Naleth
11-11-2003, 02:42
For those that haven't seen it:
The Issue
The oldest powerstation in Naleth suffered catastrophic failure last night, plunging a third of Naleth's national power supply grid into darkness. There is no debate that it needs to be replaced, but the question is with what?
The Debate
1 "The solution is clear," says environmental activist Randy Dodinas. "Wind turbines and solar power stations are the cleanest there are. We must switch power production to forms of renewable energy, that will never run out. The only minor problems are that wind farms will take up a great deal of space and of course we can't exactly rely on the weather. It isn't as though we control it. But think of how much healthier people will be without all that pollution!"
<snip>
3 "Now the way I see it is that it's either green, expensive, and sprawling; or compact, polluting and cheap. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the best of both worlds, well, we can!" claims fission technician Konrad Wong "Nuclear power is reliable, clean and although it isn't cheap, it won't break the bank. There is a risk of deadly meltdown, but this is relativly small, and the only people who could be against this are anti-nuclear protesters, but what do we care about those tree-hugging hippies?"
Option number 1 is the one I chose here, since I want a good environment, but option 3 should (in practice) be almost as good for the environment as option 1, but the last line makes it seem like it's going to hurt the environemnt, so I don't want to pick it. Anyone else think it's a bit biased against nuclear power? Or knows that it will actually help the environment (as the first line seems to suggest)...
The Issue
The oldest powerstation in Naleth suffered catastrophic failure last night, plunging a third of Naleth's national power supply grid into darkness. There is no debate that it needs to be replaced, but the question is with what?
The Debate
1 "The solution is clear," says environmental activist Randy Dodinas. "Wind turbines and solar power stations are the cleanest there are. We must switch power production to forms of renewable energy, that will never run out. The only minor problems are that wind farms will take up a great deal of space and of course we can't exactly rely on the weather. It isn't as though we control it. But think of how much healthier people will be without all that pollution!"
<snip>
3 "Now the way I see it is that it's either green, expensive, and sprawling; or compact, polluting and cheap. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the best of both worlds, well, we can!" claims fission technician Konrad Wong "Nuclear power is reliable, clean and although it isn't cheap, it won't break the bank. There is a risk of deadly meltdown, but this is relativly small, and the only people who could be against this are anti-nuclear protesters, but what do we care about those tree-hugging hippies?"
Option number 1 is the one I chose here, since I want a good environment, but option 3 should (in practice) be almost as good for the environment as option 1, but the last line makes it seem like it's going to hurt the environemnt, so I don't want to pick it. Anyone else think it's a bit biased against nuclear power? Or knows that it will actually help the environment (as the first line seems to suggest)...