It is easy to call Putin a reckless dumbass and say that Xi is much more rational, but the two leaders have gone out of their way to put on a conspicuous show of friendship and shared interests.

These days it's arguably different, insofar as solar is viable, but evidently it's not viable enough for Taiwan to not expand their use of natural gas. Still, it's better than in the 20th century when a nuclear power plant obstructed by activists almost always meant coal was burned instead.

If blockade from China will cut power after the 11 day storage runs out then your are out of power completely.

If blockade from China cuts 90% power after 11 days, then you still have power of emergency operation.

This is assuming that China would not be attacking the power plants in either scenario, which is reasonable given the premise that China wants to take over not destroy Taiwan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_Russian_invasion...

Nuclear power plants are incompatible with acting as front-line battlefields.

It's not enough to simply say—well, we can turn off the nuclear reactors when the armies march by, and them turn them on again later. That's a key lesson we (should have) learned from the Zaporizhzhia incident (after the dam attack on the Dnieper): shutdown nuclear reactors are not inert, they need a continuing supply of cooling water, and electricity and human maintenance to operate cooling pumps, for years after shutdown. Fresh spent fuel in cooling ponds is not intrinsically safe.