NationStates Jolt Archive

Hopefully this won't get me kicked out as a WA member though, but I just thought of something that might be of interest to the WA:

Proposed By: Veridu
Act: Banning Nuclear power

I was just wondering if multiple nations kept on using nuclear power for a long period of time wouldn't it be harmful to the environment (Not to confused with the Environment Peace Act of 2008) and to the nations people. I'm talking about malfunctions within the plant itself which could result in a major catasrophie for that nation. So is there any other alternative energy source that the nation could use. I know I'm speaking out of line but I think we to do something about this now or at least the future for the better of our nations.

Nuclear power is cheap, clean and safe. Why on earth would you want to ban it?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

You never no when something might go wrong, so that is why it is safe to take precautions just incase something were to happen.

Very well then respected Ambassador, if you are serious about this idea then propose a reasonable way in which the thousands of nuclear power using nations of this organisation could actually supply power to their billions of citizens. Carbon fuels ? we suppose you aren't in favour of these either so... Solar energy capture maybe? or Wind power or maybe Tidal ? If you can credibly suggest that these or other methods can be used to replace Nuclear power and that the w.a. can directly help its members to implement these alternatives emediately after the passage of the resolution you hope to write then maybe just maybe you will be able to garner wide spread support for it.

Without this kind of detailed reasoning and reliable planning , honoured Ambassador, this idea is unrealistic (not to say reckless in the extreme ) and is unlikely to be popular.

Yours e.t.c. ,

We support this motion. No oil rig has ever caught fire, no natural gas pipeline has ever exploded, and no one has ever asphyxiated from the fumes caused by biomass burning. We should use these, safe, forms of energy production instead.

You never no when something might go wrong, so that is why it is safe to take precautions just incase something were to happen.

Good lord! Then why did you ever get out of bed this morning, old boy? You never know what could happen to you. You might have been crushed by a falling meteor, or ran over by a bus.:eek:

Our leader is strictly against this proposition. Nuclear power is cheap, safe and does not pollute the environment. Also, the poll that you proposed uses powerful subjective opinions over the matter.

What I think is that if our nations have the funding then maybe just maybe we could switch from nuclear power to geothermal power and solar energy given that we have enough money. All we have to do is set a system of thermal generators over areas where there is most heat coming from the ground and place the generators over those areas so that we could stick iron rods under the ground to absord the heat and send it to the generators giving them power thus transfering that power to our nations, or could set up a plethora of solar pannels all around our nation so that the suns rays will be trapped in the pannels and sending the energy to a solar energy power plant, and from we could trap the energy inside batteris for later usage.

What I think is that if our nations have the funding then maybe just maybe we could switch from nuclear power to geothermal power and solar energy given that we have enough money. All we have to do is set a system of thermal generators over areas where there is most heat coming from the ground and place the generators over those areas so that we could stick iron rods under the ground to absord the heat and send it to the generators giving them power thus transfering that power to our nations, or could set up a plethora of solar pannels all around our nation so that the suns rays will be trapped in the pannels and sending the energy to a solar energy power plant, and from we could trap the energy inside batteris for later usage.



The Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench uses geothermal power production for almost all its energy needs but we took the better part of a generation to create our system.

Does the respected Ambassador for Veridu think that their incoherent and garbled ideas for replacing nuclear power could be introduced over night ? We should remind them that should their harebrained scheme come to fruition it would instantly switch off power to billions upon billions of people without any actual replacement.

This "Ban" can only work if it is preceded by a programme of w.a. resolutions which would carefully and in detail institute an alternative energy production system throughout the w.a.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I was just givng my ideas and thought on something that could be addressed but never mind.

Take a look at my Clean Energy Act and see what you think Veridu.
In the proposal I'm not banning Nuclear power, because that would be silly.
But putting regulations on power plants for temperatures of runoff water, radioactive storage and so forth. I agree the mass collection of nuclear waste would have to be very large in the NS universe, and probably lead to some serious health problems in the future. I think some of the opinions on this forum feel very ignorant, these are the sort of politicians that wait until something horrific happens before acting, as a smart politician (Batman) once said "people need dramatic examples to shake themselves from empathy". But banning nuclear power all together would be too dramatic and illogical, as well as too unpopular to succeed in a vote.

Well it will be a while before my nation switches to other alternative energy sources but I'm guessing probably within a few months or less.

We support this motion. No oil rig has ever caught fire, no natural gas pipeline has ever exploded, and no one has ever asphyxiated from the fumes caused by biomass burning. We should use these, safe, forms of energy production instead.

Yeah, because the real fear of natural gas power plants or petroleum plants isn't the massive carbon emissions they pollute every year, 1,814,370 and 3,084,428 tonnes of C02 per plant on average respectively.

Irrelevant. The proposal very clearly states: 'I'm talking about malfunctions within the plant itself which could result in a major catasrophie [sic] for that nation.' Atmospheric pollution is not a factor in the rationale espoused here.

And out of curiosity, source for those very precise figures on what you call, for reasons surpassing understanding, 'C02' emission?

Wow, thanks, next time I'll have to remember not to capitalize Oxygen in my formulas. Right afterwards I memorize every line of dialogue in the Wizard of Oz and learn to speak the tongue of the birds.

source for those very precise figures on what you call
They appear "very precise" and not rounded because I had to convert the figures from moles of Co2.

I agree with Quinttessence of Dust, what do I know is that malfunctions are rare but they are also deadly as well that's why I made this proposal to do something about it.

Once again, source.

And I wasn't questioning the capitalisation (which is utterly standard - Co is Cobalt) but the use of zero instead of O.

Veridu - I was, as is apparently not obvious, being sarcastic. Accidents with oil, gas, biofuels, etc. are far more common that nuclear accidents.

How about we also ban "the future". Because there's potential there for harm too.;)

I guess a complicated question can be answered with a simple answer like "How does one control millions or even billions of people from panicking because of a nearby catastrophe?" Simple you do nothing because there is nothing you can do to stop it think about, on this kind of scale it would be almost impossible to keep people from panicking. LOL :)

Funny!

Source.

How about we also ban "the future". Because there's potential there for harm too.;)

Nah I say we leave the future to the politicians in the political office to deal with that lol. :p

I did the research a week or so Quintessence.
I used a website for the scientific community that has data like that listed, but it will take me a bit to find it.

Ok, take your time. I'll be waiting. Back on topic, is this proposal going to be pursued further, or is this dead?

No oil rig has ever caught fire?

http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/pemex-fire.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41353000/jpg/_41353445_203blaze.jpg
http://www.christopherrharris.com/UserImages/2/10173/1/7279_mediumlarger.jpg
http://www.japt.org/html/iinkai/drilling/guinees/Blowout-Rig2.jpg
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/piper-alpha-at-night.jpg
http://www.canadian-wellsite.com/images/Photo%20Gallery/BFM/bp1.jpg
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39201000/jpg/_39201460_piperalphanight_238.jpg

No oil pipeline has ever exploded?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04Cp4MT4fL7Ye/610x.jpg
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/Pipeline/crater.jpeg
http://www.greatdreams.com/pipeline-82704.jpg

Hahaha, funny.

Do you want that in APA format, Dust?

Dear God. The style of citation doesn't matter. But some substantive proof, if you use the citing standards of the lost Bongo-Biki tribe of the Liechtenstein jungles, would be nice, given your current kick on pulling bizarre stats out of the air. This is, incidentally, an utter digression as the author continues to assert safety as the only concern.

I found some sites that use lower stats, then I didn't have do mole conversations then.

In fact I think I found the site with the LOWEST stats, just to please you.

Seems its more like 56,615.6 metric tonnes of CO2 yearly from the average natural gas plant and 75,298.748 metric tonnes from an average petroleum plant.

And those stats seem low to my common sense looking at the stats for America's typical production levels of CO2 emissions which are in the billions.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

Like I said if something is not done in the near future we might end up paying the piper when it comes to losing millions of people during a bad accident during something we call a little blow out from a nuclear reactor.

To be honest, I was more interested in what source could have possibly have required you to do mole calculations.

Instead of trying to sound clever, why not show us how smart you are by writing a workable WA proposal. This is a policy discussion forum, not a made-up fairyland statistics convention.

There is a problem with that I can't write the proposal without having 2 things.

Instead of trying to sound clever, why not show us how smart you are by writing a workable WA proposal

I don't think to many people, mole calculations would sound very smart, especially if they confuse it with the fuzzy kind. I was merely trying to explain why my stats weren't your typical rounded nice sounding data ripped from Wikipedia.

My problem with writing a "workable WA proposal" is that as soon as I write anything, some ambassadors scream for "proof". I crunch some numbers, and give them some "proof" and thats not what they want at all, they "didn't want proof like that". Seems to me, you don't need "proof" if your passing a resolution on terrorism or slavery, those concepts are as real as can be to them, but environmental problems from bad environmental practices...nah.

Yeah, because the real fear of natural gas power plants or petroleum plants isn't the massive carbon emissions they pollute every year, 1,814,370 and 3,084,428 tonnes of C02 per plant on average respectively.

Wow, thanks, next time I'll have to remember not to capitalize Oxygen in my formulas. Right afterwards I memorize every line of dialogue in the Wizard of Oz and learn to speak the tongue of the birds.

They appear "very precise" and not rounded because I had to convert the figures from moles of Co2.

How about we also ban "the future". Because there's potential there for harm too.;)

I did the research a week or so Quintessence.
I used a website for the scientific community that has data like that listed, but it will take me a bit to find it.

Hahaha, funny.

Do you want that in APA format, Dust?

I found some sites that use lower stats, then I didn't have do mole conversations then.

In fact I think I found the site with the LOWEST stats, just to please you.

Seems its more like 56,615.6 metric tonnes of CO2 yearly from the average natural gas plant and 75,298.748 metric tonnes from an average petroleum plant.

And those stats seem low to my common sense looking at the stats for America's typical production levels of CO2 emissions which are in the billions.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

I don't think to many people, mole calculations would sound very smart, especially if they confuse it with the fuzzy kind. I was merely trying to explain why my stats weren't your typical rounded nice sounding data ripped from Wikipedia.

My problem with writing a "workable WA proposal" is that as soon as I write anything, some ambassadors scream for "proof". I crunch some numbers, and give them some "proof" and thats not what they want at all, they "didn't want proof like that". Seems to me, you don't need "proof" if your passing a resolution on terrorism or slavery, those concepts are as real as can be to them, but environmental problems from bad environmental practices...nah.

What, if anything, does any of this gibberish have to do with the safety of nuclear power plants?

You don't need numbers to write a convincing preamble. To write a proposal on toxic waste, for example, you don't need to literally produce stats on persistent organic pollutants; all you need do is explain why such pollution represents an issue worthy of WA attention. An elegant phrase and a precise use of terms are both worth a thousand false or arbitrary numbers, however authoritative the pretention might seem.

This is an intreresting issue to be bringing to the table. Although I could not see the total outright banning of nuclear power surviving a vote, maybe there could be a standardized doctrine of limits on nuclear power plants drafted? That would appeal somewhat to both sides- nuclear power would not be banned but the safety regarding a reactor meltdown would be increased because, as we all know, the lower the number of something, the same chance of a mess up, but less that could screw up. And for nations that exceed the limits set forth, there could be a gradual shift to an alternative power source recommended to them.

So far, this is all only speculation and suggestion on my part, to make this a feasible endeavor.

But what on the planet would be done about all those Uranium cores?

--Nagiyuma's ambassador, Jonah McCalin

It's times like this I finally realise that the Peter Principle is alive and well whithin the diplomatic missions of several WA member states

This is an intreresting issue to be bringing to the table. Although I could not see the total outright banning of nuclear power surviving a vote, maybe there could be a standardized doctrine of limits on nuclear power plants drafted? That would appeal somewhat to both sides- nuclear power would not be banned but the safety regarding a reactor meltdown would be increased because, as we all know, the lower the number of something, the same chance of a mess up, but less that could screw up. And for nations that exceed the limits set forth, there could be a gradual shift to an alternative power source recommended to them.

At least the attempt of my Clean Energy Act.

You don't need numbers to write a convincing preamble. To write a proposal on toxic waste, for example, you don't need to literally produce stats on persistent organic pollutants; all you need do is explain why such pollution represents an issue worthy of WA attention. An elegant phrase and a precise use of terms are both worth a thousand false or arbitrary numbers, however authoritative the pretention might seem.

Fair enough.

No oil rig has ever caught fire?

http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/pemex-fire.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41353000/jpg/_41353445_203blaze.jpg
http://www.christopherrharris.com/UserImages/2/10173/1/7279_mediumlarger.jpg
http://www.japt.org/html/iinkai/drilling/guinees/Blowout-Rig2.jpg
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/piper-alpha-at-night.jpg
http://www.canadian-wellsite.com/images/Photo%20Gallery/BFM/bp1.jpg
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39201000/jpg/_39201460_piperalphanight_238.jpg

No oil pipeline has ever exploded?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04Cp4MT4fL7Ye/610x.jpg
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/Pipeline/crater.jpeg
http://www.greatdreams.com/pipeline-82704.jpg

Apparently, the concept of sarcasm is lost on you.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

That was sarcasm? Damnit! I always make myself look foolish in arguments!

Lol! :)

While I cannot support this, I would support banning its use as a weapon. Nuclear weapons may very well cause the end of the world. We cannot ban its entire use, for it is a very good energy resource at these times of oil. 40% of my country's power is nuclear, but we do not use any nuclear weapons*.

*In the event that there is an international emergency, the democratic states of Denecaep might use nuclear weapons to attempt to stop the threat or save their country.

As our leader sees it, nuclear power will not cause the end of the world, it will save it. Even weapons - utilisation of nuclear power makes it harder for any country to attack another country without being nuked in return, and makes wars as such a direct threat to everyone.

Lets see banning nuclear weapons so that country's can't use them for war and the world will be safer, but on the other hand without nuclear weapons we can't defend ourselves from other countries unless we had nuclear weapons hmmm...

The right to nuclear arms is already protected by w.a. law, to reverse this one must repeal the statute in question. We wish anyone attempting to do so luck with such a repeal they will need it.

Yours e.t.c.,

This is an intreresting issue to be bringing to the table. Although I could not see the total outright banning of nuclear power surviving a vote, maybe there could be a standardized doctrine of limits on nuclear power plants drafted? That would appeal somewhat to both sides- nuclear power would not be banned but the safety regarding a reactor meltdown would be increased because, as we all know, the lower the number of something, the same chance of a mess up, but less that could screw up. And for nations that exceed the limits set forth, there could be a gradual shift to an alternative power source recommended to them.

So far, this is all only speculation and suggestion on my part, to make this a feasible endeavor.

But what on the planet would be done about all those Uranium cores?

--Nagiyuma's ambassador, Jonah McCalin


Hr'rrm,
Maybe some kind of 'WA Nuclear Safety Agency', to establish the minimum standards necssary, with member-nations required to introduce the necessary upgrades promptly and to shut-down any plants that can't be adequately upgraded (and a strong suggestion that other members be generous in helping any nations that do have to close plants with energy supplies until they've got replacement facilities online)?
And with a clause requiring that member nations take adequate safety precuations during the mining, refining, transportating & storage of fuel; the storage & possible reproccessing of radioactive waste; and the decommissioning of obsolete reactors?
And maybe also a clause banning the construction of new reactors unless & until the nations concerned can show the Safety Agency adequate plans for dealing with their waste output & eventual decommissioning?

Oh, and preferablywith a clause recognising the fact that the term 'Nuclear Power' covers not only Nuclear Fission but also the rather safer Fusion process for which different rules would apply?


There is a problem with that I can't write the proposal without having 2 things.
"Things"? You mean 'endorsements', I presume? Oh, you can certainly write proposals without having any of those, it's just submitting them that you can't do in that situation... and if you write a good enough proposal then you might be able to persuade somebody else to submit it for you.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear,
'Bears Armed Mission'.

____________________________________________________

(OOC: Yes, folks, BA has finally gone the 'WA puppet' route...)

Yes that's what I meant by thank you.

wow i have alot of reading to do, to get in on some things like this, if i were to speak out on something to try to act smart like so. i would look like a water boy in a small jungle village lol

Yeah I agree.

Ok so banning Nuclear power is not the best idea but keeping daily check ups on nuclear power plants in each nation should lower the chance of a malfunction and thus keeping your nation safe from harm. Though on a coordinated basis since most but not all power plants aren't connected to the Internet which also means that hackers can't touch the computers their either because the only use the computer has for is checking up on water pressure, gauge level, radiation temperature, and water level as well. Which is all connected to an interlocking system if I'm correct.

Uranium keeps my nation's military strong! a lump of uranium the size of a golf ball can power my submarines for over 50,000 miles

We would be opposed to any proposal to ban nuclear power, as it is a major and growing source of energy for our nation, and a far cleaner one than the oil, natural gas and coal we've been dependent on for years. That being said, however, we'd support possible nuclear safety regulations.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

I can't log into my nationstates account it says nation name does not exist, what happened? I put in the right password and nation name. :(

I can't log into my nationstates account it says nation name does not exist, what happened? I put in the right password and nation name. :(
It's still there. Most Recent Government Activity: 3 hours ago.

We would be opposed to any proposal to ban nuclear power, as it is a major and growing source of energy for our nation, and a far cleaner one than the oil, natural gas and coal we've been dependent on for years. That being said, however, we'd support possible nuclear safety regulations.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy AmbassadorWe share the sentiments of the honourable Ambassador.