8/05/2014

6.9m dream scuttled by Fukushima


The talk of 10m population is getting to sound sillier after Fukushima. Now 6.9m is already out of synch when nuclear power has been put on the back burner. The basic factors to support a big population in a resource poor island, not enough water, no indigenous food supply and power sources like oil, geothermal heat, hydropower, etc are simply not there to sustain a big population. Nuclear power was thought safe and feasible to fulfil such megalomanic dreams of 6.9m or more population. This has been ruled out since the fallout of Fukushima confirmed that nothing is safe as the snake oil sellers would want you to believe.
 

Without nuclear power, with a near total dependency on foreign sources of food supply, one cannot imagine how serious would be the socio economic problems the island with face in an energy or food crisis when the population is 6.9m or more.
 

Every snake oil seller is talking about the economic growth arising from bigger population. But what would a bigger population demand from the system to be sustainable in the long run? The assumptions, continue prosperity and economic growth leading to a strong dollar to buy all the food and energy needed. Other assumptions, food supply and the cost of energy are stable, cheap and reliable. Any fluctuations in these supplies could bring down the whole socio economic system like a pack of cards.
 

Small or big have their advantages and disadvantages. Both are like knives that could cut both ways. Perhaps a major health epidemic like the Ebola could wake up those having sweet dreams that all is well and the bigger the population the better things will be. A hit by something like Ebola will be unimaginable in a dense city state full of people. The only advantage is that a bigger population will see more victims but also more survivors after the plight is over.
 

The 6.9m dream may have been scuttled by Fukushima. But more snake oil sellers are appearing and advocating for bigger dreams. How would 10m or 20m stand when 6.9m is unsustainable without nuclear power? Really we have so much money to buy all the fuel we need to support 10m people?

KopiLevel - Green

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The basic factors to support a big population in a resource poor island, not enough water, no indigenous food supply and power sources like oil, geothermal heat, hydropower, etc are simply not there to sustain a big population."
RB

Please lah, even with 10 miilion population and 700 sq km, population density in Sinkieland will only be 14,285/sq km.

And Monaco, which is also very rich, has a population density of 18,475/sq km.

And Kowloon in HK has a population density of 43,033/km2 in 2006!

So based on world standards, 10 million for Sinkieland where got problem?

Hence I think Liu Thai Ker knows what he is talking about. And PAP also knows. And also know how to win elections with 10 million population.

Anonymous said...

Good morning RB. I am sure the figure of 10 million is a prelude to implementing the 6,9 million figure. It is just to get Singaporean to get accustom to big numbers. Singapore is rich and with a big fat reserve. These days with money you can get almost anything. Maybe the Singapore government would build a nuclear plant on one of the many islands and make sure the people on the main island are safe from fallout if it ever happens. What do you think? Then you can have your 10 million or even 20 million?

Anonymous said...

RB don't know lah. Is RB an architect, economist, MP or minister?

Anonymous said...

Rb: // Everyone snake oil seller is talking about the economic growth arising from bigger population. But what would a bigger population demand from the system to be sustainable in the long run. //


Rb, long economic growth is a function of actual economic growth and potential economic growth.

Potential economic growth essentially emanates from supply side measures.

Lazy and no brainer ways are to increase labour, capital etc. As land is relatively inelastic even over long term, open leg wide wide means adding more labour into relatively fixed land supply notwithstanding snail pace land reclamation and more intensive land use.

No one can defy gravity just as no one can define the natural law of diminishing marginal return.

Sustainable supply side policies to drive potential growth are via higher productivity and technology. That needs real talents and ability and not self proclaimed super talent and higher mortals.

It is quite obvious what self proclaimed super talents are capable of given the outcome for the past decades and the continued policies going forward.

The Chinese call it "纸上谈兵". Something paper generals probably are quite good at. Delivery of the higher quality of potential economic and actual economic growth may be skills existent only in real war zones general and enterprising, hard driving minds.

Anonymous said...

Typo @ 9.04am

Should be "long term economic growth" instead of "long economic growth" in the first line.

Raymond said...

Perhaps you are getting old and senile for your rants are definitely sounding more and more incoherent...

Are you taking your medication?

When has Singapore ever had natural resources (for any population size)? Has that ever hindered our relentless progress?

Anonymous said...

With the space we have we may be
able to house 15M people on this
tiny island if we want.

All buildings should be at least
88-storey high. There is no need
to go underground or into the
seas. Too expensive options.

If 15M population still not
enough we can try to increase to
20M. BUT, we have to try to lease
batam from Indonesia for 956-year
with extension option for another
956-year.

Happy 49th National Day.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

HI Raymond, things are a little different now. In the past our natural resources were, hard labour, willingness to work hard, thrift and unity. Now we have little or none of that. W live in a totally different world. We squander and waste and we live in a " throw away " culture. Our individual carbon footprint are huge compared to our forefathers. We shall need natural resources if we are to survive. We have none of those, so you cannot use the past progress to charter our future progress. RB is not wrong, you should start taking your medication.

Anonymous said...

Raymond, you asshole. Your only job is to come here and attack RB. Fucking retard. Go, bask off. You don't even know what you are talking about and it is so clear that you can't understand what RB is saying as well. Go and read something from the children's corner.

A dumb ass like you that refused to think is so obvious. Oops, don't even know you can think.

Hahaha.

Anonymous said...

Shsssssh. IMH is looking for an escapee by the name of Raymond.

Anonymous said...

Anonn 10:22. No need to waste time. You expect him to read and understand what you are saying? His presence here is not to read other people's view. He is only one view, the official view. Anything else he is not interested.

The said...

Plutonium and Uranium for nuclear may not be safe. But thorium as a nuclear fuel is relatively much, much safer and is a viable alternative.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Our problem is that there is no room for mistake as we don't have space to move to when there is a mishap. Even locating in one of the islands is too close as the danger zone is just too wide to be safe.

It has to be a system that cannot go wrong or have zero radiation risk.

Anonymous said...

There are no perfect zero risk system for nuclear energy. There are always risk. They thought it was safe at Fukushima and they were wrong. The safest way is to have none at all. But then you have to depend on fossil fuel and as the world resources for that dwindles the cost for the fossil fuel will rise and Singapore will have to factor that in. Either way, for a country like Singapore that depends on importation of energy it is a hard choice to make. You can go the route of solar energy and that too can be very limited if you have heavy industries for your growth. You can go wind power but that will have to be in the sea around the island for obvious reason. Wind farms in the sea can be very costly. Looks like if you want to remain an economical power house in the region, energy for growth will be a very important factor for Singapore.

Matilah_Singapura said...

@ The:

I'm used to be a thorium advocate. However at the moment it doesn't seem to be viable. Sure, some cuntrees like Norway and India are testing some shit out, but at the moment: big fat zero, zilch, nada as far as thorium energy goes.

Nuclear is done correctly -- kiasu Singapore-style -- will be quite safe. Can't use Fuck-u-shima as a fair example. That was an engineering nightmare waiting to happen, and the aftermath was also very poorly handled.

It was a case of one of the most dangerous artifacts of Asian culture: saving face at all costs, including sacrificing human lives, by unwavering AUTHORITARIAN denial and deceit even in light of the facts by the Jap govt.

Nuclear power in the year 2014 and beyond: SAFE lah.

Matilah_Singapura said...

BTW 6.9 mil is only a "working number". What is important to accept is that Singapore population will increase, and pressure to compete will increase -- especially when robots, algorithms and systems take over many of the jobs.

Singapore is going to rock even harder, and I support that 100%.

I'm playing the long-game ;-)

Anonymous said...

Fucking PAPigs trying to revive their nuclear wet dreams in Singapore.
Sigh. Fucking stubborn brain dead pigs.

What part of Singapore's 720 sq km size don't you understand?
What part of a safety zone of 20km radius(= 1,257 sq km circle area) don't you understand?

Japan, Russia and America are all countries with better engineers than Singapore.
They all had nuclear accidents.
What makes you think PAPigs are smarter?

The said...

/// Sure, some cuntrees like Norway and India are testing some shit out, but at the moment: big fat zero, zilch, nada as far as thorium energy goes. ///

Sudah Matilah - China is way ahead in thorium research than India, Norway or even the US. And China has plentiful thorium.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/what-is-clean-nuclear-power-and-why-is-china-beating-the-the-us-at-its-own-technology

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/breakout-thorium-global-idINL3N0JW2S120131220

http://decarboni.se/insights/chinas-thorium-future?gclid=CJjw-aq5-78CFQkmjgodITkAtA

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1452011/chinese-scientists-urged-develop-new-thorium-nuclear-reactors-2024?page=all



Anonymous said...

In Singapore, the only way to go is nuclear. Fossil fuel, wind, solar and hydro power are all not appropriate or too costly in the long term. Nuclear plants if manage correctly can be quite safe, and knowing the Singaporeans' kiasu and kiasi mentality any nuclear facility will be quite properly managed. The way I see it, there isn't much option available out there for Singapore.

Anonymous said...

" Nuclear plants if manage correctly can be quite safe, and knowing the Singaporeans' kiasu and kiasi mentality any nuclear facility will be quite properly managed. "

And where are Singapore's THORIUM nuclear engineers going to come from?
- China?
- India?

Hey Sinkies!
Our PIGS are now proposing to give our aliens the chance to manage a nuclear reactor.
- UnFucking-believable

Anonymous said...

/// The way I see it, there isn't much option available out there for Singapore. ///
August 05, 2014 2:48 pm

Spoken like a true PAPig.
This must be another PAP hard truth.
Everything also no choice except the PAP way.
PAP has the monopoly on all the wisdom in the world.

This my fellow Singaporeans confirms my belief.
The PAPigs are intellectually and politically bankrupt of vision and ideas.

Anonymous said...

" Nuclear plants if manage correctly can be quite safe, and knowing the Singaporeans' kiasu and kiasi mentality any nuclear facility will be quite properly managed. "
August 05, 2014 2:48 pm

I suppork.
If Singaporeans can manage a MRT system without breakdown.
Why not a nuclear reactor?
What can possibly go wrong?
- Wah! Cost of maintenance for a nuclear reactor very high.
- can we not spend so much money on maintenance?
- what say you Ms Saw Phaik Hwa?

Let's bring in another retail expert to run our proposed nuclear reactor?

Anonymous said...

A nuclear power phase-out is the discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for energy production.
Often initiated because of concerns about nuclear power, phase-outs usually include shutting down nuclear power plants and looking towards fossil fuels and renewable energy.

Three nuclear accidents have influenced the discontinuation of nuclear power:
the 1979 Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown in the United States,
the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the USSR, and
the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

While the 1st World countries in Europe and America want to close down their nuclear reactors.
- PAP's Singapore wants to follow 3rd world countries like China and India into the nuclear age.

We pay the PIGS million dollar salaries to bring us untested nuclear Thorium technologies from the 3rd World.

Matilah_Singapura said...

@The:

Yes, China is big on R & D. The thing about sci-tech is that not every R&D project leads to success. Failure rate is VERY HIGH. In fact, most projects FAIL....that is the nature of learning about the natural world, it is slow, you have to fail lots of times before you succeed and it costs lots of resources and human capital.

Still no viable thorium reactor. Don't forget there is also nuclear FUSION. The French are big on that, but surprise, surprise: there is also lots of action in the small start-up space backed by (private) venture capital.

Matilah_Singapura said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matilah_Singapura said...

P.S. I doubt that thorium reactors FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY are viable.

There is only ONE WAY to prove me WRONG:

Make one that is viable. :-)

Then I will eat my words.