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 Energy Ban 2209
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta
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: November 2212
Description[?]:
| Whereas: The Government of the Free Republic of Jelbania has no policy on the generation of nuclear energy. Henceforth, and should this Bill pass into Law, the generation of energy through the use of nuclear power stations shall be banned. |
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 does not take any position on nuclear power.
Proposed: Nuclear power plants are not permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:11:27, April 04, 2006 CET | From |  Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | The DLP believes nuclear energy is highly dangerous (an uncontained nuclear meltdown in only one nuclear power station can result in the irradiation of hundreds of miles of surrounding territory) expensive (it is much cheaper to produce energy by clean, renewable sources. Also the burning of oil is a relatively clean, equally reliable system of energy production), and results in a huge cost to the environment. Nuclear waste can result in massive irradiation in the area it is disposed of, and also takes thousands of years to degrade to a safe level. Therefore the DLP urges all the parties of the Parliament of the Free Republic of Jelbania to support this bill. |
| Date | 01:49:09, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | Burning oil is CLEAN???? You know how much oil has to be burnt compared to uranium expenses??? I am guessing your fears are because of Chernobal? You forget that they were a socialist state and were very ineficient. Ever heard of 3 Mile Island? I doubt it, but it was, is, a nuclear power plant. There was a meltdown years ago. Some of the radioactive material got into the coolant for the reactor; you do not have to be a nuclear physisist to figure out that thisis not good. However, the several-meter-thick concrete dome kept it in. We in America take more care of our nuclear power station a little better than the Soviets. Chernobal did not have a contamination dome like our stations do. Also, the US disposes of spent uranium somewhere deep underground in Arazonia, I think. The Earth does not let through radiation that well. If we did regulate nuclear power like the US does, it would not be nearly as dangerous. I admit we need regulation with something as dangerous as this, but banning it is extreme. And when I say regulation is needed, it usually means something. (I know your going to rebuke his simply by saying this is not the US, but frankly, the US is doing pretty good right now, so it might be a better role model than some European countries.) |
| Date | 02:03:35, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | Burning oil is CLEAN???? You know how much oil has to be burnt compared to uranium expenses??? I am guessing your fears are because of Chernobal? You forget that they were a socialist state and were very ineficient. Ever heard of 3 Mile Island? I doubt it, but it was, is, a nuclear power plant. There was a meltdown years ago. Some of the radioactive material got into the coolant for the reactor; you do not have to be a nuclear physisist to figure out that thisis not good. However, the several-meter-thick concrete dome kept it in. We in America take more care of our nuclear power station a little better than the Soviets. Chernobal did not have a contamination dome like our stations do. Also, the US disposes of spent uranium somewhere deep underground in Arazonia, I think. The Earth does not let through radiation that well. If we did regulate nuclear power like the US does, it would not be nearly as dangerous. I admit we need regulation with something as dangerous as this, but banning it is extreme. And when I say regulation is needed, it usually means something. (I know your going to rebuke his simply by saying this is not the US, but frankly, the US is doing pretty good right now, so it might be a better role model than some European countries.) |
| Date | 10:54:29, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | OOC: Look, Conservative Party, in this game, the world is called Terra, and only the countries listed on the 'nations' page exist. Why can you not understand that? THE USA DOES NOT EXIST ON THIS GAME. It is also my personal opinion that the USA is a disaster of a country, it depends how you define 'doing pretty good'. IC: Burning oil is comparitively clean when compared to other fossil fuels. |
| Date | 13:23:52, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Centrist Democratic Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | What is this USA? Probably some minor nation with a peon for a leader. (OOC: j/k, having some fun :P ) We respectfully disagree with the DLP representative. Nuclear energy is by far the cleanest source of energy that is widely available at this time. Compare, say, the emissions from their cooling towers to the emissions from oil or coal plants - you are comparing harmless steam to carbon dioxide. Which would you prefer to enter the atmosphere? Nuclear meltdowns are a threat, that we'll concede, but they are very very rare. Standards are kept up and when compared to deaths resulting from coal mining nuclear meltdowns are by far the safer alternative of energy. |
| Date | 16:28:42, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | The DLP disagrees. And the Centrist party has not considered the implications of nuclear waste. The Free Republic of Jelbania can do without nuclear energy. |
| Date | 17:56:05, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Centrist Democratic Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | The CDP did NOT ignore the implications of nuclear waste. We are well aware of it, as well as the problems with disposing of it. Compared to the costs of long-term damages stemming from alternative resources, however, we find it much more reasonable. |
| Date | 19:30:54, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | The DLP is willing to consider amendment to this bill. To coincide with the devolution of energy regulation bill, the DLP is willing to amend this bill in order to strictly regulate nuclear energy provision. Therefore, if the Regions which to introduce nuclear energy provision, then it will comply with safety and environmental standards set by this parliament. Any thoughts? |
| Date | 19:40:29, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | You miss my point. The US is just an example. They regulate their nuclear power so something like Chernobal and your fears do not happen. |
| Date | 20:36:34, April 04, 2006 CET | From | Centrist Democratic Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | That sounds like a decent compromise for all parties. |
| Date | 04:40:35, April 05, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | "It is also my personal opinion that the USA is a disaster of a country." I would not say that, but we do need to dtrengthen up border and spending policies. |
| Date | 04:42:54, April 05, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | Is there any option in the laws about regulation of nuclear energy? I could not find any. |
| Date | 01:18:49, April 07, 2006 CET | From | Centrist Democratic Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | There is a law in which nuclear weapons are banned but nuclear technology for energy purposes is allowed. |
| Date | 04:08:56, April 07, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | That is with weapons, though, not power. |
| Date | 05:26:29, April 07, 2006 CET | From | Centrist Democratic Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | "The nation shall never purchase, produce, or store nuclear weaponry, for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted." I assumed this meant nuclear technology for other pruposes. Otherwise, what sense is there banning nuclear weapons then putting in money to research building them? |
| Date | 14:29:53, April 08, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Nuclear Energy Ban 2209 |
| Message | Not building, researching them. Weapons research can be more valuable on the international market than just weapons. This bill is going to the vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 6 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 495 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Check out the forum regularly for game news. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Someone who wields power in name only can never compete with those who wield it through action." - Franz Reichert, former Luthorian politician |