NationStates

"The Issue
The oldest power station in Spredronia suffered a catastrophic failure last night, plunging a third of Spredronia's national power supply grid into darkness. There is no debate that it needs to be replaced, but the question is with what?

The Debate
"The solution is clear," says environmental activist Calvin Nagasawa. "Wind turbines and solar power stations are the cleanest there are. We must switch power production to forms of renewable energy, that will never run out. The only minor problems are that wind farms will take up a great deal of space and of course we can't exactly rely on the weather. It isn't as though we control it. But think of how much healthier people will be without all that pollution!"



"Wind power? Solar collectors? Bah! Have you ever wondered when the least amount of strain is placed on the national grid? WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING!" exclaims Southern Spredronia Electra official Jack Li. "We need power under our control, and cheaply. Coal has been the cheapest and most abundant power source for ages. We don't need this airy fairy wind malarky when we have cheap and reliable power available for all. True, pollution will be a bit on the heavy side but I'm sure that's only a minor problem, with how well funded our health system is!"



"Now the way I see it is that it's either green, expensive, and sprawling; or compact, polluting and cheap. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the best of both worlds? Well, we can!" claims fission technician Samuel Hamilton. "Nuclear power is reliable, clean, and although it isn't cheap, it won't break the bank. There is a risk of deadly meltdown, but this is relatively small, and the only people who could be against this are anti-nuclear protesters, but what do we care about those tree-hugging hippies?"

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt."

I'm going to use #3. I think it'll set back the environment back a bit, and health will go down, etc. But it's NUCLEAR! Come on man! Comments?

Spredronia wrote:"The Issue
The oldest power station in Spredronia suffered a catastrophic failure last night, plunging a third of Spredronia's national power supply grid into darkness. There is no debate that it needs to be replaced, but the question is with what?

The Debate
"The solution is clear," says environmental activist Calvin Nagasawa. "Wind turbines and solar power stations are the cleanest there are. We must switch power production to forms of renewable energy, that will never run out. The only minor problems are that wind farms will take up a great deal of space and of course we can't exactly rely on the weather. It isn't as though we control it. But think of how much healthier people will be without all that pollution!"



"Wind power? Solar collectors? Bah! Have you ever wondered when the least amount of strain is placed on the national grid? WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING!" exclaims Southern Spredronia Electra official Jack Li. "We need power under our control, and cheaply. Coal has been the cheapest and most abundant power source for ages. We don't need this airy fairy wind malarky when we have cheap and reliable power available for all. True, pollution will be a bit on the heavy side but I'm sure that's only a minor problem, with how well funded our health system is!"



"Now the way I see it is that it's either green, expensive, and sprawling; or compact, polluting and cheap. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the best of both worlds? Well, we can!" claims fission technician Samuel Hamilton. "Nuclear power is reliable, clean, and although it isn't cheap, it won't break the bank. There is a risk of deadly meltdown, but this is relatively small, and the only people who could be against this are anti-nuclear protesters, but what do we care about those tree-hugging hippies?"

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt."

I'm going to use #3. I think it'll set back the environment back a bit, and health will go down, etc. But it's NUCLEAR! Come on man! Comments?

I would go with Number one it's better for the enviroment and citizens.

Surote wrote:

Spredronia wrote:"The Issue
The oldest power station in Spredronia suffered a catastrophic failure last night, plunging a third of Spredronia's national power supply grid into darkness. There is no debate that it needs to be replaced, but the question is with what?

The Debate
"The solution is clear," says environmental activist Calvin Nagasawa. "Wind turbines and solar power stations are the cleanest there are. We must switch power production to forms of renewable energy, that will never run out. The only minor problems are that wind farms will take up a great deal of space and of course we can't exactly rely on the weather. It isn't as though we control it. But think of how much healthier people will be without all that pollution!"



"Wind power? Solar collectors? Bah! Have you ever wondered when the least amount of strain is placed on the national grid? WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING!" exclaims Southern Spredronia Electra official Jack Li. "We need power under our control, and cheaply. Coal has been the cheapest and most abundant power source for ages. We don't need this airy fairy wind malarky when we have cheap and reliable power available for all. True, pollution will be a bit on the heavy side but I'm sure that's only a minor problem, with how well funded our health system is!"



"Now the way I see it is that it's either green, expensive, and sprawling; or compact, polluting and cheap. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the best of both worlds? Well, we can!" claims fission technician Samuel Hamilton. "Nuclear power is reliable, clean, and although it isn't cheap, it won't break the bank. There is a risk of deadly meltdown, but this is relatively small, and the only people who could be against this are anti-nuclear protesters, but what do we care about those tree-hugging hippies?"

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt."

I'm going to use #3. I think it'll set back the environment back a bit, and health will go down, etc. But it's NUCLEAR! Come on man! Comments?

I would go with Number one it's better for the enviroment and citizens.

Yeah, but until I get enough tech to convert the Sun's light into full power, I'll stick with nukes.

I chose No. 3, the only dowside really is that you get a load of protesters complaining about the power plants. I found that enviroment and health were not really effected ( or is it affected?). however I'm sure it would depend on how much money was already being spent on the enviroment and healthcare.