Govt studying possibility of nuclear energy in future
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Solar technology has always had the problem of energy storage. There might be enough sunlight to provide us with the energy to run Singapore during the day but where do we get the power at night?
It is the same with wind, how are we going to store the excess energy so it would be enough for us to use at night or when there's no wind?
The most solar and wind farms can do is to supplement our energy needs, it's too unstable to rely on for everyday use.
Unless we retool our entire economy to be able to function factoring such disruptions i don't see it being applicable. Hell, i think it might actually be enjoyable.
I see nuclear energy as the only real solution.
i think there are just too many factors to consider especially for nuclear power....what about nuclear waste fuel rod? where would you stored the radioactive material that spill over thousand of years.
I think there is talks about environments it has to incorporate such thinking into future energy.
-
Agreed.
-
Samsung C&T wins deal to build Singapore's first LNG terminal
SINGAPORE: South Korea's Samsung C&T Corporation has won the tender to build Singapore's first liquefied natural gas terminal.
Samsung C&T will handle the engineering, procurement and construction of the terminal under a contract worth about S$1 billion.
The Singapore LNG Corporation (SLNG) announced this at a signing ceremony on Monday. SLNG was incorporated by the government's Energy Market Authority to own and develop Singapore's first LNG import terminal.
SLNG's executive director, Neil McGregor, said: "There were many factors that led to selecting the Samsung proposal. Key to this was a very novel and efficient design, which minimised the footprint of the new terminal, thereby freeing up land within the site that SLNG can capitalise on to expand its business and the range of services it can provide in the future."
All in, the government is investing S$1.5 billion in the LNG terminal project.
LNG is natural gas cooled to liquid form, making the gas more practical to transport and store.
The LNG terminal, which will occupy 30 hectares of land on the southwestern part of Jurong Island, is expected to be Asia's first open-access, multi-user terminal.
It will not only provide capacity for Singapore to import re-gasified LNG for its own needs, but also open up opportunities for companies to make use of the terminal for LNG trading.
The LNG terminal will have an initial capacity of 3.5 million tonnes per year, slightly above past projections of 3 million tonnes, with provisions to expand it to 6 million tonnes per year or more if needed.
The terminal is now due to be completed in early 2013, after a deferment of one year. Foster Wheeler Asia Pacific has been named the project management consultant.
The government said in June last year it was taking over development of the terminal to avoid more delays due to the credit crunch. The project was previously fronted by a PowerGas-led consortium, which included GDF Suez.
Currently, 80 per cent of Singapore's electricity comes from gas-fired power plants. LNG will be an additional source to help Singapore meet increasing energy needs.
Lawrence Wong, chief executive of Energy Market Authority, said: "From an energy security point of view, our imperative is to want to diversify our sources of gas. The terminal enables us to do that, because with the LNG terminal, we plug into the global gas market and we would have a much more diversified source of gas that we can get from all over the world.
"Of course, through our aggregator British Gas, whom we've appointed, we would be able to access gas on a market basis, on a competitive price. So, I think, from that point of view, the LNG terminal is a critical infrastructure that will provide for our energy security and ensure that we have a more sustainable energy future."
- CNA/ir -
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
i think there are just too many factors to consider especially for nuclear power....what about nuclear waste fuel rod? where would you stored the radioactive material that spill over thousand of years.
I think there is talks about environments it has to incorporate such thinking into future energy.
I fully understand the implications of using nuclear energy.But if you want to continue using electricity the way we've been using it now nuclear is the only solution.
Me, i'm open to the possibilities of having electricity rations and scheduled blackouts. Might even be able to enjoy more of a social life if the fossil fueled rat race is no longer sustainable. That's going to come part and parcel with unreliable sources like solar and wind.
If you want BAU, then you're just going to have to pay the tab for it. The human race is not going to have its cake and eat it forever.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I fully understand the implications of using nuclear energy.But if you want to continue using electricity the way we've been using it now nuclear is the only solution.
Me, i'm open to the possibilities of having electricity rations and scheduled blackouts. Might even be able to enjoy more of a social life if the fossil fueled rat race is no longer sustainable. That's going to come part and parcel with unreliable sources like solar and wind.
If you want BAU, then you're just going to have to pay the tab for it. The human race is not going to have its cake and eat it forever.
At the age of internet usage and other high power home appliances I doubt a blackout is going to work. I think at this stage most country will used methane gas as an alternative source of energy. especially here in SEA. The carbon footprint is something got to give.
PS: i begining to wonder if Matrix will work better....rotating human power cell.
-
If there is one in singapore, I would be very interested to work in one. I can see all the safety and work health paperwork piling up already.
-
Originally posted by ditzy:
If there is one in singapore, I would be very interested to work in one. I can see all the safety and work health paperwork piling up already.
look at it this way if there is one and your health paperwork piling up why worked simply let it burn.... : ) -
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
At the age of internet usage and other high power home appliances I doubt a blackout is going to work. I think at this stage most country will used methane gas as an alternative source of energy. especially here in SEA. The carbon footprint is something got to give.
PS: i begining to wonder if Matrix will work better....rotating human power cell.
That depends, when push comes to shove we're going to have to adapt. I'm not saying it's going to be pleasant.I certainly don't see how our current lifestyle is going to survive even the next few decades, let alone improve.
Energy returned over energy invested is the key word here, we're better off growing biofuels and burning it than feed it to humans to convert it to electricity. Very inefficient.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
That depends, when push comes to shove we're going to have to adapt. I'm not saying it's going to be pleasant.I certainly don't see how our current lifestyle is going to survive even the next few decades, let alone improve.
Energy returned over energy invested is the key word here, we're better off growing biofuels and burning it than feed it to humans to convert it to electricity. Very inefficient.
I dun agree leh....all these crops used for biofuels can be used to feed starving humans
justh think, if there were no humans left to work the power plants (they were starved to death), what use are the biofuels?
i rather use nuclear energy and jettison away the nuclear waste into outer space
-
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
I dun agree leh....all these crops used for biofuels can be used to feed starving humans
justh think, if there were no humans left to work the power plants (they were starved to death), what use are the biofuels?
i rather use nuclear energy and jettison away the nuclear waste into outer space
I think you've misunderstood what i've said.The human body is not a very efficient machine, the energy wasted in the construction of specialized infrastructure in order to hook humans up and use their bio electrical energy to power is extremely wasteful and impractical.
That energy is better off spent in creating farmlands to produce biofuels to burn directly, instead of having to go through the middle man of the human body to convert it to energy.
-
We must use nuclear energy, then the fuel rods can be converted into bombs, nice mah huh, even North Korea can do it,so why we cant?
-
In consideration of type of energy generation options I believe the benefit of our people should be the major factor to consider. Year ago we heard that the conversion of fuel power generation to gas power generation could save us lots of money but of course we could see it very clear that our people don't really benefit much from such conversion. If we utilize nuclear power generation system, I could foresee that any cost saving would only benefit few small groups of people and corporations but not the general public. If this is the case why should we taking such high risk of demolishing Singapore into rubbles. Even if we have to build nuclear power plant, we must first consider building it in some nearby country to minimize possible risks. If such is the case than why don't we just build wind or solar energy plants? I have personally managed the design and construction of both wind and solar power plants and understand they are not really difficult choices.
We all know that the initial investment cost is high, we all know that the supply of electricity by these green power generation plants are not constant and regular but I can assure you that we could manage it. I am not talking about having 100% green energy but 20 to 30% would be feasible target within the near future. If China could manage its green energy at the ratio of 20%, I believe we are in better position to do so, unless we are only looking at short term gains and benefits.
Nuclear power generation is an easy way out but we do not need it within the near future.
-
Originally posted by Charlesbronson:
In consideration of type of energy generation options I believe the benefit of our people should be the major factor to consider. Year ago we heard that the conversion of fuel power generation to gas power generation could save us lots of money but of course we could see it very clear that our people don't really benefit much from such conversion. If we utilize nuclear power generation system, I could foresee that any cost saving would only benefit few small groups of people and corporations but not the general public. If this is the case why should we taking such high risk of demolishing Singapore into rubbles. Even if we have to build nuclear power plant, we must first consider building it in some nearby country to minimize possible risks. If such is the case than why don't we just build wind or solar energy plants? I have personally managed the design and construction of both wind and solar power plants and understand they are not really difficult choices.
We all know that the initial investment cost is high, we all know that the supply of electricity by these green power generation plants are not constant and regular but I can assure you that we could manage it. I am not talking about having 100% green energy but 20 to 30% would be feasible target within the near future. If China could manage its green energy at the ratio of 20%, I believe we are in better position to do so, unless we are only looking at short term gains and benefits.
Nuclear power generation is an easy way out but we do not need it within the near future.
The problem has always been the same since solar and wind power were first brought up as an alternative.Storage. Storage. Storage.
You can keep your fossil fuels/NG/coal in a metal can during off peak power usage and increase the output during peak hours. It is the same with nuclear.
For solar and wind you can't store the energy effectively and increase output whenever you please.
I can understand the gradual adoption of wind and solar to compensate for reducing production of fossil fuels but nuclear is the only technology currently that could hope to provide a permanent solution to the fossil fuel problem.
I have said it before and i'd say it again i don't mind a change to the way we use energy to adapt to the unstable source of solar and wind but if we want to continue BAU as we do now nuclear is the only reliable source.
-
We could pack the nuclear waste as normal payloads onto space shuttles and jettison them into outer space