NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly I would like to thank you for visiting the thread.

As I'm the leader of my nation I would like to put infront of the United Nations members this proposal about Renewable resources of energy.

All countries must atleast have 30% of their electricty producing percentages dedicated to renewable resources like the usage of solar panels, wind power, wave power and many more.

This is because:
1) It is pollution free and better for the environment
2) It is environtmental friendly and since we are in the United Nations, we can afford it.

Altough it has the better sides, it has its disadvantages:

1) It is a bit expensive to build
2) It only produces small ammounts of electricty compared to non-renewable energy resources.
3)It needs large spaces of development.

I'm currently putting this idea since a higher standard of living is put with the introduction of new renewable energy resources because they are more expensive.

Your opinions?
Ruben Zammit (Goverment of Democratic Republic of Zabbar Malta)

We thank the representative from the sovereign government of the Democratic Republic of Zabbar Malta for their submission to the general assembly.

Hirota notes the continued trend of member states to submit environmental legislation, specifically in the field of renewable and non-renewable energy. It seems clear there is an interest amongst the membership to develop policy to promote renewable resources. What is unclear is how to go about achieving this.

The Supremely democratic states of Hirota wish the express their concern that renewable options may have negative impacts unforeseen by friend Ruben Zammit.

We note first of all that Hirota has an extensive consumption of energy, and numerous nuclear power stations satisfy that demand. The international community has been unable to reach a consensus on the environmental impact of nuclear power. On one hand, nuclear power released no harmful emissions into the atmosphere. On the other hand, the risks of nuclear power are well known if it is poorly managed, and the waste products linger for long periods of time.

Hirota enjoys an excellent nuclear power safety record, and has suffered no major problems. Nuclear waste is either buried in former Uranium mines, or shot into the sun. However, not all nations enjoy such effective measures. Steps must be made to ensure fundamental nuclear safety is promoted throughout the UN.

Hirota is concerned that the ideas proposed by Zabbar Malta will adversely affect Nuclear Power in Hirota, which has been clean and safe. Is it right that a clean and safe fuel be replaced by a clean fuel which is more expensive to produce?

We are curious what other member states have to say on this matter and look forward to the continued consultation process.

Regards
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/7199/untitled12ox.jpg ( http://s10.invisionfree.com/UIC/index.php?act=idx)http://67.15.129.139/5693/128/upload/p1243092.png ( http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1) | Author of Rights of indigenous peoples (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8090030&postcount=90) | One of the few nations known to turn Cluichstan fluffy and cuddly

All countries must atleast have 30% of their electricty producing percentages dedicated to renewable resources like the usage of solar panels, wind power, wave power and many more.
1. Define 'renewable'.
2. As with Hirota, Gruenberg has a significant proportion of its energy provided by nuclear power stations. Convince us why this is so heinous.

1) It is pollution free and better for the environment
No, they're not. They don't produce CO2 and other emissions, for sure, but they have other effects on the environment. Tidal power stations can kill coral reefs, wind power stations disrupt migratory birds' cycles, HEP damage fish and other parts of their ecosystem. What you actually mean is "they pollute in a new and original way, and thus allow us to kid ourselves we're doing better for the environment".

2) It is environtmental friendly and since we are in the United Nations, we can afford it.
...what?

Firstly, why is being in the UN any guarantee? UN states are shackled by far more environmental and labour regulations, meaning I would wager they are on average poorer. There is no financial incentive to join the UN, nor any guarantee that UN states are richer. Some of us can't afford it: that in fact is why Gruenberg supports some environmental proposals - they allow us to keep developing nations developing.

I suggest you peruse the passed resolutions (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline). You might realize that with Alternative Fuels, Sustainable Energy Sources, the Greenhouse Gas one, Fossil Fuel Reduction Act and Wena knows what else, we're already drowning under this crap.

We'd be more open to a proposal that didn't place such unrealistic demands on nations whose energy source is largely nuclear, and thus safe and lovely yay.

[QUOTE=Gruenberg]1. Define 'renewable'.

Renewable resources is a resource, mainly natural or physically which regenerates more quickly than the non-renewable resource.

Convince us why this is so heinous.

I'm not saying that all of the energy resources are to be based on Renewable energy resources. 30 % of the energy production is not 100% and thus the majority of the percentage (70%) can be invested in what you like, if you want to can invest in nuclear Power Stations, or gas/coal/oil fired powerstation.

Let us not forget that Uranuim or plutonuim is not a renewable resource, but it is a non-renewable resource.

Also, if countries invest in the renewable resources, effiecieny will be increased by much more experiments which will increase battery storage life thus increasing the power which can be generated from the stored electricty.

What happens if a nuclear power station explodes?

The radioactivity radiation will escape the concrete wall and will contaminate the area. On long term.

On the other hand, altough Dams make damage to coral reefs, one has to consider which is the best to develop on. Nuclear Energy is the best for the generation of electricity but it has its dangers. If we take the example of Nuclear Reactor explosion, the radioactivity cannot be stopped and it travels with the wind current.

Thanks for viewing The Republic of Zabbar Malta comments.

[Let us not forget that Uranuim or plutonuim is not a renewable resource, but it is a non-renewable resource.That's not strictly true. In fast-reaction nuclear power generation (breeder reactors), high-velocity neutrons cause the fissions, using plutonium or uranium-233. Breeder reactors produce more fuel (enriched uranium and plutonium) than they consume. Thus, fast-reaction nuclear power fuel can be considered renewable and sustainable.

Given the comments on nuclear resources, Hirota has to raise significant doubts and concerns about the possibility of agreeing to a possible proposal

Renewable resources is a resource, mainly natural or physically which regenerates more quickly than the non-renewable resource.
Circular. You're using "non-renewable" to define "renewable". Which is a bit like saying "black is everything which isn't non-black". But no matter.

I'm not saying that all of the energy resources are to be based on Renewable energy resources. 30 % of the energy production is not 100% and thus the majority of the percentage (70%) can be invested in what you like, if you want to can invest in nuclear Power Stations, or gas/coal/oil fired powerstation.
Well, firstly, you haven't provided any timeframe, so this is acceptable to us - we'll get round to it.

But to humour it for a moment, for some nations you are talking about a massive change in energy policy. Why should they be forced to make such a drastic change? With no consideration made for the disposal of old power systems, nor for the implementation of these new power systems, the change - however well-motivated - is likely to be as environmentally damaging itself as not changing would prove.

Let us not forget that Uranuim or plutonuim is not a renewable resource, but it is a non-renewable resource.
I am actually going to forget that, until you define what either of those terms means.

Also, if countries invest in the renewable resources, effiecieny will be increased by much more experiments which will increase battery storage life thus increasing the power which can be generated from the stored electricty.
No. You don't conduct 'experiments' using national power sources. You conduct experiments in laboratories, and trial small field versions. Then you come back, and report on those results. Destroying national energy grids in the name of 'experimentation' doesn't sit well with us.

What happens if a nuclear power station explodes?
Pollution, death, a lot of damage.

Your point?

Firstly, Gruenberg has suffered only one nuclear accident, and that was both relatively minor, and thirty-five years ago. Furthermore, by turning your nose up at nuclear power, you're preventing greater research into plant safety. And, let's not forget, any source of energy generation can have an accident. Not, admittedly, always a radioactive one - but it can still be damaging. Predicating one's approach on the basis of the tiny possibility of accident is not a responsible attitude.

Your willingness to overlook the environmental impact of other energy sources is also cute. The destruction of ecosystems is apparently less of a worry than sub-percent chances of explosion.

But to humour it for a moment, for some nations you are talking about a massive change in energy policy. Why should they be forced to make such a drastic change? With no consideration made for the disposal of old power systems, nor for the implementation of these new power systems, the change - however well-motivated - is likely to be as environmentally damaging itself as not changing would prove.


Well for the drastic change, you can always start from little and then continue invested by time.

Well for the drastic change, you can always start from little and then continue invested by time.
I don't follow. Are you saying you deliberately didn't include a timeframe for implementation?

If that is so, then we withdraw all objections, and would be happy with any percentage you set.

Well since we are the United Nations, a deadline to get the 30% Renewable resource will be set if this proposal that I made is accepted and can be worked on....

It is useless to do a deadline without the member states accepting the issue.

Ruben

That's not how proposals work. You have to have it passed, and once it is, you can't amend it. So if you include a timeline for implementation, that will have to be in the proposal.

For example, look at the Global Food Distribution Act: that called for the removal of trade barriers, and then set out the time in which member nations had to come into compliance.

Well since the implemantation to introduce 30% renewable resources will take time and needs a lot of timeline, here is my deadline:

3-6 months: To open 1st type of Electricty Generation scheme in your nation.
9 months - 1 year: To implement around 7% into renewable resources.
15 months - 24 months: To double the rate
24 months - 36 months - To reach the maximum 30% of the rate.

Ruben

Editing of the timeline will be accepted

One of the problems of renewable sources of energy - both solar and wind - is that they take up a tremendous amount of space. This is possible for young and mid-sized nations but when populations start to get really dense as is currently the case of Tzorsland the nuclear option seems to be the best logical resource.

Furthermore, not all nations can afford to go renewable. What about a land locked nation sourrounded by mountains (thus cutting down the wind power option) that is not in a tropical area for maximum solar power generation?

This my friend, is a job for FREE TRADE. Instead of making it locally at great expense, let those nations that can afford to "grow" their own renewable energy do so and if they can do so cheaply enough be able to "sell" it to other nations at a reasonable profit just as is the case for food, and other various items of trade. Nations with significant tidal action can make a fortune off of their good energy fortunes, as can those with good wind potential or those with good solar conditions. If I could buy power for cheaper than my nuclear plants with no worries about taking up valuable land space I would do so in a heartbeat!

Oh and welcome to the UN. Please read all those stickies at the top of the forum. Resolution writing is serious stuff and people sometimes get hot and heavy over it. But the water's really fine once you survive the initial shock.

Well since the implemantation to introduce 30% renewable resources will take time and needs a lot of timeline, here is my deadline:

3-6 months: To open 1st type of Electricty Generation scheme in your nation.
9 months - 1 year: To implement around 7% into renewable resources.
15 months - 24 months: To double the rate
24 months - 36 months - To reach the maximum 30% of the rate.
That is absurd. Less than two years to introduce 30% generation? Great...

Try a timeline that doesn't completely trash our economies, and is, you know, vaguely realistic within the bounds of conventional science.

Edited timeline.....

2-3 years: Introduce the first Renewable energy resource power station.

3-5 years: Introduce at leats 5% of the energy production on renewable resources.... You can invest in better technology to make your existing stations produce more electricity.

5-7 years: Introduce 10% of the energy production...

For now that since I think that 10% for now is the best, seeing many countries invest in nuclear energy.

Hope it is good now....:rolleyes:

Given that a nuclear power plant will have a lifespan of 35-40 years, I think that's a suitable timeframe for implementing renewables. The idea being that instead of building a replacement nuclear plant, nations will build a renewable supply instead.

Given the long timespan, 30% is possibly workable.

Edited timeline.....

2-3 years: Introduce the first Renewable energy resource power station.

3-5 years: Introduce at leats 5% of the energy production on renewable resources.... You can invest in better technology to make your existing stations produce more electricity.

5-7 years: Introduce 10% of the energy production...

For now that since I think that 10% for now is the best, seeing many countries invest in nuclear energy.

Hope it is good now....:rolleyes:

Well in all honesty sir, no it isn't. 3-5 years is not an awful lot of time to build enough power stations that not only fulfill your proposal parameters, but are able to produce 5% of your energy production. Equally 5-7 years for 10% is high. What about poorer nations, are they to be left behind and penalised for this? I say we should stick with the guidelines of the FFRA for the time-being, as it seems to be working reasonably well (in my nation at least). Furthermore, since your proposal ignores nuclear power (already 35% of our power sector) it is far too narrow for implementation.

As for energy trading, as proposed by Tsorzland, this sounds an excellent idea and I would recommend he puts it in a proposal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

First off, I have to say that the idea of having renewable alternatives to nuclear power plants is a good idea. And the timeline you have stated gives enough time to make the slight change to renewable power sources. With that said, there are a couple of problems with some renewable sources. As stated earlier, tidal and dams can ruin the environment around the area. Solar is also good until it become nighttime, but Im sure cities that use solar energy have found a way around that. Wind is also great, but doesnt nearly meet the demands of a country unless you create a sufficient amount of windmills which may be hundreds of thousands of windmills (this is only an estimate, so it is subject to be different). There are other resources, including deuterium oxide as a power source, hydrogen fission, and microwaves, that show promise of being great resources. But I do believe that this is a very good proposal. As the delegate of the National and Foreign Affairs Department of Edoniakistanbabweagua and on behalf of Rey Eduardo del San Acero, I do agree with this proposal and look forward to seeing it on the voting floor.

Fernando del Tiburón
Delegate of the National and Foreign Affairs Department of Edoniakistanbabweagua

Well,

To Start off..... Compradia I am thinking of a system in which poorer countries IN THE SAME Region of the rich countries which afford to use renewable energy resources and also non-renewable resources can sell the electricty at cheap prices to the poorer countries, gaining profit. (not selling the electricity and and not gaining any profit)

OR....

A Renewable Electricity scheme will be divided on equal bases between a rich country and a poor country and they will agree on how % of the electricity produced will they get.

And If this can get forward... I will write a full report, detailed and the new changes that we did from the beginning of the thread and then I will publish the idea on to the UN Council.

Ruben
Democratic Republic of Zabbar Malta

Well,

To Start off..... Compradia I am thinking of a system in which poorer countries IN THE SAME Region of the rich countries which afford to use renewable energy resources and also non-renewable resources can sell the electricty at cheap prices to the poorer countries, gaining profit. (not selling the electricity and and not gaining any profit)

OR....

A Renewable Electricity scheme will be divided on equal bases between a rich country and a poor country and they will agree on how % of the electricity produced will they get.

And If this can get forward... I will write a full report, detailed and the new changes that we did from the beginning of the thread and then I will publish the idea on to the UN Council.

Ruben
Democratic Republic of Zabbar Malta

Thank you for your reply. Incidentally, the title of our nation is the Republic of Compadria, whilst Compradia is a particularly trendy fashion brand sold in up-market clothes boutiques in our nation.

With regards to your first point, I'm somewhat puzzled as to how this encourages this would, under your proposal, encourage use of renewable sources, as the nations might decide it would be more economical to sell non-renewably generated energy and completely ignore the renewable sector.

Your second idea is better and worth elaborating upon. Might I suggest that under such a scheme that costs would be shared too (developmental and maintenance). We look forward to the publication of the official report and hope our nation's embassy is given a facsimile as soon as it is done.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Here is the report about this case:

Dear United Nations,

I’m representing my Nation, The Republic of Zabbar Malta and I wish to show this proposal in front of you.

This proposal is about Renewable Energy Resources. Since a lot of nations are using Nuclear Power to produce electricity, these countries are investing a lot of money into the Nuclear Sector. Unfortunately, one problem of Nuclear Power Stations is that after 30-35 years these Large Power Stations need to be closed down because:

1) Maintenance Costs are Sky High
2) New Technology is developed and it is needed to replace the ageing machines.

Also, to decommission these stations (close down) is very high and not many countries afford developing nuclear energy and closing down their stations after 35 years.

I am presenting a solution in front of you and it is about the usage of Renewable Resources to replace the ageing Nuclear Power Stations.
Since in the reactor radioactivity, which cannot be removed, is present, these stations cannot be destroyed and need to remain there, closed for several years.

Countries can invest in Renewable Resources like Wind, wave, Tidal and solar power and many more to replace SOME of the percentage of electricity produced by the nuclear power station.

I worked out that it is enough for countries to replace 10% of the electricity produced by Nuclear power and replace it with Renewable Energy Resources. I also included a timetable which can be found at the bottom of this proposal. I chose Renewable Energy for my discussion since:

1) They don’t emit gases that affect greenhouse affect.
2) The energy produced by these sources are clean.
3) The energy produced can be divided between 2 or more countries.

The most valuable plan is that a rich country and a poor country that can’t invest for a Renewable energy plan in their country for their sole use, can reach an agreement to build a Renewable resource plant between the two, sharing their budget. After the plant is built, The two can share the electricity equally and use it to supply their main grid. Mainly these are the proposals I have to make. This is the timetable that is ideal to follow to produce 10% of your electricity using Renewable Energy Resources:

2-3 years: Introduce the first Renewable energy resource power station.

3-5 years: Introduce at leats 5% of the energy production on renewable resources.... You can invest in better technology to make your existing stations produce more electricity.

5-7 years: Introduce 10% of the energy production...

Here is the report about this case:

Dear United Nations,

I’m representing my Nation, The Republic of Zabbar Malta and I wish to show this proposal in front of you.

This proposal is about Renewable Energy Resources. Since a lot of nations are using Nuclear Power to produce electricity, these countries are investing a lot of money into the Nuclear Sector. Unfortunately, one problem of Nuclear Power Stations is that after 30-35 years these Large Power Stations need to be closed down because:

1) Maintenance Costs are Sky High
2) New Technology is developed and it is needed to replace the ageing machines.

Also, to decommission these stations (close down) is very high and not many countries afford developing nuclear energy and closing down their stations after 35 years.

I am presenting a solution in front of you and it is about the usage of Renewable Resources to replace the ageing Nuclear Power Stations.
Since in the reactor radioactivity, which cannot be removed, is present, these stations cannot be destroyed and need to remain there, closed for several years.

Countries can invest in Renewable Resources like Wind, wave, Tidal and solar power and many more to replace SOME of the percentage of electricity produced by the nuclear power station.

I worked out that it is enough for countries to replace 10% of the electricity produced by Nuclear power and replace it with Renewable Energy Resources. I also included a timetable which can be found at the bottom of this proposal. I chose Renewable Energy for my discussion since:

1) They don’t emit gases that affect greenhouse affect.
2) The energy produced by these sources are clean.
3) The energy produced can be divided between 2 or more countries.

The most valuable plan is that a rich country and a poor country that can’t invest for a Renewable energy plan in their country for their sole use, can reach an agreement to build a Renewable resource plant between the two, sharing their budget. After the plant is built, The two can share the electricity equally and use it to supply their main grid. Mainly these are the proposals I have to make. This is the timetable that is ideal to follow to produce 10% of your electricity using Renewable Energy Resources:

2-3 years: Introduce the first Renewable energy resource power station.

3-5 years: Introduce at leats 5% of the energy production on renewable resources.... You can invest in better technology to make your existing stations produce more electricity.

5-7 years: Introduce 10% of the energy production...

That is a very well written and a very good proposal. I just have one question. What is the difference between wave and tidal power?

That is a very well written and a very good proposal.

No, it isn't. It's got a branding violation, and it reads like a poorly written high-school essay.

Well wave power is very rare like tidal power.

Basically the difference is that wave energy uses ramps built on flat ramp which contain underground compressed air which tehn compress the water and release it with high speeds which spin the turbine..

Tidal Power, on the other hand uses the movement of tides. Whe na tide is coming in, the water level is high and it is suppressed downwards where an underwater turbine is found. This turn the turbine generating electricity.

Well not to offend anyone, but Cluichstan if it is babyish, write it yourself in 'GOOD' English

The concept of renewables is limited. We support the concept of energy diversification.

That is using energy where it is best put to use. We would suggest a world map of the best places for renewable energy, wind farms-- i.e. windy places, the best place to use solar panels i.e. lots of sun, strong tidal forces-- i.e. wave energy, where geothermal energy is efficient, where biofuels can be grown without impacting farm lands-- nonarable land for rapeseed and other "weeds". This would stop people from building the wrong energy in the wrong places.

We would also support energy diversification as a better way to move away from fossil fuels. That means creating an infrastructure that relies more on using electrical power than on liquid fuels. More hybrid trucks, trains, and ships, eventually hybrid electric jets-- a real possibility. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03328/243215.stm The feed stock would be both renewable and non-renewable. Relying on a single source of energy is a recipe for world disaster. Electricity can come from almost any source of power. The point would be to not run out of energy period.

This would allow the slow transition to more renewable sources of energy. Over time biofuels would replace the liquid fuels, there would be some nuclear power based on safer reactors, and a wide variety of energy sources. As time progressed and renewables became more efficient we could phase out the nonrenewables.

Also energy diversification provides protection in times of war. With a wider variety of energy sources, you are more likely to not run out of critical battlefield fuels, or be impacted as much by attacks on your power plants. Nuclear power plants are especially vulnerable to military attacks.

Well not to offend anyone, but Cluichstan if it is babyish, write it yourself in 'GOOD' EnglishGood for you, don't let them push you over. :)

But at the same time, don't dismiss the feedback you are getting. A lot of the suggestions you are seeing on here are worthy of further consideration.

Re: the timetable. I'd honestly suggest you avoid micromanaging the issue by setting deadlines. Tell them they have to have x% by y years and that will do fine. You've noted the lifespan of a normal generator is 30-35 years - thats a good number to work on.

Otherwise, you do have more work before it's a legal proposal, and then you might want to work on ensuring the proposal has the broadest possible consensus to improve your chances of a successful vote.

Well not to offend anyone, but Cluichstan if it is babyish, write it yourself in 'GOOD' English

Do it yourself. It's not my proposal. Hell, I don't even support the concept.

We accept your views, and accept that inevitably, renewable sources shall provide the majorities of the UN's power supply. But Imperiux is a technological nation and very efficient. (Japan/Germany without the extreme craziness (I'm more insane, ask cluichstan...)) And because of our nation's efficiency, and techology, can you tell us how with as little space as possible, you could generate the largest amount of power possible, at the lowest cost possible without daily blackouts? I'm personally turning towards the nuclear arguments and accepting that, regardless of the rare meltdowns, it produces no carbon emissions. And the waste will be supplied to responsible and efficient authorities. *cough* non-UN nations *cough*.
Also, increased research spending aimed at unlocking the secrets of fusion has produced promising results, and experiments on hyderinos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrinos) seem to be progressing rapidly too.

Maybe if their were some regulations or resolutions aiming at cutting non-renewable energy sources down, then I believe that may suffice in more than acceptable carbon emission reduction. With the degradation, and complete elimination of fossil-fuel power stations, nuclear or renewable would be the answer. And with people pressure, renewables are likely to be engaged.

So, unfortunately we stand against this proposal, in favour of the tragic flaw in non-renewable fuels enabling and destroying itself.

And now I've just lost funding from the oil companies.

Maybe if their were some regulations or resolutions aiming at cutting non-renewable energy sources down, then I believe that may suffice in more than acceptable carbon emission reduction.

There's the 'Fossil Fuel Reduction Act'... :(

There's the 'Fossil Fuel Reduction Act'... :(

Yes, unfortunately.