Should stabilize once the US Fed stop lowering the interest rates, stronger dolla to curb speculations. So it will be great news if the feds do nothing, this month....
Hillary Clinton had proposed that the huge profits made by the Petroleum Companies should be subjected to special taxes, and recycled back into the economy.
Singapore is one of a few Refining-Process Centres of low sulphur crude oil, and is buying crude oil at international prices.
The ''low cost'' crude is subjected to a pile up of profit margins as the crude oil is processed in the Shell, SPC and Esso-Mobil refineries, whose output is then subject to the international pressure on refined oil or petroleum.
In Singapore, the Government has made matters worst by levying a hefty 50 percent{??} tax on processed fuel, as a means of preventing cheap fuel that encourage easy car ownership.
Obviously, the tax on petrol is a huge boost into the Government treasury, as the tax is collected at different levels as the trade in petroleum move from one hand to another.
If the Singapore Government is too afraid to accept Hillary Clinton's idea - so as not to offend the Petroleum Conglomerates from further investment in Singapore, it could at least lower its own tax on processed fuel that will surely help in lowering the cost of living for Singaporeans, and increase the competitiveness of Singapore.
Why should the Government use the tax on petroleum to regulate the car population, when the COE programme has effectively regulated the size of the car population ?
I think Singapore will never use nuclear option.
Because it is contradicting to Singapore's character.
Singapore's character is pragmatism and avoiding white-elephant projects.
In my opinion nuclear power is 'costly' because of all the investments, new know-how, and security risks. And also need to divert some critical mass, manpower.
Quite hard to imagine Singapore having a nuclear power plant.
Meat Pao.
Micro hydropower from storm drain and sewage pipes collecting water to be recycled into Newater.
Solar power panels on HDB flats and roof tops of all buildings on the island and floating platforms in the sea.
Wind, wave and tide power from the Straits of Singapore.
Growing Algae for biofuel.
Kinetic energy from crowds stepping on mechanical dynamos generating electrical power.
Those who think solar energy can even supplement more than a few percent of Singapore's total energy needs are stark, raving mad. You'd have to cover the entire Singapore landmass with photovoltaics to even get close to 10% of Singapore's total energy needs.
Nuclear (fission) energy is the only low-carbon game in town. Until even cleaner nuclear fusion becomes a reality, that is.
Nuclear power in general can be made very safe with the right safeguards and regularly audited practices.
That aside, because of the processing problems and the fact you need a fair amount of land to operate one such plant, aside from burying the plant deep underground, deploying a reactor will be difficult. We could try that Russian idea of a nuclear reactor installed in a barge though.
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Nuclear power in general can be made very safe with the right safeguards and regularly audited practices.
That aside, because of the processing problems and the fact you need a fair amount of land to operate one such plant, aside from burying the plant deep underground, deploying a reactor will be difficult. We could try that Russian idea of a nuclear reactor installed in a barge though.
What are we going to do about nuclear wastes ?
Send it off to Indonesia ? LOL...
Originally posted by Atobe:Hillary Clinton had proposed that the huge profits made by the Petroleum Companies should be subjected to special taxes, and recycled back into the economy.
Singapore is one of a few Refining-Process Centres of low sulphur crude oil, and is buying crude oil at international prices.
The ''low cost'' crude is subjected to a pile up of profit margins as the crude oil is processed in the Shell, SPC and Esso-Mobil refineries, whose output is then subject to the international pressure on refined oil or petroleum.
In Singapore, the Government has made matters worst by levying a hefty 50 percent{??} tax on processed fuel, as a means of preventing cheap fuel that encourage easy car ownership.
Obviously, the tax on petrol is a huge boost into the Government treasury, as the tax is collected at different levels as the trade in petroleum move from one hand to another.
If the Singapore Government is too afraid to accept Hillary Clinton's idea - so as not to offend the Petroleum Conglomerates from further investment in Singapore, it could at least lower its own tax on processed fuel that will surely help in lowering the cost of living for Singaporeans, and increase the competitiveness of Singapore.
Why should the Government use the tax on petroleum to regulate the car population, when the COE programme has effectively regulated the size of the car population ?
The COE has NOT regulated the size of the car population because Singaporeans had been pressing the government over the right to own cars. So the government has relented and increased the number of COEs in the past 5 years, allowing more cars on the road and instead regulate car usage with ERP and petrol taxes. The COE is the most effective way of curbing car ownership but that is not possible so long as Singaporeans cannot get over their love affair with the car.
Singaporeans cannot have it both ways. Either pay 30k for the right to own a car or pay high petrol taxes for the right to use it.
Originally posted by jojobeach:What are we going to do about nuclear wastes ?
Send it off to Indonesia ? LOL...
Send it to Russia for reprocessing.
even if the world says nuclear power is cheap and efficient and safe and whatnot, singapore will wait and see one la.. wait until ppl try for years liao den we follow one.. i don't see us as pioneers when it comes to new stuff.. pioneers for new ways to tax the ppl maybe..
Originally posted by purpledragon84:even if the world says nuclear power is cheap and efficient and safe and whatnot, singapore will wait and see one la.. wait until ppl try for years liao den we follow one.. i don't see us as pioneers when it comes to new stuff.. pioneers for new ways to tax the ppl maybe..
"Not-in-my-backyard" syndrome by Singaporeans
Originally posted by eagle:"Not-in-my-backyard" syndrome by Singaporeans
well.. safe is what the experts, professors say.. very safe one very safe one.. die that time is not they die.. is the people closest to the plant that's affected.. MSK come back take one C4 to the plant all nearby ppl honggan.. singapore wants nuclear option? can.. build in USA or russia and lay the power cables to us.. i support 1000000%..
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Nuclear power in general can be made very safe with the right safeguards and regularly audited practices.
That aside, because of the processing problems and the fact you need a fair amount of land to operate one such plant, aside from burying the plant deep underground, deploying a reactor will be difficult. We could try that Russian idea of a nuclear reactor installed in a barge though.
Agreed...it is simply NOT viable for people to continue using fossil fuel in the near future.
And btw, Fingolfin_Noldor, I thought u said it last time you are done with this forum?
And please, don't EVER let those greenpeace idiots misled you into thinking, nuclear powerplant = building nuclear bomb, and the fact that a nuclear meltdown means the whole island get blown up along with the reactor.
Take this article as a example on how important it is to replace fossil fuel with an alternative power source.
The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.
"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.
Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.
Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.
The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.
The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.
Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.
That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.
The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground.
The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.
In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity — the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy — in the transport sector.
Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.
"This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.
Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.
"If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_sc/japan_iea_climate_change
And please la...can some of you STOP following every bloody mistake the US make? Yes, the US is better than singapore in many ways does not mean the USA will not make any mistake.
Currently, the singapore government policy of restricting car ownership is a GOOD idea. Mainly because it can at the least reduce greenhouse gas emission. I mean come on, research has been telling us for god knows how long that private cars IS polluting the air like nobody's bussiness?
Restrict the amount of cars on the road, if it is necssary, don't ever let fuel cost go down, just to ensure people do not hug their beloved cars too much.
Cars IS a luxury item, and people can live without owning a damn car, the faster they let go of their love for luxury item, the better.
We don't have much time left in countering global warming.
Also, with peak oil around the corner, it will be wise to look at nuclear power for a change. After all, we have been told from young that singapore should always consider the long term advantage.
The faster we adopt nuclear power, the better it is for us. When peak oil finally start to take a huge toll on the oil loving US economy, singapore will not be affected that badly.
And I want to ask, how anyone even read up on articles written by nuclear experts about nuclear powerplant, instead of saying nuclear power is unsafe just because greenpeace said so??
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The COE has NOT regulated the size of the car population because Singaporeans had been pressing the government over the right to own cars. So the government has relented and increased the number of COEs in the past 5 years, allowing more cars on the road and instead regulate car usage with ERP and petrol taxes. The COE is the most effective way of curbing car ownership but that is not possible so long as Singaporeans cannot get over their love affair with the car.
Singaporeans cannot have it both ways. Either pay 30k for the right to own a car or pay high petrol taxes for the right to use it.
.
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The COE has NOT regulated the size of the car population because Singaporeans had been pressing the government over the right to own cars. So the government has relented and increased the number of COEs in the past 5 years, allowing more cars on the road and instead regulate car usage with ERP and petrol taxes. The COE is the most effective way of curbing car ownership but that is not possible so long as Singaporeans cannot get over their love affair with the car.
Singaporeans cannot have it both ways. Either pay 30k for the right to own a car or pay high petrol taxes for the right to use it.
How do you know the COE did not work due to people pressing them over the right to own cars? You speak like you are them. Are you ?
How can I believe what you say when you cannot prove who you represent officially?
They should generate electricity from the radio waves that is emitted whenever ERP deducts from IU.
Pure untapped source.
nobody wants another Chernobyl