to be closed down; it would be better if they could be replaced with newer, more efficient and safer plants in other locations further away from residential areas but I don’t know whether that would be possible.
“…too high for infants…”
Interesting that that BBC report fails to mention the actual becquerel value recorded in the water and the difference between that value, and the range of values normally found in Tokyo tap water, though isn’t it? No matter, the value is given here in this report as a concentration of 210 becquerels per litre – this is a trace amount. To add a little more context, the highest reported dose level (background rate - ed) of radiation at the edge of the 20km evacuation zone (never mind Tokyo) was 0.16 millisievert/hour – which is similar to that of two dental X-rays (per hour - ed). Why do you think the BBC report only alarming descriptions of the radiation without any supplementary data and explanation of that data?
“I do not know how much risk you want to take, but others may consider something like this as risk.”
Of course, and I wouldn’t dream of telling people what risks they may and may not take. Yet these risks are being deliberately presented in exaggerated form by the mainstream press agencies (and other media) and those who stand to benefit from the political destruction of the nuclear power industry by encouraging psychological panic among the public. This is extremely irresponsible.
“For people in Fukushima, the radiation pollution they face will last much longer.”
Do you have any actual evidence to support that claim?
“Regarding the review for the energy policy, I think any citizen in a democratic country can do it whenever they find it is necessary.”
You call it a “review” of energy policy and I have no argument with a “review” per se. In fact, I am all in favour of further rational criticism and re-think of nuclear plant design. Yet I suspect that what environmentalists really have in mind when they speak of a “review” is an outright demand for abolition of nuclear power in Taiwan. Is that not so I-Fan?
“It is definitely not decided by you.”
Of course not, but it will definitely not decided by you either. And I note that that is the second time you have been rude to me.
* * *
Points Of Departure
“We conclude that barriers to a 100% conversion to WWS [wind, water & solar] power worldwide are primarily social and political, not technological or even economic.”That's David Reid quoting the conclusion to two academic papers on the possibility of converting world industrial energy use to renewable sources. I would like to comment further at David's post, but since he has, seemingly out of frustration, banned me from further comment on that post, I make my remarks here...
The concluding emphasis on social and political "barriers" in that quote is about half right. Of course, in theory, power production for the entire world could be shifted to completely renewable sources - yet at what cost? More importantly: whose cost? This is the point where thinking and criticism ought to begin, not the point at which it is concluded.
I said "half-right". The reason for this concerns the question of how to conceive of "costs". To restrict analysis to financial and technological aspects alone is to completely ignore the fact that energy policy investment decisions take place in a thoroughly politicized economic context (as Marxists like Ha Joon Chang understand and as I tried to explain to David). There are broader economic and especially political costs to be considered if we are interested in honestly and accurately thinking about the costs of energy policy. In particular, there is the underlying ethical objection to applying the violence of the State through the leverage of institutional distance in the pursuit of any given "solution" whether it be continued support for the nuclear industry or increased support for the renewables. This is where people who value their freedom ought to fight for free-market answers.
Meanwhile I have another comment awaiting moderation in response to I-Fan Lin on her post entitled "The Reassurance Of Nuclear Safety Is Not Convincing":
"Interesting that that BBC report fails to mention the actual becquerel value recorded in the water and the difference between that value, and the range of values normally found in Tokyo tap water, though isn’t it? No matter, the value is given here in this report as a concentration of 210 becquerels per litre – this is a trace amount. To add a little more context, the highest reported dose level of radiation at the edge of the 20km evacuation zone (never mind Tokyo) was 0.16 millisievert/hour – which is similar to that of two dental X-rays. Why do you think the BBC report only alarming descriptions of the radiation without any supplementary data and explanation of that data?"
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Mapper 1: Flapper 0
FAO "Summerlake" - stop flapping and check your map.
Update: my mistake. It seems the claim was made not in reference to the Longmen plant, but to the older Jinshan and Kuoshan plants in Taipei County.
"Actually, I believe Taipei city would fall just outside that 20km radius – as the distance from Gongliao to Taipei city is approximately 27km according to my pocket road map and slide rule. So assuming a 20km radius for evacuation, residents of Taipei city would *not* have to evacuate."Part of my comment awaiting moderation at I-fan Lin's most recent piece on nuclear energy in Taiwan.
Update: my mistake. It seems the claim was made not in reference to the Longmen plant, but to the older Jinshan and Kuoshan plants in Taipei County.
FAO Environmentalist Flappers...
What's more awesome than "Mother Nature"?
Via John Venlet.
"She hadn't gotten out. She wasn't answering her phone. The water was still rising, the sun was setting, cars and shit were swooshing past on a river of sea water, and and rescue workers told him there was nothing that could be done – the only thing left was to sit back, wait for the military to arrive, and hope that they can get in there and rescue the survivors before it's too late... But Hideaki Akaiwa isn't a regular guy. He's a fucking insane badass, and he wasn't going to sit back and just let his wife die alone, freezing to death in a miserable water-filled tomb. He was going after her. No matter what...The even more awesome power of human courage and resourcefulness, as evinced here in the person of Hideaki Akaiwa.
He dove down into the water, completely submerged in the freezing cold, pitch black rushing current on all sides, and started swimming through the underwater ruins of his former hometown. Surrounded by incredible hazards on all sides, ranging from obscene currents capable of dislodging houses from their moorings, sharp twisted metal that could easily have punctured his oxygen line (at best) or impaled him (at worst), and with giant fucking cars careening through the water like toys, he pressed on...
Hideaki maintained his composure and navigated his way through the submerged city, finally tracking down his old house. He quickly swam through to find his totally-freaked-out wife, alone and stranded on the upper level of their house, barely keeping her head above water. He grabbed her tight, and presumably sharing his rebreather with her, dragged her out of the wreckage to safety. She survived."
Via John Venlet.
Irony Meltdown
Hsia Tao-yuan (夏道緣), deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Environmental Information Association quoted in this morning's Taipei Times:
“Nuclear energy cannot resolve the problem of global warming: on the contrary, it poses a greater threat...”Well then! There is little reason for the continued scaremongering about CO2 is there?
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Against Pan Han-shen (潘翰聲)
So far, my scribblings on the situation at Fukushima have focused almost entirely on the nature of what has been happening as against how it has been reported together with the immediate political-economic implications. I haven't even touched upon the ethical question of how industrial energy should be produced in Taiwan. Some readers might have wrongly assumed that I support the nuclear power industry no matter what. Of course I don't - but I will defend the people who work in that industry against the exaggerations and malicious insinuations of the mainstream press agencies, environmentalists and irresponsible politicians. Whatever the faults that may be attributed to those people and the industry they work in, they (like those in the armed forces) have earned my respect by producing immense value for me and everybody else week in and week out. I will not sit idly by and watch anti-nuclear environmentalists and other political grifters try to destroy the industry they work in and all that that would mean...
There was a little piece in the Taipei Times this morning which contained snippets of an interview with Pan Han-shen (潘翰聲) of Taiwan's Green Party. It will naturally have been applauded by the environmentalists and that lot up in Taichung. The importance of people like Pan is not that the policies he advocates will be implemented in the short term, but that they begin to acquire the lustre of ideological popularity - which will of course draw political power like moths to a flame. I gave a little cheer on J. Michael Cole's criticism of the environmentalists, but even he sanctions their motives as "high-minded" and "noble" - praise they would never get from me. I do not praise grifters, dishonest "academics" and environmentalists who want to force their priorities onto everybody else. Look at what this Pan had to say:
Yet any such shift is not in itself morally objectionable if it has come about as a result of freely emergent market changes. What makes Pan's advocacy so reprehensible is the demand for the violence of the State to permeate the market and forcibly direct this shift. Concentrate on this: Pan is talking about having men who work in manual labour occupations removed from their livlihoods by political violence applied at several degrees of institutional distance - in order to suit his preference for an "economy... that pursues quality and skill". That demand on how political power be wielded is a breathtaking presumption of ethical authority, to ask nothing of whose valuation of quality and skill will lie behind it.
Pan at least isn't content to be considered stupid, as evinced by his cynical (yet ironically quite stupid) appropriation of the sort of argument people like me often make:
You think it can't happen here in "freedomanddemocracy" Taiwan? You think the only totalitarian threat lies across the Strait?
There was a little piece in the Taipei Times this morning which contained snippets of an interview with Pan Han-shen (潘翰聲) of Taiwan's Green Party. It will naturally have been applauded by the environmentalists and that lot up in Taichung. The importance of people like Pan is not that the policies he advocates will be implemented in the short term, but that they begin to acquire the lustre of ideological popularity - which will of course draw political power like moths to a flame. I gave a little cheer on J. Michael Cole's criticism of the environmentalists, but even he sanctions their motives as "high-minded" and "noble" - praise they would never get from me. I do not praise grifters, dishonest "academics" and environmentalists who want to force their priorities onto everybody else. Look at what this Pan had to say:
“Taiwan needs a fundamental change in its industrial structure by shifting away from traditional labor-intensive economy toward one that pursues quality and skill...”The way Pan has identified and framed "industrial structure" and its consequences as a political issue is indicative of the typical social-engineering mindset commonly found on the Left. As such it is the necessary descriptive preamble to the typical Statist fallacy that economic activity can and should be directed by the State - a fallacy which underlay the waking-day nightmares of both Fascism and Soviet Socialism, and which, if we're not careful may well be lying in wait for us in a different form. As descriptive preamble, its distinctive feature is the collectivized conception of value: "Taiwan needs..." - almost as if "Taiwan" was itself a single human being, or collective hive-like entity of multiple human beings. Yet obviously Taiwan is not a person and as such it does not have "needs": individual people have needs - and not only different needs at different times, but also different prioritizations as to whichever set of needs they may share in common. These points may seem so obvious as to be redundant, but they are very easy points for certain people with a social engineering mindset to overlook, since many such people are keen to consider overarching social problems in similar methodological terms to engineering or mechanical problems with insufficient attention paid to the individual nature of human values (if this is not entirely disregarded). A large scale shift in industrial structure may be "needed" by some, but it will certainly not be "needed" by others - i.e. those who will stand to lose their livlihoods by such a shift.
Yet any such shift is not in itself morally objectionable if it has come about as a result of freely emergent market changes. What makes Pan's advocacy so reprehensible is the demand for the violence of the State to permeate the market and forcibly direct this shift. Concentrate on this: Pan is talking about having men who work in manual labour occupations removed from their livlihoods by political violence applied at several degrees of institutional distance - in order to suit his preference for an "economy... that pursues quality and skill". That demand on how political power be wielded is a breathtaking presumption of ethical authority, to ask nothing of whose valuation of quality and skill will lie behind it.
Pan at least isn't content to be considered stupid, as evinced by his cynical (yet ironically quite stupid) appropriation of the sort of argument people like me often make:
"An efficient way to cut back industrial demand for electricity, Pan said, would be to expose industries to the real cost of electricity by using market incentives..."Of course, in a free-market, industries would have to reckon with prices not distorted by subsidies. But subsidies are far from the only form of price distortion involved there, and market incentives are not properly the toys of irresponsible government - whatever greeny politicists like Pan may think. The ethical cynicism and intellectually corrupt nature of Pan's "use" of market incentives is exposed immediately:
"...Pan said the government should limit the industrial use of power by levying a tax on electricity."Sigh: if a government is going to levy a tax on electricity, how then is it going to expose industry to the true price of electricity?
"By using modern electrical network technology... Taiwan could raise the efficiency of its power usage by 4 percent and reduce power consumption to less than last year’s level by 2025."I'm all for improvements in energy efficiency, but not for its own sake: I favour energy efficiency because it means improved economic value. Yet the grid network used for the transport of electricity is itself a major source of energy inefficiency and political-economic dependency - which are two reasons why I will cheer as loud as anybody the day that somebody invents cheap, small, portable and efficient batteries for the storage of chemical energy derived from solar cell panels. Yet what lies behind Pan's demand for energy efficiency there is not the implication of human progress owing to improved economic value, but the desire to reduce power consumption. I would describe the desire to direct State policies toward the end of reducing power consumption per se as "irresponsible", but I am stopped by the recognition that the real end of such policies might not be the reduction of aggregate power consumption itself as much as further extending direct political control over who gets to consume how much power and for what purposes.
You think it can't happen here in "freedomanddemocracy" Taiwan? You think the only totalitarian threat lies across the Strait?
“In the past, many incorrect decisions were made because people had limited knowledge of Mother Earth, as well as of the way politics works... Seeing what has happened in Japan, it’s certainly time for people to rise up and make a change.”That is nothing but religious bigotry.
“We have finally arrived at the watershed moment where the fairy tale of nuclear safety is being seriously challenged...”Rot: the only "fairy tale" here is the one little green men like him would force the rest of us to live in.
2nd Letter On Fukushima Fallout
Sirs,
Refusing to let a crisis go to waste, the recent insidious attempts by mainstream press agencies, anti-nuclear environmentalists and irresponsible politicians to encourage public ignorance and irrational panic over the nuclear crisis at Fukushima in Japan is despicable.
Variously reported as the reactors themselves having "exploded", or of edging toward "catastrophic meltdown", the actual radiation leakage at the Fukushima plant has been deliberately and irresponsibly exaggerated by the mainstream press agencies. Some of this reporting has at times come sickeningly close to resembling a deliberate attempt to encourage the public association of thousands of deaths with the actually very limited radiation leakage at Fukushima.
Contrary to their political fig-leaf, many of the environmentalists protesting in Taipei on Sunday were not there to express their "uncertainty" about the safety of nuclear power - they were there to build political capital for the abolition of all nuclear power in Taiwan. High profile figures such as Lee Cho-han (李卓翰) even seemed to state as much publicly.
Such a policy would be disastrous since renewable generators such as solar and wind are neither capable of generating an even remotely comparable power output, or of running on a sufficiently cost-effective basis to serve as effective replacements for nuclear power plants - pacè the refuted claim of David Reid published in your pages March 18th. The largest solar power station in the world - the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - currently being built in California, is designed to produce 392 megawatts of power at an estimated cost of about NT$40 billion. Taiwan's fourth nuclear power plant at Longmen is designed to produce well over 2.5 gigawatts of power at a cost so far of over NT$270 billion. At best therefore, once we account for the approximately sevenfold difference in power output, the financial costs of a solar plant built with today's technology are roughly equivalent to those of the much delayed Longmen nuclear power plant.
Had Taiwan Power invested in a solar power station in 1997 rather than the Longmen nuclear power plant - as per David Reid's claim it should have (along with other renewables) - the ratio of power output to financial cost would likely have been far worse given the comparatively poor state of solar cell technology in 1997.
I understand the concerns about the safety of nuclear power in Taiwan given this island's geology, but I submit that the removal of nuclear power from Taiwan would be an irresponsible act of considerable economic destruction; it would be a policy which, at the furthest logical reach of its’ consequences, would have to be measured in the frustration of human values, suffering and death for want of electricity and the benefits that control of electricity bestows upon us.
Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.
(Sent: Tuesday 22nd March 2011. Published by the Taipei Times Friday 25th March 2011)
I'm pleased they published it, but again the editorial changes baffle me - the original was 445 words which they have (needlessly in my view, and at marginal expense to my style and intent) increased to 465.
Refusing to let a crisis go to waste, the recent insidious attempts by mainstream press agencies, anti-nuclear environmentalists and irresponsible politicians to encourage public ignorance and irrational panic over the nuclear crisis at Fukushima in Japan is despicable.
Variously reported as the reactors themselves having "exploded", or of edging toward "catastrophic meltdown", the actual radiation leakage at the Fukushima plant has been deliberately and irresponsibly exaggerated by the mainstream press agencies. Some of this reporting has at times come sickeningly close to resembling a deliberate attempt to encourage the public association of thousands of deaths with the actually very limited radiation leakage at Fukushima.
Contrary to their political fig-leaf, many of the environmentalists protesting in Taipei on Sunday were not there to express their "uncertainty" about the safety of nuclear power - they were there to build political capital for the abolition of all nuclear power in Taiwan. High profile figures such as Lee Cho-han (李卓翰) even seemed to state as much publicly.
Such a policy would be disastrous since renewable generators such as solar and wind are neither capable of generating an even remotely comparable power output, or of running on a sufficiently cost-effective basis to serve as effective replacements for nuclear power plants - pacè the refuted claim of David Reid published in your pages March 18th. The largest solar power station in the world - the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - currently being built in California, is designed to produce 392 megawatts of power at an estimated cost of about NT$40 billion. Taiwan's fourth nuclear power plant at Longmen is designed to produce well over 2.5 gigawatts of power at a cost so far of over NT$270 billion. At best therefore, once we account for the approximately sevenfold difference in power output, the financial costs of a solar plant built with today's technology are roughly equivalent to those of the much delayed Longmen nuclear power plant.
Had Taiwan Power invested in a solar power station in 1997 rather than the Longmen nuclear power plant - as per David Reid's claim it should have (along with other renewables) - the ratio of power output to financial cost would likely have been far worse given the comparatively poor state of solar cell technology in 1997.
I understand the concerns about the safety of nuclear power in Taiwan given this island's geology, but I submit that the removal of nuclear power from Taiwan would be an irresponsible act of considerable economic destruction; it would be a policy which, at the furthest logical reach of its’ consequences, would have to be measured in the frustration of human values, suffering and death for want of electricity and the benefits that control of electricity bestows upon us.
Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.
(Sent: Tuesday 22nd March 2011. Published by the Taipei Times Friday 25th March 2011)
I'm pleased they published it, but again the editorial changes baffle me - the original was 445 words which they have (needlessly in my view, and at marginal expense to my style and intent) increased to 465.
Monday, 21 March 2011
The Wages Of Panic
“Can you imagine eating one kilogram of spinach every day for one year?”That's Yoko Komiyama, Japanese Secretary of Health quoted in this AP report in the Taipei Times. Nontheless, farmers from the Fukushima area are going to be ruined by the public ignorance and panic over radiation levels:
“There will probably be damaging rumors... I grow things and I’m worried about whether I can make it in the future...”As if the earthquake and tsunami weren't bad enough, there is going to be further economic ruin for so many blameless people like this old woman Shizuko Kohata due in part to the irresponsible flapping of the mainstream press agencies and the anti-nuclear, arational wing of the environmentalists.
The Real Fallout From Fukushima
"Japan dead, missing near 21,000 amid atomic crisis."Observe how this headline places number of deaths in syntactic association with the nuclear crisis at Fukushima (a crisis which has so far led to, I believe, only one death - and not from radiation exposure). Were I the ME at the Taipei Times the headline to that piece would have read:
"Nuclear plant stablizing, as death toll elsewhere rises"Same number of words, same two categories of information but without the implicature that the number of deaths has something to do with the situation at the Fukushima plant. That entire AFP report is bad though, for two reasons: first it lumps two seperate stories together: the stabilization of the Fukushima plant with the ongoing assessment of the tsunami and quake impact; and second, with respect to the stablization of the plant, the reporter doesn't seem to fully understand what's happening, for in his very first sentence he writes:
"Workers were close to restoring power to a nuclear plant’s overheating reactors yesterday..."Which is wrong - they are restoring power, not to the reactors (which would be insane) but to the electrical grid needed to power the cooling systems - principally water pumps - within the reactor buildings. The distinction is not a difficult one to understand.
Elsewhere in this morning's Taipei Times:
"...“The government has always told us that nuclear energy is safe, but what’s happening at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, proves otherwise,” said Shih Shin-min (施信民), a professor of chemical engineering at National Taiwan University and the founding chairman of Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (TEPU)."No it doesn't "prove otherwise" Shih Shin-min. If you would only take the time to pay careful attention and honest thought to what is being done at Fukushima, you'd have to conclude that it proves that the danger is containable by brave people committed to thinking carefully about a limited and well understood problem. Flappers like Shih Shin-min (施信民) are either deliberately ignorant of how well the situation is being contained and how limited the risk is, or they are attempting to capitalize on the unfortunate events at Fukushima for the purpose of abolishing nuclear power in Taiwan. Consider this reported statement from Lee Cho-han (李卓翰) (who is apparently the secretary-general of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union):
"...Taiwan should stick to the goal of building itself a non-nuclear homeland..."That is what this demonstration is really about - pacè Loa Iok-sin's description of them as:
"...giving voice to a rising number of people who are uncertain about the safety of nuclear energy..."The salient fact is not their "uncertainty" about the safety of nuclear power, but their outright opposition to it (perhaps fueled by a deliberate ignorance of what the actual consequences of a meltdown would likely be and how well the situation is being handled) and the consequent refusal to rationally consider the risks of nuclear power and how these risks may be further reduced. And of course irresponsible politicians are encouraging the anti-rational shrieking. Look at this nonsense from Frank Hsieh (謝長廷):
"Nuclear disasters have occurred in three of the countries with the most advanced nuclear technology in the world — the US, the former Soviet Union and Japan,” Hsieh said. “I don’t think we’re more advanced than those countries in nuclear technology and therefore what happened to them could happen to us too."It isn't a question of how "advanced" any given nation may be Mr Hsieh, it is a question of applying careful thought to conceiving solutions to the risks to nuclear power stations in Taiwan, and of carefully applying rational criticism to evaluate and improve these conjectural solutions before attempting to implement them. This cannot be done by flapping, panicking and encouraging anti-think among the environmentalists and the DPP supporters.
It boils my piss to read crap like that.
For shame.
Nuclear Stupidity On Parade In Taipei
"...'Japan has one of the world's most advanced technology to ensure nuclear safety. Even Japan could not prevent the Fukunshima [sic] Nuclear Power Plant explosion, how can Taiwan prevent nuclear accidents?' You Ching-cheng, a protester from Kungliao, site of the No 4 Nuclear Power Plant, told reporters."How? Through the further application of careful thought and rational criticism to design - added to the firm and moral refusal to listen to flappers and political grifters on the Left.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Thinkers 1: Flappers 0
Whilst others have been flapping uncontrollably about the dangers of nuclear meltdown at Fukushima, some people have been actually thinking about how to solve this problem in the future. To the right is a schematic illustration of one of those ideas, presented by commenter "Warbucks" at Herschel Smith's blog. It's very simple: molten lead is gravitationally loaded into the reactor core to act as a fusing agent to cool the uranium rods to sub-critical temperatures. Meanwhile, suggestions from the public on how to practically contain the radiation leakage now are being sent in and discussed at this Slate piece by Chris Wilson. The solutions divide into two types: those that would necessitate shutting the plant down permanently with no possibility of future replacement at the same site, and those that would not necessitate this. I would prefer the latter, but by and large they seem to involve greater engineering difficulties and/or greater risk of radiation exposure.
Black Swan Event?
While we're all looking at the size of the splash and counting the drops thrown into the air, Patrick Crozier and Jonathan Pearce are looking at the scale of the ripples and their distance from the shore. One very large reason why U.S. citizens are currently making the emergency dash from Tokyo to Taipei is because there are electricity shortages in Tokyo. That Fukushima plant isn't going to be replaced, if at all, for a very long time.
Another Pithy Illustration
"The United States spends about $6 billion a year on federal support for ethanol production through tax credits, tariffs, and other programs. Thanks to this financial assistance, one-sixth of the world's corn supply is burned in American cars. That is enough corn to feed 350 million people for an entire year."That's Bjorn Lomborg (at Slate) with a pithy little example of the utter stupidity of politicizing market production of energy sources. Roll on the next government-made disaster.
Via Billy Beck.
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Filibustered
David Reid:
And yes "marc" - I'll argue against anyone who can argue back, but certainly not over anything. If it's a "waste of time" arguing with me, then perhaps that's because you're not interested in arguments and what they signify, but only in reaching consensus and what it signfies.
* * *
Elsewhere, also on the subject of nuclear energy, part of my comment awaiting moderation to "ifan":
"You’ve had plenty of opportunity to put forward your arguments."Yes, and put them forward I did: my first comment argued that the financial grounds on which David claimed that renewables were preferable to nukes were flawed. Rather than choosing to concede or defend this point, he sidestepped it to move on to other issues. The remainder of my comments were mere responses to his, so...
"When you veered off into discussing land acquisition and property rights you had me confused. They are barely related to the topic of this post."... I was not "veering off", I was simply explaining why EROEI - which he brought up, not me - was at best only marginally relevant to considerations of "efficiency" in the context of making a decision on what type of energy plant to invest in. His confusion surely underscores my point that he has little grasp of the basic economic context of such investment decisions.
And yes "marc" - I'll argue against anyone who can argue back, but certainly not over anything. If it's a "waste of time" arguing with me, then perhaps that's because you're not interested in arguments and what they signify, but only in reaching consensus and what it signfies.
* * *
Elsewhere, also on the subject of nuclear energy, part of my comment awaiting moderation to "ifan":
"...you think I’m both “reasonable” and “extreme”. Intriguing combination."
Friday, 18 March 2011
Good Journalism, Bad Journalism
"Provided that cooling can be continued, the pumps will gradually win the battle with the cores as the residual decay reactions in the rods die slowly away..." "...it is looking more and more probable that the death and injury toll from the Fukushima quake strike will be limited to the one worker killed in a crane accident and others hurt by the quake and subsequent explosions at the site, perhaps with some very minimal long-term radiation effects among site workers."That's Lewis Page writing for The Register today. Unlike other media outlets, El Reg has been brilliant throughout this unfortunate episode which now appears to be drawing to a close - long on accurate information, thoughtfulness and context, short on bullshit scaremongering. Compare with this little bit of insidious crap in the TT's headliner imported from AFP today:
"The official toll of the dead and missing from the twin disasters, which pulverized the northeast coast, was approaching 15,000, police said, as aftershocks continued to rattle a jittery nation."Excuse me? The death toll from the "twin disasters"? That is nothing but a cowardly and dishonest attempt to insinuate that the crisis at Fukushima has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people - which is not, in point of fact, the case at all. What sort of person would want to stoop so low as that?
Polywell Fusion
For anyone interested, here's the video of Professor Bussard giving his talk to Google back in 2006 on nuclear fusion. Bussard was the inventor of the polywell fusion reactor, the research program for which is being funded by the U.S. Navy with the reactor design currently at its eighth iteration. A nuclear fusion reactor would not only be entirely safe (i.e. emit no radiation at all) but would be significantly cheaper and far more powerful than the best fission reactors currently available.
1st Letter On Fukushima Fallout
Sirs,
A sense of irrational panic over recent events at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan has been encouraged by the media in Taiwan, including the Taipei Times. I have read irresponsibly inaccurate and even outright false statements concerning events at Fukushima in the pages of the Taipei Times every day for the past week. Many of these statements were made in AFP or Reuters reports, but this does not entirely absolve the Taipei Times of blame. Are you not at liberty to suitably edit such reports?
I have seen it printed in your pages, several times, that the reactors at the Fukushima plant "exploded". They did not; the explosions that occured were within the housing of the reactor, not the reactors themselves. A child would have known the difference.
I have seen the uncritical use of the word "meltdown" (sometimes with the entirely inappropriate modifier "catastrophic") without reference either to the technical facts of what a meltdown is or the vast distinction in consequence between a meltdown and a reignited fission reaction.
I have read unqualified mention of "increases" and "spikes" in radiation stemming from the plant with scarce mention of the extremely short half-lives (i.e. measured in minutes and seconds) of most of these radioisotopes.
And I have never once seen in your pages recognition of the frankly amazing fact that a 40 year old power plant based on 1950s design specifications (at a time when knowledge of earthquakes and tsunamis was comparatively primitive) has withstood the largest earthquake Japan has ever seen - and its aftershocks - with only minimal radiation leakage whose worst consequence so far seems to have been to expose plant and emergency workers only to a slightly increased risk of cancer.
I am not an expert in nuclear physics, but I know enough to have confidence that the situation is far from out of hand and that the recent sense of panic and calls for abolition of nuclear power are insensible and irresponsibly out of proportion to the reality. As you are wont to criticize political parties for failing to work constructively together over the disaster in Japan, does it not occur to you that printing such irresponsible claims will increase the liklihood of public panic in the event that Taiwan is hit by a similar disaster?
Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.
(Sent: Friday 18th March 2011. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)
Argh! Mea Culpa: The TT did of course run this Reuters piece in which a professor Reagan of the University of Surrey actually made that exact point about how well the aging plant stood up to the earthquake. Sorry guys.
A sense of irrational panic over recent events at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan has been encouraged by the media in Taiwan, including the Taipei Times. I have read irresponsibly inaccurate and even outright false statements concerning events at Fukushima in the pages of the Taipei Times every day for the past week. Many of these statements were made in AFP or Reuters reports, but this does not entirely absolve the Taipei Times of blame. Are you not at liberty to suitably edit such reports?
I have seen it printed in your pages, several times, that the reactors at the Fukushima plant "exploded". They did not; the explosions that occured were within the housing of the reactor, not the reactors themselves. A child would have known the difference.
I have seen the uncritical use of the word "meltdown" (sometimes with the entirely inappropriate modifier "catastrophic") without reference either to the technical facts of what a meltdown is or the vast distinction in consequence between a meltdown and a reignited fission reaction.
I have read unqualified mention of "increases" and "spikes" in radiation stemming from the plant with scarce mention of the extremely short half-lives (i.e. measured in minutes and seconds) of most of these radioisotopes.
And I have never once seen in your pages recognition of the frankly amazing fact that a 40 year old power plant based on 1950s design specifications (at a time when knowledge of earthquakes and tsunamis was comparatively primitive) has withstood the largest earthquake Japan has ever seen - and its aftershocks - with only minimal radiation leakage whose worst consequence so far seems to have been to expose plant and emergency workers only to a slightly increased risk of cancer.
I am not an expert in nuclear physics, but I know enough to have confidence that the situation is far from out of hand and that the recent sense of panic and calls for abolition of nuclear power are insensible and irresponsibly out of proportion to the reality. As you are wont to criticize political parties for failing to work constructively together over the disaster in Japan, does it not occur to you that printing such irresponsible claims will increase the liklihood of public panic in the event that Taiwan is hit by a similar disaster?
Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.
(Sent: Friday 18th March 2011. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)
Argh! Mea Culpa: The TT did of course run this Reuters piece in which a professor Reagan of the University of Surrey actually made that exact point about how well the aging plant stood up to the earthquake. Sorry guys.
David Reid Against Nuclear Power
"Instead of focusing on risk, I would like to present an argument against nuclear power based on financial considerations."I'm listening...
"Construction of Taiwan’s Fourth Nuclear Power Plant began in 1997... and is now expected to begin operating in 2013... What if that same amount of money had been invested in renewable energy projects beginning from 1997?"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of this delay due to organized political opposition in the late 90s and early 2000s? And, ahem, who was behind that?
"In the time frame of more than a decade Taiwan could have developed renewable energy capacity that would make a significant contribution to the nation’s energy needs."But at what cost David? The Longmen plant is designed to produce well over 2.5 gigawatts of power at a cost so far of over NT$270 billion. For comparison, the largest solar power station in the world - the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - currently being built in California, is designed to produce 392 megawatts of power at an estimated cost of U.S.$1.375 billion, or NT40 billion. So whilst the Longmen plant is almost seven times more expensive than the Ivanpah plant, it is designed to produce almost seven times the power of the Ivanpah plant. It's equivalent - but the comparison is with state of the art solar tech, not solar tech as it was back in '97. Yes, the Longmen plant may be further delayed, but in financial aspect only, I don't think you can honestly side with renewables on this.
"Second, the development of wind and solar power plants would have stimulated the development of industry in Taiwan that could have manufactured these technologies for export."Except that the markets for these technologies are so weak as to be heavily dependent on State subsidies - just like nuclear.
"The key point is that nuclear power is a bad investment. Everyone would be better off if the money was invested elsewhere. This would avoid the risks associated with a nuclear accident. It would also spur the development alternatives that are inherently safer."No, David, the key point is that you have presented a "financial argument" without any evidence whatever - which is the second time I've caught you on this.
Later... from Reid's twitter feed:
"Investment in nuclear only delays investment in & development of alternatives. Nuclear is a dead end road."This is what I meant about "insane" environmentalists on J.Michael Cole's place: nuclear energy is by far and away the single most efficient source of energy known to mankind, whilst the radiation escaping from the Fukushima plant has not killed a single person and nor is there any great liklihood that this will happen. The policies Reid would like to adovate would lead to recurrent blackouts and knock-on economic consequences on top of spiralling energy costs which would hit the financially poor the hardest.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Jimmy Lewis
About two months back an acquaintence of mine, Jimmy Lewis, whom I worked with for a week last year came up to me at the bar to say hi. I'd been busy talking to someone at the time and I hadn't recognized him at first, but then I remembered and we spoke a little before he left.
Over my (single) G&T earlier tonight I learned that he had been in a traffic accident at the weekend and is now in a coma in Cheng Kung University Hospital.
Jesus Christ...
I put a couple of notes in the donation box for him and I'll go and see him in the morning.
I don't know for myself what happened, but what I heard tonight was that Jimmy had been driving home drunk at some daft hour of the morning, swerved without warning to make a left at an intersection and was hit straight on by a car. It may well be that there are important omissions from this version of events.
Driving is such a serious act that I demand extreme competence from myself at all times - and it seems to me reasonable to demand a similar level of competence from other drivers. Fatigue and alcohol can seriously retard the cognitive constituents of this competency, and it is therefore incumbent upon me as a driver to ensure that I keep my fatigue and alcohol consumption within well-understood limits before driving. Alcohol consumption tends to get the most attention, but I think fatigue can in some cases be the far more powerful factor. Sitting on my desktop waiting to be re-written is a very large essay on the subject of driving in Taiwan - but it will have to wait some more. Tonight is not the time for that.
I understand Jimmy's parents are arriving in Tainan sometime tommorow, and it may be that I see them at the hospital in the morning. I don't know him that well, but he's a good lad and he doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for what seems to have been an act of insufficient thoughtfulness and care on his part.
Thanks to RD for the text earlier tonight confirming it was "our" Jimmy.
Over my (single) G&T earlier tonight I learned that he had been in a traffic accident at the weekend and is now in a coma in Cheng Kung University Hospital.
Jesus Christ...
I put a couple of notes in the donation box for him and I'll go and see him in the morning.
I don't know for myself what happened, but what I heard tonight was that Jimmy had been driving home drunk at some daft hour of the morning, swerved without warning to make a left at an intersection and was hit straight on by a car. It may well be that there are important omissions from this version of events.
Driving is such a serious act that I demand extreme competence from myself at all times - and it seems to me reasonable to demand a similar level of competence from other drivers. Fatigue and alcohol can seriously retard the cognitive constituents of this competency, and it is therefore incumbent upon me as a driver to ensure that I keep my fatigue and alcohol consumption within well-understood limits before driving. Alcohol consumption tends to get the most attention, but I think fatigue can in some cases be the far more powerful factor. Sitting on my desktop waiting to be re-written is a very large essay on the subject of driving in Taiwan - but it will have to wait some more. Tonight is not the time for that.
I understand Jimmy's parents are arriving in Tainan sometime tommorow, and it may be that I see them at the hospital in the morning. I don't know him that well, but he's a good lad and he doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for what seems to have been an act of insufficient thoughtfulness and care on his part.
Thanks to RD for the text earlier tonight confirming it was "our" Jimmy.
On Fukushima Again
It's too early to be making calls on the state of the reactors at Fukushima, but I hope to God they get them sorted out ASAP. Yukio Edano, Chief Cabinet Secretary, told reporters:
"It's not so simple that everything will be resolved by pouring in water. We are trying to avoid creating other problems... we are actually supplying water from the ground, but supplying water from above involves pumping lots of water and that involves risk. We also have to consider the safety of the helicopters above..."Those workers at that plant who have been on the go since last weekend are heroic, but they can't be expected to keep going forever irrespective of the radiation levels. Apart from the radiation risk to the pilots, helicopter drops of water from above would surely be a more effective way of delivering the necessary coolant, no?
Monday, 14 March 2011
The London 2012 Olympics Logo
Lisa Simpson performing "The Act Of Horatio" - I just read that while eating my lunch!!
Eggs Hatching On Turtle Island?
"Do you remember the people on the sandbar on the river? They were there all nonchalant waiting for the rescue helicopter that never came of course. They died, but it provides a good lesson that the govt can be trusted with nothing. Let's not forget the complete fubar Typhoon Naira made of the MRT in Taipei because turning on pumps is hard and stuff. I mean whenever the govt says they are coming to help; you should be very scared."One of Turtlehead's regulars. And I've noticed other comments like that recently...
On Fukushima...
Reading the TT at the park this morning, I spent most of my eye-time on the Japan disaster coverage. Calls to halt the construction of Taiwan's Longmen plant and to review the other three existing plants. An unsigned editorial containing very serious yet unsubstantiated factual claims which all too easily fit a certain bias:
It's too early to be assessing the damage, but nonetheless the Reuters report included in the TT's World News section was suitably cool-headed. Long on information and context, short on panic and over-reaction; the quote from a professor at the University of Surrey was apt:
"...at least one nuclear reactor exploded in Fukushima Prefecture, setting off a partial meltdown..."A reactor itself exploded? A partial meltdown? I haven't seen such claims reported anywhere else, but I have seen reports contradicting both of these claims - in the headline to today's Guardian for example: a wall at the reactor building collapsed, not the reactor itself. There were two explosions - at Reactor building no1 and Reactor building no3 and in both cases it seems a section of the building wall collapsed, but neither of the two reactors themselves exploded (this can be verified by watching video). Of course whether the reactors at Fukushima will remain intact given overheating and the liklihood of very large aftershocks today and tommorow is an unknown.
It's too early to be assessing the damage, but nonetheless the Reuters report included in the TT's World News section was suitably cool-headed. Long on information and context, short on panic and over-reaction; the quote from a professor at the University of Surrey was apt:
“We must remember that there are 55 reactors in Japan and this was a huge earthquake... As a test of the resilience and robustness of nuclear plants, it seems they have withstood the effects very well.”Well, let's hope the Fukushima reactors don't go off.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Fractured Integers: Nye & Gallagher
I'm supposed to be taking a break, and I will head out to the beach soon, but the two imported editorials in this morning's Taipei Times are outrageous.The first, styled as a defence of President Obama's foreign policy, by Joseph S. Nye (former US assistant secretary of defense now at Harvard and contributor to PS) is a spectacular failure on its' own terms:
"Obama’s attempt at employing ‘smart power’ — integrating tools of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ power — in the Middle East is proving to be challenging yet necessary."Nowhere in the ensuing article does Nye even describe the President's uses of "soft power", or account for their failures or successes, let alone articulate a defence of such soft power by the President. The nearest Nye comes is with mere off-the-cuff assertions that soft power is "necessary", and, we read in Nye's last paragraph, "important" and "not easy". A perverse defence of the President by one of his opponents could scarcely have been better, which is to say, worse, than this. My only question is why this piece was chosen by the TT editors. Was it chosen to comfort Lefties covering their ears so as not to have to listen to criticism of Barack Obama? Disgraceful.
The second imported piece, from the Guardian and written by Kevin Gallagher of Boston University, is yet another repeat revolt against international trade and in favour of financial aid. I have two objections to Gallagher's article: the first is the nature of his argument viz economic development; the second is his moral collectivism so typical of the diseased wing of the Left - it is one thing to express support for, or act in solidarity with oppressed people, but to do so on collectivist terms can only be either perverse or stupid. Gallagher writes:
"China has lent over US$110 billion to developing countries over the past two years, more than the World Bank has made in three years. Relative to the World Bank, these loans come with far fewer “conditionalities” and are going to massive infrastructure projects across Africa and in places like Argentina, Venezuela and, perhaps now, even Colombia. China is loaning nations money to fund each nation’s own priorities for growth and development. China isn’t doing so out of altruism; these are not acts of sainthood. China just has a better handle on economic development."
- Gallagher neglects to mention how that $110 billion was made available for aid and the consequences that go with how these funds were "produced" (i.e. was this money made available via taxation or through debt instruments?).
- He neglects to mention what those "conditionalities" from the World Bank were or why they were considered important (e.g. anti-corruption measures and restraints on fiscal irresponsibility).
- He seems to assume that money spent on infrastructure projects will necessarily lead to economic growth, or at least be "good" in some other sense. Yet infrastructure only makes economic sense in a context of domestic and international trade - trade which is increasingly manipulated by the domestic policies of the Venezuelan government at least. What good is a road if it is a road to nowhere with no little or no prospect of commerce at the end of it?*
- He presumes the legitimacy of governments in Argentina, Venezuela and Columbia when he conflates their spending wishes with their "nation's priorities" - this alone is not only an epistemic inaccuracy (what the leaders of any given government want in any particular context is not necessarily, or even perhaps usually, what the majority of people want), but is an insult to the people of those countries and an utterly disgracful thing to say, approvingly sanctioning anti-Liberal and dictatorial regimes like that of Hugo Chavez.
This however, was my favourite bit:
"East Asia, on the other hand, which is known for its state-managed globalization..."All countries have more or less "state-managed" participation in the world economy, so to single out those of East Asia as being especially known for this is like singling out a small group of colleagues for their celebrated ability to defecate...
Not only was this a ridiculous remark, but it is also noteworthy for its' contrast to how others on the Left typically lie about East Asia, for example that the exploitation of Chinese workers is due to the PRC's instantiation of "free market capitalism". So if you're on the diseased wing of the Left - great news! - you can claim China's economic growth is due to the State, and in the same breath you can also claim that China's problems are due to its "free-market capitalism". Gallagher's article is typical of how the diseased wing of the Left will search not only high, but also low - and often very low - to find specious arguments against the honest hard work of trade, along with all the difficult, unpleasant and uncomfortable consequences that come with having to adapt oneself to produce what other people are freely willing to reward in the market place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)