Countries With Nuclear Power Abandoning Its Use....Singapore?

Windsor

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
3,985
Points
0
We read that US proposed a 15 mile limit as the boundary should a nuclear mishap befall on US soil. Singapore being a tiny and congested island is unable to do so if we intend to have a nuclear powerplant. The Singapore government has not discount building one in future. After what happened in Fukushima and it's residents, don't you think this is kind of stupid?

Consider this, Belgium will phase out all their nuclear powerplants, Germany and Mexico too will stop building new ones. Latest news confirms the stoppage of plans to build one in Texas. Singapore should abandon any future plans to build one and look for better alternatives.
 
Nuclear power is cheapest and best. Go for nuclear, both civil and military.

If an earthquake hits an areas with coal or gas furnace, it'd be even worse.
 
Last edited:
We read that US proposed a 15 mile limit as the boundary should a nuclear mishap befall on US soil. Singapore being a tiny and congested island is unable to do so if we intend to have a nuclear powerplant. The Singapore government has not discount building one in future. After what happened in Fukushima and it's residents, don't you think this is kind of stupid?

Consider this, Belgium will phase out all their nuclear powerplants, Germany and Mexico too will stop building new ones. Latest news confirms the stoppage of plans to build one in Texas. Singapore should abandon any future plans to build one and look for better alternatives.


Now that you mentioned.. hmmmm... Could bedok be the site for the Nuclear Plant? Conspiracy Conspiracy..:rolleyes:
 
Nobody says that you must build your nuclear plant on an earthquake fault line. Electricity prices in France are among the lowest in Europe. Why? Because of their dependence on nuclear energy. Anyway, why compare Sinkieland with other countries? How sinkie it is to constantly seek affirmation from foreign countries :rolleyes:
 
Ramseth said:
Nuclear power is cheapest and best. Go for nuclear, both civil and military.

If an earthquake hits an areas with coal or gas furnace, it'd be even worse.

I remember reading somewhere on alternative energy sources, nuclear fission cannot meet all our energy needs because Uranium/Plutonium are not really in abundance. When people talked about nuclear power as a source of energy, they are talking about nuclear fusion but it is not here yet.
 
Back
Top