Power Problems Need Bright Solution, issue question

[New Ravania]

The Issue

The oldest power station in New Ravania suffered a catastrophic failure last night, plunging a third of New Ravania'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

1: "The solution is clear," says environmental activist Alexei Utopia. "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!"



2: "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 New Ravania Electra official Dave Wong. "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!"



3: "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 Jefferson. "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?"

----------------

I can understand 2's impact on the invironment of a nation, but my question is this, what about 3? I like the thought of Nucleor Power, but for some reason I get the feeling that in choosing 3 I'll somehow be lowering the invironmental standing of my nation in some way in the discription, which I would rather not do. Any information on the outcome of choosing 3 would be helpful.

[Saaturia]

The Issue

The oldest power station in New Ravania suffered a catastrophic failure last night, plunging a third of New Ravania'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

1: "The solution is clear," says environmental activist Alexei Utopia. "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!"



2: "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 New Ravania Electra official Dave Wong. "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!"



3: "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 Jefferson. "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?"

----------------

I can understand 2's impact on the invironment of a nation, but my question is this, what about 3? I like the thought of Nucleor Power, but for some reason I get the feeling that in choosing 3 I'll somehow be lowering the invironmental standing of my nation in some way in the discription, which I would rather not do. Any information on the outcome of choosing 3 would be helpful.

Well, the outcome for option three is something like "Protesters are picketing the opening of the nation's newest nuclear power plant." What that equals for the environment I don't know.

[New Ravania]

Oh, alright. I figured it would be something along the lines of some of the mining issues that change you from "invironmentally stunning" to "barren wasteland", but I guess I was just thinking too far into it. Thank you.

[Cynthia McKinney]

Choose solar and wind power if you want to improve the environment and your nation's health.

[Romano-Constantinopolis]

Choose solar and wind power if you want to improve the environment and your nation's health.

I doubt it would improve the environment tho. Manufacturing PV cells creates toxic waste, and wind farms are landscape hazards.

It certainly improves health, though.

[Lamoni]

Choose solar and wind power if you want to improve the environment and your nation's health.

I doubt it would improve the environment tho. Manufacturing PV cells creates toxic waste, and wind farms are landscape hazards.

It certainly improves health, though.

Please do not gravedig.