Which kind of electrical production is best for small nations?

Discussion in 'General Off-Topic Chat' started by chris888222, May 26, 2011.

?

Which kind of 'renewable' electrical production is best for small nations? (like singapore)

  1. Solar Energy

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Geothermal Energy

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Nuclear Energy

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Wind Energy

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Hydro Energy (Hydroelectricity)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Ocean Thermal Energy

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Biomass Energy

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Others? List below!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. chris888222
    OP

    Member chris888222 GBAtemp's Flygon Fan

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Country:
    Singapore
    There has been some GREAT debate on which form of 'renewable' electrical production fits small nations such as Singapore. I browsed the web and my geography notes, which came out with these sources of 'renewable' energy.

    Which do you think is best? Please poll!

    BY THE WAY...

    Ocean Thermal Energy is sometimes virtually unheard of, but it is somewhat like solar to absorb heat energy from the ocean to produce electricity. Saudi Arabia uses this form of renewable energy. A downside to this energy is that the infrastructure is extremely costly.

    I used 'renewable' with inverted commas as many sites online do NOT consider nuclear as renewable.

    Thanks! [​IMG]
     


  2. cwstjdenobs

    Member cwstjdenobs Sodomy non sapiens

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,757
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    A mixture will always be more secure. But for the purposes of this poll I said nuclear.

    Nuclear fission has it's problems, but is much cheaper per watt than other ways of producing electricity. Also the problems it has are like problems with planes, they are actually very very safe but when something bad happens, it's very bad. It's also, surprisingly, one of the greenest ways possible at the moment.

    But really, every country should be putting funding into fusion. It's very possible and the only thing holding it back is the lack of money. Also you could share all the info and base designs with everyone as there is 0 chance of weaponising the process.
     
  3. chris888222
    OP

    Member chris888222 GBAtemp's Flygon Fan

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Country:
    Singapore
    I'm neutral towards nuclear. However Singapore seems to me an anti-nuclear country with the government itching to build it while the residents protest (they are worried about a Singapore-based Chernobyl or Fukushima).

    Our government says that hydro isn't possible, but i doubt it. You can always add turbines to your marina barrage! (Maybe i'm wrong though)
     
  4. cwstjdenobs

    Member cwstjdenobs Sodomy non sapiens

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,757
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    If you need more flow to generate power than you need for drinking water your wasting drinking water, which you'll need more energy to replace.
     
  5. chris888222
    OP

    Member chris888222 GBAtemp's Flygon Fan

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Country:
    Singapore
    I have to say, the US uses nuclear power very well.
     
  6. Narayan

    Member Narayan desu~

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,921
    Country:
    Philippines
    hmmm... interesting topic. and is nuclear really safe? i recall some time ago that there was a nuclear plant made here in the philippines but is not used. it's also old.

    here in Davao City we have Hydro Energy from a series of waterfalls. and Geothermal, from Mt. Apo as a backup, in case of drought.
     
  7. chris888222
    OP

    Member chris888222 GBAtemp's Flygon Fan

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Country:
    Singapore
    Nuclear is considered in overall safe. In order to influence the minds of locals our ministries are always telling us that Fukushima is 'unexpected' and Chernobyl is an 'accident done deliberately'; which is actually 90% true. If I'm not wrong, an experiment was why the Chernobyl plant went KA-BOOMZ. And the Fukushima Daiichi (or ?????????? for a little Japanese twist) plant can withstand a magnitude 7 quake. The T?hoku quake was at magnitude 8.9 - 9.1, which also triggered a tsunami. Singaporeans are just worried that if such accidents occur or a tornado hitting the massive reactor (hey, Singapore USED TO HAVE tornadoes, or rather waterspouts... which happened THRICE), where in the world are we suppose to run to? (Singapore from North to South - about 30km, East to West - 46km)

    Singapore, together with a German company, has already a Solar Plant under construction. However this still isn't enough to meet our energy needs, hence, the government is largely considering nuclear.
     
  8. Evo.lve

    Member Evo.lve All that you could be.

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,786
    Location:
    Away from you.
    Country:
    Australia
    Ok, I know this isn't you, but let me just say this to everyone who goes "OMG HAXX0R NUCLEAR POWER MAKES THE WORLD GREEEEEENER".

    Nuclear power does make less emissions. But to be fair, it's not like "lets build a nuclear plant we have too many emissions" and then your carbon emissions suddenly drop by like, 50%. It's more of a "we'll experiment with nuclear power, we need some lower emissions" and over say a 10 year period your emissions drop by something like 10%. And besides, there are a lot more ways you could put several billion dollars to use. Most of them are better.
     
  9. chris888222
    OP

    Member chris888222 GBAtemp's Flygon Fan

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Country:
    Singapore
    People are actually more concerned about radioactivity and cancer... [​IMG]
    I guess...?
     
  10. FAST6191

    Reporter FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,705
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I will spare a debate on some of the more exotic nuclear methods (see some of the pebble bed stuff, the "nuclear batteries" that have been proposed for some and whatever China and India are doing with thorium) only to say if it was not already evident "nuclear" is a whole field in and of itself unlike some of the others and skip over some of the reprocessing stuff (it can be used to obtain weapons grade stuff as well as reduce what little waste is made) which seems to be a point of debate for some if for no other reason than I am bit rusty on my nuclear engineering. Suffice it to say you will never catch me saying the lack of knowledge on such matters possessed by the general public in not embarrassing low.

    "Singapore-based Chernobyl or Fukushima"
    Certainly not directing at the OP or others in the thread yet but an aging plant somewhat poorly maintained based on ancient tech run by cowboys and another aging plant struck by an unprecedented act of nature that amounted to what now?

    After this I know too little of Singapore's power infrastructure, geography/weather (some of the more interesting methods depend strongly on this), population locations (it is something of a city island I know but there are still some forests dotted around), usages (electric cars, datacentres, air conditioning....), possibilities for energy trade (you have a bunch of islands south of there that I image have things routed to- without trade I imagine most of Europe would have brownouts, many states in the US too) and price methods- you mentioned the middle east and from a thread a while back it seems people get assigned so many units (see something like water rationing) rather than pay for how much they use (by bill or prepaid) which changes things.

    I like nuclear, I like geothermal (although my experience of it amounts to heating a few swimming pools for people) and I like many of the others but liking is not doing. About the only thing fossils have going for them is they are reasonably cheap per unit energy and well known unlike some of the more exotic methods which are less so (solar is getting better but costly and exotic materials requirements look only to be getting worse as newer methods appear) and most of the others require nice accidents of geography/geology.

    Basically large scale engineering is a tricky game.
     
  11. chris888222
    OP

    Member chris888222 GBAtemp's Flygon Fan

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Country:
    Singapore
    I guess solar is the best option?
     
  12. Veho

    Global Moderator Veho The man who cried "Ni".

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    8,445
    Location:
    Zagreb
    Country:
    Croatia
    Not according to the arguments put forth in the thread.
     
  13. Raika

    Member Raika uguu

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,864
    Location:
    uguu
    Country:
    Antarctica
    Someone should invent something that converts the infinite vacuum in space into energy. It would be a technological breakthrough.
     
  14. cwstjdenobs

    Member cwstjdenobs Sodomy non sapiens

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,757
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You need a complete vacuum to get any energy from virtual particles, space isn't empty enough. Also the last time I tried to work out yields I think you'd only get 0.4 watt hour maximum out of a meter cubed of perfect vacuum. Hopefully someone here understands it better and can give better numbers. Not even enough energy to maintain the vacuum, let alone power anything.
     
  15. Domination

    Member Domination GBAtemp Psycho!

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    4,127
    Location:
    Your Mum
    Country:
    Singapore
    The government should just develop a Nuclear Plant regardless of what the obstinately anti-PAP or paranoid Singaporeans say. Nuclear is a safe alternative and can produce large amounts of electricity. It can probably cut down on the electricity fees and appease all the clueless idiots on the ground too.

    PAP is all talk but no action, they know and have agreed that nuclear is a good solution but they don't have the balls to do it, they are just "considering". They are just afraid to lose votes, because they want to hang onto their parliament seats. They should just do what they think is good for Singaporeans.

    Our government has always prided itself in the quality of Singapore productions. I'm sure we can actually build a high budget state-of-the-art nuclear plant with the best safety checks in place and with vigilant monitoring in place. Helps create jobs too (for Singaporeans of course. To appease the anti-PAP nuts) and might actually improve the economy further with cheaper electricity.

    In fact, they shouldn't just move into nuclear production, but also into the other alternatives too, to broaden the base of Singapore's electricity production. I mean, oil is undependable, 2008 was a bad year as we would know, with soaring oil prices that also caused horrible inflation in Singapore, we need alternative energy cushions for MNCs to fall back on. Singapore's GDP is largely from the public sector and foreign firms(mostly from MNCs), so our investors' confidence is important if we want to ensure there are increase in our GDP output and job creation every year .

    Also, here's good opinion article I found on the issue, advocating the introduction of Nuclear energy: http://www.nuspa.org/cms/?q=node/38
     
  16. chris888222
    OP

    Member chris888222 GBAtemp's Flygon Fan

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Country:
    Singapore
    I'll check out the rest... thanks for info! [​IMG]
     
  17. Domination

    Member Domination GBAtemp Psycho!

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    4,127
    Location:
    Your Mum
    Country:
    Singapore
    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.
     
  18. Sterling

    Member Sterling GBAtemp's Silver Hero

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,023
    Location:
    Texas
    Country:
    United States
    Alright, here is my two cents. Nuclear is very safe, clean and productive. It's also relatively cheap when compared to mass solar generation. Solar is extremely expensive when used like it should be. Wind generation is extremely efficient. Especially with new innovations at the windmill level. There are new windmills that require very little wind to spin.

    Personally I would be a proponent of wind and nuclear, but solar has a lot of potential.
     
  19. Veho

    Global Moderator Veho The man who cried "Ni".

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    8,445
    Location:
    Zagreb
    Country:
    Croatia
    How should it be used?
     
  20. mcp2

    Member mcp2 GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    UK blud dun kno
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Solar energy is renewable.
     

Share This Page