NationStates

Imperializt Russia wrote:Fusion reactors are dangerous too.
The interior surfaces of the reactor vessel become hideously poisoned by the reaction process.

they don't become poisoned, they are irradiated, however the radiation levels are only slightly higher then fission waste and there is significantly less volume of radioactive mass per KWH of energy, and the components become safe after approximately 300 years, significantly less then the ten thousand years for fission waste.

and a fusion reactor cannot be weaponised into an atomic weapon or dirty bomb, and there is still the potential for radiation shielding to prevent component irradiation which is one of the technologies that will be prohibited by this legislation.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Fusion reactors are dangerous too.
The interior surfaces of the reactor vessel become hideously poisoned by the reaction process.

they don't become poisoned, they are irradiated, however the radiation levels are only slightly higher then fission waste and there is significantly less volume of radioactive mass per KWH of energy, and the components become safe after approximately 300 years, significantly less then the ten thousand years for fission waste.

and a fusion reactor cannot be weaponised into an atomic weapon or dirty bomb, and there is still the potential for radiation shielding to prevent component irradiation which is one of the technologies that will be prohibited by this legislation.

Reactors need deuterium and tritium, which can be acquired as a legal fuel, then used to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
they don't become poisoned, they are irradiated, however the radiation levels are only slightly higher then fission waste and there is significantly less volume of radioactive mass per KWH of energy, and the components become safe after approximately 300 years, significantly less then the ten thousand years for fission waste.

and a fusion reactor cannot be weaponised into an atomic weapon or dirty bomb, and there is still the potential for radiation shielding to prevent component irradiation which is one of the technologies that will be prohibited by this legislation.

Reactors need deuterium and tritium, which can be acquired as a legal fuel, then used to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Im sorry, I don't quite understand, how does one generate plutonium from isotopes of hydrogen without alchemy?

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Reactors need deuterium and tritium, which can be acquired as a legal fuel, then used to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Im sorry, I don't quite understand, how does one generate plutonium from isotopes of hydrogen without alchemy?

I'm unfamiliar with the process, but deuterium can be synthesised into and/or from heavy water, and heavy water reactors generate plutonium as a byproduct.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Im sorry, I don't quite understand, how does one generate plutonium from isotopes of hydrogen without alchemy?

I'm unfamiliar with the process, but deuterium can be synthesised into and/or from heavy water, and heavy water reactors generate plutonium as a byproduct.

The heavy water is used as a coolant, and the fuel is unenriched uranium. so it would still come under as a fissile fuel.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm unfamiliar with the process, but deuterium can be synthesised into and/or from heavy water, and heavy water reactors generate plutonium as a byproduct.

The heavy water is used as a coolant, and the fuel is unenriched uranium. so it would still come under as a fissile fuel.

Hmm. I thought it sounded a little too good to be true.

Is it some function of using the heavy water as moderator that allows the plutonium to form?

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
The heavy water is used as a coolant, and the fuel is unenriched uranium. so it would still come under as a fissile fuel.

Hmm. I thought it sounded a little too good to be true.

Is it some function of using the heavy water as moderator that allows the plutonium to form?

I know the heavy water is under high pressure to allow greater temperatures to be reached, and it does yield greater byproducts of plutonium and tritium then a light water reactor, but the primary fuel is still the uranium.

If the reasoning behind this Convention is to limit proliferation, then a blanket limitation is still viable, since being unable to acquire deuterium would limit the production yield.

actually it would just require a ban on fissile materials, as heavy water is relatively easy to profuse and an attempt to ban it would be like banning liquid water. the legislation would already include uranium deposits and stores so the hard water plant doesn't function without uranium.

The only concern we have, and it might be semantic, is the opening statement. Maybe add "but has the potential to be hazardous" on the end, to give emphasis as to why you are proposing this. As we stated, it could be semantic, but we feel it should be acknowledged.

(OOC: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima being RL examples of where it can go horribly wrong)

Other than that, it seems rather fine. While we do understand some of the sentiments of those against this, we believe it is fine.

None of those three are really viable as case studies.
The first two are just showing what happens when you don't bother to properly train crew or properly build facilities, the second shows you what stupidly large natural disasters do.

Imperializt Russia wrote:None of those three are really viable as case studies.
The first two are just showing what happens when you don't bother to properly train crew or properly build facilities, the second shows you what stupidly large natural disasters do.

They weren't meant to be case studies, they were meant to be examples. From the current draft:

RECOGNIZING that nuclear power is a relatively clean and efficient source of energy,

We just want acknowledged that nuclear power can be potentially hazardous, that's all.

Have bumped this up to a fourth draft taking The Dark Star Republics concerns into consideration. Also tidied things up a bit, and reduced the strength to mild.

FOR THE PURPOSE of this convention defines nuclear energy as the useful energy released by a nuclear reactions - one reaction, or multiple?

You still haven't addressed the issues I raised about how this outlaws safe fusion designs that cannot be used for proliferation or weaponisation.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:FOR THE PURPOSE of this convention defines nuclear energy as the useful energy released by a nuclear reactions - one reaction, or multiple?

You still haven't addressed the issues I raised about how this outlaws safe fusion designs that cannot be used for proliferation or weaponisation.

Grammatical error.... Thank you for pointing it out.

I have no intentions addressing those issues. If non-members want access to those technologies from member nations then they can join the WA, or acquire them from other non-members.... Otherwise this does not outlaw anything for members and they are free to trade those technologies with each other without WA interference.

Affecting the right of member nations to research, or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or;

Denying members nations the right to possess, or produce nuclear armaments,

Minute grammatical tweak. As that is essentially the stopping point for all aspects of the draft, should it be a full stop there?

Abacathea wrote:

Affecting the right of member nations to research, or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or;

Denying members nations the right to possess, or produce nuclear armaments,

Minute grammatical tweak. As that is essentially the stopping point for all aspects of the draft, should it be a full stop there?

Thanks mang....

Also, not sure how you'll feel about this or not, but I'm iffy on the new definition, perhaps this;

Defines nuclear energy as the energy released during nuclear fission or fusion and utilized for electrical purposes. Or perrhaps even strike from the "and".

Your call, just a suggestion

Chester Pearson wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:FOR THE PURPOSE of this convention defines nuclear energy as the useful energy released by a nuclear reactions - one reaction, or multiple?

You still haven't addressed the issues I raised about how this outlaws safe fusion designs that cannot be used for proliferation or weaponisation.

Grammatical error.... Thank you for pointing it out.

I have no intentions addressing those issues. If non-members want access to those technologies from member nations then they can join the WA, or acquire them from other non-members.... Otherwise this does not outlaw anything for members and they are free to trade those technologies with each other without WA interference.

I'm simply trying to point out that a sentence excluding fusion reactors would be sufficient, as fusion does not have any of the problems this legislation attempt to combat such as proliferation of weaponisation. Also all nations have a choice to not be part of the WA, and this could negatively affect WA nations who export fusion reactors to allied non-WA states.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Chester Pearson wrote:
Grammatical error.... Thank you for pointing it out.

I have no intentions addressing those issues. If non-members want access to those technologies from member nations then they can join the WA, or acquire them from other non-members.... Otherwise this does not outlaw anything for members and they are free to trade those technologies with each other without WA interference.

I'm simply trying to point out that a sentence excluding fusion reactors would be sufficient, as fusion does not have any of the problems this legislation attempt to combat such as proliferation of weaponisation. Also all nations have a choice to not be part of the WA, and this could negatively affect WA nations who export fusion reactors to allied non-WA states.

Except.... It would be almost impossible to exclude fusion reactors, without rewriting the whole thing, and I am not prepared to do that.....

Abacathea wrote:Also, not sure how you'll feel about this or not, but I'm iffy on the new definition, perhaps this;

Defines nuclear energy as the energy released during nuclear fission or fusion and utilized for electrical purposes. Or perrhaps even strike from the "and".

Your call, just a suggestion

Problem with that is, it only takes into account electrical energy derived from nuclear power. It would be possible for nations to loophole their way around it and still trade nuclear armaments....

You could do what Abacathea suggested, but leave in "for the purpose of this convention", and leave out fusion.

For the purpose of this convention, defines nuclear energy as the useful energy released by nuclear fission.

That way it would only apply to the intended technology's, while not affecting existing of future resolutions.
I want to support this resolution, however will be unable to until fusion is excluded.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:You could do what Abacathea suggested, but leave in "for the purpose of this convention", and leave out fusion.

For the purpose of this convention, defines nuclear energy as the useful energy released by nuclear fission.

That way it would only apply to the intended technology's, while not affecting existing of future resolutions.
I want to support this resolution, however will be unable to until fusion is excluded.

Once again.... I see no compelling argument to exclude fusion. If we do then FT nations can loophole around with anti-matter weapons, which rely on fusion. You seem to be missing the point of the resolution....

Chester Pearson wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:You could do what Abacathea suggested, but leave in "for the purpose of this convention", and leave out fusion.

For the purpose of this convention, defines nuclear energy as the useful energy released by nuclear fission.

That way it would only apply to the intended technology's, while not affecting existing of future resolutions.
I want to support this resolution, however will be unable to until fusion is excluded.

Once again.... I see no compelling argument to exclude fusion. If we do then FT nations can loophole around with anti-matter weapons, which rely on fusion. You seem to be missing the point of the resolution....

Antimatter doesn't have anything to do with fusion, it's produced in particle accelerators and annihilates on contact with normal matter. Fusion uses lighter elements like deuterium, tritium and helium 3 and requires a continuous energy input to continue the reaction, thus making it almost impossible to weaponise and any nation with the capability to create a pure fusion bomb, if it's even possible would require said nation to have technology above and beyond the context of this resolution.

Re-Submitted and campaign under way....

And.... We have quorum. The Abacathean and our delegations thank all the delegates who have brought this to quorum, and look forward to seeing your votes in favour of these measures.