NationStates Jolt Archive

Fossil Fuels are running out. We need to use more hydroelectricity and nuclear power. Nuclear Power is renewable and doesn't pollute. Some fossil fuels pollute and all are nonrenewable. Water is a natural resource which is not a fossil fuel. Nuclear Power may produce highly-radio-active waves.

Um.....this really doesn't do anything.

There are very few (if any) two line resolutions that are actually.....considered worthy of the UN's time. This one is no exception. You need to put in a concrete plan - one that is reasonable, doable and well argued for. Putting just "fossil fuels are running out" as your argument doesn't work too well.

Fossil Fuels can pollute, are nonrenewable, and are depleting rapidly. Nuclear Power does not pollute, is renewable, but produces highly radio-active waves. Hydroelectricity does not pollute, cannot deplete, and does no harm to man kind. Solar Power comes from the Sun and does not pollute.

Nuclear Power is renewable

Since when?

We already have legislation encouraging the use of alternative energy resources. Plus, hydroelectricity has recently been shown frequently to be at least as bad for global warming as fossil fuels, due to emissions of methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) from bacteria decaying dead organic matter in the reservoirs behind hydroelectric dams.

Why did you start three threads about this?

Of your extensions over the others.....you only have Solar power correct (read the other thread) - and it is a fairly unreliable power source....due to the requisite of...well....sunlight.

Why have you created another thread without even addressing the mistakes pointed out in the original?

Nuclear Power does not pollute

From dictionary.com: pollute - To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter.

Clearly, radioactive waste and ionising radiation do this, hence fission plants do pollute.

highly radio-active waves

This is very clumsy wording. "Ionising radiation" is better.

Hydroelectricity does not pollute ... and does no harm to man kind

Wrong. As I stated previously, hydroelectric dams result in emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Flooding valleys to produce the reservoirs also destroys habitats.

Aside from factual inaccuracies, I would ask what exactly you intend by this. You don't appear to be proposing anything, just making some statements about different energy resources. If you're interested in writing a proposal, I suggest looking at the stickies at the top of this forum to see the rules governing proposals and to find advice about writing them.

I had nothing else to do. All the other stuff was taken.

This has also already been covered. Try looking for an issue that is completely new.

We need to build cars with better gas mileage to preserve fossilfuels until we can use solar :cool: vehicles! We have the technology to improve these cars gas mialage. We could use nueclear power also for different things!

We need to build cars with better gas mileage to preserve fossilfuels until we can use solar :cool: vehicles! We have the technology to improve these cars gas mialage. We could use nueclear power also for different things!

Under UN law you are to build cars that use hydrogen, in spite of the fact it's been pretty much proven to be more of a pollutant and more environmentally damaging than if you coated Los Angeles in gasoline and then set it on fire.

Actually DLE, the resolution Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=17) only mandates that nations start researching hoydogen poweres cars, it makes no mention of requiring that they actually be built.

Actually, the resolution only says that nations should start developing them. As I read it, technically there's no obligation.

Plus, hydroelectricity has recently been shown frequently to be at least as bad for global warming as fossil fuels, due to emissions of methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) from bacteria decaying dead organic matter in the reservoirs behind hydroelectric dams.

My government frowns upon large scale hydroelectric proposals.


I've not heard many people talk about the methane associated with water storage, but that might be right ... I just haven't been exposed to that. If there is an interest, I do have contacts with people who can probably find good references on this for us.

In my experience, most of the dissolved organic material (DOM) problems in drinking water actually are believed to come from shallower pools *and* runoff associated with the early storms each winter season. These early storms flush dead plant matter (young carbon) to rivers and streams. This younger carbon is highly reactive and when treated for human drinking water often forms many toxic substances, disinfection by-products.

The real world challenge with drinking water quality is that only in the past few years have we been able to create electronic instruments that are reliable enough to really begin sampling natural water supplies at a higher frequency ... meaning we know what it takes to treat water and we know some of the things in water that are bad for humans, but we don't have a complete grasp on where the harmful material enters the water supply or what happens to it on its way to your water treatment plant.

But about dams:

The water behind a hydroelectric dam will have a high head (great depth), in order to actually generate electricity. The amount of light reaching the bottom of the water column and retention time behind the dam will probably mean that DOM will settle down and that algal blooms are less likely than in shallower environments. This will of course depend upon the mixing and stratification of the reservoir, but given the difficultly in improving the dissolved oxygen in places like ship channels, I'm of the impression that deeper reservoirs are going to tend to be nutrient sinks (meaning DOM will collect at the bottom).

The problem is, those nutrients are necessary for wildlife downstream of the reservoir. Also the dams provide barriers to the fish that spawn in the rocky / high elevation freshwater streams locked upstream of those dams. Fish ladders seem to only have limited success, and fish hachteries are believed to be producing genetically inferior fish, because the process of selecting a mate has been completely removed from the breeding process ... fish that normally wouldn't spawn are having their eggs and milt (i.e. salmon sperm) mixed with healthier fish.

Dams also change the sediment load in natural systems. Sediment is important for fish because the eggs and smolts (babies) hide in sand and rock in what many of us would consider cold waters. If the dams release water from higher elevations (which is necessary to get a high head <-- this is an engineering term for elevation differences, and measured how much energy you can get from dropping water), the water is going to be warm. The warm water can kill the eggs and smolts. But if colder, deeper reservoir water is used, there could be a loss in hydroelectric power generation. What some plants do is construct temperature control devices, where water is sucked from the bottom, up a penstock, and then dropped back down a penstock (think a big upside down "U"), which seems to mean cold water and higher head. The reservoir side penstock will have several gates, which can allow engineers to grab water at different temperatures.

But temperature control devices don't really address the sediment load issues ... so the fish are still left with less habitat.

Furthermore we all know that sediment is used to supply beaches with sand, but what is less commonly known is that river beds are constantly shifting ... and hydroelectric dams are known to cause river bank erosion in addition to shoreline erosion. Normally gravel and sand from mountins would be carried and dropped on bends in rivers, and then the water would grab gravel and sand elsewhere in the river in a repeating process all the way until the ocean. Now dams tend to result in increased erosion downstream of the structure, but of a different mix of material.

Apologies for the brain dump, but you will not see my government recommending large scale hydroelectric projects. Perhaps local ones, where these things can be addressed, but at best this seems like a regional issue.

Actually DLE, the resolution Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=17) only mandates that nations start researching hoydogen poweres cars, it makes no mention of requiring that they actually be built.

Actually, the resolution only says that nations should start developing them. As I read it, technically there's no obligation.

Damn it! How in the hell am I going to give a newbie a chance to actually have a path to argue if you two are going to deal with the path before the newbie gets a chance?