NationStates

I have written a proposal for the General Assembly . As it is my first time doing so , please do say what you think about it and how i can improve the proposal. Thank you.

I would like to apologize for the false grammar in the text , although i have corrected it in the forum.

The General Assembly ,
as nuclear fusion energy gets more vital , here are my proposed standards to ensure the safety of nuclear fusion operations and the people , who are impacted by living near a nuclear fusion power plant :

Hereby enacts the following guidelines into WA law:

- Article 1
Nuclear fusion power plants must not be surrounded by housing , within a 10km radius.

- Article 2
Nuclear fusion power plants must be able to sustain power outages and be resistant to certain natural disasters , that are prominent in the area , where it is built.

- Article 3
Personnel must withstand at least 3 to 5 years of training , before operating a nuclear fusion power plant alone.

- Article 3.1
Before finishing training , personnel must have lots of experience operating the plant before operating on their own.

- Article 4
We need to contribute to find new materials , that would reduce the complexity of nuclear fusion and it has to be safe and efficient enough to use.

- Article 5
We need to contribute into perfecting and improving nuclear fusion , for the sake of reaching climate goals and to allow for the reduction of energy prices worldwide.

- Article 5.1
To allow for further innovation , an atomic fusion research complex would be built to research improved technologies for nuclear fusion.

...that is prominent in the area...

NOT IS, ARE!

(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly! This proposal addresses a properly-international topic, and the writing is fairly legislative in character. I would encourage you to have a look at the rules for proposals. In particular, due to the branding rule, the mention of “my” in the proposal’s text, in your “as nuclear energy gets more vital” clause, would make this illegal.

More generally, I recommend thinking about more general provisions. The mention of ten kilometres, for example, explores a policy of ensuring that houses are not placed within an unsafe radius of nuclear-fusion plants. That policy might vary according to levels of nuclear development within member-nations. Therefore, a more general mandate, for example that housing must not be placed within such a radius of nuclear-fusion plants that evacuation cannot be achieved within a generally safe period of time, would be more appropriate. This also applies to the training times.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly! This proposal addresses a properly-international topic, and the writing is fairly legislative in character. I would encourage you to have a look at the rules for proposals. In particular, due to the branding rule, the mention of “my” in the proposal’s text, in your “as nuclear energy gets more vital” clause, would make this illegal.

More generally, I recommend thinking about more general provisions. The mention of ten kilometres, for example, explores a policy of ensuring that houses are not placed within an unsafe radius of nuclear-fusion plants. That policy might vary according to levels of nuclear development within member-nations. Therefore, a more general mandate, for example that housing must not be placed within such a radius of nuclear-fusion plants that evacuation cannot be achieved within a generally safe period of time, would be more appropriate. This also applies to the training times.)

Thank you for your advise. I will take it in mind , when rewriting the proposal .

OOC: If this is meant to apply to actual power-generating fusion reactors and not just experimental things (which have a bigger chance of failing spectacularly), then requiring housing not to be anywhere near one would be a nasty hit to many Future Tech nations, where you might have a fusion reactor powering a skyscraper building complex.

The bit about "sustaining power outage" is also a bit confusing as the current understanding of fusion reactors is that you need to put energy in, before you get (more) energy out, so it would also be safer than a fission reactor in that if a power outage happened, the reaction would just die down, with no danger of explosion or whatever.

Please leave out your opinion on the draft . If you think it's a good idea , then support the legislation by approving the idea.

Because the original draft contained some mistakes, it had to be rewritten and thus, this is the corrected version of the original draft.
Article 6 also had to be removed, due to there being no function in-game.

The General Assembly,
concerned that there is no standard yet to ensure the safety of nuclear fusion operations and the people, it is essential to introduce basic standards for the safe operation of nuclear fusion.

Hereby enacts the following guidelines into WA law:

- Article 1
Nuclear fusion power plants must not be surrounded by housing within a radius, where a safe evacuation process is not possible or either dangerous.

- Article 2
Nuclear fusion power plants must be able to sustain power outages and be resistant to certain natural disasters , that are prominent in the area, where it is built.

- Article 3
Personnel must be trained for an appropriate period of time, due to differing levels of nuclear development and safety guidelines.

- Article 3.1
Before finishing training, personnel must have enough experience operating the plant, before operating on their own.

- Article 4
We need to contribute to find new materials, that would reduce the complexity of nuclear fusion and it has to be safe and efficient enough to use.

- Article 5
We need to contribute into perfecting and improving nuclear fusion, for the sake of reaching climate goals and to allow for the reduction of energy prices worldwide.

- Article 5.1
To allow for further innovation, an atomic fusion research complex has to be built, to research improved technologies for nuclear fusion.

You get one thread for your proposal, do not create more when you re-draft. Instead, use the reply function, or the edit function. Your threads have been merged.

United Calanworie
Forum Moderator

(OOC: I suggest that you edit all the drafts into the first post; otherwise, when the thread gets longer, it can become difficult to find the present draft, which means that feedback can be given on outdated versions.

Very New Republic of Madinia wrote:The General Assembly,
concerned that there is no standard yet to ensure the safety of nuclear fusion operations and the people, it is essential to introduce basic standards for the safe operation of nuclear fusion.

This doesn’t quite make sense, grammatically. I recommend reformatting it into two clauses: “concerned that there is no standard yet to ensure the safety of nuclear fusion operations,” and “believing that it is essential to introduce basic standards for the safe operation of nuclear fusion,”.

Hereby enacts the following guidelines into WA law:

- Article 1
Nuclear fusion power plants must not be surrounded by housing within a radius, where a safe evacuation process is not possible or either dangerous.

How could a safe evacuation be dangerous? That is a contradiction of terms. Also, the “either” should be placed slightly earlier in the clause. I recommend a rewrite into focusing on safe evacuations being either impossible or unreasonably difficult.

- Article 2
Nuclear fusion power plants must be able to sustain power outages and be resistant to certain natural disasters , that are prominent in the area, where it is built.

A literal reading of this clause implies that nuclear-fusion plants must be able to maintain an output of zero, which is inherent in any nuclear-fusion plant that is not working. I believe that you mean that there should be no dangerous consequences of a plant failing to function, but this could be more clearly worded.

- Article 3
Personnel must be trained for an appropriate period of time, due to differing levels of nuclear development and safety guidelines.

Everything after “period of time” is simple an explanation of the clause, so it is not necessary.

- Article 3.1
Before finishing training, personnel must have enough experience operating the plant, before operating on their own.

The use of two clauses with “before” makes this slightly awkward to read, and feels unnecessary generally. I feel as though removing the first subordinate clause: “before finishing training” wouldn’t result in any loss to the clause.

- Article 4
We need to contribute to find new materials, that would reduce the complexity of nuclear fusion and it has to be safe and efficient enough to use.

Don’t use “we”. Instead, you could refer to member-nations and, rather than saying that they need to do something, you could mandate or compel them to do it. For example, “Member nations must contribute to find new materials…”.

- Article 5
We need to contribute into perfecting and improving nuclear fusion, for the sake of reaching climate goals and to allow for the reduction of energy prices worldwide.

Everything that counts as a justification, about reaching goals as to climate-change, should be in the preamble, rather than in this clause.

- Article 5.1
To allow for further innovation, an atomic fusion research complex has to be built, to research improved technologies for nuclear fusion.

Is this on GA territory? If so, there are a few more mandates that you need to do here, such as mandating that no member-nation attack the area. See GA #008 for a resolution that establishes an extraterritorial area for the GA.