Energy Prices rising. Should we consider nuclear power?
-
Originally posted by Uncle Ver SG:
"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.
1. Even if the waste cannot be repeatedly reprocessed, we'd still have already achieved greater energy to fuel efficiency. As for what we can do to the eventual waste, I'm sure we can think of a solution should we really decide to go into it.2. Again, its for IAEA to decide, not the US government. If we are fully transparent and compliant to IAEA, there is no reason for US to enforce anything.
-
Originally posted by Dinvina:
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"
air and sunlight is great... if you are a tree...
-
Originally posted by noob321:
nuclear power is dangerous
wat if the nuclear power plant explodes like the one at Soviet Union in the 1980s?
they dont explode.... but they do meltdown...
with over 450 nuclear power plant around the world... and starting soon near us among our neighbours.... including indonesia and vietnam.
a nuclear meltdown from our neighbours would affect the entire south east asia(using chernobyl incident as a reference)....
what you gonna do? bomb their nuclear plant like wat isreal did against the iraqi nuclear plant?
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
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.
i feel that we should get into the nuclear energy fast... before oil price hits 1000 dollar a barrel... think about the impact on our economy... nuclear fallout (if accident do occur) though horrendous is no excuse to starve our kids.
-
" If we are fully transparent and compliant to IAEA, there is no reason for US to enforce anything."
You know Iran is actually pretty transparent regardless of the conservative and USA media propoganda against it. But USA and Israel are dead set against a nuclear power station in Iran for obvious reasons.
While Singapore may be an "ally" (for now), the core question is USA's belief in Singapore's competency in guarding the uranium from thieves (whether by terrorists or by greedy internal operators etc). The only way to guarantee that is by allocating (maybe not military, maybe FBI) overseers to make sure nothing goes wrong.
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
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..
woah. If I am not mistaken, nuclear plants cannot be shut down. The costs of restarting a nuclear plant is very high. They'd just slow down the reaction (critical mass) if demand is not that high. If my stats are correct, one nuclear plant is still not sufficient for Singapore.
-
Originally posted by Uncle Ver SG:
" If we are fully transparent and compliant to IAEA, there is no reason for US to enforce anything."
You know Iran is actually pretty transparent regardless of the conservative and USA media propoganda against it. But USA and Israel are dead set against a nuclear power station in Iran for obvious reasons.
While Singapore may be an "ally" (for now), the core question is USA's belief in Singapore's competency in guarding the uranium from thieves (whether by terrorists or by greedy internal operators etc). The only way to guarantee that is by allocating (maybe not military, maybe FBI) overseers to make sure nothing goes wrong.
Maybe we should have further insight before commenting on the Iran's nuclear ambitions.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/08/iran.nuclear
And BBC's bite sized article on Iran's nuclear reactor program.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm
The main issue is about the enrichment of uranium.
Iran is being offered help to develop a civilian nuclear power programme including light-water reactors. Crucially, Iran would not be allowed to make the fuel itself. This would be done in Russia in a partnership with Iran. However, as a condition for any substantive talks, Iran has to suspend enrichment. It does not accept such a pre-condition.
So why does Iran not want to accept this pre-condition? Why must it insist of enriching uranium itself? That is why the IAEA and US is suspicious of Iran's intentions.
OTOH, if Singapore was to develop a reactor, I think we wouldn't mind having someone else enrich the fuel for us.
-
Originally posted by gevo:
woah. If I am not mistaken, nuclear plants cannot be shut down. The costs of restarting a nuclear plant is very high. They'd just slow down the reaction (critical mass) if demand is not that high. If my stats are correct, one nuclear plant is still not sufficient for Singapore.
I'm not surprised if that were so. Singapore is a very densely populated country, and has a very high energy consumption rate. Look at the number of appliances per household, then the amount of infrastructure in all that needs to be powered 24/7.Even with 1 plant, we should be able to see a cost reduction in the long run.
I believe the nuclear energy option should be explored further, and with full cooperation with IAEA.
-
err i din mean switching it off.. i mean not having to reduce its use becoz of lower demand.. becoz u tend to be able to maximise profits if u run at full capacity 24/7.. and if u lower the operations at nite, it will take much longer to recoup loss..
but anyway the capital cost of a nuclear plant is still very much higher than coal/gas plants..
-
"OTOH, if Singapore was to develop a reactor, I think we wouldn't mind having someone else enrich the fuel for us."
I didnt mention anything about enrichment.
"That is why the IAEA and US is suspicious of Iran's intentions."
Even if Iran DOES concede enrichment of uranium, you tell me what are its chances of building said nuclear reactor. Russia can say ok, but USA will still say no.
-
There is still the option of a hydrogen based power plant... There was an accidental discovery in 2007 that can possibly make hydrogen production a lot easier... it only involves mixing 2 everyday metals with water and hydrogen in produced...
-
Ultimately.....reduction in consumption is the most feasible.
Even nuclear fuel is limited.
-
Singapore nuclear power will not be cheap as compared to other countries..Because the gov will say need to pay more for better security and safety reasons..
-
Originally posted by *Lord Kang*:
Singapore nuclear power will not be cheap as compared to other countries..Because the gov will say need to pay more for better security and safety reasons..
lol.. x2..
by itself nuclear plant expensive enuf.. let alone its singapore.. nuclear tax anyone?
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
There is still the option of a hydrogen based power plant... There was an accidental discovery in 2007 that can possibly make hydrogen production a lot easier... it only involves mixing 2 everyday metals with water and hydrogen in produced...
sim city? -
Originally posted by MohamedF:
There is still the option of a hydrogen based power plant... There was an accidental discovery in 2007 that can possibly make hydrogen production a lot easier... it only involves mixing 2 everyday metals with water and hydrogen in produced...
Metals too don't come cheap now..... If sg should have wind mill.. can make small-small one and put it top of every HDB. When solar energy can takes more than 50% of sunlight energy, it should be widely use. Now solar energy only 40%..
urmm.. can someone explain how does a nuclear plant work?
-
dont even think about alternative power source in sg.all other available land are used to build casinos or more condos to generate $? who cares about rising energy prices, global warming, poverty, the planet's degrading health when you can generate wealth and not get to use it right??
-
Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:
sim city? -
Originally posted by MohamedF:
There is still the option of a hydrogen based power plant... There was an accidental discovery in 2007 that can possibly make hydrogen production a lot easier... it only involves mixing 2 everyday metals with water and hydrogen in produced...
Then comes another issue: water.
As for Uranium enrichment, I think Australia does some export in this area.
-
It's nt as simple as u think.U need to consider abt U238 or other things which aren't avaliable here.It's nt tht expensiv ne but few years later...
-
Imagine the steam derived from nuclear power to run desal plant... that will be win win for Singapore... But also its not good to have a centralise power plant....
-
Originally posted by *Lord Kang*:
Singapore nuclear power will not be cheap as compared to other countries..Because the gov will say need to pay more for better security and safety reasons..
This point I totally concede!
Even if Iran DOES concede enrichment of uranium, you tell me what are its chances of building said nuclear reactor. Russia can say ok, but USA will still say no.
If the UN, and IAEA says yes and allow Russia to handle the enrichment process, US has no grounds to say No. US's main arguement is that Iran may abuse the enrichment process, but if Iran surrenders the right to enrich uranium, then there is nothing US can suck thumb already.
Imagine the steam derived from nuclear power to run desal plant... that will be win win for Singapore... But also its not good to have a centralise power plant....
I didn't even think of this... of course, I'm sure it will not be the sole power plant. We will probably still have to run our current coal/oil fired ones at reduced output?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
This point I totally concede!If the UN, and IAEA says yes and allow Russia to handle the enrichment process, US has no grounds to say No. US's main arguement is that Iran may abuse the enrichment process, but if Iran surrenders the right to enrich uranium, then there is nothing US can suck thumb already.
I didn't even think of this... of course, I'm sure it will not be the sole power plant. We will probably still have to run our current coal/oil fired ones at reduced output?
To produce newwater uses lots of power... sorry cant find the exact figure here... But the high pressure needed to run RO means alot of power is used.
Now, If we have a nuclear plant we prob will have increased desal capability, imagine we can make a combined plant, where seawater is used to power the turbine and as a side stream, we get desalinated water.
Bear in mind the govnt is privatising our power plants, so if its not profitable the plants would prob close down... But we still have the one in tuas that burns rubbish, so I guess we will still backup.
But the startup cost will be very inhibiting,there is probably no one in singapore capable of running the plant, let alone design it, maybe u will see new courses in poly in nuclear tech(hey its better than dealing cards right?).... Unless they are very desperate, dun tink they will use it.Yes and one more thing, Imagine the hot effluent(water) coming out of the plant will probably do some considerable damage to the marine lives around singapore.... And you know what our neighbours reaction might be!
-
Most Energy Execs See Oil Below $100 This Year
By AP | 09 May 2008 | 10:55 AM ET
Even as oil prices ascended to new highs of more than $124 a barrel this week, many oil and gas industry executives say they expect the price to fall significantly by year's end, a new survey shows.
Fifty-five percent of 372 petroleum industry executives surveyed by KPMG said they think the price of a barrel of crude will drop below $100 by the end of the year. Twenty-one percent of respondents predicted a barrel of oil will end the year between $101 and $110, while 15 percent forecast the year-end price to be between $111 and $120 a barrel.
Nine percent said they expect the price to close the year where it's been this week -- above $120 a barrel.
What's more, 44 percent of the executives said their companies plan to increase capital spending on exploration and production by 10 percent during the next year.
The survey was conducted last month and scheduled for release Friday. Participants included executives for major oil companies, independent exploration and production outfits and other energy companies.
"The expectation of increased investment by U.S. energy companies shows oil and gas executives are deeply concerned about energy security," said Bill Kimble, who oversees the global energy institute at KPMG, the audit, tax and advisory firm.
Of late, all eyes have been on crude prices, which have nearly doubled in the past year. The dollar's decline against the euro and other foreign currencies has helped spur the rise, attracting investors looking for a hedge against inflation.
Rising demand for oil from the rapidly developing economies of China and India has played a role too, as have concerns about tighter supplies. Indeed, 63 percent of survey participants said growing demand in emerging markets was the main factor in the historic rise in oil prices.
Widely watched oil price prognosticator Goldman Sachs said this week oil prices could rise to $150 to $200 within two years; others say crude could plummet to as low as $40 or $50 a barrel during the same period.
"To be sure, the future does not unfold neatly in line with any projection, and the time frame of the actual price surge has been remarkably short," Cambridge Energy Research Associates said in a report this week.
Asked what would most enhance U.S. energy security, participants overwhelmingly said opening up more acreage for domestic drilling was the best option. In particular, 43 percent said the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be opened for drilling. Another 28 percent said more investment in renewable energy sources such as biodiesel would enhance U.S. energy security the most.
However, even though many of the executives support further investment in renewable energy sources, the majority still don't view renewables as a serious near-term solution to the energy supply equation.
In last year's survey, 60 percent of 553 petroleum industry executives said large-scale production of renewable fuels was not a near-term possibility, at least not in the next couple of years.
In the most-recent survey, 54 percent gave the same response, though 2015 was the target date.
© 2008 CNBC.com -
Whether oil hits $200 a barrel or plummets will really depend on OPEC now. The biggest problem is whether to up the output. If they raise the output, oil prices might go into a free fall, bursting the oil bubble.
Even the Chief of OPEC, Ali Al Naimi views the high oil prices to be caused by speculation. The supply of oil is definitely there and capable of meeting rising demands. In short, the high oil prices is definitely not due to shortage. Perhaps its time to rein in the traders.