NationStates Jolt Archive

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW POWER PLANTS

Description: an attempt to stimulate fellow UM member nations to invest funding into the construction of fusion based thermonuclear reactor plants, for below mentioned reasons:

NOTING THAT:

• Fossil fuel derivates will be exhausted in approximately 50 years time
• Current thermonuclear power plants, or shortly, nuclear power plants, produce a vast amount of nuclear waste which is extremely harmful to humans and human natural environment
• With the construction of such based power plants nuclear meltdown risk falls nearly to 0%
• Power would become three times cheaper than it currently is in all UN member nations
• Power trade with other, non-member nations of the UN would drastically increase, and thus realizing that the economy of UN member nations would become stronger

Furthermore,

REALIZING that Fusion based nuclear reactors produce far less nuclear waste and run on sea water instead of hydrogen fuel, money could be further saved on fueling the plants and the environment would be preserved.

Therefore, HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. All UN member nations upon the eventual passing of this proposal will be obligated to construct at least one such power plant within the time span of 5 to 10 years, depending on the nations’ economy.
2. UN member nations are cautioned to closely monitor the work of the power plants (once constructed) for scientific reasons, so that, with further research and feedback data, UN science directories could improve the rather new technology.
3. Obligates all member nations to maintain the stations and pay the education of upper level future employees from their own budget.
4. Forbids member nations to shut the plants down for at least 10 years after their completion.
5. Points that the new plant fuel does not necessarily have to be SEA water. River water will suffice.
6. Encourages to all curious nations to find out more of how the plants function.

Thus CONCLUDES:

That the construction of these plants will bring us economic prosperity, disappear nuclear waste problem, create new job positions, possibly solve future power problems.

All UN member nations upon the eventual passing of this proposal will be obligated to construct at least one such power plant within the time span of 5 to 10 years, depending on the nations’ economy.Did I miss something in the Real Life™ news? Is someone going to build a working fusion plant by 2010?!?

[/SARCASM]

IMNSHO, reliable fusion power generation is PMT, not MT. This Resolution effectively mandates RP at the PMT level or higher.

If I'm wrong about reliable fusion power generation coming on line by 2010, I'd love a web cite. Seriously. It would be great news (plus I would love for Allemande to be able to use fusion power while staying MT).

OOC: Sorry, I might sound ignorant, but what do IMNSHO, MT and PMT stand for? :p In 4 years of RP-ing, never have I come across them.

And yes, there is a real such fusion reactor being constructed. It is in honor of it that I proposed this. Its name is ITER(International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), the name also means ROAD or WAY (as in 'way to the future') in latin. After three years of argument, it has been decided that it will be built in France, in a village near Marseille, I believe. Construction costs are estimated to about 10 billion euros and the Plant will be finished somewhere around 2010. Construction is to begin I think somewhere this december.

IMNSHO = In My Not So Humble Opinion
MT = Modern Technology (this is unique to NS)
PMT = Post-Modern Technology (this is also unique to NS)
NS = NationStates (this game)
RL = Real Life™ (meatspace, what people often mistake for this game)

And yes, there is a real such fusion reactor being constructed. It is in honor of it that I proposed this. Its name is ITER(International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), the name also means ROAD or WAY (as in 'way to the future') in latin. After three years of argument, it has been decided that it will be built in France, in a village near Marseille, I believe. Construction costs are estimated to about 10 billion euros and the Plant will be finished somewhere around 2010. Construction is to begin I think somewhere this december.Wonderful. I'll look for it on the web. My impression was that workable fusion is still decades away (then again, as this is an experimental plant, it still may be decades away: do the sponsors expect that it will actually generate more power than in consumes, and if so how much?

Generally, MT is whatever we have on Earth today (or could have, if we had the will to build it). PMT is the technology of tomorrow (depending on your definition on tomorrow). It's short of FT (=Future Technology), the stuff of most popular science fiction.

One of the semi-spoken rules around here is that players choose the level of technology they wish accept as "real" within their nation's universe. Thus, you'll find MT nations often refusing to employ PMT or FT because they don't currently exist. Something to watch out for...

Thanks for the acronyms. :)

Anyway, this cant really be called PMT since it is being constructed, can it?

If you want to learn more, you can check out http://www.iter.org
It has some cool powerpoint presentations and education on fusion.

OOC - reliable fusion power generation is PMT

While I know that women get annoyed around that time I never realised that they created energy...although thinking about it, they always have energy to cause me hell :(

Im glad someone cleared up the Post Modern Technology thing.


IC - As far as the nation of Engineering Chaos is aware there is not yet any such thing as a fission reactor...except the stars

OOC: Lets clear it up one last time...

IC: Its not a fission reactor, its a fusion reactor. Fission is implied in all current nuclear power plants, and its generates a lot of power, but at the same time a lot of energy. If I remember my physics 101, I believe nuclear power plants work on (fission based) work on splitting atomic cores. Most usuaually of hydrogen. The reactor is isolated with led to prevent radiation, and to get things going, hot water steam is used.

As for fusion based nuclear power plants, things are quite the contrary. In this case, the hydrogen cores get fused together (thus fusion) to become deuterium or tritium (all hydrogen isotopes) which produces far less nuclear waste and even more energy. There is no need for water steem with this reactor, because, in order to keep the conduit, or reacter, within which the reacton is going on, very strong magnetic fields are placed. The reason for this is because the hydrogen within, as the plazma heats and heats to the point of the heat of the stars, cannot touch the walls of the reactor. The plazma is stabilez by large magnets. And thus energy is produced. I believe somewhere between 700MW-800MW per minute? Or possible per hour, Im not certain. But once improved, this number will jump to 1,5GW-1,7GW. This technology, my friends, is present today, after 30 years of research.

So, Engeneering chaos, perhaps your science directory ought to reconsider their thought on fission or fusion occuring only in stars? ;)

OOC: Lets clear it up one last time...

IC: Its not a fission reactor, its a fusion reactor. Fission is implied in all current nuclear power plants, and its generates a lot of power, but at the same time a lot of energy. If I remember my physics 101, I believe nuclear power plants work on (fission based) work on splitting atomic cores. Most usuaually of hydrogen. The reactor is isolated with led to prevent radiation, and to get things going, hot water steam is used.
I realise you probably made a mistake, but I should point out the difficulties of splitting hydrogen. Either you're trying to split a single proton, a proton and a neutron, or you're dealing with tritium, which you don't usually try to attack - it's not safe.

Fission is undertaken with heavy elements such as uranium and plutonium. This is because these elements are so large, they are already unstable, so much more amenable to splitting than the smaller elements.

If I remember my physics 101, I believe nuclear power plants work on (fission based) work on splitting atomic cores. Most usuaually of hydrogen.Actually, it happens at the other end of the spectrum, with the heaviest elements: U235, U238, and Pu239 (someone correct my atomic weights if I'm wrong). The latter two are "weapons grade" fissionables, but are often produced in reactors (sometimes called "breeder" reactors). Allemande has a fairly large "breeder" industry, as we consume a lot of "weapons grade" material in the product of non-military nuclear explosives.
As for fusion based nuclear power plants, things are quite the contrary. In this case, the hydrogen cores get fused together (thus fusion) to become deuterium or tritium (all hydrogen isotopes) which produces far less nuclear waste and even more energy.Actually, it's usually deuterium (H2) or a mixture of deuterium and simple hydrogen (H1), because proton-proton fusion is a beast, whereas D-D or D-H fusion has a far lower threshold. The by-products are helium and helium isotopes (He3 and He4).
And thus energy is produced. I believe somewhere between 700MW-800MW per minute? Or possible per hour, Im not certain. But once improved, this number will jump to 1,5GW-1,7GW. This technology, my friends, is present today, after 30 years of research.The plant you cite is rated for 450MW, and isn't likely to begin steady production until 2015 (that's from the web site you gave me, BTW)

So fusion is still likely PMT - or at best available only on a pilot basis at the uppermost end of MT.

Far too RW based for us thanks.

I just don't see how this could be a benefit to everyone.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Its your choice.

Im not a nuclear physicist, so I don't deny that my output was 100% accurate. But that is beside the point. You've apparently miss-read the info on the site. ITER construction will be finished 2010. The french government has already announced its construction being started.

Its your choice.

Im not a nuclear physicist, so I don't deny that my output was 100% accurate. But that is beside the point. You've apparently miss-read the info on the site. ITER construction will be finished 2010. The french government has already announced its construction being started."Detailed plans exist for the construction, operation and decommissioning of ITER, and indicate that, if the ITER Organisation is established in 2006, the first plasma should be possible in ITER by the end of 2016."

"First plasma" is the point at they actually light the thing up.

In fact...

<click ... pause>

The project plan (http://www.iter.org/gifs2/constructionschedules.jpg) indicates that only the "PFC Building" will be finished by 2010; in fact, the project doesn't expect to get a license to construct until 2008. The "Tokamak building" (which houses the reactor itself) is scheduled for completion in 2011. Only then will work on the Tokamak assembly (i.e., the reactor proper) begin. The vendors aren't even scheduled to finish delivery of the final pieces of the Tokamak until 2014; assembly is scheduled to be completed by mid-2015. Commissioning will begin on components and structures already in place in 2014, and is not scheduled to be finished on the plant as whole until 2016. From the chart, it would appear that ignition (or "first plasma", as described above) will begin at the end of 1Q 2016, assuming no delays.

Moreover, the project envisions an "estimated 21 year operation phase in which one year of integrated system commissioning (that would be 2015 - italics mine) is followed by 10 years of operation aiming primarlly at establishing the optimum physics of a power reactor and determining the best operating mode to obtain the most relevant tritium-breeding blanket testing, followed by a 10 year operation phase to exploit those conditions." So the plant will operate as a pilot from 2016 through 2025, and only arrive at something like a stable operating environment (from an economic POV) from 2026 onward. Decommissioning will begin in 2035, since that too must be piloted given the unique nature of the plant.

If the fission industry is any guide, it would seem that the bulk of investment in fusion power generation is unlikely to occur, then, until after 2040 or even 2050. Utility companies will need to know the cost of operation across the whole lifecycle, and that will not be evident until this plant has been shut down at its end-of-useful-life.

"...(There will be) a decommissioning phase, the first 6 years of which being the final responsibility of the ITER project, to deactivate the plant by removal of tritiated materials, activated corrosion products and radioactive dust, as well as in-vessel components, followed by about 20 further years (minimum) under the responsibility of the host Party allowing for radioactive decay, and a further 6 year period of dismantlement and disposal of the remaining plant."

Wow. That means that when operation ends in 2035, six more years will pass for the removal of radioactive waste. Then, from 2042 through 2061, France will let the plant sit idle "allowing for radioactive decay" (tritium has a half-life of about seven years)", after which France will tear the plant down over another six year period, from 2062 through 2067. So the anticipated life cycle of the plant is actually 63 years, from planning to the final stages of demolition.

This matters. As I mentioned above, utility companies are going to want to know the costs and timetables associated with this new technology (seeing as how many of them got burned badly during the fission craze of the 1960's). Until the whole process has been run through, end-to-end, at least once, no one can really say what all the costs are.

Government subsidies can help mitigate the risk, but realistically the "fusion future" - if this plant pans out - won't arrive until the last half of the 21st Century.

So fusion is still PMT.

Hey, I want fusion as badly as the next guy. It's an excellent source of energy. But let's not go off half-cocked and figure that this is a done deal before we've even managed to get a single plant up and running on a prototype basis.

Maybe you want to propose a project to research fusion, and defray the costs and risks inherent in its early adoption? That would make more sense than mandating that every nation build at least one fusion power plant.

<click ... pause>

The reaction cycle is D-T (deuterium-tritium):H2 + H3 + ???MeV -> He4 + H + 17.6MeV... where MeV = Mega (million) electron Volts

"For inertial fusion or magnetic confinement to make an attractive source of electricity, the net electrical energy input into the power plant must be much less than the electrical energy output. As any scheme will need to consume energy to drive internal systems, it will at least be necessary that the integrated thermal power out of the plasma is much greater than the integrated thermal power in. Thus a necessary condition for a fusion power source is that the ratio of these two thermal powers, the 'power amplification' (Q), be sufficiently large.

"Taking account of the internal system inefficiencies, for example the thermal conversion efficiency of heat into electricity in a turbogenerator system (~35% for steam) and the efficiency of converting electrical power delivered to the heating systems to thermal power to the plasma (~80%), Q>10 is considered a reasonable target for a proof of principle in ITER, whereas Q>30-50 would be desirable for good overall plant efficiency (>25%) in a reactor producing electricity. (italics mine)."

So ITER will really be a pilot plant, maybe only 25% as efficient as it needs to be in order to be economically productive. That's why those 10 years of operation are needed to figure out the basics of running an efficient fusion plant. That puts the "first-generation" of actual (highly subsidized and highly [financially] risky) fusion plants in the 2032-2037 time frame (after 2035, plus 7-10 years to apply "lessons learned" to the design and construct based on that improved design).

Oh for gods sakes, just endorse it or not.

Oh for gods sakes, just endorse it or not.ROTLFMAO!

Hey, I just wanted to establish for everyone whether this was MT or PMT. For some folks, it does matter.

Me, I'm indifferent.

:p

1. All UN member nations upon the eventual passing of this proposal will be obligated to construct at least one such power plant within the time span of 5 to 10 years, depending on the nations’ economy.

Do "powerplants" also include power-systems aboard vessels. Or is it strictly land-based/planet-based.... We typically use ZPM's for power.... Fusion has very limited roles, and we don't use them for wide-spread power distrobution.

Fusion is used in limited capacity by inter-system craft, and some older craft lacking FTL capability.... And on some older vessels as a backup power system....

We just don't use it for normal power-generation.

Fission works by "spliting" large unstable (radioactive) isotopes...

Some of the isotopes used are:
Uranium-235
Oxidized Plutonium-239
Thorium-232

Fusion works generally by using one of two heavy isotopes of Hydrogen:
Hydrogen-2 (Deuterium) is what is experimented with in some reactor designs.
Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) is used in Fission-Fusion (Hydrogen) Bombs, and in some reactor designs.

Heated to plasma; the material is contained inside of a magnetic toroid, and fuses naturally (like in the sun) for reactor usage....

In bombs, the material is "layered" in a sphere. The outside layer (core to the warhead) contains normal HE (High-Explosive) "Caps".

The top layer of the "fuel" part of the sphere, is normally composed of Plutonium-239... And the core contains Liquid H-3 (Tritium).

During detonation, the HE caps go off, all at once, causing the P-239 sphere to compress into a fissionable mass.... Resulting in a nuclear-fission reaction(and explosion), this further heats and compresses the Tritium, which undergoes fusion, in a secondary explosion, caused by compression and heat of the first (fission) explosion as a fusion reaction...

You can pick up most of the stuff you need to make such a bomb at your local radioshack, and hardware store..... Except of course the Plutonium-239 and Hydrogen-3 (Tritium)...

And someone tell Jolt to make a robots.txt file on their forum webserver that contains:

User-Agen: *
Dissallow: *

1. All UN member nations upon the eventual passing of this proposal will be obligated to construct at least one such power plant within the time span of 5 to 10 years, depending on the nations’ economy.
2. UN member nations are cautioned to closely monitor the work of the power plants (once constructed) for scientific reasons, so that, with further research and feedback data, UN science directories could improve the rather new technology.
3. Obligates all member nations to maintain the stations and pay the education of upper level future employees from their own budget.
4. Forbids member nations to shut the plants down for at least 10 years after their completion.
Are you trying to bankrupt us? How do you propose developing nations fund such a project?

Mathiey Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

ooc for a moment here. Be aware that many nations in nationstates already have this technology. PMT exists in many of the nations here and FT even in some. In Yrneh we already have replaced all our power plants, very reciently finished doing this mind you, with fusion plants as our technology is 10-50 years ahead of MT depending on the field of research you are speaking of. Ok IC response below.


While we of Yrneh support the expansion of Fusion Technology to the world we will not share ours with nations unable to develop this on their own. Granting a nation this technology when they are unprepared can lead to great harm and accidents. We will happily help fund other nations researchs to the best of our ability though.

Grand Duke Arthur Hendrik representing the Dominion of Yrneh

I am not trying to bankrupt you, Ecopoeia, but if you need funding for its construction, my country will happily assist you. Our economy is strong enough to sonsor the construction of several such power plants, and can guarantee their completion within 5-6 years. Once constructed, your nation should thrive from these plants, meaning your economy might 'develop'.

As for the other question, no, the implementation of fusion power is required only on land, to be used as trade energy and to power cities.

Did I miss something in the Real Life™ news? Is someone going to build a working fusion plant by 2010?!?

http://www.theregister.com/2005/06/29/france_fusion_win/

"The European Union announced yesterday that the world's largest ever fusion reactor will be built in France, at a total cost of around $12bn.

Competition to secure the 30-year International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project has been intense, but Japan withdrew its bid last week leaving the floor open for the French bid. The US and South Korea has been supporters of the Japanese bid, but the French option had the backing of the EU, China and Russia."

Here is a nice FAQ about the project that I found googling this morning:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4627237.stm

Here are the questions answered in the FAQ:
What is Iter (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)?
What exactly is fusion?
What are the advantages of fusion?
Will Iter produce radioactive waste?
How soon will Iter be built?
How much will Iter cost?
How will Iter be financed?
Why is the EU so keen to host the reactor?
Why is fusion energy seen to be so desirable?
When will the first commercial fusion reactor be built?

These are all great questions, and the type of thing I think we should consider. You basically raised the last one, to which the BBC responded:

"There are therefore many major scientific and engineering hurdles to overcome before the technology becomes commercially viable. A commercial reactor is not expected before 2045 or 2050 - if at all. Indeed, there is no guarantee that Iter will succeed."

This jives with what I've just heard in passing. In my case, I'll be dead long before anything like this is completed. But that doesn't mean I don't think it is worth pursuing IRL. :)

I am not trying to bankrupt you, Ecopoeia, but if you need funding for its construction, my country will happily assist you. Our economy is strong enough to sonsor the construction of several such power plants, and can guarantee their completion within 5-6 years. Once constructed, your nation should thrive from these plants, meaning your economy might 'develop'.
That is a very kind offer, but we would feel uncomfortable imposing on you in such a manner.

[QUOTE=Yrneh]While we of Yrneh support the expansion of Fusion Technology to the world we will not share ours with nations unable to develop this on their own. Granting a nation this technology when they are unprepared can lead to great harm and accidents. We will happily help fund other nations researchs to the best of our ability though./QUOTE]
Greetings.

We of Roathin concur with our colleague of Yrneh on this matter. We have recently discovered that our thaumaturgic manipulations are identical in logic and effect with those conducted by states with Higgs-field adjustment capability. Accordingly, we are prepared to provide safe fusion-restraint technology to those who wish to experiment. We require accepting states to sign an agreement with us accepting the installation of semi-sentient control golems and associated support automata. In addition, the local psychomorphic field must enable thaumatological phenomena.

As for the other question, no, the implementation of fusion power is required only on land, to be used as trade energy and to power cities.

So, I would need to impliment an unneeded and archaic power-source; inferior to existing systems (such as ZPM's or MARC's) or even Orbital Solar Stations...

Doesn't sound very appeasing to me...

Fusion is not always the best route to pursue for alternative power sources. Some nations' scientists may have particular expertise in, say, space-based solar arrays. Wouldn't it be better to endorse all forms of low pollution, long-term viable, non-greenhouse energy resources, and let nations concentrate on what they can do best?

Regarding fusion, as far as _Myopia_ is aware we are still at a stage where large-scale development as a viable resource will not be possible without a few decades more research. Hence all the plants you want us to build will be doing the same thing - being used as prototypes to establish if fusion can be a practical commercial technology and if so how to run a plant to achieve this. It does not appear to us that it is necessary for this to be done in parallel in every UN nation - it would make more sense just to have one collaborative prototype reactor (OOC: like the RL ITER).

I know I'm a noob to the forum and the game itself, but I would have taken the bill a degree farther and mandated that at least 10 percent of all power be generated by alternate energy sources.

I don't know if Fusion Nukes would count (seeing fission is what all plants rely on now) but it's not the point...

The people of Gassland request the attention of all concerned with this issue for a moment. Is fusion or fission the only option for energy? I ask this because those of us in regions such as the Pacific would clearly have access to large amounts of water, which has been shown as a reputable source of power. I propose that nations with access to it use hydroelectricity if they cannot or will not use fusion or fission power. Also, I would like to propose having scientists from as many nations as possible researching anti-matter along with other alternate forms of energy production. E.g. cold fusion, fission of very common elements, etc. Thank you for your attention.

Perhaps I was too hasty with this proposal. My idea was never to induce bankruptcy or to violate any nation’s right to choose the way they will produce electricity. But the proposal has already been forwarded to the UN, so...

Perhaps I was too hasty with this proposal. My idea was never to induce bankruptcy or to violate any nation’s right to choose the way they will produce electricity. But the proposal has already been forwarded to the UN, so...

OH, I think it's a fine proposal.... Just trying to enact, upon MT nations (in conjunction with IRL occurances) experimental technologies; may have been in too much haste....

If it fails Queue, or vote... You can always redraft... Possibly set up a ITER model, as opposed to enacting a more stingent standard... Some sort of UN-ITER program...

IRL concerns; the ITER program has alot of help with Japan and the US involved; both of which have had an experimental reactor like ITER running in the past (The US had it at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)... Called Tokamac's...... Toroidal Plasma Fusion reactors.... So they will probably be able to bypass many of the earlier problems the Tokamac's had in Tokyo and Princeton.... I might add, first-plasma in these things is still years away.... And past that; they will have to reach Tokyo's record; which was only 10 seconds of "self-sufficiency"...

I would love it.


But my faith have been shaken with the wisdom of the...people in power (best I can say).


I'm starting to think the UN is full of NeoCons.


I may just have to leave...there's really no benefit so far.

Perhaps I was too hasty with this proposal. My idea was never to induce bankruptcy or to violate any nation’s right to choose the way they will produce electricity. But the proposal has already been forwarded to the UN, so...

Has it reached quorum yet? If not, you can always *not* campaign for it this go around and follow Tekania's advice (which I think is splendid -- try for a UN-ITER model). In other words, don't set concrete targets in your resolution. Concrete targets and governments rarely mix, and when they do, it is with explosive force. ;) Focus the resolution on being more about cooperation and promoting long-term research, on the condition that nations that participate can share in the intellectual knowledge equally. This was the basic idea of the Natural Disaster Act (resolution #100), which sailed through the UN with no significant problems.

Personally, my government really needs your resolution to pass and soon, because the City States are about to really bother those Neo-Con's New Hamilton was worried about by proposing an interesting environmental idea. ;)

Thanks for the advice. And no, it hasnt reached quorum yet.

OOC: I have a question. How does a region elect a UN delegate?

OOC: I have a question. How does a region elect a UN delegate?

OOC:The person with the most endorsements becomes the UN delegate... So election is done via "endorsement".... you can see the link for endorsing a fellow regional member state (which is also a UN member) near the bottom, just before the telegram option; in the United Nations Status section...

OOC: Yes, that I know. :) Thanks.

I would love it.


But my faith have been shaken with the wisdom of the...people in power (best I can say).


I'm starting to think the UN is full of NeoCons.


I may just have to leave...there's really no benefit so far.
We find that rather funny, as the general complaint by most people is that the UN is full of 'liberal hippies' or somesuch. It is refreshing to have a complaint in the other direction for once!

The Republic of Slovakastania announces that, although this is a ground-breaking new technology, forcing member nations to erect potentially dangerous fusion plants, both costly and unproven, under the guise of advancement is potentially abuse of the UN power. A formal suggestion with benefits to compliants would be better. Also, Slovakastania would like to clarify their official stance on capitalistic development. No member nation should be forced to modernize or erect industry unless there is a potential negative side-effect for not doing so (I.E., a ban on coal plants, side effect being pollution) other than the stated UN noncompliance penalty.

Also, Slovokastania unfortunately must state that although national resources are high and there is an overflowing treasury, we are currently modernizing our power to nuclear plants and feel it would be premature and subvert our ongoing operations to upgrade to fusion. The obvious purpose of this proposal is not to force us to do so; but a prospering commercial faction in our country would, upon seeing the benefits and profitability of this technology, pressure the government into an unnecessary round of new construction.

Thank you.

The Republic of Slovakastania announces that, although this is a ground-breaking new technology, forcing member nations to erect potentially dangerous fusion plants, both costly and unproven, under the guise of advancement is potentially abuse of the UN power. A formal suggestion with benefits to compliants would be better. Also, Slovakastania would like to clarify their official stance on capitalistic development. No member nation should be forced to modernize or erect industry unless there is a potential negative side-effect for not doing so (I.E., a ban on coal plants, side effect being pollution) other than the stated UN noncompliance penalty.

Also, Slovokastania unfortunately must state that although national resources are high and there is an overflowing treasury, we are currently modernizing our power to nuclear plants and feel it would be premature and subvert our ongoing operations to upgrade to fusion. The obvious purpose of this proposal is not to force us to do so; but a prospering commercial faction in our country would, upon seeing the benefits and profitability of this technology, pressure the government into an unnecessary round of new construction.

Thank you.

There is little "potential danger" of the Toroid design Fusion Plant (Of similar construction as the PPPL-Tokamac and ITER); as compared to Fission Technologies...

Fusion Plants do not "melt-down" And have no ability too.
Fusion Plants produce less gamma and neutron radiation (and thus are easier to shield)
The Control System requires active power; and thus it is impossible to have "uncontroled" reactions; even under the most drastic casualty situations...

Thank you!