Singapore : First Zero Energy Building launched with largest solar power installation in Southeast Asia

channelnewsasia.com, manilatimes.net :

The inaugural Singapore Green Building week started with the launch of Singapore’s first "Zero Energy Building". The Zero Energy Building along Braddell Road, a three-storey office building, cost S$11 million [USD $7.9 million] to retrofit and is expected to generate as much electricity as it consumes. It has various green features which act as a test bed for clean energy technologies before being introduced into the industry. The visitor’s centre has plants on its walls which help reduce external wall temperatures by up to 12 degC while a solar chimney sucks out the warm air from the room. Panels help shade the building from the sun and bounce natural light into the interiors.

A massive array of solar panels of 1,300 sq metres [14,000 square feet] – almost half a football field and the biggest such installation in Southeast Asia – covers the roof. The solar photovoltaic power panels can generate about 207,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually. Three hours of sunlight would be enough to supply the building’s energy requirement for a day. At night and when there is no available sunlight, the building can tap energy from the grid. While it might cost 5% more to retrofit existing buildings with green design and technologies, experts said the payback is not as long as some might expect. Cash incentives are already in place under the Green Mark certification scheme to encourage buildings to go green. The Singapore government aims to get 80% of all buildings on Green Mark certification by 2030.

- Another good eco/green initiative from the Singapore government, which, post-Kyoto, has been making quite a bit of progress in the area of renewable energy and other pro-environmental issues, from various tax incentives for green vehicles such as hybrid cars, to setting up a waste-to-energy power plant, water-recycling plants, and ongoing clean & green campaigns.

The Zero Energy Building will be a landmark Singapore development, and will pave the way to building green homes and other office buildings in line with the government’s move towards Green Mark certification of all new buildings as green buildings and ongoing retrofitting of existing ones.

In Asia, Singapore aims to be one of the pioneers in building green homes, with the development of the Treetops@Punggol public housing project being a prime example. Though there is not quite enough land in Singapore for a full-scale solar or wind power project to provide grid power, as alluded to in my earlier post, ongoing developments will still tackle the issues of energy efficiency, and for eco-homes, solar power would still feature prominently with the existing power grid providing supplemental power.

Hopefully, the Singapore experience will show that the world needs a systems approach to tackling energy and environmental issues from many different angles, as opposed to slogans such as a "carbon zero building" or a "zero energy home". For homes, the cost of residential solar panels is still high though it has been coming down significantly, and of course it ought to be recognized that "eco-" or "green"-ness entails much more than putting up solar panels – we need a total systems solution that, as the peakoiler community is saying nowadays, necessarily includes "all of the above", whether it be energy efficiency, renewable/alternative energy sources, nuclear power, hybrid/electric cars, vehicle-to-grid (V2G), green building design, intelligent grids, cooling/heating system design, water and materials recycling, and more. The works, in short. The future of solar energy is bright, but what we really need, is truly "all of the above".

See also :

1. Singapore company converts Waste2Energy
2. Energy security: a look at other fuel sources
3. Singapore : Nuclear power not ruled out
4. Singapore electric vehicles : Government agencies EMA and LTA to study EV introduction

5. Singapore opens largest CNG refuelling station in the world

via :
Singapore : First Zero Energy Building launched with largest solar power installation in Southeast Asia

 

2008 Honda Civic Hybrid FD3 real world fuel consumption gas mileage figures

Of course, I may be eyeing that 2010/2011 Honda Civic Hybrid right now, but what of my current one, the 2008 edition? Mind you that although hybrids have gained a much wider level of acceptance than say, 5 years ago, there are still misconceptions abound, especially with regard to things like gas mileage, highway vs city/urban fuel economy, and even the technology itself is sometimes misunderstood. I still get the odd questions like “do hybrid cars run on natural gas?” or “do you still need petrol/gasoline?” from time to time.

I have been diligently noting down the fuel mileage figures for my 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid for over a year now, and Biow had been asking me what I intended to do with all these numbers. Well I had been intending to publish my detailed fuel consumption figures for a while now and I admit it took me till two cars and three years later, but here it is for the current one (click here if you have problems viewing the iframe) :

The above are “live figures” in the sense that whenever I update my Google spreadsheet after pumping up a full tank, these figures will also be updated – according to Google the table should be updated within 5 minutes of that. A quick explanation of the data columns shown above :

km/l – kilometers per liter, which the Asians and European community would be more familiar with
mpg – miles per gallon, for our American friends
SGD cts/km – amount it costs to travel each km in Singapore currency (Singapore Dollar/SGD terms)
USD cts/mi – amount it costs to travel each mile in US currency (US Dollar/USD terms)
SGD $/liter – average cost of petrol in SGD dollars per liter
USD $/gal – what it would cost in gasoline, converted into US dollars per gallon

If you wish to be pedantic about it, you might want to note that the USD/SGD forex rate is converted in near real-time using my (rather popular may I say) currency conversion formula for Google spreadsheets. Also, though European folks are used to such things, do note that there is a significant amount of government tax involved in the petrol prices over here in Singapore (read the link for a detailed explanation).

As of today’s writing, my Honda Civic Hybrid sedan has achieved an average lifetime, *real world* fuel consumption of 17.68 km/l or 41.60 mpg. While not the most fuel efficient car in the world, it is still better than my earlier conventional Civic of the same model platform (which itself is a story for another day) which had managed around 13 km/l (30 mpg).

I would say it’s a mix of around 60-40 highway vs city/urban driving, and of course with the 3-stage VTEC, CVT and all, highway fuel economy with the Civic Hybrid is quite good, reaching into the 25 km/l (58 mpg) range during sustained highway cruising. It’s the traffic jams that don’t help at all, and this is where the inevitable “Honda Civic Hybrid vs Toyota Prius Hybrid” fuel economy debates have raged all over the Internet. And if you are talking about the new EPA gas mileage figures, I would say I’m pretty darn close, with the 2006-2008 Civic Hybrid models being essentially similar, the new EPA fuel economy rating is 42 mpg, which is very close to my (current) 41.6 mpg.

It would also be useful to note that my figures are for a single sample size of *one* car, based on *my* driving patterns (or rather Biow’s since she drives more often these days). If you are in the market for fuel efficient vehicles, or looking for hybrid car comparison figures, you may also want to look at GreenHybrid’s Fuel Economy Comparison table, where as of this writing, the Toyota Prius is at a median mpg of 48.21 mpg and the Honda Civic Hybrid is at 47.16 mpg, both with sample sizes of over 1000 each. As always, be aware that these are more American-centric numbers probably with more highway usage and given the nature of that website there are probably more than a couple of expert hypermilers included in the statistics.

Fuel consumption figures are subject to any number of factors, from make, model and technology, to driving patterns, traffic, temperature, climate and weather conditions and more, but I hope that for my current model, these figures are of some help toward whatever research you may be doing. You may also bookmark this page and come back from time to time to see how things are going.

See also :

1. 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid first drive
2. Peakoiler buys 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid FD3
3. 2010 Honda Civic Hybrid preliminary specifications released
4. 2010 Honda CR-Z hybrid, 2010 Honda Fit/Jazz hybrid models confirmed

 

Singapore opens largest CNG refuelling station in the world

channelnewsasia.com :

The world’s largest CNG refuelling station – spanning over 7,000 square metres [75,000 square feet] – has opened in Singapore. It has 44 pump hoses for cars and 2 for buses, and is open 24 hours. This should address the problem of insufficient refuelling stations that users have complained about. The S$16m C-nergy station, the 5th CNG station in Singapore, is owned by the Union Energy Group. C-nergy is the brainchild of Teo Kiang Ang, who also runs TransCab, Singapore’s second largest taxi company. Mr Teo plans to open 3 more CNG stations – in Bedok/Changi, Woodlands and Toa Payoh – within the next 3 years.

There are 4,200 CNG vehicles, 1/3 of them taxis, out of over 700,000 vehicles in Singapore. Still, users are hampered by a Catch-22 situation. Drivers are reluctant to switch to CNG despite the green tax rebate, because there are not enough CNG stations. CNG refuellers say they are reluctant to spend millions to build CNG stations because there are not enough CNG vehicles. But as oil prices increase and relatively cheaper CNG becomes more easily available, Mr Teo expects more to switch to CNG vehicles.

- It is probably a good (or at least slighty better) thing from an environmental point of view for more to switch to CNG vehicles, since vehicles which run on CNG, or compressed natural gas, have slightly less emissions than conventional petrol vehicles. Still, my contention remains that CNG is still natural gas, and natural gas is still a fossil fuel, as prone to depletion as any fossil fuel is.

Big-picture wise, using CNG, and consequently importing LNG, is at best an interim solution, which my earlier post has explained in greater detail. From a longer term point of view, my money remains on hybrid vehicles, followed by electric cars, and as for the source of energy, nuclear power, followed, eventually, by space solar.

See also :

1. Indonesia’s LNG supremacy wanes as Chevron’s fields run short
2. LNG at best an interim measure, alternatives must be looked into
3. Singapore’s first public CNG station to be ready by Jan 2008
4. Singapore : 3 more CNG stations to open by end of 2008
5. Indonesia to speed up CNG vehicle conversion, using up more of its natural gas

via :
Singapore opens largest CNG refuelling station in the world

 

Singapore electric vehicles : Government agencies EMA and LTA to study EV introduction

channelnewsasia.com :

A multi-agency taskforce chaired by the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been set up to study the introduction of electric vehicles (EV’s) in Singapore from 2010. Key industry players include auto manufacturers and technology companies. S$20 million will be set aside to support infrastructure development and tests for electric vehicles. The EV test-bed will allow testing of different EV prototypes and charging technologies as well as research into vehicle-to-grid (V2G) power, and is expected to run for three years (2010-2012). The taskforce will then evaluate the scope for larger scale adoption of EV’s in the future.

EMA CEO Mr Lawrence Wong said Singapore is well-positioned for the deployment of EVs because of its compact urban environment, robust electrical grid and IT infrastructure. The EV test-bed offers potential economic benefits for manufacturing and R&D, such as in battery technology, power electronics and electric drive systems. Renault-Nissan and Keppel Energy have signed an MOU with the EV taskforce. Renault-Nissan will supply EVs and share knowledge to develop common standards. Keppel Energy will develop charging stations and other supporting infrastructure.

- The timeline of 2010 to 2012 for the EV test program looks great. In fact, it looks like pretty good timing to me, with the likes of Toyota, Honda and Nissan and Mazda already planning PHEV’s and EV’s, and lithium-ion hybrid car battery manufacturing tie-ups coming up between major players including Honda-Yuasa, Toyota-Panasonic and Nissan-NEC. And on the American side of things, if/when they emerge from the current situation, they have the Chevrolet Volt, while the higher-end folks may start considering the Tesla Model S or the Tesla Roadster.

As an aside, back in Sep-Oct 2006, the Singapore government issued a National Climate Change Strategy call for consultation. My response included this item : "Consider a strategy to implement infrastructure for recharging of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, eg Cashcard-based overnight recharging stations in carparks". Of course technology and standards have evolved since then, with the current thinking as far as I can gather being the adoption of compact, standardized 440V/480V charging stations that can be put nearly anywhere including along roadsides (and hence near shops, businesses and other areas where people will visit), or inside carparks, existing petrol stations and so on, with quick charging times of just 15-20 minutes.

People like myself, whether environmentalists, peakoilers, or just concerned citizens, have been trying to push for something like this since years back. It is good to see the Singapore government starting to look into the possibility of introducing EV’s onto Singapore’s roads. This is a progressive and forward-looking initiative.

See also :

1. Nissan starts PHEV plug-in hybrid development, to introduce electric car concept at 2008 Paris Motor show

2. GM unveils production version of Chevrolet Volt PHEV plug-in hybrid car
3. Toyota to launch pure electric car based on FT-EV concept in US by 2012
4. Tesla Model S electric car unveiled, specifications include 300-mile range, 5.6 sec 0-60 mph timing

5. Honda may develop plug-in hybrid cars as Obama alters US policy

Via :

Singapore electric vehicles : Government agencies EMA and LTA to study EV introduction

 

Hello Again

This is a "Hello Again" – as compared to a "Hello World" message.

It has been a while since this blog has been updated, as I have been posting regularly to my main blog.

I would probably re-visit this blog from time to time, and put up postings and updates on the Singapore peak oil situation, some updates on Singapore electricity and petrol prices perhaps, the electrical generation industry, renewable energy efforts, and so on. Do keep posted.

 

Your power bill is standing by

peakoil.com -> forbes.com :

If someone asked you to burn 10% of your cash, it’s doubtful you’d comply. But this happens every month with your energy bill. The culprit: the many electronic devices in your home that are always on, even when you think they’re off. “Standby power can be 10% to 15% of the energy load of a state,” says Andrew Fanara, team leader for product specification development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “In California they went to homes where everything was shut off, and even then they consumed 100 to 105 watts of standby power at all times.”

Digital video recorders and cable/satellite converter boxes are among the most profligate. These devices, known as “set-top boxes,” draw a constant 30 or more watts of power. Computers are also a huge standby drain. Traditional computers average 35.5 watts in standby, while laptops average 16.5 watts. Other large standby drainers include ink jet printers, which can use from three to 20 watts, and mini-stereos, which can consume from one to 25 watts.

- Update : I have finally turned off the old VCR. I figure I don’t need another clock display since there is a battery-powered clock on the wall, and all my computers auto-sync themselves to atomic clocks. I have also turned off the speakers for the PC’s. The *second*, not-really-necessary, analog, non-DECT, non-encrypted cordless phone may be turned off permanently – soon.

Existing measures include setting up the wireless network in a cascaded subnet topology, such that while the original (and still working after 5-6 years) wired Linksys BEF-SR41 router remains on, the Linksys WRT-54GL wireless router and the third (!) PC in the bedroom are turned on only when needed. All battery chargers are also turned on only when needed.

One of the measures with the greatest potential impact could be the replacement of the electric hot air-pot with a Tiger vacuum flask. The old air-pot was demonstrably guzzling electricity since I have noted that the outside surface felt hot to the touch. It was continuously heating up water for the occasional use (!). Quite a waste actually.

…. and then there’s the matter of the *second* fridge …

Well, I’d suppose that my household guzzles energy, to the tune of 650-700 KWh per month (!). Way above the national average consumption for my housing type (supposedly 474 KWh for a HDB 5-room flat as indicated on the power bill). On the other hand, we have not turned on the aircon to sleep through the night for years, we have cancelled our cable TV subscription (so no more set-top box!) many years ago, and we have replaced the old, spoilt Ariston 3.0KW dryer with a more efficient Fisher Paykel 1.8KW model <- still need that, because, with 3 adults and 2 kids in the house, the existing clothes line capacity is regularly exceeded.

Let’s see what transpires in the next few billing cycles.

See also :

1. Electricity tariff to go up 2.3%
2. TV standby buttons will be outlawed

- via lowem.log

 

Corporate energy awareness

Over an in-house lunch at the office, our R&D team’s Chief Architect spoke at length about biofuels, and how it is going to turn out to be a choice between feeding people or feeding cars – a topic I have blogged on earlier. My colleague and senior, a System Architect, proffered his opinion that biofuels are nothing but a gimmick. I noted that we burn up in fossil fuels the equivalent of 400 years of global plant and animal growth each and every year, so it’s not like biodiesel can help much.

My boss, VP Software Engineering, and the Chief Architect, then talked about the storage and range problems associated with using hydrogen as a fuel (or rather, as an energy carrier, as peakoilers will point out). A fellow colleague chimed in with his observation that there is a hydrogen fueling station at East Coast and how it seemed to have been built just for one particular “million-dollar Mercedes” seen zipping around the area.

I’m not quite sure how the discussion came about though. Perhaps it was the sight of the amount of catered food (KFC and Pizza Hut) on the conference table, and how someone remarked how we shouldn’t waste it as we had apparently ordered a bit more than needed. But it’s interesting to see how awareness of energy issues is making its way into the company. And these folks are alpha geeks – the smartest people in the room, in fact some of the smartest people I have ever worked with. They are probably a couple of notches down on the “doomerosity scale” but that’s fine by me; there are no economists in the room.

Elsewhere, in the parent company, it is also apparent that there is an increasing level of corporate awareness of energy issues. The current edition of the company newsletter has an article on the front page about alternative commuting options such as vanpools, carpools, bus services and even cycling to work. An employee comments enthusiastically about a work-related advantage : “I drive in with eight people who work on the F-22, and it keeps me in touch with what’s happening …”

So, how does your company fare on the energy awareness scale? How about your colleagues, on a personal level? Are you the resident peakoiler in your company or department? Has the corporate HQ shown any awareness or taken any action in this regard?

 

Electricity tariff to go up 2.3%

It’s official.

Electricity tariffs will go up by an average of 2.3 percent or 0.49 cents per KWh (kilo-watt hour) between October 1 and December 31 this year.

If you care to check out Singapore Power’s website for the details on the tariff hikes, you might see that it went up 3.04¢ per kWh (+18.4%) in 2005 while in 2006, it’s an annual increase of 2.07¢ (10.6%).

Even though the increase has slowed, I believe consumers in Singapore can do certain things to offset their increased expenditure in this area.

Conservation.

Personally, I’ve started switching off home appliances (with standby modes) at the source for about 2 months now. Overall, I’ve gotten a savings of 7% so far. This month, I’m starting to cut down my usage of airconditioning, replacing its use with electric fans. From this, I should see a further 15% reduction in my electrical bills.

And, this is not because I cannot afford my bills.

But rather, I feel people should starting thinking about how they are spending their money. If you look at the economics of this situation, not curbing your usage will send the signal to our commercial power producers that their product is price inelastic, meaning, they can still increase prices without an impact on revenues, and hence profits. Remember, unlike our public transport whose rates are regulated by the PTC, our now-commercial power sector does not have such controls or transparencies.

Normally, if these companies are losing their pants selling subsidised power to me, I would just shut up and pay up. But the fact is that these power companies are reaping more profits than ever (I’m only up to 2005 with their annual reports). So, in spite of how it is preached to me that “fuel cost make up 55% of the cost of electricity”, it is financially straightforward to see how these tariff hikes will ultimately improve profits.

All’s fair and square in economics.

If you feel this continued trend of tariff hikes is ‘ok’, go on and continue to pay your bills.

If you don’t like it, start conserving. Imagine, if we’re all to switch off our standby-mode appliances alone, power producers will see a 7% drop in their retail revenues. This will send a strong signal to them that electricity tariffs is not that inelastic afterall. And, they will think harder about pricing when the next quarter comes.

Besides, it’s good for the environment

 

Interlude

Wow, I didn’t realised I made the last post to this blog exactly one month ago, and for that matter, it wasn’t even my own writing! I took a much needed break from too much Peak Oil talk – taking good advice from Matt Savinar, himself only thinking and writing about PO once a week.

A month has passed but I’ve been busy changing my lifestyle. The focus of which is to lower my personal carbon emission.

Turning Off Appliances
First off, I started to practice of switching off home appliances at the source, leaving all of them totally off, not on some standby mode. I do this when I’m out to work or off to sleep. I did this for 2 months and got a savings of 7.5% off my electricity bills.

At work, I rolled out a similar exercise for colleagues to turn off everything after work and over weekends. The savings are similar but due to the bigger bill, we were able to give a couple of hundred dollars less to Singapore Power.

Less Airconditioning

Riding on this little victory, I decided to tackle the biggest guzzler of electricity at my household – airconditioning. For about 10 days now, I’ve stopped using airconditioning when I work at night. In it’s place are two 38W fans that circulates fresh air into my study for an average of 3-4 hours a night. I did a little math and found that in a month, I might save up to $80 per month doing this.

Carbon-Free Day (for the car)

I’ve set Saturday as the day we don’t drive the car. Mathematically, it’s a 1/7 savings on fuel, but given that we drive more on Saturdays, I would say it could be as high as 25%.

Walk It If You Can

I recently reorganised my songs on my iPod into various lists and started to take them wherever I go. That way, I have ‘good excuse’ to take a walk instead of the usual 2-stop train ride. It’s a little time consuming but I’ve got lots of that to spare on weekends.

Riding to Work

I just started this today. The usual 8-minute commute is now a 20-minute bicycle ride. Because I perspire so much, I can only do it on days I don’t meet my clients.

Lower-Power Servers

I just realised that my Dell rack servers are 350-500W machines. And the Mac Mini just takes in 100W at peak. Starting next month, we will be swapping out those racks and moving the Mac Mini’s in. A nice little surprise is that because the Mini’s are so small and quiet, we might not even need to house them in a room that airconditioned 24×7. This saves us even more energy.

 

LNG Will Not Provide Energy Security

This is a repost of Ng Weng Hoong’s (Editor of www.EnergyAsia.com) letter to the Straits Times on our recent decision to build an LNG terminal here. I got to know Weng Hoong over the Internet. He’s been writing on energy for 20 years and I certainly look forward to picking his brains a lot more in the months to come.

Dear Sir,

Singapore’s search for energy security and diversification is leading it to commit deeper to fossil fuels for our energy supply. We should remember that natural gas, like oil, is a depletable resource, and an increasingly expensive one as it is linked to oil pricing. As oil prices continue to climb, there will be no escaping higher gas and power prices down the road.

Two weeks ago, the Trade and Industry Minister, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, announced Singapore’s decision to build an LNG terminal in 2012 based on a study by a Tokyo Gas Engineering-led consortium. The consortium made rosy assumptions about the availability and cost of LNG in the coming years. Yet, oil and gas producers have been warning and continue to warn that the cost of finding, extracting, delivering, storing and processing fossil fuels will continue to rise. There’s also the extra cost brought on by geopolitical conflicts and terrorism, which won’t go away any time soon.

Qatar and Australia, among those cited by Singapore as potential suppliers, are straining to meet demand by much large consumers around the world with whom Singapore will have to compete if we chose the LNG path. At the opening of China’s first LNG terminal in Dapeng, Guangdong in late June, Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard told his Chinese hosts including Premier Wen Jiabao to expect to pay alot more for future LNG supplies from his country. There were even calls among Australian companies to revise upwards the cost of the LNG signed under their 2002 contract. Qatar has also made it clear that most of its production capacity has been sold out, while Russia’s energy supply, which Singapore is also courting, is not stable or reliable as a result of its internal politics.

According to Mr Lim, we need to import LNG as an alternative to piped natural gas supply from Indonesia and Malaysia. LNG is being touted as a viable and necessary alternative to ensure feedstock for our power plants.

In pursuing the LNG option, the interest of the power companies is being equated to that of national energy security. If energy security is the bigger concern, we should take a deeper and wider view on energy supply and demand issues. I believe energy security will be one of Singapore’s biggest challenges in the coming years.

The oil markets are sending a clear and unmistakable message that we’ve moved into an era of high energy prices. World demand continues to set new record highs each year as many countries are pursuing the US consumer lifestyle and model of economic development, both based largely on cheap fossil fuels. The world’s ‘easy oil’ have all been uncovered, forcing countries and governments now to go after reserves in places that are harder to access, both geologically and politically. There is now a worldwide scramble for fossil fuels, coal and uranium, leading to further conflict among nations. When cheap energy is no longer available, what happens to our way of life and the economy that we’re used to? Our assumption is that we need and — somehow — will continue to find the additional energy supply at whatever cost to maintain an increasingly unsustainable lifestyle.

We need to start planning for scenarios if and when oil hits US$100 or US$150 a barrel. The decision to go with the LNG terminal was based purely on a comparison of choices between competing fossil fuels. The conclusions reached by the TGE study failed to take into account the growing debate in the oil industry of a possible peaking of global oil reserves, and that we’re living in a more dangerous and unpredictable world.

A more comprehensive study would examine the impact of US$100-150-a-barrel oil on Singapore’s economy, and which sectors will not survive the onslaught of high energy prices. Should we be even promoting the development of cheap airlines? How will tourism be impacted? How will the proposed integrated resort be affected? It is interesting to note that all the studies and debate on the integrated resort have failed to address the issue of the impact of high oil prices. The integrated resort project is founded on the assumption of cheap energy. Its sustainability could be called into question with higher energy prices.

What is the role and future of our power companies in an era of high oil and gas prices? The EMA projects further growth in electricity demand into the future. My quesion is: do we necessarily need to use more electricity?

Can we reduce or at least maintain our power and energy demand with better urban and transportation planning and building design, enforcing tough efficiency, conservation and recycling measures, and getting rid of sectors that could not survive in an era of high energy cost? Can our buildings be planned and built in a way to reduce the need for air conditioning? Can power consumption in lighting be reduced? Can we plan for the demise of energy-intensive sectors that won’t survive high oil prices? Is it possible to forgo the construction of the LNG terminal by making these collective changes?

If a Republican President from oil-rich Texas recognises that his country is addicted to oil and that they should be doing something about it, shouldn’t Singapore be concerned too?

Instead of spending US$500 million on a small LNG terminal — and this excludes the rising cost of LNG supply contracts — would we better off now preparing to reduce energy use, and introduce solar and other alternative energy sources into Singapore? Would the country be better served if electricity generation was decentralised? There are enough tall buildings in Singapore to take on solar panels and films to lessen the load on the power grid. What other viable energy sources are available? Would the LNG terminal and the slow-moving vessels that deliver natural gas to the terminal make for attractive terrorist targets, thereby weakening, not strengthening, our energy security?

We need to subject our every economic decision, every project to the question: “How will this project cope with oil at US$100 a barrel, US$150 and US$200?” If it fails the test, we should drop it or find new ways around it.

On a broader note, we will need to look at the impact of rising energy costs on our food supply, medical care and our basic needs. Do we know how US$100-150 oil will affect our food costs and supply? This will be worthy of a detailed study.

What is Singapore’s energy policy? We have several ministries and agencies looking at various aspects of energy issues, but not a coherent, broadbased policy needed to deal with energy security. Would a carefully thought out energy policy endorse the LNG terminal?

There are enough warning signs that we are headed into an energy crisis. We should consider these warnings and start preparing now.