5 Possible locations of Nuclear Plant in SG

1. 
   
   the Western Water Catchment Area (around Tengeh, Poyan, Murai and Sarimbun reservoirs, west of Lim Chu Kang road), which covers approximately 50  km2
2. 
   
   the Central Water Catchment Area (around Bukit Timah)
3. 
   
   Pulau Tekong and other outlying islands
4. 
   
   Pedra Branca
5. 
   
   Underground
6. 
   
   A floating platform out to sea.
   
   The study report includes an assessment of each of these options. Options 1 and 2 were judged less attractive for environmental reasons, impacts on water supply, proximity to residential areas (option 2) and proximity to Malaysia (option 1). Option 3, Pulau Tekong, is quite a large island (24  km2), has no resident population, and is occupied by the military and a reservoir. Pedra Branca is a group of very small islands totalling 8560  m2  45  km east of Singapore, and would require a long power cable: it is too small, and there are possible political issues, since the Middle Rocks only 1.1  km to the south are part of Malaysia.
   
   The floating option 6 has been thought about for many years, and in the 1970s Westinghouse formed an offshore power systems division. More recently, Russia and Japan have taken the lead. Russia is developing small power plants for remote Arctic areas in the north-east, and a 70  MW floating nuclear power station based on a KLT-40C pressurised light-water reactor is currently under construction in St. Petersburg (Green Cross Russia  Citation2004, Ivanov  Citation2007, WNN 2008). The length breadth and draught are 140, 30 and 4.5  m. The target completion date is 2011. The installation location appears still to be uncertain, but the option most often spoken of is Pevek in Chukotka. Slightly to the west, the Sakha autonomous republic is reported to have signed an agreement for four floating reactors. It would be possible to construct such a floating system in Singapore, and to moor it in Singapore waters. It might be thought vulnerable to storms, collisions with ships, aircraft crashes and terrorist attacks. The waters around Singapore are crowded with ship traffic.
   
   The underground option has received strong support from scientists. Sakharov (1921&ndash Citation1989), a distinguished nuclear physicist, Soviet dissident, and Nobel prizewinner, wrote (Sakharov  Citation1989):
   
   
   Should nuclear power be developed? If so, should the construction of nuclear power stations &ndash even if they are much more reliable than the one at Chernobyl &ndash be permitted aboveground? Or should they be built underground? These issues are so crucial that they cannot be left to technical experts, and still less to bureaucrats, whose approach is too narrowly technical, too tendentious and sometimes prejudiced, as it is paralysed by a network of mutual solidarity. And the same is true of many other economic, sociological and ecological issues.
   
   I personally believe that mankind needs nuclear energy. It must be developed, but with absolutes guarantees of safety, which means that the reactors must be built underground. International legislation requiring that reactors be built underground must be prepared without delay.
   
   
    
   
   Teller (1908&ndash 2002) a Hungarian-American theoretical physicist who had been much engaged with the development of the hydrogen bomb, wrote (Teller  Citation2001):
   
   
   My suggestion  &hellip   is to place nuclear reactors 300 to 1000 feet [90 to 300  m] underground, in loose earth. In such a location, neither accident nor earthquake could result in a considerable amount of radioactivity' s being released on the surface. I think the public misapprehension of risk can be corrected only by such a clear-cut measure as underground siting.
   
   The operation of reactors can be greatly simplified by constructing reactors with a negative temperature coefficient. Such a reactor would operate more vigorously when heat was extracted and, conversely, would heat up and shut itself down if little energy was extracted. The natural laws of physics rather than the care exercised by human beings would regulate the operation of such a reactor.
   
   In addition, because of its underground containment and the absence of operators, the possibility of obtaining nuclear materials for weapons from the reactor would be sharply reduced. Obtaining nuclear materials from a buried reactor not accessible to human operators would be both expensive and conspicuous.
   
   
    
   
   In the light of the constraints outlined above, and the overwhelming importance of reassurance to the public about security against terrorism and accident, our tentative conclusion is that the underground option has much to commend it.
   
   Source:  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19373260903343449
    

Natural Gas Prices Surge As Arctic Blast Fuels Demand

Reits, banks and grocers: Potential winners from Budget 2025 measures

Therese Soh

Published  Wed, Feb 19, 2025 · 03:39 PM

Financial sector stocks 

Aviation-related firms