[PASSED] Renewable Energy Installations Act

[Araraukar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

Haha, that organization is retarded. Made my day, for real. Didn't know this existed XD

I happen to be Vhemtian. What's so funny about it? (And please continue in TG, let's not get called by mods for threadjacking this.

[Ossitania]

Oh dear, another proposal that forces nations to set aside portions of their territory for a particular environmental agenda. We can't be the only delegation who views this as essentially being the WA seizing land, can we? Ossitania stands strongly opposed.

[Christian Democrats]

On trains that are unmarked and guarded, we ship it out into the desert, where it is buried hundreds of feet underground.

...so you have no solution, and just leave it for the next few hundred generations to worry about?

Don't feel bad, a lot of nations that like nuclear power, do exactly the same. That still doesn't change the fact that the waste will remain deadly and dangerous for thousands of years. Additionally, uranium is hardly renewable, since it is naturally "born" only in supernovas.

But, you want a radiating future and someone else wants to choke while watching pretty sunsets. Guess there has to be extremophiles among sentient beings as well.

The Christian Democratic ambassador is irritated by the ignorance of the ambassador from Araraukar. "Uranium is not the only potential fuel for nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy can be generated from a variety of sources, including uranium, plutonium, and thorium. We hope to advance our nuclear technology. Our people, especially those interested in science, eagerly await the development of Generation IV reactors."

He continues, "Our planet has an almost boundless supply of materials that could be used for nuclear power generation. We do not need to worry about running out of fuel for thousands of years."

[Araraukar]

"Uranium is not the only potential fuel for nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy can be generated from a variety of sources, including uranium, plutonium, and thorium.

Which are still all radioactive and non-renewable. But I believe there is no use for us to be abusing a proposal's debate space for something that we'll likely never agree on. The proposal specifies renewable sources, and like I said before, you can still have 90% from your electricity from nuclear reactors if you so wish. However, I would just like to point out as a personal aside, that nuclear reactors, especially the ones whose pictures you have included, all are based on heating a liquid, most usually water, to a boiling point and then using the steam to power turbines. It seems a little pointless, when you could have water or wind itself turn those same turbines.

- Johan Milkus, ambassadorial secretary of Araraukar, in the absence of ambassador Leveret

[Araraukar]

Oh dear, another proposal that forces nations to set aside portions of their territory for a particular environmental agenda. We can't be the only delegation who views this as essentially being the WA seizing land, can we? Ossitania stands strongly opposed.

Actually, if you read the newest draft, it doesn't specify any of that. It just says "places that cause the smallest ecological disturbance" - you could coat the roofs of all governmental/common buildings with solar panels, for example.

(In fact, now that I looked at the latest draft properly myself, I notice that ambassador Leveret hasn't been keeping her notes up to date, as it doesn't even mention the 10% of renewable energy requirement that she reminded me of.)

- Johan Milkus, ambassadorial secretary of Araraukar, in the absence of ambassador Leveret

[Ossitania]

Oh dear, another proposal that forces nations to set aside portions of their territory for a particular environmental agenda. We can't be the only delegation who views this as essentially being the WA seizing land, can we? Ossitania stands strongly opposed.

Actually, if you read the newest draft, it doesn't specify any of that. It just says "places that cause the smallest ecological disturbance" - you could coat the roofs of all governmental/common buildings with solar panels, for example.

(In fact, now that I looked at the latest draft properly myself, I notice that ambassador Leveret hasn't been keeping her notes up to date, as it doesn't even mention the 10% of renewable energy requirement that she reminded me of.)

- Johan Milkus, ambassadorial secretary of Araraukar, in the absence of ambassador Leveret

Fine then, they're seizing land and/or property. Still opposed. The WA is grossly overreaching if it thinks it can mandate that we spend every spare penny we have building renewable energy plants in every single suitable area we can find. For such an extreme measure to be acceptable to us, we would require a compelling justification and one has not been provided to us.

Furthermore, we believe the draft as currently written would require the construction of REIs even in countries incapable of generating power from renewable sources. The first clause requires nations without REIs, which would likely include such countries, to find places to build them and then do so and the only reason why they wouldn't have to build them is if they are not able to afford to build it. This would mean that countries more than capable of affording to build REIs would have to build them, regardless of whether they could actually generate power from them, since the only requirement is that the country being in an economically viable position.

In addition, we believe this would be forcing electrification on any member-state that can afford it but hasn't undergone it yet, or who underwent it once and decided to renounce it.

[Araraukar]

In addition, we believe this would be forcing electrification on any member-state that can afford it but hasn't undergone it yet, or who underwent it once and decided to renounce it.

I think those nations could safely ignore this act, just like how NAPA and such have no effect on nations that do not have and do not want nuclear weapons.

[United Federation of Canada]

...so you have no solution, and just leave it for the next few hundred generations to worry about?

Don't feel bad, a lot of nations that like nuclear power, do exactly the same. That still doesn't change the fact that the waste will remain deadly and dangerous for thousands of years. Additionally, uranium is hardly renewable, since it is naturally "born" only in supernovas.

But, you want a radiating future and someone else wants to choke while watching pretty sunsets. Guess there has to be extremophiles among sentient beings as well.

The Christian Democratic ambassador is irritated by the ignorance of the ambassador from Araraukar. "Uranium is not the only potential fuel for nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy can be generated from a variety of sources, including uranium, plutonium, and thorium. We hope to advance our nuclear technology. Our people, especially those interested in science, eagerly await the development of Generation IV reactors."

He continues, "Our planet has an almost boundless supply of materials that could be used for nuclear power generation. We do not need to worry about running out of fuel for thousands of years."

Sigh.........

You cannot generate nuclear energy from plutonium, or thorium, without first burning enriched uranium in the reactor. Then you need a totally separate type of reactor to burn either thorium, or plutonium. Also in order to separate these isotopes from the burned up uranium, you need to reprocess that fuel, which is almost deadly to the environment. The amount of plutonium generated from uranium reactors is small unless you are running a breeder reactor, which is not used for power generation, as they are cooled by molten salt, with an extremely high boiling point.

So no you do not have an almost infinite amount of nuclear fuel, unless your entire nation is made up solely of uranium.

[Abacathea]

In addition, we believe this would be forcing electrification on any member-state that can afford it but hasn't undergone it yet, or who underwent it once and decided to renounce it.

I think those nations could safely ignore this act, just like how NAPA and such have no effect on nations that do not have and do not want nuclear weapons.

I don't believe that will be essential dearest Araraukar, the second mandate was designed to be two fold.

Having identified suitable sites....

This particular mandate, not only regards the first, but in itself regards the installations themselves. One cannot build a hydro electric dam in the desert, nor can one build wave breaker generators in the city center. It stands to reason that if a nation doesn't have an area suitable to provide the needs of the facility, then the facility simply cannot be placed there. Ossitania's objections are not entirely without merit, although they do sound a bit "natsovie" for our tastes. But we hope to assure them no such totalitarian dictat is being veiled in this act.

[Abacathea]

The Christian Democratic ambassador is irritated by the ignorance of the ambassador from Araraukar. "Uranium is not the only potential fuel for nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy can be generated from a variety of sources, including uranium, plutonium, and thorium. We hope to advance our nuclear technology. Our people, especially those interested in science, eagerly await the development of Generation IV reactors."

(Image)

He continues, "Our planet has an almost boundless supply of materials that could be used for nuclear power generation. We do not need to worry about running out of fuel for thousands of years."

Sigh.........

You cannot generate nuclear energy from plutonium, or thorium, without first burning enriched uranium in the reactor. Then you need a totally separate type of reactor to burn either thorium, or plutonium. Also in order to separate these isotopes from the burned up uranium, you need to reprocess that fuel, which is almost deadly to the environment. The amount of plutonium generated from uranium reactors is small unless you are running a breeder reactor, which is not used for power generation, as they are cooled by molten salt, with an extremely high boiling point.

So no you do not have an almost infinite amount of nuclear fuel, unless your entire nation is made up solely of uranium.

That Mr Pearson, is a most interesting point.

[United Federation of Canada]

Sigh.........

You cannot generate nuclear energy from plutonium, or thorium, without first burning enriched uranium in the reactor. Then you need a totally separate type of reactor to burn either thorium, or plutonium. Also in order to separate these isotopes from the burned up uranium, you need to reprocess that fuel, which is almost deadly to the environment. The amount of plutonium generated from uranium reactors is small unless you are running a breeder reactor, which is not used for power generation, as they are cooled by molten salt, with an extremely high boiling point.

So no you do not have an almost infinite amount of nuclear fuel, unless your entire nation is made up solely of uranium.

That Mr Pearson, is a most interesting point.

Permanent Delegation of the United Federation of Canada to the World Assembly

Thank you Mr. Chombers.

We do hope this passes, as our Uranium Procurement Act, will compliment this resolution very nicely.

[Abacathea]

That Mr Pearson, is a most interesting point.

Permanent Delegation of the United Federation of Canada to the World Assembly

Thank you Mr. Chombers.

We do hope this passes, as our Uranium Procurement Act, will compliment this resolution very nicely.

As do we Mr Pearson.

We are extremely satisfied with our nation's work on this act and the assistance from the many delegates on this thread, especially Araraukar and Eireann Fae, that said, it is most encouraging to have the United Federation of Canada on side. We find it almost spurring as it were.

Many thanks again.

[Christian Democrats]

The Christian Democratic ambassador is irritated by the ignorance of the ambassador from Araraukar. "Uranium is not the only potential fuel for nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy can be generated from a variety of sources, including uranium, plutonium, and thorium. We hope to advance our nuclear technology. Our people, especially those interested in science, eagerly await the development of Generation IV reactors."

(Image)

He continues, "Our planet has an almost boundless supply of materials that could be used for nuclear power generation. We do not need to worry about running out of fuel for thousands of years."

Sigh.........

You cannot generate nuclear energy from plutonium, or thorium, without first burning enriched uranium in the reactor. Then you need a totally separate type of reactor to burn either thorium, or plutonium. Also in order to separate these isotopes from the burned up uranium, you need to reprocess that fuel, which is almost deadly to the environment. The amount of plutonium generated from uranium reactors is small unless you are running a breeder reactor, which is not used for power generation, as they are cooled by molten salt, with an extremely high boiling point.

So no you do not have an almost infinite amount of nuclear fuel, unless your entire nation is made up solely of uranium.

Yes, Ambassador, we know that uranium must be used to kick start a thorium fuel cell; but you are mistaken regarding the supply of material that the planet -- well, at least our planet -- has to be used in nuclear reactors.

Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland writes this in the Scientific American:

If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.

. . .

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

. . .

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

This article completely ignores thorium, which is three to four times more abundant than uranium in the Earth's crust.

In essence, nuclear power could sustain our civilization and meet its energy needs, as we have said, for thousands of years.

[Auralia]

What about fast breeder nuclear reactors, which can use non-fissile uranium by turning it into plutonium? Our supply of uranium-238 should last us billions of years...

EDIT: Never mind, CD already brought them up.

[United Federation of Canada]

What about fast breeder nuclear reactors, which can use non-fissile uranium by turning it into plutonium? Our supply of uranium-238 should last us billions of years...

EDIT: Never mind, CD already brought them up.

But as I pointed out, fast breeders are very difficult to use for power production, and you must reprocess that fuel, which is extremely damaging to the environment. Hanford ringing any bells? It is one of the most radioactive sites in the world.

Plus the amount of plutonium gained from depleted uranium is what 8% maybe? The only real purpose of these reactors is to produce weapons grade plutonium for nuclear weapons, as it is faster and cheaper that enriching U-235 to 90% required for weapons.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-fast-breeder-react

[Christian Democrats]

Let me add to my previous point:

230 years of uranium with present technology and at present consumption

This supply could be extended to 30,000 years at present energy consumption with new technology

30,000 years / 230 years = 130x more efficient

If we start extracting uranium from seawater and use current technology, we would have a 60,000-year supply of energy at present rates of consumption

Combining new technology with uranium extraction from seawater:

60,000 years x 130 = 7,800,000 years

So, if we were to extract uranium from seawater and to develop more efficient nuclear reactors, we would have an energy supply that would last for 7.8 million years.

Modern man has existed for about 50,000 years with respect to behavioral modernity.

And let's not forget thorium. One ton of thorium generates as much energy as 200 tons of uranium.

1 ton thorium = 200 tons uranium

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

Our supply of thorium is three to four times our supply of uranium.

200 x 4 = 800

7,800,000 years x 800 = 6,240,000,000 years

At present rates of consumption, we have a supply of nuclear energy that would last 6.24 billion years.

The Sun will burn out in 5 billion years. Once again, humans have been around for about 50,000 years.

In short, the Sun will die before we run out of nuclear energy if our consumption were to remain constant!

This is not too far-fetched since the gadgets we use are becoming more and more energy efficient.

Really, this issue is a no-brainer. Also, thorium fuel cells cannot experience meltdowns.

[Eireann Fae]

(OOC: CD, two things. First of all, real world references don't apply here. RL Humans may have been around 50k years, and Sol may die in 5bil, but that has no bearing on NS Humans and stars. Earth has a population of around seven billion - NS has a population in the trillions. Second of all, RL energy demands are rising faster than the population, which itself is skyrocketing at an exponential rate. It's fairly ridiculous to make claims based on current rates of consumption.)

[Ossitania]

I think those nations could safely ignore this act, just like how NAPA and such have no effect on nations that do not have and do not want nuclear weapons.

I don't believe that will be essential dearest Araraukar, the second mandate was designed to be two fold.

Having identified suitable sites....

This particular mandate, not only regards the first, but in itself regards the installations themselves. One cannot build a hydro electric dam in the desert, nor can one build wave breaker generators in the city center. It stands to reason that if a nation doesn't have an area suitable to provide the needs of the facility, then the facility simply cannot be placed there. Ossitania's objections are not entirely without merit, although they do sound a bit "natsovie" for our tastes. But we hope to assure them no such totalitarian dictat is being veiled in this act.

My concern is for nations who do not desire electrification, not nations who are incapable of it. This resolution patently forces any nations who don't have REIs to build them, even those which have no REIs because they have no electrical power whatsoever and who have no desire for electrification whatsoever. There is absolutely no exception carved for those who don't want electrification, since the resolution refers unambiguously to all member-states without REIs, no matter what their reason for not having REIs.

I also argue that "Having identified suitable sites" clearly refers to the previous clause and that, therefore, the only suitability requirement in the act is that it cause minimal environmental impact.

[Abacathea]

I don't believe that will be essential dearest Araraukar, the second mandate was designed to be two fold.



I also argue that "Having identified suitable sites" clearly refers to the previous clause and that, therefore, the only suitability requirement in the act is that it cause minimal environmental impact.

You are free to argue it dearest Delegate, this does not make it so. But yes, it could be interpreted as you have thusly. This is why the good faith interpretations of acts is a tenant all legislators hold dear. It will never be possible to please anyone, something we have learned in the assembly extremely rapidly. Even legislation that mandated, oh say, free drink at the bar for the rest of your serving term, or a magical mandate that allowed sunshine year round, would annoy someone, somewhere. This simply is how it is.

[Auralia]

You are free to argue it dearest Delegate, this does not make it so. But yes, it could be interpreted as you have thusly. This is why the good faith interpretations of acts is a tenant all legislators hold dear. It will never be possible to please anyone, something we have learned in the assembly extremely rapidly. Even legislation that mandated, oh say, free drink at the bar for the rest of your serving term, or a magical mandate that allowed sunshine year round, would annoy someone, somewhere. This simply is how it is.

That is not an adequate response.

[Abacathea]

You are free to argue it dearest Delegate, this does not make it so. But yes, it could be interpreted as you have thusly. This is why the good faith interpretations of acts is a tenant all legislators hold dear. It will never be possible to please anyone, something we have learned in the assembly extremely rapidly. Even legislation that mandated, oh say, free drink at the bar for the rest of your serving term, or a magical mandate that allowed sunshine year round, would annoy someone, somewhere. This simply is how it is.

That is not an adequate response.

It is also not the first response. The delegate was informed how the mandate was to be interpreted, he rebuffed it. We cannot change his viewpoint on the matter anymore than he can change ours.

The point was designed to be two-fold, Ossitania argues it wasn't. There's little more I can do than tell them they're wrong in their assumption. A police official catches you speeding, you say you weren't, they say you were. Who's right? The one with the equipment to back it up. In this instance, as the drafters of this legislation, we are the officer with the speed gun. You can argue you were doing 49 in a 50, but we're telling you, you were doing 53. Much in the same way we have told Ossitania, the mandate specifically states, having identified suitable locations, facilities are to be built. The suitability of the location has several factors, which we would hope nations would be clever enough to acknowledge. Much like we addressed before, building a hydro-electric dam in a desert, would be buck stupid.

[Ossitania]

Your interpretation is not consistent with the text, ambassador. That you are the author of the text matters very, very little if you cannot explain why my problems with the text other than by saying "I'm the author, therefore I'm right". The first clause tells nation to find sites where building REIs would cause a minimal environmental impact. The following clause then begins "Having identified suitable sites". This clearly refers to the preceding clause because it is the second step in a sequence of actions mandated by the resolution - Step 1: Find sites to build REIS, Step 2: Having done so, build REIs. The law is what the law says and what the law says is that nations without REIs have to build as many REIs as you can afford to build on as many suitable sites as you can find, which is explicitly forcing member-states to use land and property for a specific purpose mandated by the WA and which implicitly requires electrification of all countries which can afford to do so, whether they want to or not. When I point out a flaw in your resolution, you can't simply say "I'm the author, therefore I'm right". Either explain precisely why my interpretation is flawed or admit that you're talking out your arse, either way, I'll be satisfied, but don't bullshit me. "Good faith interpretation" doesn't protect resolutions from being badly-written.

[Abacathea]

There is no having done so. Please don't deliberately misrepresent the text ambassador, you can't place words in the text that arent there just to suit your agenda, although we appreciate the covert politicians attempt at trying. I will not admit I am"bullshitting" or "talking out my arse" just so you can puff out your chest and strut around the floor here.

The mandates are exactly as follows;

(i) Nations who do not already possess R.E.I's to identify key areas where the placement of facilities would cause the least environmental disturbance.

Nations who are not in possession of any form of renewable infrastructure are to identify key areas for installation.

(ii) Having identified suitable sites within their borders, nations without renewable energy installations must build R.E.I.s at the designated sites, provided the nation is in an economically viable position to do so

Now delegate look very carefully at the punctuation here

Having identified suitable sites within their borders should I have underlined suitable? Should I have put some clause in that states "don't be a fucking idiot and build solar panels in eclipse zones?" Really?

I refuse to engage you in a pissing contest any further here, I've explained the text quite clearly to you, if you don't like the proposal, you are free to vote no on the day as is your diplomatic right.

We of course hope this doesn't affect Diplomacy between our great nations all the same.

[Ossitania]

Yeah, sorry if it undermines your sense of self-importance, but for me to be tearing you down in order to validate my ego, you would actually have to be a sufficiently challenging and prestigious opponent that tearing you down would actually feel like an achievement. I'd also have to feel like my ego needed validating, whereas I actually feel like my record within this Assembly stands for itself.

The phrase "Having identified suitable sites" clearly presumes the identification of suitable sites to have already taken place. The only reason it could presume this is if the identification had already been mandated in an earlier clause. The preceding clause mandates that areas where REIs can be built with minimal environmental impact be identified. If the mandate was supposed to be two-fold, I believe the proposing delegation is sufficiently intelligent that they would have had the first clause mandate that member-states identify areas suitable to the operation of REIs where they can be built with minimal environmental act. However, I do not believe the mandate was supposed to be two-fold, I believe the proposing delegation overlooked an error in the drafting of their resolution and now they don't want to admit to it and have it pulled because they'd have to go through the work of getting it to quorum again.

Tell me if this recipe for a Spanish omelette sounds right;

1. Beat the eggs with milk.
2. Having prepared the ingredients, add them to the frying pan.

What the proposing delegation is essentially saying is that this is a complete recipe that tells you to dice and fry the potatoes and onions until golden-brown before adding the egg, because we're supposed to just know that "Having prepared the ingredients" doesn't simply refer to the previous step in the sequence, it also obviously refers to other interim steps that we're never told to carry out but should inherently be aware of anyway. This suggestion is cockamamie. The first clause asks us to identify sites that meet a certain criteria. The second clause assumes we have identified suitable sites. "Suitable" here clearly refers to their suitability to meeting those certain criteria which have already been laid out in the text. The ambassador from Abacathea is being disingenuous because he is too lazy to pull his own demonstrably flawed resolution and propose it again with its errors remedied, and has also repeatedly failed to justify forcing the electrification of nations who do not desire it.

Also, you can shove the diplomacy between our great nations up your arse. If you think you can publicly make insulting accusations about any member of the Ossitanian Diplomatic Corps right to their leader's face, including the leader himself, and still expect good relations with our nation, you need a reality check.

[Araraukar]

"Esteemed delegates of Ossitania and Abacathea, would it by any chance be possible that the two of you just agree to disagree. As in, neither of you is going to turn the other's head, and you're... well, you're bickering over who said what and what they meant with it, like little kids, only dressing it up in adult language. And if either of you comments to this post with "they started it", I'm personally going to come over to your seat and give you a nice solid paddling."
- Janis Leveret, the WA ambassador of the Grand Nation of Araraukar

"Miss Leveret got told by a missive from the Leader themself, that if she was going to continue binge drinking in the Strangers' Bar, when alcohol is forbidden in Araraukar, she was going to continue to do it with her own money. She may be slightly grumpy due to withdrawal."
- Johan Milkus, ambassadorial secretary