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 Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Liberal Party
Status[?]: passed
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: September 5176
Description[?]:
| Government policy on nuclear power. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: Nuclear power plants are not permitted.
Current: The government requires most energy to be generated by nuclear power.
Proposed: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:35:24, September 06, 2022 CET |
From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Act | | Message | They really aren't, though. Solar power has around 15% efficiency with the best solar panels we can produce, and therefore takes up ridiculous amounts of space in order to match the energy released by nuclear fission. Furthermore, solar panels require a variety of rare earth minerals and plastic compounds to make, all of which have massive negative impacts on the environment, require batteries to be useful, which means further ecological damage to procure the sulfuric acid and other components needed to make industrial-scale batteries, and cannot be safely disposed of when no longer needed. Wind power is even less efficient, likewise requires batteries to be useful when the wind isn't blowing, and has deleterious effects on avian biodiversity by destroying habitats. Hydroelectric is a good backup system for when other methods fail, but cannot produce enough energy on its own to fuel a nation the size of Beluzia. Fossil fuels are obviously the worst option available. Nuclear is the least damaging to set up, the safest, and the least economically damaging. |
| Date | 00:35:54, September 06, 2022 CET |
From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Act | | Message | That should read "environmentally damaging" not "economically damaging". Our apologies for the typo. |
| Date | 01:50:37, September 06, 2022 CET |
From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Act | | Message | Yes, we are familiar with nuclear bombs. You may be interested to know that nuclear bombs use weapons-grade uranium, which is 90% U-235, whereas reactors use reactor-grade uranium, which is 5-6% U-235. Since U-235 is the particularly dangerous bit, it's quite hard to argue that the two are equivalent. |
| Date | 18:26:46, September 06, 2022 CET |
From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Act | | Message | Uranium is an actinide, not a lanthanide, and is therefore not considered a rare earth mineral. You're about 30 atomic numbers off. We aren't entirely sure what is meant by "Wind power for the Wind"; would the VBP be willing to offer a clarification? |
| Date | 19:30:35, September 06, 2022 CET |
From | New Vanguard Party of Beluzia (NVPB) | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Act | | Message | Nuclear is still better than Coal, and Gas, but It creates Radioactive Waste, It's expensive, It could be renewable, but It still isn't. (OOC: Look at Chernobyl, and the one in Japan nuclear is not the most Reliable.) |
| Date | 20:25:15, September 06, 2022 CET |
From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Act | | Message | All right, we addressed the problems with wind power above, and as for your substantive statements, Nuclear is indeed better than coal and gas, it does create radioactive waste, but with the new development of breeder reactors, which allow for nuclear waste to be enriched and used again as fuel, often multiple times for the same waste, nuclear waste is far less radioactive and dangerous than it once was. As for the cost, nuclear reactors are expensive to operate, certainly, but not considering the amount of energy they produce. It is far more expensive to get a kilowatt-hour of power from solar panels than from a fission-based reactor. Finally, as previously mentioned, breeder reactors and plutonium have made nuclear as renewable as it can get, if you mean renewable in the sense of infinite, and it is objectively less bad for the environment than solar or wind, if you mean renewable in the sense of eco-friendly. (OOC: You forgot about Three Mile Island, but three nuclear incidents in eighty years, with several hundred reactors operating all over the world, is a pretty solid track record, especially when compared against solar or wind, and most especially considering that all three were caused by bad safety practices that had been warned against by experts). |
| Date | 21:32:32, September 06, 2022 CET |
From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Act | | Message | OOC: Japan has decided to restart its nuclear plants and looking to develop more nuclear reactors. So it's not really a matter of the cost or its dangers its a matter of whether it's managed well whether there's good safety practices and whether it's handled by the government or by private companies (the government managing this is always better than private companies, that's one of the reasons for the Fukushima disaster) |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 548 |
| no | Total Seats: 85 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 117 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "The right to suffer is one of the joys of a free economy." - Howard Pyle (commenting on unemployment in Detroit)
|