Nuclear energy for Singapore, screw solar energy.

[Papsmearer]

Synthetic fuel is not science fiction. See the Fischer-Tropsch (wikipedia-link) process. Even heavy fuels like diesel / jet fuel can be produced from this process. Synthetic fuels are cleaner than refined crude oil because they don't contain sulfur or other impurities. There's no need to change existing infrastructure to run hydrogen in the short term.

When u look at yourself in the mirror, do you see mongoloid features? Because your arguments are really retarded. Synthetic fuel can made with existing technolgy by using large quantities of coal or natural gas. NOT NUCLEAR POWER. Understand? So, your point of making synthetic fuel thru nuclear power is still science fiction.

Spent fuel management for nuclear waste is quite advanced. See this article on nuclear fuel waste management (link). Did you know that coal / oil burning releases more radioactivity into the air per watt of energy generated than nuclear energy generation? How much conventional toxic waste are we producing by burning conventional oil?

We currently dump thousands of times more non-nuclear toxic waste into the environment than toxic nuclear waste. Does that make things any better?

Yes, but non toxic nuclear waste does not have a shelf life of thousands of years. U can stand 50m away from it, and not become cancerous like nuclear waste will do to you. The immediate and long term effect of being exposed to radiation is much worse than any other toxic matter. If you don't believe, ask people in Chernobyl. Better yet, why don't you stand next to a car burning conventional fossil fuel and see how u do. Than stand next to radiation waste and see how long before your skin blisters and u become impotent and die from radiation poisoning. Big difference.

A single container ship on a trip to nowhere can contain enough concentrated waste to last thousands of years for a single plant.

U think this is so easy, than every nuclear power plant in the world will put their waste in container ships. rather than spand so much money designing land based storage facilities. Why, u know something they don't?

Pirates only attack civilian shipping at navigational choke points. They are at present opportunists and unable to launch 007 like operations. They do not yet have the capability for deep sea operations. A simple security escort and perimeter security will suffice.

A nuclear powerplant in the middle of nowhere would provide a less tempting target for terrorists than a conventional oil-fuelled powerplant on land.

I think your fantasy based on poor science needs to be revised. U really sound stupid when u argue a losing cause.

 

[yuelao]

... by the way, how old are you Choonway?

Hmm? As for my age? Why bring it up? Can't it be inferred from my writings?

Beware of this Sperminator character, he is forummer Char lAtan who is a PAPpy sympathiser in disguise.

 

[Ramseth]

Solar energy is disproportionately expensive and extensive. The sun emits energy in the form light by dispersement. To make that energy useable and storable is very expensive involving extensive harnessing platforms. The sun functions like a nuclear fusion reactor. So the next best thing is to build our own reactors. However, whereas the sun has the galaxy to dissipate the wastes, we don't.

 

[Glaringly]

Solar energy is disproportionately expensive and extensive. The sun emits energy in the form light by dispersement. To make that energy useable and storable is very expensive involving extensive harnessing platforms. The sun functions like a nuclear fusion reactor. So the next best thing is to build our own reactors. However, whereas the sun has the galaxy to dissipate the wastes, we don't.

Seriously the best options here are still wind and solar. Look at the number ofHDBs roof top baking in the sun.

 

[Ramseth]

People aren't stupid. People have been using natural energy resources for hundreds or even thousands of years. Windmills and riverdams come to mind. These aren't modern inventions. Then we burned coal. Voila, faster and more efficient, but very dirty. Then we discovered oil. Voila, solid best efficiency and not so dirty as coal. Can even be used directly for smaller private vehicles. Automobile industry boomed. Magic. Then came the oil price crisis in the 70s. Then came the global warming scare in the 80s (now changed to "climate change" instead of "warming".) So how? Look for alternatives. Solar power was tried many times, and there's still no solution to cost. Nuclear power works, but only for electricity power plants, not for vehicles, and there's the problem of radioactive wastes.

 

[choonway]

I think your fantasy based on poor science needs to be revised. U really sound stupid when u argue a losing cause.

1. Using coal to generate syngas (which is part of the ingredients Fischer-Tropsch) process would defeat the purpose of preventing greenhouse emissions. Instead, we would use fission power alone to generate CO from CO2 by heating it up to 2400 degC. see Carbon capture and storage (wiki link).

2. You can stand 50m away from properly shielded nuclear waste and nothing happens to you. Try breathing in some toxic gases and you probably won't last very long. See Bhopal disaster (wiki link).

3. It seems that you don't appreciate the difference between storing 1 litre of radioactive waste in a secure location, versus dumping 1000 litres of toxic chemical waste in open land.

4. Subcritical reactors can be made to burn up specific nuclear waste. Nuclear waste management is a highly technical subject - read Radioactive waste management (wiki link) for more information.

 

[Sperminator]

1. Using coal to generate syngas (which is part of the ingredients Fischer-Tropsch) process would defeat the purpose of preventing greenhouse emissions. Instead, we would use fission power alone to generate CO from CO2 by heating it up to 2400 degC. see Carbon capture and storage (wiki link).

2. You can stand 50m away from properly shielded nuclear waste and nothing happens to you. Try breathing in some toxic gases and you probably won't last very long. See Bhopal disaster (wiki link).

3. It seems that you don't appreciate the difference between storing 1 litre of radioactive waste in a secure location, versus dumping 1000 litres of toxic chemical waste in open land.

4. Subcritical reactors can be made to burn up specific nuclear waste. Nuclear waste management is a highly technical subject - read Radioactive waste management (wiki link) for more information.

Just curious Choonway,

Why are you so pro-Nuclear Reactors to be installed in SGP?

Did you major in Nuclear Physics?

I don't really like the idea of having Nuclear Reactors near Singapore... remember Chernobyl incident... the waste is truly a bitch.

How about clean alternatives?

Yes, cost of installation of Solar is more expensive, but the question, can SGP afford it? and Question of storage of extra electricity from the harvesting? (Instead of building expensive IRs? with uncertain ROIs)

Anyways, to install Nuke Reactors or not, is of course not our decision, but the Gobermentos... would anyone here really like the idea of looking out your residence window and see a nuke reactor nearby? honestly...

As for synthetic fuels, would the big boys let you make fuels? that's the question...

just some questions that's all, I'm just learning from you choonway, the young scientist.

 

[Papsmearer]

1. Using coal to generate syngas (which is part of the ingredients Fischer-Tropsch) process would defeat the purpose of preventing greenhouse emissions. Instead, we would use fission power alone to generate CO from CO2 by heating it up to 2400 degC. see Carbon capture and storage (wiki link).

Ok, who is doing it now and on what scale? Don't talk shit here. If fission enery was at such a stage that it can generate synthetic fuel on a mass scale, we won't be having this discussion, and the price of oil will be $10 a barrel. U are the idiot that brought up F-T process. Did u not know that it uses coal and natural gas?


2. You can stand 50m away from properly shielded nuclear waste and nothing happens to you. Try breathing in some toxic gases and you probably won't last very long. See Bhopal disaster (wiki link).

Bhopal was an accident u moron, not natural pollution caused by human activity

3. It seems that you don't appreciate the difference between storing 1 litre of radioactive waste in a secure location, versus dumping 1000 litres of toxic chemical waste in open land.

What u consider a secure location ie a large container ship is riculous. Like I said, name one nuclear facility in the world that stores their radioactive waste
this way.


4. Subcritical reactors can be made to burn up specific nuclear waste. Nuclear waste management is a highly technical subject - read Radioactive waste management (wiki link) for more information.

Yes, nuclear waste management is very technical and obviously beyond your limited intellect.

 

[ahbengsong]

Elementary... go for cold nuclear energy.. fusion...

 

[choonway]

1. I have a degree in engineering. However I welcome any nuclear physicist / chemist to comment me.

2. I don't like nuclear reactions in SGP either. What I did was to propose to put them on ships and operate them in international waters. What is it so different from the 7 nuclear powered aircraft carriers plus many more nuclear powered subs that the USA has prowling around the world's oceans?

3. How many people actually died from chernobyl? 56 + 4000 potential. Can you name any other nuclear incident?

4. What is clean energy anyway? If the process required to produce your super clean solar cell was dumping 3x more emissions into the air, does that improve anything?

5. Solar cells do nothing to reverse CO2 emissions already in the atmosphere. However, using high temperature to crack CO2 into CO for the fischer-tropsch process does. So which is the cleaner process?

6. Synthetic fuels were already made during WW2 when Nazi Germany didn't have access to petroleum.

Just curious Choonway,

Why are you so pro-Nuclear Reactors to be installed in SGP?

Did you major in Nuclear Physics?

I don't really like the idea of having Nuclear Reactors near Singapore... remember Chernobyl incident... the waste is truly a bitch.

How about clean alternatives?

Yes, cost of installation of Solar is more expensive, but the question, can SGP afford it? and Question of storage of extra electricity from the harvesting? (Instead of building expensive IRs? with uncertain ROIs)

Anyways, to install Nuke Reactors or not, is of course not our decision, but the Gobermentos... would anyone here really like the idea of looking out your residence window and see a nuke reactor nearby? honestly...

As for synthetic fuels, would the big boys let you make fuels? that's the question...

just some questions that's all, I'm just learning from you choonway, the young scientist.

 

[choonway]

Yes, nuclear waste management is very technical and obviously beyond your limited intellect.

1. Again I remind you that the Fischer Tropsch process doesn't require coal or natural gas. The reaction is

(2n+1)H₂ + nCO → C_nH_(2n+2) + nH₂O

In current processes the H2 and CO is generated through syngas, which produced by steam reformation of coal or natural gas.

With a nuclear reactor, the H2 can be produced by electrolysis while the CO can be produced by cracking atmospheric CO2.

So, no coal or nautral gas is required.

2. I hope you appreciate the 'scale' of Chernobyl in relation to Bhopal.

3. Storing High Level Waste in specialised container ships is the only option open to Singapore at this point, until reprocessing technologies can be developed.

4. I don't think we have to wait till someone tries it out before we try it on our own. Sometimes this is impossible as we're the only one with this problem, or in this unique situation. If everybody in this world behaved like that, there would be no progress.

 

[choonway]

Elementary... go for cold nuclear energy.. fusion...

Hot Fusion is still not out of the R+D stage yet. ITER (wiki link) won't come online until 2018, and my engineer instincts tell me there will be delays...

Cold nuclear energy... is even farther away. I guess the ball is still on the researcher's court to describe the theroetical / experimental foundations.

 

[choonway]

Even US is getting on the bandwagon...

Obama Budget To Triple Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees