As above.
A recent post from a fellow sgforum member highlighted that oil is expected to hit $200 per barrel in 6 mths.
While coal-fired plants can be considered an alternative, its cost is also affected by high shipping costs due to high fuel prices. Not to mention that is also emits more CO2 and contributes significantly to air pollution.
Should we consider then, a nuclear option?
Siao~
When Indonesia considered that as an option, I considered them as nuts. So, whoever consider this must be a crackpot....
.
There are still other alternative energy sources that we have still not fully explored and which are freely available as Singapore is located in the equatorial belt.
Sunlight as a source of energy has not been fully explored other then on a small scale with solar panels charging batteries for limited applications - as in providing power for bus stop lighting, remotely located electrically operated outdoor monitoring equipment, remote installations of telephones.
Other then solar cells to convert sunlight into electrical power, there is little R & D activities to apply the potential of tapping the focussed heat from the sunlight to drive steam turbines to produce electricity.
The other alternatives that can be considered will be tidal sea wave power and wind power.
Like tapping energy from the sun, the energy from tidal wave motion and that of the wind will require large surface area to install the equipment.
While the flat solar panels can easily be merged into the landscape of the building roofs or walls, the wind turbines need to be located onto tall towers that may pose aesthetic challenges to the social environment.
Similarly, with a shrinking surface territorial waters due to land reclamation works, the option of tapping the tidal energies from sea waves remains a challenging options.
Other then sourcing for alternative energies, the architectural and engineering professionals should seriously consider their design works to incorporate building and equipment features that will use energies efficiently - as well as incorporating equipment to tap the energies from the sun, wind and sea that will form part of the building external features.
Nuclear energy ?
This should be the very last option, as the cost of storing nuclear waste can also be very costly.
Would it not posed a health hazard by using Nuclear reactor to generate electricity in the event of any mishap that could happen in a 740km^2 island with a population of 4.6 millions?
How about using market competition, as an avenue to address the price spiral energy market due to the hike in the oil prices instead?
crazy!! dont propose more silly proposal than the PAP.
we are already stress enough!
Originally posted by TooFree:Would it not posed a health hazard by using Nuclear reactor to generate electricity in the event of any mishap that could happen in a 740km^2 island with a population of 4.6 millions?
How about using market competition, as an avenue to address the price spiral energy market due to the hike in the oil prices instead?
market competition? is it like smrt and sbs, competiting to raise fares?
then if our power supply becomes like that and most of us can't afford electricity...
will our govt ask us to use candles?
Originally posted by Shotgun:As above.
A recent post from a fellow sgforum member highlighted that oil is expected to hit $200 per barrel in 6 mths.
While coal-fired plants can be considered an alternative, its cost is also affected by high shipping costs due to high fuel prices. Not to mention that is also emits more CO2 and contributes significantly to air pollution.
Should we consider then, a nuclear option?
Don't let al gore see this lor
Lol this is hilarious. Alot of expertise is required and a nuclear powered-plant needs to be built on an off-shore island, but they are too many health hazards to consider(including those to the staff working there) that's why pilots are given alot of time off to fend off the radiation while flying. Not a feasible plan and will probably invite alot of criticisms, unless the majority of the indonesian parliament steps in, it will not proceed. Furthermore, I believe solar energy will be the next replacement for energy, as it is eco-friendly, almost free. (Only worry now is the efficiency and tremendous cost for equipment)
... don't be surprised when the our almighty govt dreams up such a thing as Solar Tax...
two things to consider when building a power plant.. capital cost and operational cost.. and nuclear power is at a peak when it comes to both.. so nope..
Originally posted by HyperFocal:... don't be surprised when the our almighty govt dreams up such a thing as Solar Tax...
LOL.
That reminds me of a stupid book that criticize LKY.
Because LKY said nothing is free in this world, then the author rebunk by saying, "Since his birth, doesn't he needs air? But did he pay for the air that he breathed in? Doesn't he needs sunlight? Did he pay for the sunlight he received?"
I'm not a pro-PAP or pro-LKY, it's just that the above statement is more towards sophistry rather than a debate. That's the reason I said it is "stupid"
nuclear power is dangerous
wat if the nuclear power plant explodes like the one at Soviet Union in the 1980s?
After 1986, I've yet to see a single meltdown in US or Japan. With the proper foreign talents (REAL TALENTS this time), it is possible to build and maintain a safe nuclear power plant.
As for storage, I believe in some countries like Japan, the waste fuel is reprocessed to remove fission product and then reused. I believe with stringent measures in place, and vigilance (not complacency), a nuclear option can be a viable and in the long run, economical way of generating electricity.
The last reactor meltdown, for the record was the famous Chernobyl Disaster back in 1986. That pretty much shook up the world and made everyone revise and implement further emergency measures to safeguard against meltdowns.
Nuclear power-plants have a lower accident rate compared to the often-perceived "safer" conventional ones.
But should anything go wrong, it's game over.
nuclear power?How to enhance the safty,ppl ofter make mistakes.How about terrorist attack
Originally posted by reyes:crazy!! dont propose more silly proposal than the PAP.
we are already stress enough!
lol
It seems that most of you have serious misconceptions regarding nuclear power. There are a few other countries, including the United States, that are relooking at nuclear power. France is an excellent example, with about 80% of their energy needs met by nuclear power.
Nuclear power is one of the least pollutive energy source available. It requires only minimal land space, which is suitable for Singapore's offshore islands. Secondly, with proper monitoring, there are no dangers associated with nuclear power plants. The incident that happened in USSR in the 80s was due to their experimentation with the reactor.
Nuclear energy also has one of the lowest operational costs. Once the plant is built up and the source of enriched uranium secured, there's practically no additional costs.
The issue now with nuclear energy is public acceptance as well as strategic location of these plants. Solar energy, though the best, requires massive land space, and unless we build them over our roofs, we are never going to actually replace natural gas/oil/coal.
Originally posted by Shotgun:After 1986, I've yet to see a single meltdown in US or Japan. With the proper foreign talents (REAL TALENTS this time), it is possible to build and maintain a safe nuclear power plant.
As for storage, I believe in some countries like Japan, the waste fuel is reprocessed to remove fission product and then reused. I believe with stringent measures in place, and vigilance (not complacency), a nuclear option can be a viable and in the long run, economical way of generating electricity.
The last reactor meltdown, for the record was the famous Chernobyl Disaster back in 1986. That pretty much shook up the world and made everyone revise and implement further emergency measures to safeguard against meltdowns.
my question is, is singapore running out of power,seems there not so much manufacture industry.
Singapore Nuclear? where got space to build... tear down bukit timah hill and make nulcear power station there meh?
Whether nuclear power is good or not, its not up to the citizens to decide as per SOP.
However its not up to PAP either, its whether USA will allow it or not.
I believe it will only with one condition - USA military supervision at all stages of procurement, delivery, storage and disposal of the fuel.
Btw, dont you know you have dispose of the hazardous waste somewhere? Where huh?
"it's just that the above statement is more towards sophistry"
IMHO, PAP has the much greater penchant for sophistry as demonstrated by its propogandists in this forum.
Originally posted by gevo:It seems that most of you have serious misconceptions regarding nuclear power. There are a few other countries, including the United States, that are relooking at nuclear power. France is an excellent example, with about 80% of their energy needs met by nuclear power.
Nuclear power is one of the least pollutive energy source available. It requires only minimal land space, which is suitable for Singapore's offshore islands. Secondly, with proper monitoring, there are no dangers associated with nuclear power plants. The incident that happened in USSR in the 80s was due to their experimentation with the reactor.
Nuclear energy also has one of the lowest operational costs. Once the plant is built up and the source of enriched uranium secured, there's practically no additional costs.
The issue now with nuclear energy is public acceptance as well as strategic location of these plants. Solar energy, though the best, requires massive land space, and unless we build them over our roofs, we are never going to actually replace natural gas/oil/coal.
lowest operational cost only if u plan to use it 24/7..den the cost of operation will be low..so the more impt qn is do we even need that source of power to be produced 24/7 in the 1st place, are our industries currently running 24/7..?
moreover the capital cost of building one is sky-high..
Originally posted by youyayu:Singapore Nuclear? where got space to build... tear down bukit timah hill and make nulcear power station there meh?
i GUARANTEE you that will not happen=)
Originally posted by Uncle Ver SG:Whether nuclear power is good or not, its not up to the citizens to decide as per SOP.
However its not up to PAP either, its whether USA will allow it or not.
I believe it will only with one condition - USA military supervision at all stages of procurement, delivery, storage and disposal of the fuel.
Btw, dont you know you have dispose of the hazardous waste somewhere? Where huh?
"it's just that the above statement is more towards sophistry"
IMHO, PAP has the much greater penchant for sophistry as demonstrated by its propogandists in this forum.
No, the US military will not supervise it unless we ask them to. And a civilian reactor is none of their concern. The only agency we ought, or rather we must have full transparency to is the IAEA. So essentially, if we are "certified" by IAEA to have fully complied to their standards, and that wear are not making erm.... "silver bullets", we'll be fine.
Currently, only the US stores nuclear waste. Other countries like UK and Japan reprocess their waste to be used as fuel again.
"my question is, is singapore running out of power,seems there not so much manufacture industry."
The point of the thread is not about the supply; its about prices. If Malaysia/ Singapore was not politicized and free market prevails in Malaysia, electricity companies can also supply a portion of electricity to compete with local electricity companies.
"Currently, only the US stores nuclear waste. Other countries like UK and Japan reprocess their waste to be used as fuel again."
If I am not mistaken, Oz also stores nuclear waste and the waste cannot be reprocessed repeatedly.
"No, the US military will not supervise it unless we ask them to. And a civilian reactor is none of their concern."
Yes they will. The IAEA is a powerless watchdog organization (re: Iran). They can recommend reports, but lets face it, only the USA will enforce it.
After MSK's escape, do you think that USA will trust Singapore with guarding a potential weapon that could kill thousands of people? Moreover, I recall a Singaporean (or Malaysian working in Singapore I cant remember) got caught recently acting as middle-man selling the centrifuges to Iran.