By Ravi Philemon
Led by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) in unveiling its ambitious plans for Singapore’s economic transformation suggested the feasibility of using nuclear energy to meet the base load electricity demand and ensure Singapore’s energy security in the long run. [1]
The government of Singapore should seriously consider if nuclear energy is something that is suitable for a country like Singapore.
The cost of launching a nuclear power reactor from the ground up is too slow and expensive a process. And the World Information Service on Energy has rightly pointed out that when factors like construction, extraction, treatment, conversion, transport and stocking of waste are taken into account, the nuclear sector’s CO2 emissions are far from negligible.
It takes many years to build a nuclear reactor and the billions of dollars of investment needed to build the nuclear reactors would create twice the amount of carbon pollution in that time frame. And what’s more important is that it takes away the resources needed to implement meaningful climate change proposals.
Patrick Moore, a prominent environmentalist, said in his 1976 Greenpeace Report that “Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on this planet.”
In November 2000, the United Nations Climate Change talks in The Hague refused to give nuclear energy greenhouse gas credits, recognizing it for what it was: a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology.
Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a United Nations Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear energy a sustainable technology in April 2001.
But is nuclear energy the way to go to ensure energy security?
In September 2009, Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues, referring to 50 Years of French Failings in Nuclear Power, said at a major U.S. news media briefing that if the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives; that over 70 percent of France’s final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. [2]
It is but a myth that nuclear power promotes “energy security”!
The truth is:
- There are no 100% safe reactors in the world. All operational reactors have safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. The spent fuel of these nuclear reactors have the potential to release catastrophic radioactivity and are also prone to acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks.
- There is no secure, risk-free way to store nuclear waste. The waste remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.
- It encourages the proliferation of nuclear technology and materials usable in nuclear weapons and “dirty bombs”.
The truth is the risks from nuclear energy are real, inherent and long-lasting, and I hope the Prime Minister of Singapore will rule out this suggestion of the ESC.
__________________________
References:
[1] Summary of ESC Key Recommendations (01 Feb 2010), Annex A.
[2] Leading European Industry Expert to Debunk Myth of ‘French Nuclear Model’ For U.S., Reuters.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
whoincharged
[i]Eveline
Feb 4, 2010 20:22
Anyway, even if Singapore decides not to build a nuclear power plant, it doesn’t mean Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand will decide not to build too. If that happens, all the arguments against Singapore building a nuclear power plant become moot.[/i]
whatever our neighbours want to build or do…
What Eveline means is if that Malaysia or Indonesia have nuclear reactors, then all the arguments about nuclear reactors being inherently unsafe or too big a risk to take becomes moot. Because based on those arguments, we don’t need to take the risk (of having our own reactor), we’d still be liable to kena when a fallout happens on the reactors in Malaysia or indonesia. Thus it become ‘moot’.
…It has absolutely nothing to do with LKY. in case the above wasn’t clear.
[i]It has absolutely nothing to do with LKY. in case the above wasn’t clear.[/i]
i am very very clear..i am not DEAF nor stupid either..whatever our neighbours want to do its up to them
~period~
just like leekuanyew start fillin sands into the johore straits that mathatail can do NOTHIN bout it…
that you all didn’t know..do you?
:) :)
Singapore, being a very small island, is far too risky to have a nuclear power station. Any mishap could wipe us out. Not worth taking that risk.
whosincharge,
… that you all didn’t know..do you?
We know. But what is the relevance???
ya, Strategist, Nuclear is not a matured technology in terms of guaranteeing its absolute safety.
I wonder who in singapore is an Expert on Nuclear technology with real hands-on experience and credibility to talk about using this stuff?
Only experts have the credibility to say if nuclear is safe for a small island like this.
Even if stationed on other islands, there will be international issues.
Now, who wants to be responsible? Give me a name. Let the world know in advance.
To those who propose Nuclear, have you done Nuclear hands-on?
Just noticed this post today, a tad late but what the heck…. was wondering if ANYONE noticed the rather vital detail in the ST report of the ESC press conf. The reference to the LFTR nuclear technology in the Jan 2010 article of Wired. If we are exploring nuclear, I am pretty darn sure they aren’t talking about traditional uranium based tech, they would be talking about the Thorium reactor that is completely different from what we know.
People need nuclear power like they need a hole in the head. Look at Chernobyl (Ukraine), Three Mile Island (USA) and now near Sendai (Japan). Meltdown!!!! Germany has now passed a nuclear exit law and will be free of nuclear power from 2022. With all its uranium, Australia is smart enough to do without nuclear power. Norway and NZ is also nuclear free. The Swiss passed a referendum on a 10 year moratorium on nuclear power. How confident are you that nuclear power stations will be well-run? And what happens where there are floods or terrorist attack? And in which government minister’s constituency will the station be built? Need a ban on them in Sijori (Singapore, Johor, Riau islands region). Sijori residents should work towards a permanent regional ban on nuclear stations. And if the movement to ban fails, we will have to make sure the station is built only in a government minister’s constituency/ward.