say no to this very evil resolution
There is a new proposal, that will soon become a resolution, that I beleave all nations should vote against.
It is named "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers" and will negativly effect all of our businesses, not just mining, woodshiping, or automobile making.
It is all of our duties to make sure such a resolution never passes. Don't be fooled by what it Promises, it will hurt your economy, no matter what kind of nation you are.
Of course it will hurt your economy, that's what environmental regulations do in this game.
Tank vessels are just as subject to regulation as any other aspect of business. A ban on single-hulled vessels is simply an attempt to prevent the oil industry from imposing negative externalities by creating environmental, economic, and social costs that are not reflected in the industry's profit margin.
The banning of single hulled tankers may very well cripple our economy. It will also, however, be a danger to our economy if we have to continue cleaning up oil spills as a result of leaky hulls.
The true problem in this case, lies not only in the single hulled tankers, but our dependence on oil as a fuel source. In this day and age, technology is our friend, and we have many possible solutions to explore that would give us a clean cheap and efficient energy source without all of the environmental risk.
Fusion, geothermal energy, solar energy. All of these things are feasable options, if you are willing to spend the money to invest in the research.
Single hull freighters are a problem, but approximately half of all freighters in operation are single hulled. By banning them, we will instantly cut the worlds oil supply in half and double its price. This will devestate economies and encourage them to develope nuclear power which is much cheaper and much more dangerous; especially in the hands of countries that may not be able to sustain proper upkeep. A gradual phasing out of single hull tankers may be called for but the proposed resolution is not acceptable.
Supporters of this resolution make unrealistic promises.
Akashia claims the costs of cleaning oil spills is a danger to our economy. This just isn't realistic. He also claims the resulting oil shortage caused by the passing of the resolution would weaken our dependence on oil. This is true but think practically, economies will be devestated by this resolution. Will countries then have the funding to develope new technologies that are unproven. Fusion is inefficent since it does not start a chain reaction like nuclear power does and the intial reaction costs more energy to make than it yields. As for geothermal and solar energy, there are few locations in the world that make these practical.
Saint Lawrence speaks of the social costs oil spills. What?
P.S.
In the most recent oil spill disaster off the coast of France. It is not likely a double-hulled frieghter would have spilled less since much less than half of its oil was spilled
Zaboo, WTF? Nuclear power is dangerous? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and FAR more efficient than oil/coal. People just like to say nuclear power is dangerous because of the incident in "That Russian Plant".
What they don't know is that the purposefully turned off all safety systems just to see would happen. They also had an inferior coolant system.
As for single hulled tankers, the resolution is unreasonable, and I have already voted against it. It would be extremely expensive to immediately phase in all the new tankers, leading to a large increase in oil prices. The tankers themselves are also not much more safe than regular tankers.
Applauds Zaboo land
He’s right I will for the first time need to legalize nuclear plants and mining.
Zaboo, WTF? Nuclear power is dangerous? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and FAR more efficient than oil/coal. People just like to say nuclear power is dangerous because of the incident in "That Russian Plant".
What they don't know is that the purposefully turned off all safety systems just to see would happen. They also had an inferior coolant system.
As for single hulled tankers, the resolution is unreasonable, and I have already voted against it. It would be extremely expensive to immediately phase in all the new tankers, leading to a large increase in oil prices. The tankers themselves are also not much more safe than regular tankers.
Nuclear plants creat a radioactive by-product that will take hundred of hundred of thousands to stop being deadly! and more but I am to lazy to post the rest
I am under the opinion that if a tanker has more than one hull (persay two or even three hulls) , then the tanker will be heavier than a single hulled tanker.
As my knowledge of the shipping industry is a wee bit limited I would believe that the heavier a vessel then the more gasoline and crude oil it will waste, in doing so it will drive up the prices of oil not bring them down as has been stated in the proposition.
By driving up the prices of oil the economies of various nations will fall into ruin as we will be unable to keep up with the prices coming out of the oil rich nations, however the plight of the global economy has never been in the interest of the Social Communist Evironmentalists has it.
Zaboo, WTF? Nuclear power is dangerous? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and FAR more efficient than oil/coal. People just like to say nuclear power is dangerous because of the incident in "That Russian Plant".
What they don't know is that the purposefully turned off all safety systems just to see would happen. They also had an inferior coolant system.
As for single hulled tankers, the resolution is unreasonable, and I have already voted against it. It would be extremely expensive to immediately phase in all the new tankers, leading to a large increase in oil prices. The tankers themselves are also not much more safe than regular tankers.
Nuclear plants creat a radioactive by-product that will take hundred of hundred of thousands to stop being deadly! and more but I am to lazy to post the rest
Yes, this is true. But these waste products are buired deep underground, in thick concrete and lead bunkers. There are EXTREMELY stringent regulations and laws about how to bury it, where, what depth, the amount of shielding, etc. All of the burial sites are protected by armed guards as well. I should get my nuclear power book and type out some quotes from it about nuclear waste disposal. Besides, I think the small amount of depleted waste is better than the pollution caused by Oil and coal based products.
:shock:
You know... I voted for this resolution, but now I've read the debate. I agree with the points presented here, and will change my vote presently.
Thank you
Raevyn
President of the Disputed Territories of Raevynnia
I want to personally thank Raevynnia for taking the time to read up on the issue and also to admit to changing their vote. Not a lot of people would do that. That was very big of you. I don't know why people say this when someone does that and I'm not sure what that means but I do mean it.
Yes, this is true. But these waste products are buired deep underground, in thick concrete and lead bunkers. There are EXTREMELY stringent regulations and laws about how to bury it, where, what depth, the amount of shielding, etc. All of the burial sites are protected by armed guards as well. I should get my nuclear power book and type out some quotes from it about nuclear waste disposal. Besides, I think the small amount of depleted waste is better than the pollution caused by Oil and coal based products.
Its not a small amount.
anyways ask yourself
would you want to live over a nuclear waste burial site? Want your children to play in the water? eat the food grown near there?
*EDIT* actually pay no attention to what I say.
Instead pay attention to the persuasive arguments of the people above me.
Yes, this is true. But these waste products are buired deep underground, in thick concrete and lead bunkers. There are EXTREMELY stringent regulations and laws about how to bury it, where, what depth, the amount of shielding, etc. All of the burial sites are protected by armed guards as well. I should get my nuclear power book and type out some quotes from it about nuclear waste disposal. Besides, I think the small amount of depleted waste is better than the pollution caused by Oil and coal based products.
I agree with SS on this one. Nuclear power is currently the cleanest, most effiecent energy source available to us. Oil and coal pollute the air, solar panel manufacturing produces some very hazardous chemicals, air power causes changes with the wind patterns, disrupting weather patterns, as does hydroelectric. Geothermal seems to be fairly clean, but there are a limited number of sites that can use it, and the costs are tremendous.
We should all embrace the French breeder reactor designs, they have an excellent safety record when compared to Russian and US designs. The only incidents that come to mind are a few issues in Japan, but those were mostly operator error.
Yes, this is true. But these waste products are buired deep underground, in thick concrete and lead bunkers. There are EXTREMELY stringent regulations and laws about how to bury it, where, what depth, the amount of shielding, etc. All of the burial sites are protected by armed guards as well. I should get my nuclear power book and type out some quotes from it about nuclear waste disposal. Besides, I think the small amount of depleted waste is better than the pollution caused by Oil and coal based products.
I agree with SS on this one. Nuclear power is currently the cleanest, most effiecent energy source available to us. Oil and coal pollute the air, solar panel manufacturing produces some very hazardous chemicals, air power causes changes with the wind patterns, disrupting weather patterns, as does hydroelectric. Geothermal seems to be fairly clean, but there are a limited number of sites that can use it, and the costs are tremendous.
We should all embrace the French breeder reactor designs, they have an excellent safety record when compared to Russian and US designs. The only incidents that come to mind are a few issues in Japan, but those were mostly operator error.
Nuclear waste remains deadly for 10,000 years. Currently, the plan in the US is to dump it in a enormously expensive and secure complex in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This location was selected as among the best in the world. The desert climate means minimal weather changes and water that would slowly decay the structure. The rock in Yucca mountain even has some properties that would absorb some of the radiation if there was a containment failure. Regardless, according to experiments run by the DOE (department of energy), containment will fail in about 1,000 years. In 1995 there were 32,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in the US. This number will almost double by 2030. That's a whole lot of radiation leaking into the east coast's water table. They are hoping that before this containment failure something will "come up".
This is the best scenario. I forget the exact numbers but I think the US has a higher GDP that the next three countries combined. Ugly things will happen when Pakistan tries to dispose of their waste and very ugly things will happen when countries start to run nuclear power plants without the proper funding.
Nuclear waste remains deadly for 10,000 years. Currently, the plan in the US is to dump it in a enormously expensive and secure complex in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This location was selected as among the best in the world. The desert climate means minimal weather changes and water that would slowly decay the structure. The rock in Yucca mountain even has some properties that would absorb some of the radiation if there was a containment failure. Regardless, according to experiments run by the DOE (department of energy), containment will fail in about 1,000 years. In 1995 there were 32,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in the US. This number will almost double by 2030. That's a whole lot of radiation leaking into the east coast's water table. They are hoping that before this containment failure something will "come up".
This is the best scenario. I forget the exact numbers but I think the US has a higher GDP that the next three countries combined. Ugly things will happen when Pakistan tries to dispose of their waste and very ugly things will happen when countries start to run nuclear power plants without the proper funding.