QUOTE said:
That, my friend, I have to disagree. Nuclear is safe with proper maintenance but where should we build it? Petra Blanca is too small for a Nuclear Power Plant. In addition, our government is so money-hungry, definitely the COSTS of BUILDING the plant and MAINTAINING it would cover up the 'cheaper' electricity.
That's the only problem of nuclear energy for Singapore, a disgusting lack of land. Of course, we could patch a deal with our neighbours, those Malaysians or Indonesian, since they also appear interested in the notion of a nuclear plant generating electricity. Since the large amount of electricity is probably much more than enough for us, we could split it with them for a sum of money. Of course I'm not so familiar with electricity transfer and the nautical geography between us and our neighbours, so I'm not sure if such a wiring of electricity is feasible, but I'm just throwing it out there.
As for the money hungry part, maintaining it would create jobs for Singaporeans and generate income for companies, it actually helps us more than anything else. Consider this: There is a need for professional nuclear scientists, cleaners, security workers, administrative staff and also engineers and labour workers for building it. When there's such a large-scale project, it helps create many jobs and as long as the government doesn't go all pro-foreigners, Singaporeans benefit a lot. Of course that is when its built in Singapore.
But even if its built overseas, the government would still send Singaporeans over as administrative staff, still creating jobs, and we earn additional income for our services and from contracts. Plus building it in Malaysia or Indonesia helps them increase their purchasing power by creating jobs and increasing GDP output, so there could be an increase in tourism or goods purchasing(an increase in NX, in macroeconomic terms). Not a bad deal really, a push for development of the entire SEA region and us.
And when there is such an excess of energy, definitely price levels would go down(both electricity fees and product prices), so its not a problem. And of course, our GDP output will also increase, as investors are more interested. Don't forget a boost in the SGX in stocks from overseas investments when such a project is announced.
Here's a comparison of coal electricity vs nuclear prices:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7275 The range of nuclear electricty is definitely larger than coal, and with lower minimums. And the nuclear fees are not much higher compared to fossil fuels. Nuclear is pretty much the cheapest alternative out there, along with natural gas. And we should grasp it, while also developing other alternatives, so we can remove ourselves from the list of slaves of fossil fuels.
Of course this is all just conjecture by me, so don't take my word for it. As you can see, its totally a macroeconomics essay format, I'm still a newbie at this. Anyone familiar with econs should correct me.
