Jump to content
Lethalstrike

Ho Ching seriously considering nuclear plant in SG

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

 

Temasek CEO says nuclear power, which was once deemed “too risky” for Singapore, is much safer now

"Overall, for a greener earth and to reduce carbon emissions, we must master and adopt nuclear energy as a key solution," said Ho Ching

June 19, 2019
 
 
 
In a Facebook post published last week, Singapore sovereign wealth fund Temasek’s chief executive Ho Ching asserted that it is critical to master and adopt nuclear energy. Mdm Ho, who is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s wife, made these remarks as she linked a Bloomberg article that lamented Germany’s increasing dependence on coal energy. The nation has decided to phase its nuclear fleet out by 2022 while its coal-fired power plant will continue operations until 2038.Sharing that Singapore took a stand against coal fired power plants long ago and switched to the more environmentally friendly gas power because of the pollution coal energy produces, Mdm Ho noted that while coal, oil and gas all produce similar levels of carbon dioxide, gas is the cleanest source of energy among the three when it comes to air pollution.
 

Revealing that Singapore also “considered nuclear” power and even sent pioneers like Tay Kheng Soon to train with the UK Atomic Energy Agency for training, Mdm Ho recalled that the local team was disbanded when the Government subsequently decided nuclear power would be “too risky”. Mdm Ho, however, noted that “the current generation of nuclear power generation is much safer than the 1st generation of nuclear power plants like the Fukushima plant.”

 

She added:

Asserting that ASEAN nations need to research on the safety an security aspects of nuclear power as they build their capabilities and capacity to handle nuclear power plants, the PM’s wife said:“Fukushima relies on active power source to maintain the cooling – lose that power source and there will be a serious meltdown risk. Current generation designs are based on a fail safe approach. When power fails, the system remains safe. “This is similar to another concept called fail soft approach. In a fail soft approach, the system continues to be operational in a degraded mode, which gives time for corrective action.”

 

“Newer nuclear options are on the horizon, not eminent, but within decades. Overall, for a greener earth and to reduce carbon emissions, we must master and adopt nuclear energy as a key solution.

“For now, it is better than developed and more capable nations step up their nuclear power capacity. This will reduce the demand for fossil fuels, and lower the overall carbon emissions.

“At the same time, developing economies can do their part to switch away from coal to cleaner gas or greener renewables.”

 

This is not the first time Mdm Ho has expressed an interest in emissions and making the world a greener place. In a speech she delivered at the Fullerton Fund Management Company’s 15th Anniversary Reception in January this year, Mdm Ho had said:

“Urgent action is needed. We must act now, to reduce our global CO2 emissions by 2030, to half of our 2010 level of emissions. If we can do that, we will have a better than even chance of achieving the ultimate goal of zero net emissions by 2050 for a liveable earth.”

Noting that a hotter Earth has serious climate and health consequences for the world, especially for the humid Singapore, Mdm Ho urged:

 

 “In the last 5 years, however, average temperatures in the central district, where many of us are working, went up by one degree.  This is 8 times faster than before. “A big contributor is air conditioning.  Do you know that 75% of our homes now have air conditioning?  That means the majority of our HDB flats as well. About 30% of our energy consumption is for air conditioning.  “We can halve that energy usage with more efficient, large scale, new infrastructure like district cooling.   This can help provide cooling for all households, while saving them money too. “Should we not push harder, for a faster transition, to a cooler and more energy efficient Singapore? Globally, cattle farming alone contributes to about 10% of world greenhouse gases. Can we halve our beef intake, and replace cattle farming with more sustainable solutions?”

 

It is one thing to adopt more efficient technologies at generating power while reducing emissions, it is another thing to have something with potential to wipe out the entire region when a wrong move was made. 

 

Currently, nuclear fission based plants can produce power at a low cost but at the huge environmental impact with nuclear waste as a by-product. Nuclear fusion which is supposedly much safer is still quite sometime away. 

 

What's our fail safe plan if the plant encountered a melt-down? It's easy for her to say adopt a fail-soft approach which buys time but can we trust them with it? Nuclear plant breakdown is not the same as MRT breakdown. 

 

I know its not a new topic, but when she starts speaking to the media in public, we can be sure its a sure sign of things to come. 

 

Fire away guys.

 

Edited by Lethalstrike
↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help us save money.... Hahahaha

 

Joke of 2019

  • Praise 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure how does this come under Temasek ... or Ho Chin area?

she has the right to speak of cos... its just her role that is grey.

  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure how does this come under Temasek ... or Ho Chin area?

she has the right to speak of cos... its just her role that is grey.

When she speaks Dragon also must diam diam.

 

Who are you to question her?

 

:D

  • Praise 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectively, who amongst us, besides using Google and internet research can confidently say its not gonna work? Seriously.

 

And i asked because i hope we really should know what to fire at, besides the person or who she represent.

 

Easy to fire at anything and anyone. Just type only what.

 

But is this idea workable? A greener world? Why aren't other countries running over themselves to build one? Cos they own oil and gas fields?

 

Most importantly. How much will it cost? Will our national reserves be heavily exhausted and who is tasked to ensure this will not only be feasible but meet all its objectives within a short time frame (dun tell me 10 years)?

 

Do we need this NOW? Can we wait 20 years later when the soft fail systems are even more advanced and robust in doing what it should do?

 

At the end of the day, energy is only an aspect of a greener world. For me personally, looking at cutting down on plastic and food wastes are more critical.

 

Will oil producing neighbours boycott us citing nuclear waste by-products? Shot these into space?

 

 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NB, HK got 反送中. We go 反核 can?

 

But dunno whether can fill up Hong lim park boh!

post-167240-0-32481500-1560944302.jpg

  • Praise 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Master the nuclear knowhow...a resounding yes.

 

Build one in this region... is an absolute no.

 

One wrong not only wipe out our only $$$ reserve but also the entire nation (if not region).

 

Please don’t be penny wise pound foolish (again)

  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NB, HK got 反送中. We go 反核 can?

 

But dunno whether can fill up Hong lim park boh!

  • Praise 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure how does this come under Temasek ... or Ho Chin area?

she has the right to speak of cos... its just her role that is grey.

Who owns the remaining local power companies here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The technology is perfectly safe. They have these things in USA, Russia and Japan.  [thumbsup]

 

See for yourself how safe these things are.

 

First one is USA, second photo is Russia and third is Japan.

 

:D

 

this-day-in-history-03281979---three-mil

 

Chernobyl.jpg

 

Fukushima-Daiichi-Nuclear-Plant.jpg

 

 

  • Praise 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go nuclear..... Indonesia and Malaysia will sure mount a damn strong objection never seen before since independence. Our government has no balls and verve to push it through. No worries there. 

 

 

  • Praise 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go nuclear..... Indonesia and Malaysia will sure mount a damn strong objection never seen before since independence. Our government has no balls and verve to push it through. No worries there. 

if we really build 1, we need to spend more resource defending it then defending our own island....

  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we really build 1, we need to spend more resource defending it then defending our own island....

 

 

that is true... our pre-emptive strike policy will be in trouble if the retaliatory action is a rocket on the nuke plant.

 

 

or... others will have their pre-emptive strike deterrent on us instead.

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chernobyl is a damn solid mini series. Go watch

  • Praise 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If something screw up...the whole island gone...dont need to consider  :a-noway:

  • Praise 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectively, who amongst us, besides using Google and internet research can confidently say its not gonna work? Seriously.

 

And i asked because i hope we really should know what to fire at, besides the person or who she represent.

 

Easy to fire at anything and anyone. Just type only what.

 

But is this idea workable? A greener world? Why aren't other countries running over themselves to build one? Cos they own oil and gas fields?

 

Most importantly. How much will it cost? Will our national reserves be heavily exhausted and who is tasked to ensure this will not only be feasible but meet all its objectives within a short time frame (dun tell me 10 years)?

 

Do we need this NOW? Can we wait 20 years later when the soft fail systems are even more advanced and robust in doing what it should do?

 

At the end of the day, energy is only an aspect of a greener world. For me personally, looking at cutting down on plastic and food wastes are more critical.

 

Will oil producing neighbours boycott us citing nuclear waste by-products? Shot these into space?

 

 

  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectively, who amongst us, besides using Google and internet research can confidently say its not gonna work? Seriously.

 

And i asked because i hope we really should know what to fire at, besides the person or who she represent.

 

Easy to fire at anything and anyone. Just type only what.

 

But is this idea workable? A greener world? Why aren't other countries running over themselves to build one? Cos they own oil and gas fields?

 

Most importantly. How much will it cost? Will our national reserves be heavily exhausted and who is tasked to ensure this will not only be feasible but meet all its objectives within a short time frame (dun tell me 10 years)?

 

Do we need this NOW? Can we wait 20 years later when the soft fail systems are even more advanced and robust in doing what it should do?

 

At the end of the day, energy is only an aspect of a greener world. For me personally, looking at cutting down on plastic and food wastes are more critical.

 

Will oil producing neighbours boycott us citing nuclear waste by-products? Shot these into space?

 

 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×