NationStates Jolt Archive

Building more windmills

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: Iglesian Archipelago

Description: The World Assembly must consider there are several polluters such as nuclear plants or petrol platforms, that pollute the world and increases the number of deaths by excess of CO2 on the world. One of things to decrease these cases (we call it global warming) is building more windmills on the WA territory.

The WA must consider also this:

1. Building windmills will decrease pollution cases and will decrease global warming cases (such as ozone depletion or ozone hole) and building windmills are very cheap.

2. If some countries build nuclear plants (or oil or petrol platforms), they are polluters, and building windmills take the advantage of being friends of the environment on the planet.

3. Global warming is very dangerous and building windmills will help to decrease this case.

This will defend the environment and then we will have a cleaner planet, a cleaner world and everyone will be friend of the environment.

Voting Ends: Mon Sep 8 2008

How do you intend to address the intermittent nature of wind power - also the more effective locations for wind stations tend to be the most expensive locations to build them.

Also how do you intend to address the enviromental impact on migratory birds, for example.

Finally, you are overstating the enviromental impact of nuclear power.

I'd also add not every country can use windmills, both due to a distinct lack of wind, and due to a distinct lack of technology. Here in Cobdenia, we have few windmills, and the best we can use them for is pumping water and grinding grain

building windmills are very cheap
Building one windmill compared to building one hydroelectric dam or one nuclear plant, perhaps ... but if you base it on a currency-per-KwH, windmills are comparable or even more expensive.

You've got a lot of questionable core assumptions. This one isn't ready for prime time.

I have no problem with wind power, but as stated, not every nation can use wind power to the degree required. Tidal power, for example, might be more appropriate for one nation, hydroelectric for another.

And nuclear power cannot be responsibly equated with oil.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison

Building more windmills

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: Iglesian Archipelago

Description: The World Assembly must consider there are several polluters such as nuclear plants or petrol platforms, that pollute the world and increases the number of deaths by excess of CO2 on the world. One of things to decrease these cases (we call it global warming) is building more windmills on the WA territory.

The WA must consider also this:

1. Building windmills will decrease pollution cases and will decrease global warming cases (such as ozone depletion or ozone hole) and building windmills are very cheap.

That all sounds fine and dandy, but building big fields of windmills is not cheap. Plus, you'd need the space to put them in which might damage the environment. Or atleast the view from the window.

2. If some countries build nuclear plants (or oil or petrol platforms), they are polluters, and building windmills take the advantage of being friends of the environment on the planet.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite getting you. If you build windmills, you are taking advtange of being friends of the environment? What constitutes a friend of the environment? And is it taking advantage in a positive way, or a good way?

3. Global warming is very dangerous and building windmills will help to decrease this case.

This will defend the environment and then we will have a cleaner planet, a cleaner world and everyone will be friend of the environment.

Okay, that's decent reasoning. But what does the proposal actually DO? Nowhere does it say "The WA mandates the building of..." or "The WA encourages...." All it does is make a statement that the WA could
possibly do so. The bill takes no action, therefore, it is rather useless in my opinion.

While windmills and clean power and the environment are all fine and dandy, we would not support this bill in its current state. It is simply ineffective, not properly written, and has quite a few other faults.

-High Council Member M. Stuart

As well, nuclear power is not a polluter. It has the inherent problem of nuclear waste at the end of each cycle, but the only air-borne thing released from a nuclear plant is water vapor.

However, the counter-arguments presented by the Ambassador for Hirota are not very applicable. While energy is always lost in this process, energy can be stored in the form of batteries or other energy-storage systems such as pumped-storage hydroelectricity. As well, the effect of windmills on migratory birds is minimal and decreasing, since their wingspans are almost always increasing, therefore decreasing their angular velocity (the momentum does remain the same or even increase, but the decrease in rotational speed makes it far easier for birds to avoid the blades). In the mythological land of "England," it was said that each windmill killed only a single bird a year. Meanwhile, the vehicles utilized by the so-called "English," known as "cars" (it is impossible to know whether they used the word to mean the same vehicles as we use), killed ten million in the same timespan.

However, the financial arguments are ones I cannot argue with.

Trying to keep all the Don Quixote impersonators in business huh?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Trying to keep all the Don Quixote impersonators in business huh?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Oh good, i wasn't the only person who thought this.

Sara Mavenu

I'd also add not every country can use windmills, both due to a distinct lack of wind, and due to a distinct lack of technology. Here in Cobdenia, we have few windmills, and the best we can use them for is pumping water and grinding grain

Exactly. Neo Mithral Hall is a nation that is basically a huge mountain range. No way could you put windmills in my country. Plus, my country is powered by geothermal turbine plants that are in the lower caverns of our cities? Our electric needs are pretty much environment friendly.

Building more windmills

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: Iglesian Archipelago

Description: The World Assembly must consider there are several polluters such as nuclear plants or petrol platforms, that pollute the world and increases the number of deaths by excess of CO2 on the world. One of things to decrease these cases (we call it global warming) is building more windmills on the WA territory.

The WA must consider also this:

1. Building windmills will decrease pollution cases and will decrease global warming cases (such as ozone depletion or ozone hole) and building windmills are very cheap.

2. If some countries build nuclear plants (or oil or petrol platforms), they are polluters, and building windmills take the advantage of being friends of the environment on the planet.

3. Global warming is very dangerous and building windmills will help to decrease this case.

This will defend the environment and then we will have a cleaner planet, a cleaner world and everyone will be friend of the environment.

Voting Ends: Mon Sep 8 2008

OOC: Ozone depletion is NOT a consequence of global warming.

As well, nuclear power is not a polluter. It has the inherent problem of nuclear waste at the end of each cycle, but the only air-borne thing released from a nuclear plant is water vapor.


The mining of uranium is polluting. The enrichment uses very much energy. The transport the same. And you are correct the waste is pollution also.
So nuclear energy, by using oil in mining and enriching. will not help much in the energy crisis and the global warning.

But you are correct, as others said too, this proposal is almost only an opinion, and it will not bring the needed action.

But I will happily give support for other proposals on this topic, when a real change is seen by that proposal in the future.

Regards

All things in the world require oil. Nuclear powerplants need it to mine for uranium. You need it to go to work. Windmills need it to be transported to their locations and for the mining of the steel and aluminum used in them. You cannot use the petroleum usage of uranium mining against nuclear power, since it's an inherent problem with any and all modern human endeavors. And the only reason why enrichment is a pollutant is because the power comes from coal and petrol powerplants. If, instead, the majority of electric power came from nuclear powerplants, that wouldn't be a problem. The problem, in this case, isn't with the existence of nuclear power, but with precisely the relative lack of nuclear power.

So nuclear energy, by using oil in mining and enriching. will not help much in the energy crisis and the global warning.

But you are correct, as others said too,

Nearly everything suffers from that problem, even wind. Windmills don't grow out of the ground - they need to be manufactured, transported, assembled. The stuff their made from (usually plastic or concrete) has the same problem.

(lol

---

This is the first time in my life, my first instinct to reply in a form has been lol. But this proposal.. is so far reaching.. and the way it is written. (tagged ooc))

The members of Karthonia will not support this as it would severely damage economic progress. Green choices can be a good option, but this is too much of a step backwards. It is like asking our people to give up electricity entirely and live in an Amish style.