“Dengan
segala hormatnya, Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang ingin merakamkan pendirian tidak
bersetuju kami terhadap rancangan Kerajaan Persekutuan untuk membina loji nuclear
di negara kita”
PR/DAP/Penang state govt. is all against nucler plant.
That is their constitutional right. At the same time, PR is all out to reduce
carbon permission as per Buku Jinggay ;
“Merendahkan
kadar pelepasan karbon, selaras dengan piawaian antarabangsa dan meningkatkan
daya system ekologi untuk menyerap karbon”
Meaning, no nuclear and no fossil fuel since fossil fuel
of power generation (for base load) is the main culprit of Carbon Emission
beside transportation.
And technically, nuclear and coal is the only options
available in today’s power generation technology to run the massive base load
(now 700 MW/unit) to stabilize our grind system.
Can anybody with Einstein Brain propose to the rest of
the ignorant Malaysian including myself, what are the least cost option of
generation to meet the TNB grid system if both nuclear and coal are rejected?
Bear in mind, we need at least 700MW/turbine. What a moron this Guan Eng,
racists and stupid at the same time.
The point now, PR say according to Buku Jinggay, they
want to reduce carbon emission, that means no coal power. Now they say no to
nuclear with zero carbon emission, so where we going to get 700MW/turbine?
There are reasons that Kyoto Protocol now favors nuclear
power plant over fossil fuel power we have now. Even Greenpeace top leaderships
changed their mind and now favors nuclear. And whole of EU they increasing it
to 19 reactors, today they got 195! First the nuke techno have evolved since
Chernobyl days, they are more safer and cheap than before compare to fossil
fuel power plants.
Kyoto Protocol was made for this specific reason – to reduce
carbon and poison emission from these fossil fuel power plants and others. A
lot those able bodies and prominent figures that were ANTI nuclear in the past
already change their mind and have become PRO.
It is a matter of safety and cost, compare to other
fossil fuel power plant that (we have here more than 20), I chose nuclear to be
here. Humans already figure out the techniques and methods to mitigate
radiation hence Fukushima with 0 deaths from radiation. But human
still unable to figure out the techniques to mitigate poisonous fumes in our
air effectively. Even in normal and stable working condition fossil fuel
already cause worldwide 4.3 million deaths on yearly basis from the carbon and
poison emission. That is only in normal working condition, what if it blows up?
How we can control the poisonous cloud of smoke? What choice do we have?
Steffen Hentrich of the German Liberal Institute presents
a comparison of the safety of various sources of energy. Is this claim founded
on solid data and facts, or is it run away hysteria? You all be the judge.
Shown are the number of deaths per terawatt hour of energy produced.
Photovoltaic power generation kills, per terawatt-hour, 11 times more people
than nuclear. Read here.
