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
ESC trying to impress Singaporeans, say say only. Election gimmick lah.
My friends,
I believe there is a very important objective in harnessing nuclear energy, apart from the energy needs. Possession of nuclear weapons will put an end to NS once and for all. All we need to do is aim missiles at the capital cities of potential enemies and no one will ever mess with sinkapore again. So it makes the 250,000 or so NSmen redundant. We all know how much NS of a liability NS has become. Abolishing it will finally free up precious manpower of young strong men to work in the economy.
There are so many ways to address the energy problem.
Instead of creating energy, one can also reduce energy usage. E.g. Increase the efficiency of car engines by 2 times you’ll save 2 times the oil used.
And pump more money into science projects to discover new alternative fuel. Even make a new fuel.
Some of the figures and claims in the original article are not accurate.
French nuclear energy now accounts for 39% of total energy consumption, LARGER than fossil fuels, and is the largest source of energy that is consumed in that country. In fact, dependency on oil has been REDUCED by almost half from 71% in the 1970s to 36% in the middle of this decade.
When you look at electrical energy specifically, nuclear energy powers nearly 80% of it.
Figures here: http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9839&t=France%3A+Energy+profile
There is a lot of hocus-pocus surrounding nuclear energy, including scare tactics used by “green activists” to deter public confidence in the technology. It has been nearly 25 years since Chernobyl, and over 30 since the 3-Mile Island accident. The fall of the Berlin Wall is more recent news. Safety standards have improved, and we’re not operating at the same level we were years ago.
Nuclear power needs to be seriously considered, along with other forms of alternate energy. One issue with nuclear is the waste disposal. The other is that long-term global supplies of uranium (which is needed in reactors) are projected to only last 100 years. But then we also have issues with solar, where the absorption efficiency is only 12%. Everything else the solar panels cannot absorb is reflected back into the atmosphere, CONTRIBUTING to global warming.
So there are definitely issues, but in order to figure out good energy policy we cannot resort to scare-mongering and incorrect facts. Nuclear power needs to be on the table with everything else, and a proper cost-benefit analysis then done to determine the right way forward.
Hi, me Gorina lah. I wonder hor, if go nuke hor, which insurance gonna insure singapore the dot?
The types of dubious comments on TOC these days, after its so-called “revamp” suggests we have a nuclear leak. Not safe anymore. :)
By and large, most comments here are negative to the idea because of the fears and unknowns about nuclear energy. This is understandable.
In Singapore, most power plants are either coal-powered or gas-powered. Singapore is also dependent on oil imports for our energy needs. Most people will think that nuclear plant is “unclean” and assume that our current coal-powered plant is “clean”, this is far from the truth.
The world is changing, so must we.
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are getting on board. If we continue on our current trajectory, we will be priced out of future gas and oil resource by China and India (Brazil and Russia are resource rich) in the next few decades and it will be too late to shift gear and plan for a nuclear power then.
G8 economies, on their path towards energy sustainability, is going towards clean sources of energy (nuclear or any low CO2 emission level). You will see that whole landscape shift towards this in the near few decades (legislation – barriers to trade with high CO2 emission countries, technology – eg. electric cars). We do not want to miss the boat now.
Of course, Singapore should try to look for other less risky energy sources but the truth is there is nothing out there at the moment or in the forseeable future. We just need to be practical about this and have a public debate on this issue.
Refer to
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
Even if we do decide ti have a nuclear plant, it’s not going to build overnight. The ESC needs to provide figures, timelines and hoe Singaporeans can benefit from this. I must stress Singaporeans. Will there be lower electricity tariffs, by how much? Will there be jobs generation from all operations aspects from plant, how many? Where do they think are the possible locations?
For a government that prides themselves with statistics, they are lacking in this department in every aspect. Looks as if the idea was made up overnight. When was did this committee form? I do not see any nuclear energy specialist or advisor in the committee.
Is this just another World Cup 2010 scenario? For Singaporeans sake, I hope not. This is our future we’re talking about. I want to hear what the opposition has to say and whether they can come out with better solutions backed by real facts. Not high-falutin ideas and aspirations.
You all kena bluff already,
one stupid suggestion from a muppet, then the head will dismiss this.
What will be the result.
A responsible PM.
Self-wayang.
Hey none,
“Of course, Singapore should try to look for other less risky energy sources but the truth is there is nothing out there at the moment or in the forseeable future.”
you knowleageable about alternative energies that exist or not?
Dun any how leh.
since you so confident, you put your name down as being the one responsible for nuke problems wan or not?
the ESC gives proposals . The pm tentatively supports the ideas.
So, who is responsible?
I think you lor. correct or not?
Alfres Diego : As I have said most people fear nuclear power, I hope my link given helps to promote some understanding. I did not make any claims that I am knowledgeable or confident about anything and I will be happy to hear from you what sources of alternative energy out there that is relevant to Singapore (cost, potential to scale and replace coal, gas and oil totally). I understand that the status quo is most comfortable option but this may not be possible in a few decades down the road. It is not up to you or myself alone to make that “nuke” decision, a public referendum is needed as this decision impacts all of us now and our future generations. If more than half says no after learning the facts, so be it. Having said that, all I am asking is not to close off your mind and rule out a debate to understand the issues and risks better. The article is poorly written and researched and did not offer anything from the Singapore perspective.
Referendum?
Have you ever experienced one?
I am not familiar with this terminology.
Is election a form of referendum?
Which policy was passed with referendum? I mean, i dun know. Care to enlighten so that i can really understand the meaning of this exotic word you have bombasticated?
thanks.
Afres Diego: Yes, this is voting on important issue and especially if there will be no unanimous agreement. In democracy, this is common and all citizens can get to vote because the issue is important and it affects all citizens. The last one Singapore had was in 1962. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Merger_Referendum_of_Singapore
We did no have to choose in 1965 because of obvious reason — there is only one.
Reading the comments posted here, I think most people have the mistaken idea that a nuclear reactor meltdown will result in a nuclear mushroom, or a massive leakage of radioactive material into the entire island. The chances of that happening are awfully low, especially if there is transparency in handling the reactor and with modern day technology.
It is the former issue that holds me back from supporting nuclear power in Singapore (which is the primary cause of the scale of the Chernobyl disaster). It is not the fact that chances are small. There are a lot of heinously devastating disasters that could happen with infinitesimal probability. For example, with all the talks about hydrogen batteries, there is the nonzero probability that many hydrogen atoms will move together with such high speed as to trigger a fusion reaction, and set off a runaway meltdown. It is not impossible, just statistically improbable.
Most reactor accidents are contained within the plant itself. For worse scenarios, the immediate neighbourhood may have to be cleaned and health advisories issued. But Lucky Singapore has an idea to deal with this issue: put it on an offshore island.
Just run the nuclear reactor on a large ocean going ship in the middle of nowhere. Use the energy to run a synthethic fuel process, which will be transported to singapore via existing bulk carriers.
Problem solved.
wow, i can’t believe that the article uses a 1976 article as proof of nuclear plant instability. That was like the year I was born…
On other news: fusion power may be coming soon (as in a few decades).
http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2002/spring/Fusion/tour1/3-fusion_vs_fission.htm
The problem on ignition temperatures problem is sort of overcome… or will be soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8485669.stm
Positives of nuclear energy in Singapore:
1) Far cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuel power sources
2) Reduced dependency on oil which will be beneficial to our economy
3) Need to be energy indepedent to compete on a global scale
4) Will meet the demands of a growing population
Negatives of nuclear energy in Singapore:
1) High cost and large initial investment
2) Proper storage and disposal of waste products
3) Safety and environmental hazards
Verdict:
Build a nuclear reactor/power plant in an offshore island. For a country like ours with no natural resources, we need to have this capability and I support the Finance Minister’s stand on this. People will talk about alternative green energy sources and such but we need nuclear energy as a fast solution to our country’s growing demands. In time, it will be good for our economy and nation as a whole.
But then all these people suggested before. long ago. what’s new?
Jackson Tan, we should not talk like we own nuclear technology or are PhD experts on Nukes.
This is life and death we are talking about. I also feel it is safe to a certain extent. But this simply means i do not feel there is 100% safety. Any boo boo can result in obliteration of citizens and the country.
So, while its nice for you to comment, we should be responsible and talk like we are not experts because we aren’t.
Have you been reading all the sales pitch for nukes? Sales pitch are always nice. ahhhhhhhh…… gimme some good news.
Now, name me a name who will be responsible for ANY Nuke Fiasco. Write it down and let whole world know in advance.
[i]LOL
Feb 2, 2010 21:50
Hello, I am a chemical engineer by training, working in an industrial risk company,
[/i]
wongcansink said the same thinggie..he a trainned schoolteacher/headmaster
he disciplined every and each derange uneducated school bullies without any trouble
he so wewlltrained that he practically can guranteed the highest security in singapore who only guard 1 prisoner with armed gurkhas guard would not be able to walk out without his american trainned fbi technique…
yet he didnt even know mas sala have a qualfied swimmin plaque with a long term visitor visa in malaysia…
next government booaster PLEASE….
well beside the lta minister who also boost we have the best safety factors both in nicholl highway and synergy inc in jtc heavy industries…
@whoincharge
Honestly, I think you are just trying to flame me. As I said, I DO NOT support the current government and do not boost of any skill that I do not have. I already said I was giving a technical view point not a political one. Yet you just don’t get the logic that I am trying to putting across. Argh, Enough said troll.
[i]LOL
Feb 3, 2010 22:07
@whoincharge
Honestly, I think you are just trying to flame me. As I said, I DO NOT support the current government and do not boost of any skill that I do not have[/i]
flamed you for what? you are the trainned chemical engineer..i am the poorLEEtrainned peasant who jolly know well when the nichol highway collapse..i run..do you think i am goin to turn myself into the fantastic five to thong? off course you don’t support the current government @ all or else you would have to cut off your last finger liked the HONOROUBLE nipponese ministers who flaunt @ their duties…
how many fingers do wongcansink have? 10 or 11?
[i]Hello, I am a chemical engineer by training, working in an industrial risk company[/i]
yeap the trainned lta qualified engineer cum scholar also said the same thinggie as you
yet the nichol highway collapsed within minutes when its bent…any QUALIFIED trainned foreman would have known the reenforced steels foundation is of INFERIOR quality…
that you didn’t know do you? how come i know? do i looked liked a kawasaki steel industry katana swordmaster to you?
Suzie Swabili,
I don’t see how the way I’m talking suggests what you alleged of me (and I certainly have no PhD in nuclear physics!). I’m merely someone who have been intrigued by nuclear energy and tried to read up more about it (and they’re not sales pitches). I agree that the ultimate decision should be made by experts in the field, but that should not stop me from expressing my opinions about the situation.
And that fact is, from what I’ve read, most of the fears about nuclear energy is ill-founded. Like I said, no technology is 100% safe. But is there another way around it? Cars are dangerous, but we can greatly reduce the fatalities associated with it by proper infrastructure and traffic rules. Electricity can be fatal, but with good grounding, earth connection and wire insulation, it is quite safe to handle. My point is that, just because it is not 100% safe doesn’t mean we should throw it all out of the window. And, of course, it is up to experts to evaluate the safety measures and risks, and make a decision based on that.
Strange that you talk about being responsible. That’s what I’m trying to do: be as objective as I can, and judge the technology based on facts and not perceptions. Like I said earlier on, perception is what made Three Mile Island much worse than it is. And Chernobyl is bad because of cover-ups and poor protocols (as I understand it, the reason why the reactor went critical was because the technicians turned off the safety controls to perform some experiments without proper knowledge of how the system works; and when the thing blew, the Soviet officials for a week tried to pretend nothing has happened).
Bottomline, I think we should not dismiss nuclear technology just because it can fail and has failed before with pretty dire consequences. In fact, that line of argument sounds awfully like PAP’s assertion of democracy.
@whoincharge
Your sense of logic is clearly flawed. What point are you trying to put across? You talked about nicoll highway collapse, you talked about mas selamat, you talked about the romanian diplomat. Do they have any link at all with nuclear energy? If you are trying to say, we cannot trust any lta engineer who is no scholar but a regular person like you and I who made a bad mistake in the construction, perhaps you shouldn’t take the MRT, the roads you are driving on, cross an overhead bridge etc. I gave a technical view of risk which is a published science not verified by me but by the society of chemical engineers in the UK and the USA. I do not see the need of you trying to push your flawed point across and insult anybody someone who gave a neutral point of view on the topic on nuclear energy, not all the other topics you mentioned above. IF you have any valuable advice on nuclear energy, let us hear it and stop mentioning any other things not related to the topic.
hi,
i would like to challege your claim that
“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.”
Honestly, i followed your “source” and found that the entire piece did not mention the statistic that you have blatantly used.
On the other hand, a simple google search would lead you to the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
“As of 2008[update], these plants produce 90% of EDF’s and about 78% France’s electrical power production (of which some is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country’s total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%).[2]. It is important to note though that this makes up only about 16% of France’s final energy consumption.”
Seriously, this kind of error casts doubt on your writing. Fact check before you write anything.
For all you know, nuclear is the way to go (not that i am for/against it. still too early to tell). Come on, even oil and petroleum plants have the danger of exploding. I agree with LOL above and with suitable and reasonable amount of engineering/planning involved, it is possible to reduce the risk down to an acceptable value.
Jackson Tan,
I never say you cannot comment. I also never say a car is 100% safe.
The simple fact is you cannot compare risk of cars with nuclear risks.
1 car explode, a few die. Sad.
1 nuke explode, whole country and even neighbor country can kapoot.
There is just no way you can argue on this.
@anon34: You said: i would like to challege your claim that
“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.”
I think you did not read the article properly, I said: “Yves Marignac…said…that over 70 percent of France’s final energy…”
Link: http://www.nirs.org/press/09-15-2009/1
Appreciate your advise, but I always do my homework before writing.
You do know that Wikipedia is a haphazard collection of opinions subjectively presented as facts right?
Wiki is not perfect. That is all i can vouch for.
Ravi Philemon ,
The small percentage is due to transport industry use of petrol/oil. Until electric cars are mainstreamed, that will continue to be the case. It doesn’t change the fact that for electricity generation, it does account for 76%.
The question then is, for Singapore, what percent of energy consumption is electricity compared to oil?
Suzie Swabili,
Thanks for your reply. My point of bringing up the car example is to highlight the fact that there may be safety protocols to stop disaster before it happens, and containment measures in case of a fallout.
Moreover, your point about a nuke exploding suggests that you may be mistaken about what happens when a nuclear reactor goes critical. It will not explode into a mushroom cloud and wipe out Singapore as if it is a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb requires high grade plutonium/uranium while a nuclear reactor requires way lower concentration of fissile material.
The concern over nuclear accidents at reactors is the release of highly harmful radioactive particles into the environment (air, drinking water, land etc.). Usually, these are emitted when a conventional explosion occurs, destroying whatever that contains these dangerous substances. Indeed, the Chernobyl accident involves a normal explosion, release terrible amounts of radioactive materials into the air. Soviet officials tried to cover up, and it was only when the Swedish authorities noticed abnormally high levels of radioactivity that exposed the crisis.
Man, I seem to be the only environmentalist who does not have an aversion to nuclear power!
@lobo76: The breakdown of the sources of Singapore’s electricity as at 2007:
Natural Gas: 76%
Fuel oil: 22%
Refuse: 2%
Diesel: 0.3%
But this breakdown is does not account for final energy requirement.
[i]@whoincharge
Your sense of logic is clearly flawed. What point are you trying to put across? You talked about nicoll highway collapse, you talked about mas selamat, you talked about the romanian diplomat. Do they have any link at all with nuclear energy? If you are trying to say[/i]
flaw? logic?
when s h i t hit the fan as in singapore..
not 1 time
not twiced
but more than 3 times
and what did all these highLEE paid highLEE skilled scholars says?
its just a freak accidents
lets moved on..afterall its alway somebody parents/childrens that paid for other IDIOTs mistakes
and without a doubt..
if the nuclear reactor leaked….
you would had say..it an act of GOD beyong you and leekuanyew’s error
lets moved on…
[i]ackson Tan
Feb 4, 2010 17:09
Suzie Swabili,
Thanks for your reply. My point of bringing up the car example is to highlight the fact that there may be safety protocols to stop disaster before it happens, and containment measures in case of a fallout.[/i]
yeap wongcansink followed every protocol by HIS book..yet mas sala eacaped better than a highLEE us trainned navyseal commando
the nichol highway collasped with the lta engineer who also followed the protocols on his rulesbook…
and last but not least marborough the shortlegg minister also followed protocol with fine details on the housin materials and till taday fulLEE claimed its AFFORDTABLE housin for ALL..
ole yes last but not least leekuanyew greatest protocol of the century…without foreign talents..
we are finished..all our mothers and sisters would be maids….
i am just wonderin what would a truebred singapooriums be liked without the pap government in power?
nelson mandala who was in sentosa for a 27 years vacation took over the black governorship within 6 years of his premeirship..he get south africans 100% local sportman to win the world RUGBY cup in 1996 against all ODDS…
leekuanyew? with 40 years experiences and his son our prince who have undergo 15 years of apprenticeships have yet to achieve the world cup in 2010 and without a doubt south africans must still be livin in attap huts with jumbuans with opentop and lighted by keroscene lamps..right?
I will like to highlight uranium is not exactly cheap…
And if every or a large number countries turn away from oil [Finite resource]] / gas [There is still plenty of capacity here to last another hundred or more years] to nuclear path….well the price of uranium will reach ridiculious proportions…so who pay for the expensive uranium…the people and common citizens again…
And Uranium deposits are rare…mining and refining it is hard too!
I just don’t get it at all by the ESC recommendation to go nuclear…something awry here.
Currently there are still a lot of gas deposits out there…why is this option/resource not fully leverage on? Why go nuclear fission instead?
And if nuclear it is…will fusion process if in the future become feasible be something more realistic to look at and leverage upon.
Something smell really fishy here. And it isn’t the fish!!
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.
Ravi Philemon
We’re talking about electricity here so I think you can leave out all other “energy requirement” such as transport or steam production.
For electricity generation in France I guess statistics from IEA can be trusted?
Total= 569840 GWh
From nuclear=439730 GWh = 77%
http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=FR
Hi Ravi,
I didnt see the link that you gave. I merely followed the source that you quoted which led to the reuters page. Thats why i said none of the statistics you mentioned were stated in the source given. This led me to think where you got your data from (which honestly is rather dubious, given that the data were missing from the source.) Anyhow, so if you did do your homework, maybe the source given was just wrong.
“http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS131353+14-Sep-2009+PRN20090914″
I know wikipedia is not perfect. BUT, my point was just that it is still better than quoting a wrong source.
Cheers
Why nuclear? Why not just install solar panels on all the roof tops since we have so much direct sunlight?
I think someone ever shot down the idea of solar panels for the red dot.
Oh, now someone is saying solar wor. Sounds so cool hor even if its such a simple old technology thanks to the west?
@Eveline: Do a google on how whistleblowers alerted how IEA fudged numbers because of political pressure. Data can be explained in many ways. Anyway IEA has got a vested interest in potraying nuclear energy in the right light: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/iea-awarded-contract-by-the-us-nuclear-regulatory-commission-nrc,1152297.shtml
So, either Yves Marignac is right or IEA is right. But I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between.
If mini nuke stations can be safely used, would the world have not solved the electricity problem?
So, i am not optimistic for now. Of course, in time, advancements will come. It could be another 15 years.
None of the readers here are experts on the nuke thingie. Don’t talk like one to sell the idea.
To be clear, I am advocating for FUSION nuclear energy, not FISSION. The latter is current tech, which I think is troublesome despite (possibly) having developed safer tech/protocols. The former is the one that is up and coming as it has a recent big breakthrough.
In any case, we need to switch to electric vehicles, if we are to make any difference. If not, no matter how much clean energy we generate (from solar or nuclear), it will still be in electricity format. which is of limited impact, since transportation may account for a huge energy usage.
I am not surprised by electric cars and all that was proposed. Many of the proposed thingies are nothing new. Eg. Electric cars. What is new about it? Its invented by zero singaporeans. Its found many countries in the world who started using it long ago although very much on trial basis.
solar panels. Another foreign invention. what is new??? What is so nobel about the ideas?
To be honest, these ideas should have come forward long ago when i had thought about it already.
I beg to differ with the above reader!
Just get solar panel MNCs come here, setup R&D plants, hire a singaporean as ‘manager’ and all the scientists can be foreigners. All given PR and citizenship (optional) and when invented or any advance made, news can say …..
LOL anon34 actually quoted Wikipedia to challenge a claim – and worse still not from the author himself.
And Ravi is an editor but uses the word “advise” – a verb instead of “advice” – a noun. Amazing stuff!
[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…
do they employed 90 years old men to be headof ceos and senoir ministers? if not why not
so if our neighbours is not doin what leekuanyew is tryin to act as head huncho…it is all right with YOU?
you don’t have a famiLLEE? you don’t have childrens? you don’t even owned a car?
why? your housin and transport is very AFFORDTABLE?
last but not least……….in the event of a nuclear leaked..would leekuanyew and sonS be aroun to dose the fallouts? asked leekuanyew this question…
where was he and his famiLLEE when sars broke out?
where was he and his familLEE when the pigvirus flu was aroun?
Dont be fools guys. That nuclear suggestion is but a red herring.
Didnt the same agency published in the papers the next day about the total energy scheme. They r going to charge for laying of cables and cables now. They know nuclear energy wont be pushed. The real reason is becos they want to up electricity bills again.
Don’t be deceived by the false cover, PAP is playing a game on everyone again on the real issue. They r now masters of deceit.
[i]I know wikipedia is not perfect. BUT, my point was just that it is still better than quoting a wrong source. [/i]
is leekuanyew and sonS perfect? not forgettin mdm ho ching herself?
now what sauce you want to add with YOUR plain koson porridge?
nowadays that my lunch and dinner plain koson porridge..ok ok i bluff you all..
i add thin sliced of cheap fat pork belly to add up flavour…
even nasi laumak is a luxury item in my meal list…
[i]N
Feb 4, 2010 22:54
Why nuclear? Why not just install solar panels on all the roof tops since we have so much direct sunlight?[/i]
solar powered has been used in meditrennan countries sinced the early 80s…
wind power has been used by the scandanavian countires lon lon before the ice aged…
so is holland…you merely think their windmills is for tourist only?