Nuclear Energy as a Temporary Enenergy

[Articidonia]

Use nuclear energy as a temporary substitute of energy during an energy crisis
I have studied the pros as well as the cons of this topic, and I do say that it is a valuable resource that should be utilized during an energy shortage.[proposal=]Use nuclear energy as a temporary fuel source during a fuel crisis.[/proposal]

Pros:
-Nuclear energy is perhaps the most clean and safe when properly taken care of
-Creates jobs
-Waste can be contained in unbreakable capsules
-Usually owned by private companies (no taxes required)
-There is an abundant source of uranium
-Meltdowns are few
-No toxic emissions

Cons:
-Waste is dangerous when not properly taken care of
-Meltdowns do happen (usually by natural causes or improper construction/maintenance)
-Needs to be built near a water source

Facts:
-Thousands people die working in a coal mine or by the effects thereof whereas those who die in nuclear plants usually die due to operator error (which is rare)
-Clean or natural energies (such as solar, wind, hydro, etc.) do not produce energy near the amount that nuclear energy does
-Meltdowns are rare
-Within the next century there will be a new permanent energy

Source/Further Information:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/

*Please note that this is a proposal to use this as a temporary fuel source during a fuel crisis*

[Grays Harbor]

And why do you believe that nations are too stupid to figure this out on their own, or that many do not already have nuclear power as their primary source of energy, or that this one-size-fits-all policy must be mandated across the board willy-nilly?

[Flibbleites]

Category & Strength?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Tjennewell]

The representatives of Articidonia would do well to study the subject at hand some more. Just by glancing over the text I notice some glaring mistakes. Allow me to give you some pointers:

Nuclear energy is perhaps the most clean and safe when properly taken care of

Only if you decide to leave both the mining of uran (which is quite the enviromental hazard) and the save storage of the created waste out of the equation. And if we learned something then it is this: As long as people are able to make mistakes, there will never be any one thing that will always be properly taken care off: Whether it is maliciously cutting corners in order to save money, suffering unforeseen forces of nature or a simple human error while operating nuclear facilities, the possibilities for things to go wrong are all in place.

Waste can be contained in unbreakable capsules

I've yet to see such an 'unbreakable' capsule that will keep nuclear waste save for the amount of time it poses a danger. Provided that there is one (which I doubt), is it really cost effective, considering that you will need to pour resources into creating and storing those capsules?

Usually owned by private companies (no taxes required)

If you feel safe to leave the operation and centuries of safeguarding the waste in the hands of a private company (that may cease to exist long before the waste ceases to pose a danger)... Besides, even then you would probably at least have some form of safety inspections or somesuch in place, which will cost tax money. Also emergency services (that may run on tax money) around nuclear facilities will need to recieve proper training and equipment (radiation protection gear for example) for possible accidents/disasters.

There is an abundant source of uranium

Not in my corner of the world. And the existing sites usually make it hard to it mine without serious detriment of the surrounding enviroment.

Meltdowns are few

But they do happen. With the potential to ruin large amounts of land for years to come, most likely making you unable to use residental, commercial and industial facilities. Agriculture will be a big no-no, too. And possible initial loss of life during any sort of disaster aside, many people living in and around the meltdown area could suffer radioactive contamination that will cause health problems for the rest of their lifes.

No toxic emissions

Wrong. Again you are most likely thinking only about the plant itself, not about the mining of it's fuel or the handling of the waste later on.
And to my knowledge even most current plants themselves have emissions - especially when they have to perfom time critical tasks like an emergency shutdown. Granted, those emissions usually are below the quotas most countries dealing with nuclear technology deem harmful - but stating that there are no toxic emissions simply isn't true.

-Thousands people die working in a coal mine or by the effects thereof whereas those who die in nuclear plants usually die due to operator error (which is rare)

If you know about the dangers of mining coal, how can you be blind to the dangers of mining uranium? That stuff doesn't magically spawn at the nuclear plants - it has to be mined just like coal. And trust me, it is a very dirty process. So if you want to make a fair comparison, either compare both kinds of miners or compare the risks of employees of the different kinds of power plants.

Within the next century there will be a new permanent energy

Good to know. So why use nuclear power now and create waste that will pose risks for me for centuries to come if I can use alternative means of creating power until that new source is found?

[Articidonia]

After reading Tjennewell's comments and rereading my post, I see the slight flaws made. The one that bugs me the most is calling the capsules "unbreakable". Near unbreakable would be more appropriate. There have been tests to see how leak resistant they really are (collision, decomposition, etc.). However some of your statements are invalid, Tjennewell, for they have no evidence. You cannot predict the future by simply implying that

a private company (that may cease to exist long before the waste ceases to pose a danger).

When I was referencing to the abundance of fuel, you said

Not in my corner of the world.

That is why we import. Regardless of the substance, we are importing fuel whether it be gasoline, oil, etc. And then you also said

And the existing sites usually make it hard to it mine without serious detriment of the surrounding environment.

Not my land, not my problem. Your response to the meltdown quote also makes me question your thinking.

And possible initial loss of life during any sort of disaster aside, many people living in and around the meltdown area could suffer radioactive contamination that will cause health problems for the rest of their lives.

Besides Chernobyl, what great catastrophe has effected others as such? A few years back Japan was hit by a tsunami and had a few meltdowns, but they seem just fine. And again, meltdowns have been results of natural disasters or improper construction or maintenance. Many of your statements are hollow and provide no evidence or proof.

[Grays Harbor]

And why do you believe that nations are too stupid to figure this out on their own, or that many do not already have nuclear power as their primary source of energy, or that this one-size-fits-all policy must be mandated across the board willy-nilly?

Category & Strength?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Are We going to get answers to these very basic questions?

[Shazbotdom]

And why do you believe that nations are too stupid to figure this out on their own, or that many do not already have nuclear power as their primary source of energy, or that this one-size-fits-all policy must be mandated across the board willy-nilly?

Category & Strength?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Are We going to get answers to these very basic questions?

"I am going to have to agree with my counterpart from Grays Harbor. Are we going to get the answers to those basic questions and will this be put into the proper Proposal Format or should we just toss this in the bin?"

Mr. Antuan D. Flaberghast
Shazbotdom Ambassador to the WA

[Dagguerro]

Agreed, this NEEDS a proper proposal format and a category and strength. With no actual proposal there is little point to debate this.

-Lord Swift

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Schulz puts away his newspaper and looks sternly at the ambassadors currently involved in the discussion on the floor.
It doesn' matter. The author has no endorsements and thus is not entitled to submit proposals. He lights up a cigar and leans back.

[Badezz Republic]

"I believe that this a great idea, but we should also find other means of energy by possibly using the core of the earth to power our world. It's a tricky idea, but if were able to drill a hole down very far, till we reach the core, we can use that to harness power and give power to everything without any pollution or high cost."

[Grays Harbor]

lets see ....

No draft proposal - check
No category - check
No strength - check

Why is this even being debated still? There is nothing to debate.

[Kneenypanini]

As Anthony Horowitz once wrote, "A nuclear power plant is at once the safest and most dangerous place in the world". Because the effects of a mistake or disaster would be so catastrophic, the safety measures put into nuclear power plants are extremely thorough and high in number. Nuclear power is definitely a good thing, however in places such as Japan, It is foolish to have nuclear reactors. Japan is on several tectonic plate boundaries, and as such, the probability of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes/tsunamis is very high. Nuclear power is an idea I agree with, however there should be more consideration into where they are placed.

[Tjennewell]

While I agree that there is no real draft proposal to discuss here, I want to provide my answers to the reply of Articidonia regarding my earlier statements, hoping that they are truely insterested in the discussion.

However some of your statements are invalid, Tjennewell, for they have no evidence. You cannot predict the future by simply implying that

a private company (that may cease to exist long before the waste ceases to pose a danger).

I am not predicting the future here, just preparing for plausible scenarios. Statistically speaking private companies have an average lifetime that is way below the time it needs for most nuclear waste to cease emmitting radiation at dangerous levels. So it makes sense to have some plan in place in the event that the company responsible for creating the waste is no longer able to safeguard it.

That is why we import. Regardless of the substance, we are importing fuel whether it be gasoline, oil, etc.

Just wanted to point out that uranium probably isn't as abundant everywhere in the world as your first statement made it look like. Yes, we could import it and make our energy supply dependent on these imports, but it is Tjenneswell's goal to maintain a certain level of self-sufficiency. I accept that this may be no concern of yours.

And the existing sites usually make it hard to it mine without serious detriment of the surrounding environment.

Not my land, not my problem.

Given that pollution usually isn't very much impressed with the artificial borders that divide our states and contries it can very well turn into your problem one day. Besides, the WA is all about looking beyond one's own nose. With an attitude like that, I doubt that you will find support here.

Besides Chernobyl, what great catastrophe has effected others as such? A few years back Japan was hit by a tsunami and had a few meltdowns, but they seem just fine.

A few years back? Seems you are on a different calendar, because I recall it to happen last year. Some of the workers trying to save and stabilize the Fukushima plant have been severely contaminated with radiation. And I think it is a bit early to say what the long-term impact of all this will be on the health of people that live (or used to live) around the area. But physical health aside, I am pretty sure they don't consider it "just fine" that many lost their homes due to evacuation and that they can't grow crops on their fields or raise livestock (mostly because there is no longer demand for that kind of produce from that area).
Also take a look at Japan's economy - the event has hurt many companies, too.

Many of your statements are hollow and provide no evidence or proof.

1. I assumed much of my statements to be covered by general knowledge and easy to verify using an internet search if need be.
2. Where is evindence or proof for the statements you made in your initial address?

[Sarentinia]

The Sarentinian scientific committee remains baffled at using nuclear energy for "enenergy".

However, having written that off as the Articidonian-English language barrier, and having written off the lack of an actual proposal as something that others who might be more interested in such matters may find objectionable, the Sarentinian observer mission to the WA would like to address the points on this floor before this debate closes up.

First, the average life expectancy of a corporate entity really is too short to take into consideration the harmful effects of mining, enriching and exploiting uranium and nuclear energy. But then, the Articidonian government may be uninterested in long-term economic or environmental (or demographic) sustainability.

But nuclear energy is (and arguably so) "cleaner" than coal or fossil fuels. And we say this is arguably so because the long-term side effects of mining and using nuclear material, and the resulting waste, isn't something we've had the opportunity to observe for a long period of time. We don't know how waste from a nuclear plant will affect us in a century or two, mainly because we haven't lived long enough to see it. The only reason why we know coal and fossil fuel is that bad for the environment is because, surprise, it's been around for a lot longer.

But since there's a lack of immediate consequences, the attraction of nuclear energy is undeniable for some states, including, apparently, Articidonia. But the Sarentinian stance on this issue is that nuclear energy (although it is taboo in Sarentinia), if it must be used, should be used as a bridge fuel to some actually sustainable energy.

(OoC) Also (and this is OoC because Chernobyl and Fukushima were R/L examples), I understand the main reason of both failures were to design deficiencies of a government (or company) too interested in the here-and-now.

My understanding is that if your government doesn't have the inspection and control institutions in place to make sure not to build nuclear reactors on fissures or unstable areas, or just make shoddy reactors for the heck of it with disregard for lives, safety, and the environment, then a nuclear disaster isn't the worst that will happen.

[The Grand Duchy of Marinia]

I think everyone here is operating under the assumption that the current nuclear reactor designs and fuel sources are the ONLY reactor designs and fuel sources. If this is not true, please slap me.

Otherwise I would like to interject that while the mining of Uranium and the need for a constant water supply are currently the generally accepted downsides of nuclear energy, there is another way to do this.

There is the Thorium Powered Molten Salt Reactor (TPMSR) design, tested and proved at Oak Ridge back in the 50's and 60's.

Pros: The most recent TPMSR design (from the 60's) is MUCH smaller than light water Uranium powered plants. Reactors as small as a few megawatts have actually been built and tested, and theoretical designs have been made for plants producing several gigawatts. Thorium, as a fuel, burns off 90% of it's mass in its lifespan, compared to uranium, which only burns off 10% of it's mass. Alternately, an MSR can use spent Uranium from light water plants as a fuel source, thereby reducing the waste from other nuclear plants. The TPMSR is also a safer design than current gen. 4 light water plants in that, in case of a catastrophic meltdown, there is a fail-safe system that can smother the reaction and contain it without having to bury the site under several million tons of concrete (Chernobyl) and abandon the nearby area (Chernobyl, Fukashima). The design uses a solid plug of salt that mechanically drops into the reaction chamber itself. The thorium doesn't have the power to melt through the solid salt and thus radiation is trapped under the salt plug. In addition, the salt-plug fail-safe doesn't need to rely on any sort of additional power and can be engaged in times when all power to the plant has been cut, such as what happened at Fukashima with the tidal wave.

There are a few drawbacks to the design and basic theory, such as a need to maintain an on site chemical plant to maintain the mixture, little design improvement since the 60's, little to no regulation covering the vast differences in reactor design to the current gen.4 Uranium powered nuclear plants, and, of course, though Thorium creates 80% less waste material than Uranium, it still creates waste material that needs to be disposed of somehow.

Despite these drawbacks, I believe they can be overcome with 1.) the creation of new regulations concerning reactor design and structural integrity, as well as waste disposal, 2.) a new battery of research into design improvements that can be made using modern materials and computing technology, 3.) shooting the waste material onto the moon. (HA, sorry, had to throw a joke in there. I really have no idea what to do with the waste.)

My source material: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... rium-dream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearc ... ear-power/

Of course, this is a discussion on whether to use nuclear power in the short term. I would say, using this ^ technology, yes. The mining of the materials, and the disposal of the waste taken into account, it is far cleaner to produce energy this way than using solar panels (if you include mining and manufacturing of the individual components), it's more efficient and cleaner than coal, less dangerous than light water plant designs, doesn't take up as much space and creates more energy than wind...

Until we figure out how to make a fusion reactor operate for more than a few minutes, I say we use the best option we have available to us. Yes, of course it has flaws and drawbacks, that is how life works. Nothing created by mankind is perfect. Except chocolate pie. But to reject a pretty good solution just because of what might be is the worst sort of irrational, knee-jerk response we can have. I say let us focus, not on what problems or drawbacks there are, but how we can solve those problems.

[Selzburg]

Honestly, leave it up to the country. I am against the use of nuclear power due to the threat it poses on the environment should something go wrong. I would never use nuclear energy and I wouldn't even consider building a plant. So, if this passes, make sure that it is left up to the country and not an across the board resolution.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Uranium? What is that? Oh yes, now I remember, that was the stuff people used before Thorium Reactors were built.

[Exogenous Imperium]

I would go further than the OP.

I am not sure about useful nuclear power would be as a temporary power source as a typical nuclear reactor requires a lot of infrastructure and permanent highly qualified staff. For a purely temporary power source I would use what ever is cheaper and low tech like coal or oil, both are easy to store in abundance and the technology behind a coal or oil power stations is crude and abundant. You would need no where as much security or highly qualified staff to look after the facility.

However I believe that uranium might not be the best material for creating nuclear power. The nuclear power infrastructure that most nations have created using uranium to generate energy is a by product of a process designed to manufacture weapons uranium. If energy at the lowest cost is your primary consideration then other materials to generate such reactions might be preferable.

[Dagguerro]

Until we figure out how to make a fusion reactor operate for more than a few minutes, I say we use the best option we have available to us. Yes, of course it has flaws and drawbacks, that is how life works. Nothing created by mankind is perfect. Except chocolate pie. But to reject a pretty good solution just because of what might be is the worst sort of irrational, knee-jerk response we can have. I say let us focus, not on what problems or drawbacks there are, but how we can solve those problems.

First...why did you ressurrect this dead proposal?

Second...many nations including ourselves already run fusion reactors. If you cannot I'm sure somebody would be willing to send you design specifications. (OOC: NS=/=RL. We have non-human nations, space-based nations, future tech and ancient tech nations, etc etc.)

[Trindade e Martin Vaz]

No. Because it is stupid. Next question please.

[Cosmicus]

One word: Thorium

[Araraukar]

One word: gravedig.

[United Federation of Canada]

HOLY GRAVEDIG BATMAN!!!