Nuke em' I say!
Warning: This post is just a mindless, irrational rant.I needed an outlet...regular programming should be back shortly
Even after deaths of millions, the government of the world is still leading us down the treacherous road of nuclear energy.
Case 1:
Malaysia. The land of rich Petronas oil = gas = burn = electricity. Energy (or electricity) powerstations are run mostly by gas as we have more than enough of it..Malaysia exports liqueified natural gas(LNG) to the States and Europe. Well, rich enough to enable Petronas to sponsor an F-1 team. Now, the less we use the gas, the more we have to export, therefore driving down the prices as the rules of economy applies here ; the more available it is in the market, the lower the price will be.
And in stepped Big Brother, the American government.Where the brilliant president comes from the land rich in oil (correct me skippy if I'm wrong). They had ''invited'' the Malaysian government to visit the states to 'learn from them' and will go all out to help us create a new energy source. And what might that be, oh almighty? NUCLEAR ENERGY.Which one wrong step will probably wipe out the whole of our ubi kayu (cassava) shaped peninsula. Whilst we are happily burning our own gas to light up KLCC...not good enough, it needs to be nuclear I tell ya! POWER! (whilst bringing down the prices of oil and gas for Big Brother)
Like I said,nothing comes free.The US uses so much gas and petrol that with every hike in prices the whole country sits in suspense watching their economy crumble. Not to mention that they are the highest carbon-emmiting country in the world; surpassing China which relies heavily on coal because they have no choice. They contribute heavily to the hole in the sky we now call the ozone layer and the fact that it's not been cold enough in the antartica that the ice is melting causing all sorts of damage to sealife.
Case 2
The UK. The government had assigned a feasibility study to be done to explore energy options. Before the report comes out, Mr Blair has kindly shouted out loud that they are looking very positively into nuclear energy. But no studies have been done to ensure proper safety measures are in place to ensure that Cheronbyl does not repeat itself.All other renewable energy (wind,biomass ect) are not further explored.
Energy companies are required to have about 20% of their energy comming from a renewable source by 2015.This is to ensure that our hole in the sky does not expand in an alarming rate, causing all sorts of havoc with the weather.
Why nuclear?
It is cheap, it runs for ages, it does not pollute the environment like a coal-fired generator or gas-fired generator does (no carbon is emmited). It is not intermittent like wind farms or hydroelectric plants.
But there is no point saving the planet if one wrong move means the end of the country.
posted by sourrain @ 6/27/2006 10:02:00 AM
4 Comments:
Sourrain,
The US is no longer "rich" in oil. It is a net importer country. The President may have made money in oil but he made more money in inheritance and baseball.
Now that said, both the UK and the US have a good track record when it comes to nuclear energy in terms of its military. Both nations set high standards of quality control, technical requirements and safety assurance. The United States Navy ( where I once served), has had ZERO incidents. There safety standards are tough though and tolerance for deviation .....not at all.
If you read my blog you know I am know fan of the President and you are correct about China and its energy consumption. That said though, think about it: A small nation like Malaysia that could have a huge supply of electricity at its beck and call from a nuclear reactor. One that once paid for , would bne paid for. That could light most of the country beyond KL.
There have to be alternatives to oil; I invite you to read some of the literature on peak oil
( the theory that oil production has peaked and we are on the back side of the curve). Malaysia has the people with the work ethic to make nuclear power work.
Then again, I can't see Singapore or Indonesia happy about Malaysia with a nuclear reactor. So you pays your money and takes your chances.
Bottom line? Life suckes without aircon. If this keeps it running for Malaysia, it is probably worth it.
My .02 RINGGIT.............
Truthfully, I guess my main issues is that I do not think that Malaysia has the work ethics to keep a nuclear plant safe and sound. The ''I-cant-be-bothered'' attitute is rampant in Malaysia. Life is one endless teabreak.But I do agree with you that things are different in the UK and the US, where high standards are set AND followed to the dot. In Malaysia, it is always a case of let's find the short cut.Like Homer.
As part of my job, I have read peak oil production - this is why I feel so strongly about promotion of nuclear power.Some things (like needing petrol to run cars) are harder to change than utilising biomass for electricity. Although, if ever given a choice, I WOULD choose to run my car on solar power or whatever rather petrol.
There are other alternatives that should be explored and properly identified before nuclear is put on the agenda. If we have an energy crisis and it means the end of all airconds, by all means. At the moment, there is no need to.If we are in a country where this is the only option, by all means, go ahead.
And the thing I have about the UK is that there has been no in depth studies done in upgrading the safety of nuclear reactors - with Blair running around saying that nuclear is the way to go BEFORE a study that was supposed to explore ALL energy options is published.
It will be interesting to see it, as it will be out this week.
That all said, can someone please explain why petrol is called gas in the US? I have been stuck with saying that for the past 5 years and there are loads of people that think me mad
Gas is easier to say?. Petrol just souds to British............
Skippy, who did Bush inherit his money from?
Post a Comment
<< Home