Many worry that the power we use now (fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas) will run out one day. Furthermore, fossil fuels come with the risk of causing global warming and accidents like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill showed us the devastation caused.
Is nuclear energy inevitable for Singapore
What about alternative energy? Which alternative energy looks the most promising? What can you tell us about green energy and sustainable energy? Which do you think is the best power option?
What else can we do to handle the challenge of growing energy demands and the need to sustain economic growth.
Alternative Energy
Steven Chu Advocates Nuclear Power in Hearing
Does the world need nuclear energy?
Watch it on Academic Earth
You may want to navigate through this power point presentation of MJC E learning Module on Nuclear Energy and Environment concerns.
The Straits Times traces Singapore
1861-1862: The Singapore Gas Company was formed, and the Kallang Gasworks built to supply piped gas for street lighting. It used coal to produce gas until 1958, when it was converted to produce gas from oil. In 1997, it was replaced by the $240 million Senoko Gasworks.
1905: A power station was built inMackenzie Road
1924-1927: The coal-fired St James Power Station was built, and began to deliver electricity for the island. It was decommissioned in the 1970s. Today, the national monument houses popular nightspots.
1963: The Public Utilities Board (PUB) was formed to supply gas, water and electricity to consumers.
1995:Singapore
1990s:Singapore
Last year, oil accounted for 17 per cent of electricity production, natural gas for 77 per cent, and waste and other sources for 6 per cent. Natural gas for electricity is piped into the island fromIndonesia and Malaysia
2001-2003: The electricity market was liberalised to let suppliers compete to provide power to about 10,000 non-residential consumers.
2006: The decision was made to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), which, unlike piped natural gas, does not have to come from the Republic's immediate neighbours. An LNG terminal, run by Singapore LNG Corporation, will come onstream in 2013.
2008: Tuas Power announced it will build a steam-and- electricity plant that will run on biomass (plant matter, mostly woodchips and palm kernels) and coal from the region. It is due to open in phases from next year.
2009-2011: The Housing Board announced and began a $31 million, five-year trial of solar power at 30 HDB precincts; solar energy will power lights at common areas such as stairwells.
2011: Malaysian electricity group Tenaga Nasional approachedSingapore Malaysia 's grid with Singapore
1861-1862: The Singapore Gas Company was formed, and the Kallang Gasworks built to supply piped gas for street lighting. It used coal to produce gas until 1958, when it was converted to produce gas from oil. In 1997, it was replaced by the $240 million Senoko Gasworks.
1905: A power station was built in
1924-1927: The coal-fired St James Power Station was built, and began to deliver electricity for the island. It was decommissioned in the 1970s. Today, the national monument houses popular nightspots.
1963: The Public Utilities Board (PUB) was formed to supply gas, water and electricity to consumers.
1995:
1990s:
Last year, oil accounted for 17 per cent of electricity production, natural gas for 77 per cent, and waste and other sources for 6 per cent. Natural gas for electricity is piped into the island from
2001-2003: The electricity market was liberalised to let suppliers compete to provide power to about 10,000 non-residential consumers.
2006: The decision was made to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), which, unlike piped natural gas, does not have to come from the Republic's immediate neighbours. An LNG terminal, run by Singapore LNG Corporation, will come onstream in 2013.
2008: Tuas Power announced it will build a steam-and- electricity plant that will run on biomass (plant matter, mostly woodchips and palm kernels) and coal from the region. It is due to open in phases from next year.
2009-2011: The Housing Board announced and began a $31 million, five-year trial of solar power at 30 HDB precincts; solar energy will power lights at common areas such as stairwells.
2011: Malaysian electricity group Tenaga Nasional approached
CT 1127 Vincent Fung
ReplyDeleteMentioning nuclear power in the same status as other renewable energies such as wind, solar is sacrilege to many environmentalists. Even though many argue that modern reactors are safer and more efficient than the past, past events like chernobyl, ten-mile-island, and Fukushima nuclear incident demonstrates the possibility of a nuclear melt-down. In the context of SIngapore, Singapore is only one of many countries in the world that is prioritizing energy conservation. if Singapore do implement nuclear energy in the future, the small area of the country is a real concerns to its population. Even if SIngapore does not implement nuclear energy, neighboring countries will do nuclear energy. If Singapore ensures the highest possible standards of safety, security and accountability, it may be inevitable for Singapore to implement nuclear energy.
Solar power has been implemented in Singapore for a period of time. THe sunlight falling on the surface of earth each day contains 6000 times as much energy as is used by all the world. For a country that situates on the equator, relying on solar energy in Singapore seems like a good idea. But in reality, solar panels are so pricey, it is almost impossible to substitute coal and natural gas which Singapore is depending. Singapore's almost 5 million people live in high-rise buildings, rather than houses, which makes putting up cells on the roof nearly impossible for every individuals. Monsoon seasons in Singapore also can affect the efficacy of solar cells since unexpected rain can lead to these solar cells ineffective.
Wind power in parts of northern Europe, such as Germany and Denmark is increasingly common. However in the context of Singapore, such wind farms are not advisable to be implemented in Singapore. Firstly our land area is too small for the huge wind turbines to be in Singapore. Secondly, these turbines are known for making noises and the killing of birds due to the blades. Singapore being rich in biodiversity may face issues with the unintentional harm towards the wildlife. Thirdly, To generate reasonably efficient power from wind turbines, the average wind speed needs to be above 5m/s (metres per second). Singapore does not have abundant winds except in the coastal areas and offshore islands; our average wind speed is usually lower than 3.3m/s. However even offshore wind farms makes it more expensive to maintain, not mentioning a potential shipping hazard which Singapore is renowned for its trade shipping industry.
With the growing energy demand, developed countries must be willing to develop and implement it, share it through aid, investment and education. The government must be willing to absorb the adding costs of going green, and developed countries abandon their flagrant, wasteful lifestyle(e.g driving unnecessary, over-use of resources) and most importantly prioritizing saving the environment over pleasing major industrial leaders. The world has existing technology to develop and redesign energy sources in the future. As long we are willing to put our efforts in it, there is hope for mankind.
You have made some good analysis of the possibility of solar and wind energy in the Singapore context, Vincent. You have also made some very good points about the need to review our flagrant wasteful lifestyle and the need to prioritize the health of our environment over satisfying the insatiable needs of industrial leaders.
DeleteCT 1127 Chew Min Yu
ReplyDeleteI think that Singapore should not go nuclear due to the high risks involved. Nuclear energy may seem as a viable option but the cost of suffering a nuclear melt-down is too large to bear. The disastrous effect of such occurrence is way more impactful on Singapore as compared to other countries where they can rely on other forms of industry to sustain their economy during such events. Tourism and Services, Research and development (R&D) constitutes the body of Singapore's economy. If a nuclear breakdown is to occur, the tourism rate would definitely be a straight drop down. However, for a country such as Japan, they can still rely on their manufacturing industry to support the economy. Moreover, the affected area due to the nuclear melt-down at Fukushima does not impact the entire nation. Therefore, nuclear energy is still not a wise choice for Singapore (which is only a tiny red dot on the world map).
To address the energy problems Singapore may face in the future, the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) has already come up with a plan: Future-ready Energy Solutions in 2009. The project aims to turn Singapore into a vibrant clean energy landscape. Involving 5 promising strategies, the project is to be carried out at various stages to build an eco-friendly Singapore while boosting the various job sectors: research, design, manpower etc.
Singapore has almost no natural resources which the nation can rely on for energy. Therefore, it becomes inevitable for Singapore to knock on the doors of clean and green energy. From the vast array of green energy to choose from: solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy and geothermal energy; the most promising solution is still solar energy. The geography of Singapore closes a lot of options for Singapore. For instance, wind energy requires lots of land which Singapore cannot provide. Solar panels can be installed on buildings so long as the panels were exposed to the Sun. It is efficient and practical. Although some may argue that such energy may incur high cost of maintenance, solar energy is still the most feasible solution. Construction of machines to generate any kind of energy, be it wind, solar or even hydropower will definitely involve heavy investment. The problem does not lie within the cost of carrying out such projects, but whether or not the energy which Singapore is employing is worth it.
To round up, Singapore should not turn to nuclear energy despite the alluring advantages it can provide. The risk of building a nuclear plant, even if it is underground is still too much for such a small nation like Singapore. It would be wiser for Singapore to take on a safer stride and that is to invest in solar energy. It can be generated anywhere during the day and be stored for usage in the night. Although the output may not be as significant as a nuclear plant, it is definitely less of a threat to humans if there is to be any mishaps concerning the technology.
I share your concerns regarding Singapore's tentative decision to go nuclear, Min Yu.
DeleteThank you for sharing Singapore's plan for future-ready Energy Solutions in 2009 and I am of the same opinion that solar energy is among the most promising source of renewable energy for sunny Singapore. Powering with solar energy is expensive right now but I believe that further investment would very well worth our while. As expected, you have done a great job, Min Yu.
CT 1137 Elise
ReplyDeleteSingapore is a small island state with a vibrant economy which cannot be sustained without imported energy. With only limited natural resources, Singapore is only able to refine 1.3 million barrels of crude oil daily with less than 100,000 barrels per day for its own consumption.
Global warming is an important issue for Singapore due to her low-lying islands. The rise in sea level reduces the coastal land size and may eventually flood our densely built-up city.Thus, Singapore plays her roles as a responsible world citizen in mitigating climate change.
For countries whose energy depends on import, they must have taken appropriate measures in ensuring an undisturbed supply of energy to sustain their economy. There is no exception for Singapore.
Many would suggest that the use of wind energy is the most effective alternative resources to supply resource to a country. However, Singapore has its limitation with its limited land resources. Thus, there would not have be sufficient land to build wind farms etc.
Thus, Singapore govt mainly focus on the solar and fuel cell power. However, these alternative resources are available but subjected to key constraints of cost and technology.
In the past one year, billions of dollars from private sector
have been already committed to clean energy research and manufacturing in Singapore.For example, the world largest wind power firm, Vestas, set up a research centre in Singapore hiring more than 150 staff. In fact, Singapore is trying to build a world scale solar manufacturing complex. Currently, it produces solar wafer, cell and module with annual capacity of 1.5 GW and employing 3000 people.
I believe new energy technologies are important in response to the challenges of limited energy source. It would ensure energy diversification and a sustainable environment for us. Furthermore, mastering energy technologies through research and
development would be crucial to the success of building an energy industry.Thus, Singapore should focus on overcoming its challenges in order to resolve the lack of energy.
Thank you for being among the first few to post and to furnish us with such useful data on Singapore's experience with solar and wind energy, Elise. As expected, you have done an excellent job. Your warning regarding vulnerability of Singapore in the face of global warming and climate change is indeed food for thought. I believe Singaporeans need to seriously rethink the way we have been using our energy and should be focusing on reducing wastage.
DeleteCT 1127 Lim Pei Ling
ReplyDeleteI think that Singapore should not go nuclear due to its limited landspace and the possible problems that could arise. As Singapore is small, if Singapore decides to use nuclear energy, the nuclear plants have to be built near to the population. Therefore, if there are accidents, it will affect the population directly. The other disadvantages of nuclear power includes the storage and management of dangerous high level radioactive waste, the possibility of proliferation of nuclear materials and potential terrorist applications, the high cost of building nuclear facilities and the small possibility of accidents. Thus, it is not wise for Singapore to go nuclear.
The next alternative is therefore solar energy. Due to Singapore's geographical location, we have the sun above our heads all around the year. Therefore, using solar energy to power Singapore is possible. However, the maintainence cost of solar panals are high. Therefore, using solar energy may be too costly for Singapore.
We can also consider using bike-powered generators to power Singapore if really fossil fuels run out one day and there are no other alternatives. In rural India, bike-powered electricity generators are used to generate electricity in the household. Much of the electricity needed in rural households is for low-power devices such as cell phones, LEDs and netbooks. In two minutes, an average rider on can produce enough power to use a cell phone or an LED for two hours. It takes less than 15 minutes to power a netbook for one hour. The advantage of using this kind of energy is that it does not require a lot of space. Thus this energy is suitable for Singapore as Singapore is small.Therefore, we can consider generating our own energy if fossil fuels run out. However, bike-powered electricity generators are not sustainable or efficient. A large amount of time is needed to generate a small amount of energy. Thus, it may not be useful to generate electricity to power factories. Furthermore, to be able to use this type of generator, batteries have to be manufactured and batteries have to be replaced regularly. Thus, it is not sustainable. Therefore, this type of energy is only suitable for household uses.
In conclusion, Singapore should not consider nuclear energy due to its size and the negative impacts it will have if there is a nuclear melt-down. The next alternative for Singapore is solar energy due to its geographical location. We can also consider generating our own energy if all the alternatives are not suitable for Singapore. It is important that we conserve energy now so that fossil fuels can last longer and thus we need not source for alternatives.
Thank you for your contribution, Pei Ling. Your idea of bike-powered provides food for thought. However, I wonder about the feasibility of such a form of energy generation in a city like Singapore which requires tremendous amount of energy.
DeleteFurthermore, Singapore’s industry is structured such that we have high-tech industries like semiconductor-manufacturing that are sensitive to power quality
Anastasia Frances Frederica 1127
ReplyDeleteShould Singapore consider nuclear energy?
Firstly, let's be realistic, Singapore do not have the space and land for nuclear power plants to be build. Moreover, the reason for the recent nuclear disaster was due to the high magnitude earthquake and the tsunami that resulted afterwards. Although, Singapore does not lie on the Pacific Ring of Fire but it is surrounded by the sea and lies near Indonesia where high magnitude earthquake often occur. However, some may argue that Singapore is in a region free of natural disasters despite the fact it is situated near Indonesia. Furthermore, safety is a major concern, especially given Singapore's high urban density. Singaporeans being pragmatic would object to such notions.
But of course, with Singapore's innovative methods such as land reclamation like Pulau Semakau, there is possibility that Singapore may have the space to build nuclear power plants. So far, there have only been 2 accidents in the world and there are approximately 400 nuclear reactors around the world. Moreover, some of the main reason for countries to place reliance on nuclear power as it has a smaller carbon footprint as compared to burning coals, which China is currently doing. Without nuclear energy, world cannot make sufficient progress in dealing with global warming. France has 58 nuclear reactors and it supplies 75% of Frances’s power. Moreover, Singapore is becoming more urbanized which means there will be a greater demand for power. To make up for the increasing demand, one should consider going to nuclear energy. Now, looking at economic reasons for Singapore to take up nuclear energy, if Singapore becomes self sufficient in producing energy, than, the industries which Singapore rely on for economic growth would not be adversely affected when the price of imported coal and electricity rises. Singapore’s manufacturing industry makes up about a quarter of the economy and its dependence on electronics and pharmaceutical exports has made it vulnerable to fluctuations in global demand and business cycles therefore; having nuclear energy will be of an advantage for Singapore.
However, is having cheaper electricity a strong enough reason for Singapore to consider nuclear energy? In my opinion, I do not think Singapore should after seeing the adverse consequences it has on Chernobyl and Japan. Furthermore, Singapore being small, the nuclear accidents may also result in neighboring countries from getting affected. If neighboring countries fear or are against it, Singapore may lose political ties with such countries.
Anastasia Frances Frederica 1127
ReplyDeleteWhat other forms of energy should we consider?
Although solar energy requires a lot of space, large space is needed; solar energy can be considered as solar panels can be fixed on top of high-rise buildings and homes etc. However, Singapore being a tropical region, there are major heavy rains during the monsoon season from December to early March and June to September. Hence, it doesn’t seem feasible for Singapore to consider solar energy, as we cannot rely on solar energy throughout the whole year. It is best if Singapore also adopt solar energy and other renewable energy as well. Moreover, solar panels are very costly therefore; this may hinder us from using solar energy. Wind energy is definitely out, as wind energy requires large land space and Singapore has limited land space. Hence, it is not feasible for Singapore to consider wind energy. As mentioned earlier, Singapore experiences tropical climate. This shows that Singapore can consider hydroelectricity. Often, after and during heavy storms, there are large torrents of water in canals. Hence, this will be effective. But, since this can only be made use of and relied upon during the raining season, therefore, together with solar energy, these two sources of renewable energy can be a source for us to obtain our electricity. In conclusion, I feel that Singapore should consider both solar energy and hydroelectricity.
Thank you, Anastasia, for your insightful and thorough analysis of nuclear and other sources of energy. Solar and nuclear power are among Singapore's best options for electricity generation in the long term. The two are part of the range of options to meet the challenges of the future, said Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran. PM Lee is suggesting that we keep up with new developments where nuclear energy is concerned as the technologies are advancing – smaller, safer reactors, with more fuel-efficient designs that reduce the amount of nuclear waste produced - and that we keep up with experiences in other countries. Thankfully, opting for a nuclear power plant is a long-term commitment – a 100-years decision, in fact. A typical nuclear power plant is designed to generate electricity for six to eight decades; the time needed to build, commission and decommission a nuclear reactor spans a few decades.
DeleteJose Pocholo Manas Mandia 1127
ReplyDeleteI believe that Singapore should not should not rely on nuclear power as it poses a risk to the environment. Nuclear disasters such as the one's in Chernobyl and more recently in Fukushima are reminders of what nuclear power can do if something does go out of control. And these reminders are the reason why people may fear those in possession of nuclear power.
One of the greatest concerns in implementing nuclear energy in Singapore is the small land area of the country and its close proximity to it's neighbors. This would mean that a nuclear fallout in Singapore would greatly affect it's neighbors. This is very likely to happen as some radioactive particles released during the Fukushima nuclear disaster were able to be carried by winds and reach the United States. Fortunately, most of the particles had fallen into the ocean along the way. However, Singapore is not endowed with the luxury of space. A nuclear fallout the size of the one at Fukushima, would easily affect an area 4 times that of Singapore (In Fukushima, a 20-km radius exclusion zone was set up around the reactor and those living within 20-30 km of the plant were advised to stay indoors.). There is no doubt that this would also affect Singapore's neighbors as well.
But you may ask, "What about building smaller reactors or building them underground?" The problem with nuclear reactors aside from the risks of operating the reactors themselves is the nuclear waste that comes from them which needs more space underground to store safely. This needs time to construct; time which needs needs to be spent more efficiently to find answers to the world's depleting resources.
So what other forms of green energy can we rely on? Solar and wind farms take up far too much space to be effective and demand certain conditions to operate optimally. A similar truth can be seen with hydroelectricity, as dams will not be effective due a small river system and using a system reliant on flood waters will make hydroelectricity an inefficient power source due to it's seasonality.
Biomass fuels seem to be the way to go, as natural waste is easily produced by nature (and humans) all year round. Its renewable and has a constant supply. It's also the perfect green energy for Singapore as it doesn't need to build too much infrastructure compared to nuclear energy. Garbage is supplied by people and burned in incineration plants such as those of SembCorp to generate power for other plants. Though today most of this energy from biomass is used to power the petrochemical industries in Jurong, we can see that this is a viable form of energy in Singapore.
Though most of Singapore is powered still by natural gas, in the future we may see Singapore tapping on it's nature reserves for natural energy as well. Companies are developing new technologies that help people extract biofuel from Algae. Currently, this technology is being tested in New Zealand by Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation (ABC) to clean up algae in Lake Rotorua. If ABC can prove that algae is a viable fuel source for powerplants, than we can potentially see it in use in Singapore in the near future.
With that in mind, I believe that Singapore should wait to see whether these technologies in development are going to become possible sources of energy in the future before going into discussions of nuclear technology. Though our depleting energy sources and climate change issues are not exactly in agreement with this "wait and see" strategy, I believe that something such as nuclear energy needs much consideration of the alternatives in the present and future. This is to ensure that we create a greener and safer future for Singapore.
Thank you, Cholo for your suggestion of biomass fuels and your realistic grasp of the predicament that Singapore faces. Biomass is indeed a viable option; however the hype exceeds the reality in nearly every facet of advanced biofuels, as it does throughout the world of alternative energy. The good news is that the technology to produce truly sustainable biofuels is advancing quickly. The bad news is that for now the business more closely resembles a science-fair project than Big Oil.
DeleteLike you, I am also apprehensive about going nuclear. Thankfully, opting for a nuclear power plant is a long-term commitment – a 100-years decision, in fact. A typical nuclear power plant is designed to generate electricity for six to eight decades; the time needed to build, commission and decommission a nuclear reactor spans a few decades.
Adeline Lee Jia Ying CT1127
ReplyDeleteWith traditional sources of energy dwindling in supply and at the same time causing increasing harm to the environment, many countries are making strides to explore nuclear energy as a means to fuel their power hungry economies. However, do such reasons justify the use of nuclear energy in Singapore? In my opinion, I do not think so. The world has witnessed the disastrous impacts from the recent spates of nuclear accidents and meltdown of reactors, together with its implications brought along after the accidents. Clearly enough, nuclear energy is not a perfect substitute for alternative energy. Despite the obvious pros of using nuclear energy for it being a clean energy, producing little or no greenhouse gas emissions, it has been far outweighed by the cons, such as the potential risks involved and its damaging consequences that are way beyond one’s imagination. Hence, it will be by far too dangerous for a tiny dot country like Singapore to adopt the use of nuclear energy.
Firstly, nuclear energy is not exactly a clean source of energy, as it produces radioactive waste materials. Such waste has to be processed to remove the radioactive ingredients, which can remain for thousands of years before finally being able to be disposed away safely. Throughout this period, nuclear waste must be stored away from water, as it can be dissolved in water. Also, it has to be stored as far away from any tectonic activity, so as to prevent the leakage of radioactive substances into the environment which in turn poses health concerns to the world’s biodiversity. Moreover, it is almost virtually impossible to contain the wastage for such a long period. Thus, how true is it that nuclear energy is “clean” when it produces radioactive substances instead of greenhouse gases?
Then, there is also the problem of finding a suitable site to locate the nuclear plant. For Singapore, our small size poses additional challenges. Safety is a major concern because of our high urban density. It is impossible to locate a nuclear plant, far from population when Singapore only stretches 50km, from coast to coast, as compared to other countries like Japan, where the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is situated 300 km away from Tokyo. If any accidents were to occur, the whole nation would be immediately be placed at stake. Therefore, despite some suggesting for underground reactors to be built in Singapore instead, the potential risk for us will be extremely high and far greater than any other countries. And that does not include our neighbours like Malaysia or Indonesia.
Even apart from the safety issues, the cost of building reactors is enormous and the price of subsequently decommissioning them also huge. Without massive government subsidy, the nuclear industry cannot make money and building new plants is uneconomic compared to other methods of power generation. Hence, it will be impractical and not worthwhile for Singapore to build a nuclear plant especially in today's time when the economy remains gloomy and unpredictable.
Adeline Lee Jia Ying CT1127
ReplyDeleteAs such, Singapore should explore on other cleaner alternatives energies instead. Solar energy is an attractive alternative solution due to the geographical position of Singapore. There have been successful attempts of using solar energies to generate electric supply in Singapore. An example is the fitting solar panels on HDB roof tops to absorb light energy from the sun during day time which can in turns generate electricity for households’ consumptions. Biofuel can also be explored in Singapore, since it is in line with the recent efforts to step up in biosciences research arenas. However, not all alternatives like wind energy, can be feasible for land is scarce in Singapore.
All in all, no single energy is perfect, it is only through the combination of all the different types of alternatives energy, can all the benefits make up for the limitations of the individual type of energy. Furthermore, with the advances in technology, energy can be made to be more productive, minimizing the cons. Therefore, Singapore should diversify on the different energies available but leave out nuclear energy as it will be too risky to approach. As seductive as nuclear energy is, Singapore cannot afford it.
Thank you, Adeline, for your astute study of the feasibility of Singapore going nuclear as well as the recommendation for further study into solar energy as a viable option. According to Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran, solar and nuclear power are among Singapore's best options for electricity generation in the long term will be part of the range of options to meet the challenges of the future. PM Lee is also suggesting that we keep up with new developments where nuclear energy is concerned as the technologies are advancing – smaller, safer reactors, with more fuel-efficient designs that reduce the amount of nuclear waste produced - and that we keep up with experiences in other countries
DeleteIzzati Hamizah Bte Zainal CT 1127
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am against the use of nuclear energy is Singapore. This is due to the high risks involved in maintaining a nuclear power plant especially in Singapore(of limited space) and that with the development of another nuclear plant may strain our strong relationships with neighbouring countries that do not own one.
No doubt careful planning and exercise must be done to ensure the safety of the power plant and the people of the country and moreover, researchers say that the tendency of a nuclear disaster is minimal. Nevertheless, accidents or disasters are bound to happen when you least expect them. Even if Singapore is able to maintain the safety standard of the nuclear plant (if ever, it is build), unpleasant incidents may take in the form of a weakening relationship between countries. With nuclear energy in mind, nuclear weapons are never left astray. Nuclear weapons confer power and prestige. Hence, our neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia may feel inferior as they will then be situated very close to a nuclear-owned country. Once inferior, these countries may retaliate which may thus bring about more worry to Singapore.
I find that a promising alternative energy resource would be biofuels in the form of either biomass or biogas. By using plant and animal wastes to produce biofuels such as gas, oil and methanol, we will be able to generate more energy to meet up with the increasing demand for energy and at the same time, save up land space that is used to accumulate all of our wastes. Besides that, the fuel produced also tends to be cheaper and there is also less demand placed on fossil fuels. In addition, this energy resource is efficient as human waste can actually generate lots of methane. The gas produced could even be used to power vehicles. A ‘poo-powered car’ is one such example which uses energy from biofuels to run its engines. This brings us to our attention regarding the use of sustainable energy and green energy.
Comparing between sustainable energy and green energy, I prefer green energy as the better power option though there is no doubt that both complement each other and thus the two should not be isolated from one another. Essentially, sustainable energy focuses on the ability to keep on providing energy and unfortunately can pollute the environment if it does not stay within the safe limit. Green energy, on the other hand, can be extracted or produced without any significant pollution. Biofuels act as a form of green energy as it produces relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases.
In conclusion, Singapore should be able to work well without nuclear energy and depend on other renewable energy sources, preferably those in the form of green energy like biofuels to sustain its development.
Izzati, your concern about the reaction of Malaysia and Indonesia towards Singapore considering nuclear energy is understandable but not a major concern as both countries are also weighing the option of turning to nuclear energy as a viable option. I wonder if you could rethink the option of using plant and animal wastes especially when Singapore does not have an agricultural based economy.
DeleteFurthermore, the basic problem with most biofuels is that using land to grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands that store enormous amounts of carbon. Indonesia has bulldozed and burned so much wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that its ranking among the world's top carbon emitters has surged from 21st to third according to a report by Wetlands International. Malaysia is converting forests into palm oil farms so rapidly that it's running out of uncultivated land. studies released by Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy reveal that biofuels are not a silver bullet in the battle against global warming. In fact, they could make things worse. Studies show that ethanol may be even more dangerous for the environment than fossil fuels are. As the Princeton study points out, clearing previously untouched land to grow biofuel crops releases long-sequestered carbon into the atmosphere.
Singapore’s Prime Minister stated recently that Singapore must not dismiss the idea of building nuclear power in the future. He also revealed that Singapore is building up its capabilities in the field of nuclear energy through research and linking with nuclear experts. Given this comment, nuclear energy might be unavoidable for Singapore.
ReplyDeleteAn increasing number of countries are turning to nuclear power, such as Indonesia. Once Indonesia erects its first power plant, Singapore would most likely follow, because by then, it would not be too huge a blow for Singapore’s political ties and relationships with neighbouring countries. Singapore could reclaim land at the edge of its sea’s border and build it there – as far as possible from any human population – to lessen the impact of possible meltdowns human beings. However, possible nuclear meltdowns will most definitely affect humans as radiation spreads. Moreover, clearing highly radioactive waste products of nuclear energy is taxing. This compels us to look into other forms of energy. Some popular alternatives are hydroelectric, wind and solar energy, and biofuels.
Hydroelectric energy requires the building of dams, which Singapore has an advantage because it is surrounded by water. However, dams will seriously affect marine life and even human life; Singapore citizens and its economy would be affected too if flooding occurs. Since hydroelectric energy may cause more trouble than it is worth, it is not a good power option for Singapore.
Wind energy is free wherever wind is available, and it is a green energy as it does not emit air pollutants and has no need for fuel. Yet, Singapore’s equatorial wind is not strong enough to make full use of wind turbines, and Singapore simply does not have enough land space to invest in wind energy. Therefore, wind energy cannot be considered unless the government decides to reclaim large areas of land dedicated to wind turbines.
Large volumes of natural waste such as food are produced by Singaporeans every day, and this makes the idea of converting these wastes into biofuels attractive. However, producing biofuels requires large amounts of input, and it is not going to be efficient if small biofuel plants are used to compensate for Singapore’s limited land space, unless, again, the government is willing to reclaim more land to produce more biofuels. Also, burning of biodiesel will produce carcinogenic aromatic compounds, which are bad for humans. Biofuels, thus, should not be heavily relied on by Singapore.
Last but not least, a popular and viable alternative energy is solar energy. Located at the equator, Singapore enjoys having plenty of sunlight all year round, which is perfect for supplying solar power for solar panels. Prices of solar panels are falling, and this adds to the attractiveness of harnessing solar energy. Presently, however, large areas of land are needed to generate small amounts of solar energy, and this is bad news for Singapore because it has very limited land space. To overcome this problem, Singapore can build solar panels on the surface of its seas, unobstructed roofs of tall buildings, streetlamps, ships… everywhere and anywhere that sunlight reaches. It is the greenest form of energy, as it does not produce any pollutants. In my opinion, solar energy looks the most promising because of the many advantages it has and literally no disadvantage it brings (to a sunny island).
Global warming does not stop, and it threatens the survival of every living being on earth. The only thing we can do about it is to do our best to slow it down, and one of the ways we can do that is to turn to green energy such as solar energy, and minimise the production of greenhouse gases. The Singapore government might be thinking of utilising nuclear energy In the future, but they might one day focus their efforts into greener and safer energy, and put the idea of having nuclear reactors in Singapore on hold for a very, very long time.
Jinjing, you have done a good job of weighing the various options of energy production. I second your suggestion of studying into other greener and safer energy production. I too believe that Singapore ought to devote its intelligent and efficient research teams into inventions and discoveries of new energy production.
DeleteChin Jun Tian 1127
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, i think that Singapore should not go nuclear even without having any natural resources like water bodies(huge), forested land, or even lying over a heated pool of magma.
Given the increasing population we expect in a few years time, Singapore would have no space to build a nuclear plant.,let alone the area needed to dispose the radioactive waste. Some might ask, "why not underground?". It cant be denied that there might be a possibility of having it underground since we already have shopping centers and subways beneath the earth. Even so, they would still need to evacuate the land above the nuclear plant as there is strong radioactive materials there that could harm the life of people? personally, i would violently object the idea of having nuclear energy as a solution to go green.
I would like to share my insights about the way Switzerland explores green energy. in June last year, i went for a science trip with the school to Switzerland and we went all the way to the windmill farm at Mount Crosin and solar panel farm at Mount Soliel to see how Switzerland uses them to harvest energy.
In June then, was the windy season and the sun sets early. so energy is harvested continuously around the year as in June, more energy would be harvested from the wind. and during spring or summer, more energy would be harvested from the sunlight. the local tour guide also explained to us that Switzerland's longest-serving and most important source of renewable energy has been hydropower. But the "new" renewables including solar, wood, biomass, wind, geothermal and ambient heat also play an increasingly important role in today's Swiss energy mix.
Having said that, Singapore cannot be compared with Switzerland in terms of natural resources, however, there is a resource that we Singaporeans have neglected. this resource we have would be the intense sunshine and the skyscrapers we have.
How can this help us to harvest energy? the amalgamation of these 2 factors could help us harvest energy. i, being interested in architecture, i think that silicon solar panels which are light and durable could be installed on the top quarter of the skyscrapers as it is the region where is most exposed to sunlight. by doing so, we create green buildings that harvest energy. thought this energy might be of a small quantity, it could help to power up the lights in the building thus, saving the energy that is obtained by burning of fossil fuels, thus leaving a much smaller carbon footprint.
Thus, i think that Singapore should take a step back and think again whether nuclear energy would be fit for Singapore as well as are they able to handle short and long term implications it might bring to Singapore as seen from the devastating impact of the nuclear accident in Japan, Fukushima since Chernobyl.
http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/index.html?lang=en
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/11/japan-earthquake-radiation-fukushima_n_1336767.html
http://wanderland.myswitzerland.com/en/sightseeing_detail.cfm?id=344679
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
Jun Tian, thank you for sharing your insights of Switzerland’s exploration of green energy and your understanding of Singapore’s potential and lack. Thank you for your excellent suggestion of making use of Singapore’s skyscrapers and turning them into green buildings.
DeleteThere are initiatives to encourage the building of green building. Common practices include optimised orientation of a development to minimise solar heat gains, with minimal direct West-facing facades and architectural designs that maximise daylighting. Many buildings also come with extensive overhangs and planters to block direct solar exposure. Facade and roof greening have also been introduced to mitigate urban heat effect and solar heat gain. A few selected projects now come with extensive photovoltaic panels. Some even use more eco-friendly materials such as ‘green concrete’, which comprises copper slag, recycled concrete aggregates and ground granulated blast furnace slag. In addition, as more money is poured into developing green technology, developments now incorporate fittings that are more energy- and water-efficient, such as motion detector lighting in toilets and stairwells and waterless urinals. Much of this is controlled by intelligent building management systems, which are becoming increasingly sophisticated.
Chua Li Jun 1127
ReplyDeleteThe demand for oil has been increasing over the years with countries developing. Oil shortages and sky-rocketing prices have sounded the “alarm bells” for both the developed and developing world alike to look for alternatives to oil.
Nuclear energy may be an important part of the solution to mankind’s energy needs, and to tackle global warming. It is a clean source of energy, giving off low carbon emissions. For Singapore, however, safety is still a major concern. Given our high urban density, any nuclear accident or fallout would be disastrous and the impacts will be felt not only by Singapore alone but also by neighbouring countries. We cannot afford the damage that it would cause. Some believed that the risks can be reduced by new technology. Nevertheless, according to a Yale University sociologist Charles Perrow, he noted that when a technology fails, it is often does so because the problem is just something that never occurred to the designers. It simply means that even if future technology can prevent similar accident from occurring but other problems, which have not occurred to engineers or designers, may still result in the fallout of the nuclear plant that may lead to irreversible impacts. Hence, it is not advisable for Singapore to go nuclear even when new technology can provide a smaller and safer reactor.
Other forms of alternative energy that I think we should consider are solar and geothermal power. Unlike nuclear power, any technological failure will not result in disastrous impacts. Solar energy is also one of the fastest growing energy sources. New technologies are developing at a rapid pace. Solar cells are becoming more efficient, transportable and even flexible, allowing for easy installation. No doubt, solar energy is one of the most expensive alternative energy, however, the price gap between solar power and grid electricity can be expected to close further as the price of solar systems fall and Singapore’s knowledge and capabilities improve. Many may argue that large spaces are required for solar energy, but this may no longer be a problem. Led by the EDB and PUB, Singapore’s national water agency, the S$11 million 2 MW peak project seeks to overcome our land constraints by studying the prospects of using reservoir water surfaces for floating PV systems. Tengeh Reservoir on the western side of Singapore has been earmarked for the installation which will have an approximate power capacity of two megawatts. The project will help establish the technical challenges of erecting and operating floating PV installations as well as its cost-effectiveness for increased adoption in Singapore. The test-bed will also be useful to evaluate the impact, if any, on the environment and to look into the aesthetic considerations of such projects. One potential advantage of floating PV systems on water is the cooling effect which enhances solar system performance. Hence, I feel that solar energy seems the most promising alternative energy.
Chua Li Jun 1127
ReplyDeleteThe other alternative energy, geothermal energy, is a very powerful and efficient way to extract a renewable energy from the earth through natural processes. It is performed on a very large scale for energy production through a geothermal power plant. People may say space may be a problem but this can be performed on a small scale as well, to provide heat for a residential unit (a geothermal heat pump). It has been used for space heating and bathing since ancient roman times, but is now better known for generating electricity. Geothermal power is cost effective, reliable, and environmentally friendly. Geothermal power requires no fuel, and is therefore immune to fluctuations in fuel cost, but capital costs tend to be high. Though costs may be high, in the long term it can reduce Singapore’s reliance on oil imports from oil dependent countries and ensures the security of the country as well as the sustainability of the Singapore’s source of energy. Thus, I think it will be worth the money.
In conclusion, ten years from now, oil reserves would have depleted drastically against a backdrop of rising demand and tightening supplies, and generating energy from alternative sources of energy (in the exception of nuclear power for the case of Singapore) would gradually become a part of everyday life. Furthermore, there is no alternative energy that is perfect. There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to it. Singapore should work towards to overcome these disadvantages so as to ensure the efficient use of the energy resources.
Thank you, Lijun, for furnishing us with really useful data on nuclear, solar and geothermal energy. They would provide those who are apprehensive of nuclear energy the support to lobby against going nuclear.
DeleteHowever, I wonder about the feasibility of geothermal energy in Singapore. I know we have some hot springs in Singapore but do we have the natural environment to harness this form of energy. I really must look into it.
Lim Bao Le 1127
ReplyDeleteLearning from the nuclear disasters that happened around the world such as the Three Mile Island accident, Chernobyl and the more recent Fukushima nuclear meltdown, I believe that the consideration of nuclear energy in Singapore should just remain as a thought. Although nuclear energy can provide us with a cleaner way to generate electricity, the problems it can bring to us far outweigh its benefits. Even if the nuclear power plants do not experience a meltdown, it will still create problems for Singapore. Nuclear power plants require high cost to be built and maintained. Moreover, Singapore is a land scarce country. We do not have the space to locate the plant anywhere in Singapore as the evacuation zone will take up nearly a half of our country. Nuclear wastes such as Plutonium is highly radioactive and transportation of such wastes will be dangerous on our highly congested roads.
In view of these, Singapore should consider other forms of sustainable energy that do not pose accident risks which the production of nuclear energy does. In my opinion, the most suitable alternative energy for Singapore will be solar energy. One of the main advantages of solar energy is that it will not be geographically limited. Solar energy panels can be placed almost anywhere and of almost any scale. Other renewable energy like wind turbines, there are limited viable locations for these to be built. Thus, in a land constraint country like Singapore, solar energy is undoubtedly feasible on a large scale. Singapore also experiences sunlight for almost all year round. We can therefore fully maximise the use of the solar panels if they are to be used on a large scale in Singapore.
In conclusion, with the technology we have advancing day by day, Singapore do not have to solely consider nuclear energy. There may be other new ways to generate energy that have yet to be discovered. Hence, in the time being, we should not resort to nuclear energy.
Thank you, Bao Le for sharing your thoughts regarding nuclear energy for Singapore. I share your concerns where nuclear energy is concerned as my responses above show.
DeleteNevertheless, there is still a need to keep our option open as new developments in the production of nuclear energy have shown promising results.
Weihong CT1137
ReplyDeleteGiven Singapore's huge consumption of 1.08 million barrels on oil per day, future usage of energy will be even more since the world today is becoming more and more dependent on technologies. Adequate energy is essential for the progress of Singapore's economy. To obtain the huge amount of energy which is required for supporting advanced technologies is going to be a big challenge of Singapore government.
Nuclear energy is obvious a popular alternative source of energy in the world as it provides the country with abundent of energy which is required for generating electricity and sustaining daily lives. However, it is another way round in Singapore. Due to the limited land constraints, Singapore does not have the space to built nuclear plants. Also, it posts safety threats like nuclear leakage to the nation. Singapore is vulnerable to such incidents as evacuation cannot be effectively carried out unless people withdraw from the country. Besides, the cost of building the plants is at the expense of Singapore's economic progress because the government has to put in enormous land and capital to maintain the plant is functioning under safe conditions. As compared to nuclear energy, other evergy sources such as hydro energy to generate electricity is more practical and promising. Thus, nuclear enregy for Singapore is not inevitable.
While oil is being exploited all over the world, Singapore should start thinking of a back up plan in case oil is exhausted one day. Besides, the potential risks brought by using oil are overwhelming us after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This is when the different types of alternative resources, such as bio-fuels,solar energy, wind energy and hydro energy, came across our mind. However, among all these green energies, hydro energy is most sustainable and practical in Singapore's context. Singapore's geographical features provide abundence of water that is required to generate electricity. It will be cost saving if Singapore who is surrounded by seas is able to make use of hydro energy as an alternative energy. This reduces the economic burden of the government as it is cheaper than using other methods to convert energy to electricity.
Thank you, Wei Hong, for sharing your thoughts on hydroelectric power for Singapore. However, I wonder if it is feasible considering that Singapore lacks the force of weight and motion of water. Hydroelectricity is the term referring to electricity generated by hydropower; the production of electrical power through the use of the gravitational force of falling or flowing water.
DeleteLiang Shuyan From 1137
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, i will agree that although nuclear energy has its risks, and may be a potential to bring harm to people-just like Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan recently-we still have to implement it.
Compare the nuclear energy with traditional fossil fuels, the nuclear energy is clean and enviromental-friendly. It will surely help to ease enviromental problems such as acid rain, or golbal warming, which are mainly caused by buring of fossil fuels.
Furthermore, I think that the main reason that i recommend nuclear energy is because i put independence of Singapore into consideration. In 21st, as the resources become more and more valueable, every country try their best to grab it, even war. For example, the United States fight wars in Iraq for nearly seven years, and we cannot deny that they are looking for oil. Singapore is small and limited in natural resources, such as raw water, That is why Singaporean built Newater and purify rain water for reuse. If we keep on buying resources from other countries, they will control us one day. In the case of energy, it is the same rationale. For example, Russia control the natural gas export in order to control the Republic of Belarus. I dont like to see that Singapore is controlled by other countries one day. So, we have to built our own power generator and use our "Singapore" power.
Thank you, Shuyan, for highlighting the need for Singapore to consider nuclear energy. You certainly have a good grasp of the reality of Singapore's vulnerability and her lack of choice where energy production is concerned. Singaporeans don't have the luxury of saying no to nuclear as it is perhaps the most feasible form of energy in the future. And you gave a very convincing argument - sovereignty. As you have astutely shown, Singapore cannot depend on others for its power and it is to our advantage to be as self sufficient as possible.
DeleteSo far , this discussion has centered on the (possible) impacts of practical solutions to a real world problem. While they have their merits and detriments, a lot of the sentiments i gathered from watching the TED video was: Why are there not more forms of alternative energy on top of what we have?
ReplyDeleteHow about some radical suggestions?
How about researching into new forms of alternative ( note: not necessarily sustainable) energy? How about growing plant culture on films that can be mounted onto buildings to produce sugars? These sugars can then be used in synthesizing ethanol, or burnt on their own to produce electricity.
Going further into the realm of creative thinking, why not try to integrate such technologies into genomics? We can use this (possible?) technology, morals and ethics notwithstanding, to assimilate them into the human DNA , allowing humans to also produce these sugars in their own bodies, reducing the amount of land needed for food, which can then be used for other purposes, like generating electricity.
Another idea is to tap into geothermal energy more efficiently, such as to fully exploit the ever present geothermal activities in some locations , like the Mid-Atlantic ridge in said ocean. Currently, this is in the form of tapping into hot springs, which on their own are rare, due to the nature of their formation. What is being proposed is that new materials should be developed to withstand the heat, pressure and other stresses found at tectonic boundaries. This would allow for a constant source of (potential) power to tap into with little to no environmental impact.
Apart from the above "hard engineering" , a term used to refer to using man-made engineering approaches to solve a problem, how about some "soft" approaches?
Imagine if the world was managed by one entity and compacted to make governance more efficient. This would firstly, reduce the need to traverse large distances. Secondly, reduce wastage of resources due to duplication of services and goods. This would also free up more ( albeit not always) arable land for food and land area for electricity generation. A study found that with a comfortable personal space, the entire world's population can fit into the city of Los Angeles ( with modern engineering efforts such as housing people in flats).
There is no doubt in my mind that the suggestions I have put forth are controversial and may lack credence, however, I feel that these suggestions should make one question oneself? How far are we willing to go to "solve" the human aspect of this environmental conundrum? Worldwide genocide? Genetic manipulation? Forcibly giving up privacy and freedom? Are we showing our willingness by agreeing to the above suggestions?
If no, then let me put this into a more concrete context: Why is Greenpeace being hailed as a hero for marine conservation for engaging in what is essentially terrorism and industrial sabotage by hindering Japanese whaling efforts?
Just some food for thought, even though it is a little unpleasant. ^^
Kim Hai, you certainly are able to make us think. You have certainly opened my mind to a lot of possibilities and got me to venture into uncharted water. Thank you! Your contributions are always a delight for I know you put much effort and thought into your work.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the article I gave you on synthetic biology, there are currently attempts to create fuel with it. This is taken from the article:
A third broad area of synthetic biology application is in the development of next-generation biofuels. In fact, following the creation of JCVI-syn1.0 by JCVI, several patents to this effect were filed by one of its commercial sister companies, Synthetic Genomics. Also pushing forward the frontiers of synthetic biology, a Californian biotechnology company called LS9 is now developing synthetic E.coli bacteria that can convert natural carbohydrates to one of two biodiesel alternatives.
There are also several projects worldwide looking to apply synthetic biology in the creation of third-generation bioethanol. First generation bioethanols are already being produced from cereal crops grown on land that is really required to feed human beings or that used to contain forests. Second-generation bioethanols are therefore thankfully starting to be produced from weeds and woods. However, far more significant will be the use of synthetic biology to help create third-generation or "advanced bioethanol" from algae rather than traditional land-grown crops. For example, a Mexican company called BioFields is planning to start commercial production of an algae-based biofuel in 2014.
Chris Zhang Yang CT1137
ReplyDeleteA power struggle of sorts is developing between Malaysia and Singapore to be the first to build and operate a nuclear powerplant.
Singapore must keep its eye on nuclear power options because the strategic disadvantages of being second to market could imperil the city-state's energy security.
In the post-Fukushima era, nuclear power is hardly a vote-generating idea. Japan and Germany have both pledged to reduce their reliance on nuclear power after the March 2011 tsunami in Japan contaminated parts of Japan with radiation from damaged nuclear power plants.
Whether we like it or not, natural gas fields that fire up turbines in Singapore's power stations are expected to be exhausted in about 20 years' time. This is a blink of an eye when seen in terms of the planning cycle needed to introduce an alternative form of energy, be it from a renewable (solar, wind, tides) or non-renewable source (oil, coal, gas).
To sit back and do the politically expedient by steering clear of the nuclear question would bring back the same strategic problems posed by the water problem.
With Singapore gradually weaning itself of dependence on freshwater from Malaysia's Johor state, botched planning in energy security could drive Singapore once again towards Malaysia for a strategic resource. In this case, energy.
The first country to add a nuclear power station to its power grid will guarantee its citizens a stable and safe source of energy. Cut through the screaming rhetoric from greenies and you will realise that post-Fukushima nuclear reactors are designed with more fail safes and with a far higher standard of reliability and mean time between failure for critical components than the 1970s-vintage reactors installed at the Fukushima facilities.
Our increasing reliance on desalinated water will suck up huge amounts of power to convert seawater into potable water for us to drink and to sustain our industries. Until someone can reinvent the desalination process, we must be prepared to crank up our national grid well in time for the expiry of the water agreement with Malaysia in 2061. Not to do so would be strategic lunacy.
Nuclear energy will also mean the Singapore Armed Forces and Home Team agencies such as the Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force must up their game substantially, quickly and professionally.
We may need to train, organise, equip and support our version of the United States Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) that can guarantee the safety of nuclear fuel. Specialised arms and equipment will need to be sourced and adapted to our tropical climate, along with SOPs for meting out deadly force on entities who may want to interfere with Singapore's nuclear energy cycle.
Thus,nuclear energy is not a bad choice for Singapore in the future, but due to the vulnearability of our country and power of nuclear energy, it still requires a long time for scientists to inquire the best solution for us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn an article published on 23rd March 2012, Director-General of the World Nuclear Association (WNA) said that nuclear power is the only realistic way to reduce global warming, despite Japan’s atomic disaster last year. He also said that nuclear energy will thrive and benefit both environmentally and economically.
ReplyDeleteWhile some people are strongly for the revolution of nuclear energy, some other groups were clearly against it. In some parts of Asia, particularly in Seoul where the WNA meeting is being held, protestors were seen at a nearby subway station. These protestors are protesting for a “No Nuclear Asia”.
Is nuclear energy really inevitable like what the Mr John Rich said? Not for Japan whereby nuclear power is responsible for 30% of the countries’ electricity. With only 2 of it’s 54 reactors in operation after the 11th March 2011 Earthquake, it will be facing a 10% power shortage in summer this year.
However, for Singapore, nuclear power may be evitable. Let’s do some comparison. Japan has a land area of 377, 915 square kilometres while Singapore has one of 714.3 square kilometres. Japan’s energy consumption level obviously exceeded that of Singapore’s, being the fourth largest energy consumer in the world after United States, China and Russia, consuming 2.2×10^16Btu.
Hence, I feel that Singapore can make do without nuclear energy, at least in the near future whereby the world is still not yet deprived of fossil fuels and carbon.
Nuclear energy carries tons of risks along with it and plants have to be regularly maintained. Although a typical nuclear plant can function for about 8 to 10 decades, concerns have already been raised by experts in a 13th March REUTERS article that plants older than 2 decades face safety issues. Moreover, during the Fukushima Nuclear incident in Japan just slightly more than one year ago, most Japanese and non-Japanese have already lost faith in nuclear power. During the incident, a 20km seal-off was imposed from the area. What if something similar happens to Singapore? Imagine the plant was to be situated right at the centre of the island – our island of 32km by 42km.Where will our people go to? Will we affect neighbouring countries like Indonesia and Malaysia? Yes. Where do their people then go to? And obviously, the nuclear plant cannot be smacked right in the city. It have to be away from the population, which is quite highly impossible for a densely populated city like Singapore. If you can’t build it in the North or the South nor the East and the West, then where are you going to build it? Offshore? Where? Another problem would be the waste disposal. Where will nuclear wastes be disposed? At our tiny little Pulau Semakau Landfill used to store our daily trash and rubbish? What happens after Semakau is filled?
However, in the long run, Singapore may have to succumb to those problems and rely on nuclear energy eventually. As Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong has said during the Singapore International Energy Week (2010) held annually, he expects nuclear energy “possibly during my lifetime”. Nuclear energy is one of the “cleanest” energy till date, whereby carbon emissions are of minimum.
(continue below in the next entry)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteBut the question now is, are there any other sources of energy which Singapore could rely on? I’ve read through the previous comments about bike-generated energy, solar energy as well as geothermal and hydrological energy. Well, these are indeed feasible forms of alternative energy, but in my opinion, only to a small extent. I mean, with Singapore meagre size and the lack of space to do almost anything and everything, how successful can the generation of these energies be? No doubt, Singapore’s position near the equator indeed promise sunlight throughout the year. But the problem is, where do we place the solar panels? Marina Barrage has it’s own solar panels which are not even sufficient to compensate the energy which it consumes. What makes us think that placing solar panels on tall buildings with a small area and high electrical consumption could help? Also, besides thinking “energetically”, we have to consider the aesthetics of the buildings too. We can’t possibly have ugly and black buildings lined with solar power everywhere. And one of the most important factors, how about the cost?
Similarly, hydroelectricity may also be considered. However, it is only capable of producing small amounts energy despite the high amounts of rainfall Singapore experiences. Recently, there have been talks ongoing about building underground reservoirs in the near future to alleviate floods, guard against future droughts and reduce the amount of desalinated water. Is it possible to think along this line for the generation of hydroelectricity?
Lim Yue Ying, 1125
Marissa Bte Mohd Fuad 1125
ReplyDeleteMuch of the talks we’ve seen revolve around which alternative energy source would be the most efficient, the safest or the cleanest. However, I feel that the focus should not be on this problem. Since awareness of global warming and climate change (the driving forces for the search of alternative energy) have been increasing, I question what is taking us so long to replace fossil fuels as our main energy source. Is it really the fear of nuclear proliferation? Is it really the issue of which will take longer to set up and go into operation? Or is it just our innate reluctance to get out of our comfort zone and into uncertainty?
I personally feel that the demand for alternative energy, though increasing, will only reach critical levels when fossil fuels really do run out. Only then will people be forced out of their comfort zone and be forced to use any form of alternative energy. The issue is no longer how to find alternative energy. From the information given above, we can see that there are many alternative energy sources that we could tap into. The debate seems to imply that one alternative energy cannot co-exist with another, which is not true. We can tap into any alternative energy we choose to and can tap into more than one. The only thing standing between us and alternative energy is our choice.
Ong Wen Jun Dominic CT1127
ReplyDeleteIn considering whether Singapore should go nuclear, we should also consider other options. The focus should be centered on how Singapore can fufill its energy needs in the long-term rather than simply if we should go nuclear. Currently mainstream renewable energy sources include: Wind power, Hydropower, Solar energy, Biomass/Biofuel, Geothermal energy. Among these, only Wind power, and Solar energy are options available to Singapore. Finally, there is the option of buying energy from neighboring countries such as Malaysia.
In consideration of how to fulfill Singapore's future energy needs, we must keep in mind that we can only extrapolate current data, and will have to make several assumptions: Singapore's energy needs will continue to grow, nuclear and other forms of energy will develop to be more efficient and versatile, and no other new forms of energy will become available. However, we should also keep in mind that not all of these assumptions will necessarily hold true; for example, appliances may become more efficient, thus reducing the amount of power they need, or that developments in nuclear (or any other form of energy) may plateau.
That being said, such assumptions are necessary to evaluate the various options available to Singapore now, and plan for them.
Nuclear energy seems to be an extremely alluring energy source as it promises to take up little land, is very cost-efficient and can solely power Singapore. However, the fear of a nuclear meltdown, and the production of nuclear wastes are the main drawbacks of nuclear power.
continued...
ReplyDeleteWhile Science assures us that nuclear energy will eventually develop to be safe, Science has (in the past) also shown itself to be short-sighted. The use of a drug Thalidomide caused deformities in pregnant women is one example, and this is due to an inherent flaw in the Scientific theory that assumes that proposed theories are right unless they can be proved wrong. It took many centuries for Man to be able to explain motion (a concept which exists even before Mankind), through Newton's laws. While these laws have been widely accepted to be wholly true for around 200 years after conception, they have been proven to be approximations (which are accurate under most conditions) in more recent times. And nuclear energy which is barely 100 years old, we cannot be certain of the danger it could pose.
The production of nuclear waste, as well, is another major drawback of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear waste is divided into two levels/types: Low and High. High-level radioactive waste are the products of nuclear reaction. High-level radioactive waste is currently stored in the nuclear plant itself, however there are future plans to transport and store all high-level radioactive waste in a centralized location. For land-strapped Singapore, this is good, as Singapore does not want to devote additional resources to storing nuclear waste. However, this means that nuclear waste will have to be transported, no doubt with use of specialized equipment over long distances. This also means that current costs do not include the cost of such transportation and equipment. Low-level nuclear waste are items that are contaminated by radiation, but are treated as normal waste due to their low levels of radioactivity.
While nuclear power does have its benefits, it also holds far greater risks than alternative energy sources such as Wind, Solar, Biofuel/Biomass and purchasing power from neighboring countries.
Wind energy is not an option currently available to Singapore, but with the development of micro-wind turbines (turbines that can operate with ~2m/s wind speed) that can generate energy with Singapore's 3.3m/s wind speed, it will be an option available for Singapore. Solar energy, as well, is a form of energy that has been criticized as too expensive due to the costs of solar panels, but that is based on current data, and solar energy is still being further developed. No doubt in the future, solar cells will become cheaper and more efficient. In addition to these, energy storage systems currently exist which allow such sources to be stable forms of energy.
Finally, there is also the option of purchasing power from neighboring countries. Unlike the other options, this is not a long-term option. However, it can be used to lead up to sustain Singapore's energy needs in the short-term. Singapore has previously relied on Malaysia for water, with imported water listed as one of the four 'National Taps' while other options such as NEWater, and Desalination to become more cost-effective and practical. Singapore can employ a similar approach to energy.
Currently, Singapore relies on natural gas, which can slowly be reduced to rely more on solar, and wind as they develop and imported energy, if necessary. The commitment in infrastructure for this option is also less, as if Wind or Solar energy proves insufficient, or risky, we can still rely on other forms of energy. However, if we were to rely on nuclear energy, we would commit entirely to it. If there were to be some newly discovered danger to nuclear energy, we would be at a dire predicament due to our heavy reliance upon it.
Therefore, overall, I feel that the risks that nuclear energy poses outweigh the benefits.