[Bigiron]

You all want Nuclear power?

[red3]

Change lightning to 🍄 cloud

[grotesqueness]

These nincompoop government wants to deliver Nuclear power

Change government first

[Bigiron]

[Ola]

They talked about this previously to support the growing population

( must be to support Foreigners, lah)

We do not have earthquake to shake the nuclear plant like Japan

does not mean it will be 100% SAFE

because we are near earthquake belt

[willy90]

It’s way more reliable than wind or solar when the weather doesn’t cooperate.

[kopihothot]

Now new fission nuclear station can be small and already way safer than last time, auto shutdown.......and radioactive pollution is easily detected and can be removed & cleaned.

Other pollution u die a slow blur death.

[Bigiron]

Now new fission nuclear station can be small and already way safer than last time, auto shutdown.......and radioactive pollution is easily detected and can be removed & cleaned.

Other pollution u die a slow blur death.

1. Small and Safer Doesn’t Mean Risk-Free
   - While modern reactors (e.g., SMRs—Small Modular Reactors) have improved safety features like passive cooling and auto-shutdown, they are not *completely* fail-safe.  
   - Human error, natural disasters (e.g., Fukushima), or cyberattacks can still lead to accidents.  
   - No nuclear plant is 100% meltdown-proof—only *less likely* to fail.  

2. Radioactive Pollution Is *Not* "Easily Cleaned Up
   - Nuclear waste remains hazardous for *thousands to millions of years*. There is still no permanent, foolproof storage solution (e.g., Yucca Mountain remains controversial).  
   - Contaminated areas (e.g., Chernobyl, Fukushima) remain uninhabitable for decades. "Cleaning" radioactive soil/water is extremely costly and often incomplete.  
   - Even "small" leaks can have long-term health impacts (e.g., cancer clusters near nuclear facilities).  

3. Other Pollution Kills Slowly, But So Does Radiation
   - The post implies fossil fuel pollution is worse because it’s a "slow blur death," but:  
     - Low-level radiation exposure also causes slow, insidious harm (e.g., increased cancer rates, genetic damage).  
     - Communities near uranium mines/nuclear waste sites suffer long-term health consequences.  
   - Both fossil fuels *and* nuclear have deadly trade-offs—neither is "clean."  

4. Renewables Are Safer & Faster to Deploy
   - Solar/wind + storage are now cheaper and *inherently* safer (no meltdowns, no long-term waste).  
   - Nuclear plants take 10+ years to build; renewables can scale *now* to replace fossil fuels.  
   - Why gamble on nuclear when we have better options?  

.

[Bigiron]

It’s way more reliable than wind or solar when the weather doesn’t cooperate.

1. Nuclear Isn’t Always "On Demand" – It Also Has Downtime**  
- Nuclear plants require **scheduled shutdowns** for maintenance, refueling (every 1-2 years), and safety checks, reducing their actual reliability.  
- Unexpected failures (e.g., cooling system malfunctions, extreme heat waves causing thermal shutdowns in France 2022) can take reactors offline suddenly.  

2. Renewables + Storage & Smart Grids Solve Intermittency**  
- **Battery storage (e.g., grid-scale lithium-ion, flow batteries)** can store excess solar/wind for later use. Prices have dropped **90% in a decade**, making them viable.  
- **Demand response & smart grids** shift energy use to peak generation times.  
- **Overbuilding + geographic diversity** (wind always blows *somewhere*, solar can be placed across regions) smooths out supply.  

3. Baseload Power Is an Outdated Concept – Flexibility Is Key  
- The grid no longer needs **24/7 baseload** (a concept designed for fossil/nuclear). Modern grids use:  
  - **Hydro (pumped storage, dams)**  
  - **Geothermal (always-on, no fuel needed)**  
  - **Hydrogen (from excess renewables)**  
  - **Gas peakers (as a *transitional* backup, not primary)**  

4. Nuclear’s "Reliability" Comes at a High Cost**  
- Nuclear plants are **expensive & slow to build** (often over **$10B and 10+ years**), locking in high costs for decades.  
- Renewables + storage can be deployed **faster & cheaper**, adapting to demand changes.  

5. Extreme Weather Also Threatens Nuclear Plants**  
- **Heat waves** force reactors to throttle back (France had to reduce output in 2022 due to high river temps).  
- **Droughts** risk cooling water shortages (a major vulnerability for nuclear).  
- **Hurricanes/floods** can damage plants (e.g., Hurricane Florence threatened US reactors in 2018).

[Bigiron]

Nuclear Struggles in Hot Climates**  
- **Cooling problems**: Nuclear plants need massive water cooling—Singapore lacks large rivers/lakes, and **rising temperatures** (from climate change) reduce cooling efficiency.  
- **Heat-related shutdowns**: Like in France (2022), extreme heat can force nuclear plants to **reduce output or shut down**—ironically making them **less reliable** in warming climates.  
- **Safety risks in dense cities**: A nuclear accident in a small, hyper-urbanized country like Singapore would be **catastrophic**—evacuation is nearly impossible.

[pinkypanther]

https://tinyurl.com/46wedcre

[Bigiron]

Anyone got watch this movie 

https://youtu.be/y4A1josqPnk?si=1nppV_EFFpt9vWug

[Ineedhelp]

Just get all the PAP and even opposition MPs, ministers and top brass civil servants to come together and talk. They can generate so much hot air to turn the wind turbine for renewable energy lah. Pay them so much must put to good use.

[Bigiron]

A vote for PAP = A vote for nuclear power plant to be built= A vote for more tax to raise for building the plant 

Budget 2025: S’pore will study the potential deployment of nuclear power
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/b...lear-power

Commentary: Is Singapore betting on nuclear energy over hydrogen and solar? https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commenta...042025_cna

Budget 2025: Government to reorganise for greater focus on nuclear energy, build new capabilities - The Business Times
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/singapo...pabilities

No plans to stockpile uranium, but use of nuclear energy in S’pore not off the table: Tan See Leng | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...n-see-leng

Forum: Nuclear power can bring many benefits to Singapore | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/for...rgy-sector

https://youtu.be/OZa01CbPyd0?si=7fPgy3KaipBzF68d

[sclim]

i have objection to nuclear only if it is build and operate in singapore as any accident can be termination of singapore. shit also no more place.

but if they say build on a boat far away from singapore like pacific ocean or artic ocean. then i m ok. as time past if there is a nuclear reaction as small as possible that even if it leak the problem is only 30m then no a problem. the other problem is the expanded nuclear material. where to store it. no like japan who throw it into ocean. the ocean is a large water body looks like no limit but actually there is.

if the world no start a world wide actions like the green movement to stop polluting it then one day we see like the polluted river of some places where foam form floating on the river. then rain will also be acidic all over the world. it will be very difficult and expensive the clean the ocean

[sclim]

cheap nuclear electricity is good. what is needed is the ability to own nuclear weapon. else a small country like singapore difficult to survive.

that will be far into the future.

[Bigiron]

cheap nuclear electricity is good. what is needed is the ability to own nuclear weapon. else a small country like singapore difficult to survive.

that will be far into the future.

1. Civilian Nuclear Energy ≠ Nuclear Weapons Capability
- **Technical barriers**: Building a nuclear power plant (for electricity) does **not** automatically give a country nuclear weapons.  
  - Weapons require **highly enriched uranium (90%+ U-235)**, while power plants use **low-enriched uranium (~5% U-235)**.  
  - Reprocessing spent fuel for weapons is **extremely complex** (e.g., Japan has nuclear power but no nukes).  
- **IAEA safeguards**: Singapore would be **monitored** by international agencies, making secret weapons programs nearly impossible.  

2. Singapore’s Survival Depends on Diplomacy & Alliances, Not Nukes
- **Strong deterrence without nukes**: Singapore’s security relies on:  
  - **ASEAN neutrality & diplomacy**  
  - **Military alliances (e.g., Five Power Defence Arrangements with UK/AUS/NZ/MY)**  
  - **Advanced conventional defense (e.g., stealth fighters, cyber warfare capabilities)**  
- **Nuclear weapons would destabilize the region**: If Singapore pursued nukes, neighbors like Malaysia/Indonesia might respond in kind, **increasing risk**.  

3. Economic & Political Risks Outweigh Benefits
- **Sanctions & isolation**: Developing nukes would trigger **crippling sanctions** (e.g., North Korea, Iran), harming Singapore’s trade-dependent economy.  
- **Loss of global trust**: Singapore’s reputation as a **stable, rule-abiding financial hub** would collapse.  

4. Energy Security Doesn’t Require Nukes 
- **Cheap nuclear electricity is possible without weapons**:  
  - Countries like **Sweden, Canada, and Germany** use nuclear power without nukes.  
  - Singapore could **import nuclear fuel under strict safeguards** (like UAE’s peaceful program).  
- **Renewables + LNG are safer alternatives**: Solar, regional power grids, and gas provide energy security **without proliferation risks**.  

5. Even in the Distant Future, Nukes Are a Terrible Idea for Singapore
- **No first-strike advantage**: A small city-state with nukes would be a **primary target** in a conflict.  
- **MAD doesn’t apply**: Unlike large nuclear powers, Singapore couldn’t survive a **counterattack**.