ON APRIL 12 last year, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said: 'My belief, in retrospect, is that because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. I think that's as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.'

Full Story

Sigh, easier said than done. If anything goes wrong, everyone on this island nation needs to migrate, if they survived.

The writer is ignorant and possibly a selfish oaf. Where in Singapore does the writer think a nuclear plant should be installed? Does safety radius count for nothing as an internationally established rule? Or is he thinking of installing one in our neighbouring countries instead (and let the said country absorb the risk)?

I think Paul Chan has a point. Singapore should look into the nuclear option. We should do a feasibility study now and not wait until the world oil reserve is depleted. We can reclaim land around Petra Blanca and place the nuclear plant there.

Solar energy is not an option. Sunlight is very difussed energy. We need acres and acres of land which Singapore do not have to place the solar panels.

B. T. Lim

I agree with btlim999 that we should not rule out the nuclear option, certainly not without careful study. Anyone wonder why only rich developed countries have nuclear power stations, if they are so unsafe?

What exactly is the established international norm for a nuclear power station? It is generally accepted that greenhouse emissions contribute to rising sea levels, and we rank quite high in terms of emissions per capita.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_per_ capita)

Faced with the certainty of rising sea levels and the uncertainty of rising sea levels, which will flood substantial portions of Singapore, we need to convince the world to reduce emisions. Granted, we are a small country, so we acting alone will have no meaningful impact. But consider what will be our moral position when we go ask major carbon emitters to cut back on emissions? "Yeah, but you are a major emitter yourselves. On a per-head basis, you emit more carbon than we do."

And given the way our economy is structured, does anyone think we can cut realistically power consumption by 20%? If not, we have to find ways of generating that power with less carbon footprint. And at present, nuclear appears to be the only realistic option.

Originally Posted by weesoh

If anything goes wrong, everyone on this island nation needs to migrate, if they survived.

why do you assume that if we want nuclear power, the station MUST be on our island?

I don't think the writer is ignorant nor a selfish oaf. Did he say that a nuclear power station be placed in the centre of Tampines or anywhere else on the mainland? No he said that the government should look seriously into using nuclear power as many governments around the world have and more will do as fossil fuel supplies dwindle. Modern latest-generation nuclear power plants are much safer and produce less long-term waste than the original 60s and 70s designs. Planning and commissioning a new nuclear powerplant however is a decade-long business, Singapore should start looking into it now. Of course safety and contingency have to be taken into consideration, but that's the whole point of studying it, to figure out the risks and where such a plant might be built in order to minimise them, and then determine if they are sufficiently low to go ahead. If the risks can't be mitigated, then it's not done. Now is definitely the time to start studying it.

Sustainable development is crucial if Singapore wants to maintain her natural resources in an age of dwindling fossil fuels. Nuclear power is a viable solution to get clean power with fewer raw materials. To keep up with globalization, it is only ideal that Singapore start siphoning funds to explore this new energy resource. Is it not true that some form of risk must be taken to ensure that Singapore continues advancing? However, safety must still be on the govt's agenda and they can probably look into the ways other countries use safety precautions, model them, adapt to them, then assimilate it to better fit Singapore's needs. For Singapore to continue burgeoning and take her stand on the global platform, the study of nuclear energy should be seriously considered and surely there's no harm in starting now? The govt should start with a few surveys and probably send some researchers overseas and set up a band of specialists to study nuclear energy and also locate desirable areas.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new. "

"Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking"

Albert Einstein
(German-born US scientist 1879-1955)

Drop this nuclear energy idea. It's the most stupid proposal possible. Japan, with its high safety standards and practices, cannot prevent nuclear plant accidents. Singapore and Singaporeans are sloppy and careless, and should never be entrusted to operate equipment that demands the highest standards. Witness the way we conduct ourselves at work, on the roads and in our daily lives. We could not prevent a handicapped terrorist from escaping, and we have no idea how to run a flyer safely. Go check out our hawker stalls and see how poor our hygiene practices are. All you need is one accident, one leak at the nuclear plant, and the entire Singapore SHUTS DOWN. Look at the panic and lack of leadership with regard to the flyer. Imagine how our system will react when we have a nuclear plant accident. So, drop this stupid discussion.