http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 en-US 60 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>Nuclear power in general can be made very safe with the right safeguards and regularly audited practices.</p> <p>That aside, because of the processing problems and the fact you need a fair amount of land to operate one such plant, aside from burying the plant deep underground, deploying a reactor will be difficult. We could try that Russian idea of a nuclear reactor installed in a barge though.</p> </div> </blockquote> <p><br /> Agreed...it is simply NOT viable for people to continue using fossil fuel in the near future.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>And btw, Fingolfin_Noldor, I thought u said it last time you are done with this forum?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>And please, don't EVER let those greenpeace idiots misled you into thinking, nuclear powerplant = building nuclear bomb, and the fact that a nuclear meltdown means the whole island get blown up along with the reactor.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Take this article as a example on how important it is to replace fossil fuel with an alternative power source.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <blockquote> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.<br /> <br /> The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.<br /> <br /> "Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.<br /> <br /> A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.<br /> <br /> Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.<br /> <br /> Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.<br /> <br /> The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.<br /> <br /> The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.<br /> <br /> Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.<br /> <br /> That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.<br /> <br /> The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground.<br /> <br /> The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.<br /> <br /> In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity — the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy — in the transport sector.<br /> <br /> Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.<br /> <br /> "This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.<br /> <br /> Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.<br /> <br /> Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.<br /> <br /> "If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.</p> </blockquote> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><a href= "http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_sc/japan_iea_climate_change" rel= "nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_sc/japan_iea_climate_change</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>And please la...can some of you STOP following every bloody mistake the US make? Yes, the US is better than singapore in many ways does not mean the USA will not make any mistake.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Currently, the singapore government policy of restricting car ownership is a GOOD idea. Mainly because it can at the least reduce greenhouse gas emission. I mean come on, research has been telling us for god knows how long that private cars IS polluting the air like nobody's bussiness?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Restrict the amount of cars on the road, if it is necssary, don't ever let fuel cost go down, just to ensure people do not hug their beloved cars too much.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Cars IS a luxury item, and people can live without owning a damn car, the faster they let go of their love for luxury item, the better.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>We don't have much time left in countering global warming.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Also, with peak oil around the corner, it will be wise to look at nuclear power for a change. After all, we have been told from young that singapore should always consider the long term advantage.</p> <p>The faster we adopt nuclear power, the better it is for us. When peak oil finally start to take a huge toll on the oil loving US economy, singapore will not be affected that badly.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>And I want to ask, how anyone even read up on articles written by nuclear experts about nuclear powerplant, instead of saying nuclear power is unsafe just because greenpeace said so??</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:51:16 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8150030 ray245 http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>well.. safe is what the experts, professors say.. very safe one very safe one.. die that time is not they die.. is the people closest to the plant that's affected..&nbsp; MSK come back take one C4 to the plant all nearby ppl honggan.. singapore wants nuclear option? can.. build in USA or russia and lay the power cables to us.. i support 1000000%..</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:08:06 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8149719 purpledragon84 http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by eagle:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>"Not-in-my-backyard" syndrome by Singaporeans</p> </div> </blockquote> <p><br /> except when nuclear powered aircraft carriers dock at changi.....lol....</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:00:17 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8149710 dukedracula http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by purpledragon84:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>even if the world says nuclear power is cheap and efficient and safe and whatnot, singapore will wait and see one la.. wait until ppl try for years liao den we follow one.. i don't see us as pioneers when it comes to new stuff.. pioneers for new ways to tax the ppl maybe..</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>"Not-in-my-backyard" syndrome by Singaporeans</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:54:05 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8149704 eagle http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>even if the world says nuclear power is cheap and efficient and safe and whatnot, singapore will wait and see one la.. wait until ppl try for years liao den we follow one.. i don't see us as pioneers when it comes to new stuff.. pioneers for new ways to tax the ppl maybe..</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:49:02 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8149698 purpledragon84 http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by jojobeach:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>What are we going to do about nuclear wastes ?</p> <p>Send it off to Indonesia ? LOL...</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>Send it to Russia for reprocessing.</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:31:53 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8149684 Fingolfin_Noldor http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by Atobe:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>Hillary Clinton had proposed that the huge profits made by the Petroleum Companies should be subjected to special taxes, and recycled back into the economy.</p> <p>Singapore is one of a few Refining-Process Centres of low sulphur crude oil, and is&nbsp;buying crude oil at international prices.</p> <p>The ''low&nbsp;cost'' crude&nbsp;is&nbsp;subjected to a&nbsp;pile up of profit margins&nbsp;as the crude oil is processed in the Shell, SPC&nbsp;and Esso-Mobil refineries, whose output is then subject to the international pressure on refined oil or petroleum.</p> <p>In Singapore, the Government has made matters worst by levying a hefty 50 percent{??} tax on processed fuel, as a means of preventing cheap fuel that encourage easy car ownership.</p> <p>Obviously, the tax on petrol is a huge boost into the Government treasury, as the tax is collected at different levels as the trade in petroleum move from one hand to another.</p> <p>If the Singapore Government is too afraid to accept Hillary Clinton's idea - so as not to offend the Petroleum Conglomerates from&nbsp;further investment in Singapore, it could at least lower its own tax on processed fuel that will surely&nbsp;help in lowering the cost of living&nbsp;for Singaporeans, and increase the competitiveness of Singapore.</p> <p>Why should the Government use&nbsp;the tax on petroleum to regulate the car population, when the COE programme has effectively regulated the size of the car population ?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>The COE has NOT regulated the size of the car population because Singaporeans had been pressing the government over the right to own cars. So the government has relented and increased the number of COEs in the past 5 years, allowing more cars on the road and&nbsp;instead regulate car usage with ERP and petrol taxes. The COE is the most effective way of curbing car ownership but that is not possible so long as Singaporeans cannot get over their love affair with the car.</p> <p>Singaporeans cannot have it both ways. Either pay 30k for the right to own a car or pay high petrol taxes for the right to use it.</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:14:25 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8149256 oxford mushroom http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>Nuclear power in general can be made very safe with the right safeguards and regularly audited practices.</p> <p>That aside, because of the processing problems and the fact you need a fair amount of land to operate one such plant, aside from burying the plant deep underground, deploying a reactor will be difficult. We could try that Russian idea of a nuclear reactor installed in a barge though.</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>What are we going to do about nuclear wastes ?</p> <p>Send it off to Indonesia ? LOL...</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 05:53:26 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8149193 jojobeach http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>Nuclear power in general can be made very safe with the right safeguards and regularly audited practices.</p> <p>That aside, because of the processing problems and the fact you need a fair amount of land to operate one such plant, aside from burying the plant deep underground, deploying a reactor will be difficult. We could try that Russian idea of a nuclear reactor installed in a barge though.</p> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:01:45 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8149035 Fingolfin_Noldor http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>Those who think solar energy can even supplement more than a few percent of Singapore's total energy needs are stark, raving mad. You'd have to cover the entire Singapore landmass with photovoltaics to even get close to 10% of Singapore's total energy needs.</p> <p>Nuclear (fission) energy is the only low-carbon game in town. Until even cleaner nuclear fusion becomes a reality, that is.</p> Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:12:05 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8148529 rooki http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>Micro hydropower from storm drain and sewage pipes collecting water to be recycled into Newater.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Solar power panels on HDB flats and roof tops of all buildings on the island and floating platforms in the sea.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Wind, wave and tide power from the Straits of Singapore.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Growing Algae for biofuel.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Kinetic energy from crowds stepping on mechanical dynamos generating electrical power.</p> Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:43:06 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8148424 Hi88tech http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>I think Singapore will never use nuclear option.</p> <p>Because it is contradicting to Singapore's character.</p> <p>Singapore's character is pragmatism and avoiding white-elephant projects.</p> <p>In my opinion nuclear power is 'costly' because of all the investments, new know-how, and security risks. And also need to divert some critical mass, manpower.</p> <p>Quite hard to imagine Singapore having a nuclear power plant.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Meat Pao.</p> Sun, 11 May 2008 13:24:38 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8077928 Meat Pao http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>Hillary Clinton had proposed that the huge profits made by the Petroleum Companies should be subjected to special taxes, and recycled back into the economy.</p> <p>Singapore is one of a few Refining-Process Centres of low sulphur crude oil, and is&nbsp;buying crude oil at international prices.</p> <p>The ''low&nbsp;cost'' crude&nbsp;is&nbsp;subjected to a&nbsp;pile up of profit margins&nbsp;as the crude oil is processed in the Shell, SPC&nbsp;and Esso-Mobil refineries, whose output is then subject to the international pressure on refined oil or petroleum.</p> <p>In Singapore, the Government has made matters worst by levying a hefty 50 percent{??} tax on processed fuel, as a means of preventing cheap fuel that encourage easy car ownership.</p> <p>Obviously, the tax on petrol is a huge boost into the Government treasury, as the tax is collected at different levels as the trade in petroleum move from one hand to another.</p> <p>If the Singapore Government is too afraid to accept Hillary Clinton's idea - so as not to offend the Petroleum Conglomerates from&nbsp;further investment in Singapore, it could at least lower its own tax on processed fuel that will surely&nbsp;help in lowering the cost of living&nbsp;for Singaporeans, and increase the competitiveness of Singapore.</p> <p>Why should the Government use&nbsp;the tax on petroleum to regulate the car population, when the COE programme has effectively regulated the size of the car population ?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Sun, 11 May 2008 00:35:54 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8076972 Atobe http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>Should stabilize once the US Fed stop lowering the interest rates, stronger dolla to curb speculations. So it will be great news if the feds do nothing, this month....</p> Sun, 11 May 2008 00:31:38 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8076950 whiskers http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>Whether oil hits $200 a barrel or plummets will really depend on OPEC now.&nbsp; The biggest problem is whether to up the output.&nbsp; If they raise the output, oil prices might go into a free fall, bursting the oil bubble.</p> <p>Even the Chief of OPEC, Ali Al Naimi views the high oil prices to be caused by speculation.&nbsp; The supply of oil is definitely there and capable of meeting rising demands.&nbsp; In short, the high oil prices is definitely not due to shortage.&nbsp; Perhaps its time to rein in the&nbsp;traders.</p> Sun, 11 May 2008 00:20:55 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8076899 Shotgun http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p><span class=""><span style="font-weight: bold;">Most Energy Execs See Oil Below $100 This Year</span><br /> By AP | 09 May 2008 | 10:55 AM ET<br /> <br /> Even as oil prices ascended to new highs of more than $124 a barrel this week, many oil and gas industry executives say they expect the price to fall significantly by year's end, a new survey shows.<br /> <br /> <br /> Fifty-five percent of 372 petroleum industry executives surveyed by KPMG said they think the price of a barrel of crude will drop below $100 by the end of the year. Twenty-one percent of respondents predicted a barrel of oil will end the year between $101 and $110, while 15 percent forecast the year-end price to be between $111 and $120 a barrel.<br /> <br /> Nine percent said they expect the price to close the year where it's been this week -- above $120 a barrel.<br /> <br /> What's more, 44 percent of the executives said their companies plan to increase capital spending on exploration and production by 10 percent during the next year.<br /> <br /> The survey was conducted last month and scheduled for release Friday. Participants included executives for major oil companies, independent exploration and production outfits and other energy companies.<br /> <br /> "The expectation of increased investment by U.S. energy companies shows oil and gas executives are deeply concerned about energy security," said Bill Kimble, who oversees the global energy institute at KPMG, the audit, tax and advisory firm.<br /> <br /> Of late, all eyes have been on crude prices, which have nearly doubled in the past year. The dollar's decline against the euro and other foreign currencies has helped spur the rise, attracting investors looking for a hedge against inflation.<br /> <br /> Rising demand for oil from the rapidly developing economies of China and India has played a role too, as have concerns about tighter supplies. Indeed, 63 percent of survey participants said growing demand in emerging markets was the main factor in the historic rise in oil prices.<br /> <br /> Widely watched oil price prognosticator Goldman Sachs said this week oil prices could rise to $150 to $200 within two years; others say crude could plummet to as low as $40 or $50 a barrel during the same period.<br /> <br /> "To be sure, the future does not unfold neatly in line with any projection, and the time frame of the actual price surge has been remarkably short," Cambridge Energy Research Associates said in a report this week.<br /> <br /> Asked what would most enhance U.S. energy security, participants overwhelmingly said opening up more acreage for domestic drilling was the best option. In particular, 43 percent said the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be opened for drilling. Another 28 percent said more investment in renewable energy sources such as biodiesel would enhance U.S. energy security the most.<br /> <br /> However, even though many of the executives support further investment in renewable energy sources, the majority still don't view renewables as a serious near-term solution to the energy supply equation.<br /> <br /> In last year's survey, 60 percent of 553 petroleum industry executives said large-scale production of renewable fuels was not a near-term possibility, at least not in the next couple of years.<br /> <br /> In the most-recent survey, 54 percent gave the same response, though 2015 was the target date.<br /> <br /> © 2008 CNBC.com</span></p> Sat, 10 May 2008 23:53:13 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8076796 eagle http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by Shotgun:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p><br /> This point I totally concede! <img src= "/images/emoticons/kde-3.5.8/redones/biggrin.png" alt= "biggrin.png" /></p> <p>If the UN, and IAEA says yes and allow Russia to handle the enrichment process, US has no grounds to say No.&nbsp; US's main arguement is that Iran may abuse the enrichment process, but if Iran surrenders the right to enrich uranium, then there is nothing US can suck thumb already.</p> <p>I didn't even think of this... of course, I'm sure it will not be the sole power plant.&nbsp; We will probably still have to run our current coal/oil fired ones at reduced output?</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>To produce newwater uses lots of power... sorry cant find the exact figure here... But the high pressure needed to run RO means alot of power is used.</p> <p>Now, If we have a nuclear plant we prob will have increased desal capability, imagine we can make a combined plant, where seawater is used to power the turbine and as a side stream, we get desalinated water.</p> <p>Bear in mind the govnt is privatising our power plants, so if its not profitable the plants would prob close down... But&nbsp; we still have the one in tuas that burns rubbish, so&nbsp; I guess we will still backup.<br /> <br /> But the startup cost will be very inhibiting,there is probably no one in singapore capable of running the plant, let alone design it, maybe u will see new courses in poly in nuclear tech(hey its better than dealing cards right?).... Unless they are very desperate, dun tink they will use it.</p> <p>Yes and one more thing, Imagine the hot effluent(water) coming out of the plant will probably do some considerable damage to the marine lives around singapore.... And you know what our neighbours reaction might be!</p> Sat, 10 May 2008 23:43:44 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8076778 whiskers http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by *Lord Kang*:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>Singapore nuclear power will not be cheap as compared to other countries..Because the gov will say need to pay more for better security and safety reasons..</p> </div> </blockquote> <p><br /> This point I totally concede! <img src= "/images/emoticons/kde-3.5.8/redones/biggrin.png" alt= "biggrin.png" /></p> <blockquote> <p>Even if Iran DOES concede enrichment of uranium, you tell me what are its chances of building said nuclear reactor. Russia can say ok, but USA will still say no.</p> </blockquote> <p>If the UN, and IAEA says yes and allow Russia to handle the enrichment process, US has no grounds to say No.&nbsp; US's main arguement is that Iran may abuse the enrichment process, but if Iran surrenders the right to enrich uranium, then there is nothing US can suck thumb already.</p> <blockquote> <p>Imagine the steam derived from nuclear power to run desal plant... that will be win win for Singapore... But also its not good to have a centralise power plant....</p> </blockquote> <p>I didn't even think of this... of course, I'm sure it will not be the sole power plant.&nbsp; We will probably still have to run our current coal/oil fired ones at reduced output?</p> Sat, 10 May 2008 22:47:27 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8076620 Shotgun http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>Imagine the steam derived from nuclear power to run desal plant... that will be win win for Singapore... But also its not good to have a centralise power plant....</p> Sat, 10 May 2008 12:57:50 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8075541 whiskers http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>It's nt as simple as u think.U need to consider abt U238 or other things which aren't avaliable here.It's nt tht expensiv ne but few years later...</p> Sat, 10 May 2008 12:24:52 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8075498 Alucard101 http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by MohamedF:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>There is still the option of a hydrogen based power plant... There was an accidental discovery in 2007 that can possibly make hydrogen production a lot easier... it only involves mixing 2 everyday metals with water and hydrogen in produced...</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>Then comes another issue: water.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>As for Uranium enrichment, I think Australia does some export in this area.</p> Sat, 10 May 2008 11:27:46 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8075357 Dinvina http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p><br /> sim city?</p> </div> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html" rel= "nofollow">http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html</a></p> Sat, 10 May 2008 11:09:13 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8075309 MohamedF http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <p>dont even think about alternative power source in sg.all other available land are used to build casinos or more condos to generate $? who cares about rising energy prices, global warming, poverty, the planet's degrading health when you can generate wealth and not get to use it right??</p> Sat, 10 May 2008 09:38:22 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8075120 domonkassyu http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by MohamedF:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>There is still the option of a hydrogen based power plant... There was an accidental discovery in 2007 that can possibly make hydrogen production a lot easier... it only involves mixing 2 everyday metals with water and hydrogen in produced...</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>Metals too don't come cheap now..... If sg should have wind mill.. can make small-small one and put it top of every HDB. When solar&nbsp;energy can takes more than 50% of sunlight energy,&nbsp;it should be widely use. Now solar&nbsp;energy only 40%..&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>urmm.. can someone explain how does a nuclear plant work? &nbsp;</p> Sat, 10 May 2008 09:08:46 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8075089 MyNameisNas http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948 <blockquote> <div class="quote_from">Originally posted by MohamedF:</div> <div class="quote_body"> <p>There is still the option of a hydrogen based power plant... There was an accidental discovery in 2007 that can possibly make hydrogen production a lot easier... it only involves mixing 2 everyday metals with water and hydrogen in produced...</p> </div> </blockquote> <p><br /> sim city?</p> Sat, 10 May 2008 01:05:11 +0800 sgforums.com:10:316948:8074799 alwaysdisturbed http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316948