NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not sure whether this should go in environmental as it's implications are so far reaching, however since it most directly concerns dwindling and increasingly uneconomic fossil fuel extraction (though not at the expense of industry), I put it there.


We must realise that the days of widespread fossil fuel power generation are numbered, the reasons for this are threefold. The first two, and the most important in the medium to long term are those often cited by environmental pressure groups: Dwindling supplies, and the ecological damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, all of our oil and natural gas reserves are not on the brink of running out, however prices are rising dramatically and are unlikely to stabalise. This is because of two main reasons, political instability in the middle east which shows no sign of abating, and the exhaustion of convential deposits. The significant oil and gas reserves which remain are for various reasons difficult to extract, they include tar sands oil from eastern Siberia and northern Canada, deposits very deep in the gulf of Mexico. This is combined with an increased demand for oil particularly from China and India, and as such, while our access to oil and gas is not under threat, our current consumption of them will not continue to be economically viable.

The solutions are, broadly speaking, to reduce consumption, to increase use of sustainable energy or biofuels, to increase use of conventional nuclear energy, or to invest heavily in future energy sources such as fusion power.

Simply reducing consumption is only delaying the problem, and in doing so we risk the likelyhood that other less forward thinking nations would fail to comply with such regulations, placing others at an economic disadvantage and greatly limiting the effectivness of such measures.

Renewable energy and biofuels are excellent sources of energy, but they are not capable of replacing any significant proportion of current fossil fuel power generation. Renewable energy generation depends heavily on geographical location (sunlight, stong tides, etc.) and biofuels require huge areas of
farmland to be set aside.

Conventional nuclear power generation is capable of meeting all of our power generation demands, however it faces widespread public opposition, and when reactor decomissioning costs and long term fuel disposal are taken into account it is currently less economic that fossil fuel generation. Also, in the current gloabal climate shipments of fuel, waste and the reactor installations theselves are likely targets for terrorists.

Recent developments in fusion power generation have been extermenly promising, In June 2005, the experimental torus ITER began construction in Cadarache, France. ITER is expected to be the first reactor to produce significantly more power than that required to create the plasma, however while promising it is only a prototype.

The people of Bulgovnia propose that the UN allocate whatever funds are necessary to construct the sucessor to ITER, we believe that fusion power is the only realistic long term solution to our power requirements, and that it has been held back by political shortsightedness and lack of development funds. Further, we belive that should this proposal be approved, the generation of economically viable fusion power by 2030 is a realistic target. Should this 'energy crisis' not be dealt with, it is quite possible that direct military confrontation will occur between the major world powers. A UN controlled project is best placed to take advantage of industrial and scientific resources of each of the member states, and to ensure that the technology is universally avaliable.


Esentially, we should build fusion plants for all of the economic and political resons which I suggested, but also because they seem very very cool :)

This is an essay using RL references. Illegal.

While a proposal may have arguments, you want to keep them short and sweet. The bulk of your proposal should be concerned about the legislation, of which you have very little. If you look up UNR #48: Save the Forests of the World, you'll find a resolution that was repealed for exactly the same reasons.

Regardless, the Forgotten Territories will not support a proposal of this nature. Fusion power, like hydrogen gas, ethonal fuels, and many other energy sources under developement, has its own issues which may make it impractical to use when we finally do develope it, or we may run into a different form of power generation - just as we accidentally ran into microwave ovens. Sticking our claims onto one form of alternative energy seems rather impractical, especially considering that you can't stick a fusion power plant onto a car nor is converting electrical power to heat energy the most practical of ideas for heating homes - even less so for larger buildings.

That is not to say fusion can't become practical nor that we can't find purposes for it - besides being blatantly false, it would be a heretical statement to make about science. Already, alternatives to creating hydrogen gas are bringing theories about the ability of making hydrogen fuel a practical reality. However, who knows what we'll think of (or stumble upon) in the next 25 years. It would be a crime to Science to say "we think this is the only solution". Yes, an individual national government might want to prefer investment into one field over others (if, for no other reason, than because it needs to get that invention completed for its own sake), but the International community should not, as a whole, say "this way is right, all other ways are wrong" (EDIT: about science, you guys. Frig I know someone is going to try and fire this one back at me)

We already have an alternative fuels resolution, we don't need another. While the other one does need to be repealed and replaced, that is beside the point.

If you look, there is a NS 'Republic of Canada', an 'Armed Republic of China' the 'The Colony of A Colony of India' and 'The United Socialist States of Siberian Soviets' and 'The Commonwealth of Middle Eastern People'.

I'm sure that the leaders of each of these would take great offence to any suggestion that I was referring to the must less important real world nations with similar names.

'Fusion power, like hydrogen gas, ethonal fuels, and many other energy sources under developement, has its own issues which may make it impractical to use when we finally do develope it.'

The only issues appear to be development costs, and in the case of Deuterium - Tritium fusion, that the reactor vessel becomes radioactive.

As I pointed out, fossil fuel prices will continue to rise (assuming that the natural resources of NS are not infinite, they are dwindling similarly to those of the real world), and there will certainly be a point when the money required to develop the reactors will be made back by their relatively cheap operation and abundant fuel.

I am sure that the small amounts low level radioactive waste (decomissioned reactor components) represent a fraction of the threat to the environment that the various greenhouse gases emitted by conventional power stations do. Deuterium - Tritium fusion reactors would also allow for the development of even cleaner He3 - He3 fusion designs which do not have such difficulties.

'We may run into a different form of power generation - just as we accidentally ran into microwave ovens.'

Considering that fuel prices have risen very sharply in the past 18 months, we need to do more than simply cross our fingers and hope that we 'stumble' into some new power source.

'Sticking our claims onto one form of alternative energy seems rather impractical, especially considering that you can't stick a fusion power plant onto a car nor is converting electrical power to heat energy the most practical of ideas for heating homes - even less so for larger buildings.'

This is not what I sugested, I merely proposed that we develop fusion powerplants to take over the majority of our electrical generation. It is certain that the technology is capable of doing so, and since the fuel is derived from the distillation of water (fresh or seawater), scarcity is not an issue. The same time we run out of fuel for fusion is the same time we stop drinking.

You're not allowed to refer to specific nations in resolutions, it's metagaming.

Not to mention that this,
The people of Bulgovnia propose that
is a branding violation and will get this proposal deleted too.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You also know how much developing fusion power would cost?


For new nations, it would be a major drain on their economy.






Shazbotdom stamp of Disapproval....

If you look, there is a NS 'Republic of Canada', an 'Armed Republic of China' the 'The Colony of A Colony of India' and 'The United Socialist States of Siberian Soviets' and 'The Commonwealth of Middle Eastern People'.

I'm sure that the leaders of each of these would take great offence to any suggestion that I was referring to the must less important real world nations with similar names.

Oh really? Care to show me the posts they made indicating this research? Or are you just trying to cover your ass with bogus claims? It's a RL reference and even if it wasn't, Ceo is correct in saying that it would be metagaming.

'Fusion power, like hydrogen gas, ethonal fuels, and many other energy sources under developement, has its own issues which may make it impractical to use when we finally do develope it.'

The only issues appear to be development costs, and in the case of Deuterium - Tritium fusion, that the reactor vessel becomes radioactive.

That is an oversimplification of the process, just as being able to "dust of radiation" as they thought back in the 50s is an oversimplification of the effects of fission reactions. Obviously, our understanding of fission and radiation has increased extensively since then.

But let's look at our best source of understanding of fusion reactions: the star known as "Sol" or "The Sun". See all that fire? All that light? All that energy that's being released? Wouldn't too much heat being released in the process be a possible issue? Of course, that's true about the fission reactions already, and the solution generally involves water being used as a coolant. But what if water makes a different reaction when coming into contact? Other forms of cooling might also have their own problems. Liquid nitrogen might react with the hydrogen atoms before they've gone through the reaction, creating NH3 - Ammonia IIRC.

What about deuterium? How much of that do you think is around? It's not a lot. Hydrogen gas is mostly just normal Hydrogen without neutrons. A dependancy upon deuterium could lead us to another gas crisis - and deuterium has proven to be useful in a variety of other fields too. It would be a damn shame to run out of it

Or we could start investigating how red giants (like Sol will be in something like 500 million years) start producing elements other than helium as they react at the end of their lifespan. Perhaps we might accidentally create conditions where the by-product isn't helium but a different element.....say....florine.

But nonono, our only problem should be deuterium. We know EVERYTHING about science already so we know this won't be a problem. Funnily enough, that opinion was being held by the Scientific community just over a century ago. Then man had the likes of Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and the microchip. I'll be damned if Science has reached its end now.

As I pointed out, fossil fuel prices will continue to rise (assuming that the natural resources of NS are not infinite, they are dwindling similarly to those of the real world), and there will certainly be a point when the money required to develop the reactors will be made back by their relatively cheap operation and abundant fuel.

Questionable abundancy. Even more questionable on harvesting this supposed abundance. Even more questionable whether the price will remain cheap as we start using it. Even more questionable whether it will be the most cost productive form of power production by the time it is developed. I'm not saying gasoline or any other form of power production that we know TODAY about will be cheaper, I'm saying we may yet find a better solution before we figure out fusion

I am sure that the small amounts low level radioactive waste (decomissioned reactor components) represent a fraction of the threat to the environment that the various greenhouse gases emitted by conventional power stations do. Deuterium - Tritium fusion reactors would also allow for the development of even cleaner He3 - He3 fusion designs which do not have such difficulties.

.....

Low level radioactive waste and earlier you were saying there were no other problems? Sheesh

'We may run into a different form of power generation - just as we accidentally ran into microwave ovens.'

Considering that fuel prices have risen very sharply in the past 18 months, we need to do more than simply cross our fingers and hope that we 'stumble' into some new power source.

I agree. I'm not saying don't research. I'm saying don't put all of your eggs in one basket. That's what this proposal is calling for.

'Sticking our claims onto one form of alternative energy seems rather impractical, especially considering that you can't stick a fusion power plant onto a car nor is converting electrical power to heat energy the most practical of ideas for heating homes - even less so for larger buildings.'

This is not what I sugested, I merely proposed that we develop fusion powerplants to take over the majority of our electrical generation. It is certain that the technology is capable of doing so, and since the fuel is derived from the distillation of water (fresh or seawater), scarcity is not an issue. The same time we run out of fuel for fusion is the same time we stop drinking.

Does anyone want to try and explain to this person how many fucking problems could be made for our bloody environment by tapping into our water supplies. Water is already expected to be one of the most precious commodities of the next century. You're going to tap into it further? The stupid part is that all the other things we use water for.....with exception to space missions (which are very limited), we can always get the water back. Yes, it might not be clean, yes it might be radioactive, but it's still going to be H2O. You run that through a fusion reactor, it's He - it can never be in H2O again. PERIOD.

http://usera.imagecave.com/CaptainDeath/TribesImages/twb_Pic6.jpg

You could convert weapons grade uranium into reactor grade uranium, but there would only be one problem with that. Most nations do not have uranium and secondly, it would cost all the smaller nations (i.e. Teklet) a fortune and bankrupt the government. That is our biggest concern. Our nation can and will deal with the gas prices, but when it comes to an alternative form of energy, then find a cheaper way. If not, then we cannot support this resolution.

Robert Matthews
Teklet Department of Foreign Affairs

You could convert weapons grade uranium into reactor grade uranium...
Stop there. Unless you're doing something very strange indeed, you won't be using uranium in fusion reactions. And unless I'm very much mistaken, this topic is on fusion.

Setting aside the issues raised by other member states, Hirota feels obliged to point out to Bulgovnia that Fusion power may be a step back in technology for some nations who roleplay future-tech nations, and an impossible leap forward for nations who roleplay past-tech nations.

Thats not a reason to say this is illegal, but it is a reason nations will vote against this if you do manage to resolve the whole illegality issue raised by fellow member states.

We thanks Bulgovnia for their time spent on this matter, and hope they will remain in the UN halls to contribute to other proposals in the future.

I disagree with Forgottenlord. This isn't "putting all of our eggs into one basket". It seems like it's probably one of the only ways to take steps towards developing fusion power, because creating the components of it is prohibitively expensive for most nations. However, it would really need to be redone in order to be fixed. And Hirota's objection still stands.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Stop there. Unless you're doing something very strange indeed, you won't be using uranium in fusion reactions. And unless I'm very much mistaken, this topic is on fusion.

What we are getting at is, that having a fussion reactor or a nuclear reactor (which would cost less) would be way to expensive for small nations to use.

Robert Matthews
Teklet Department of Foreign Affairs