We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Nuclear Power Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Royal Conservative Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2106
Description[?]:
| Nuclear power, if regulated and well supported, can lead to safe, efficient and clean energy. The waste produced (in itself only a tiny proportion of the actual materials used) can be treated by special centres which can be used to support nuclear power plants. Considering the decline in fossil fuels (as fossil fuels are non-renewable and therefore are bound to run out at some point), we believe that quickly building a large array of nuclear power facilities will lead to a more reliable power source for future generations of Lodamunites. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Current: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Proposed: The government requires most energy to be generated by nuclear power.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:27:43, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Bill |
| Message | How will the government "require" this without any role in controlling the energy sector? |
| Date | 21:35:43, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Bill |
| Message | Opposed as it is not the government's role to directly interfere. The carbon tax will encourage nuclear generation anyway. |
| Date | 22:35:06, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Bill |
| Message | "How will the government "require" this without any role in controlling the energy sector?" The proposal on power regulation only allows for the regulation of charges, which we happen to oppose. It mentions nothing else regarding government intervention in power so therefore it could be assumed that the government can do whatever it likes in other areas of regulation. "Opposed as it is not the government's role to directly interfere. The carbon tax will encourage nuclear generation anyway. " We question whether businesses will have the will to convert Lodamun to nuclear power, due to the rather large initial costs. Therefore we doubt that the Carbon Tax will have the effect desired and so believe that government must intervene in order to safeguard Lodamun's power production in the near future. |
| Date | 17:31:56, September 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Bill |
| Message | we oppose nation-wide price controls on energy too, as a matter of fact -- they tend to subsidize cheap fuels, when those same fuels should be allowed to rise in price to their market value so as not to subsidize over-consumption. The energy regulation includes an option to nationalize, but presumably that is not the Conservative preference. We remain confused as to how the government will create a system in which most power is nuclear-provided. Aid to corporations to build the plants? The government will fund plant construction, then sell the plants to the highest bidders? Incentives, as with the carbon tax, but on a larger scale? There is a great deal of controversy about whether nuclear power is desirable or not, but all sides agree it is highly capital-intensive. Renewable sources are small energy producers -- a dozen megawatts here, two dozen there -- and each one is relatively cheap to construct. Nuclear power plants are major energy gerneators, but also enormously expensive and thus almost never possible without a government role. What we are wondering, is what will the government role be, and what will that mean in costs for the taxpayer? |
| Date | 05:18:49, September 05, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Bill |
| Message | There are many industries that are capital intensive in the start up, but high return in the daily running. Nuclear power is a prime example of this, but the same applies to mining, shipping, airlines, chip manufacture, cable services, telecoms, etc. There is plenty of opportunity for private industry to take up this challenge, and they will do so. There should be no need for direct government interference. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 74 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 205 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 21 |
| Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer". |
| Random quote: "We're the first society in history with the option of living in a world without poverty. The fact poverty still exist says more about our political leaders than I can." - Clint Borgen |