Energy for the Future Bill 2014 (Debating)

[Cranberry]

I support this bill wholeheartedly, but of the little sentence in clause 5 saying to expand nuclear and natural gas energy together with renewable energy. I do like latter, but not the former two. That's about the only problem I have with this bill however, I very much support the rest of the bill.

[Cranberry]

Senator, the research doesn't advocate for the expansion of nuclear or natural gas. It is highlighting that we cannot ignore them if we are talking about short-medium term options. We cannot suddenly create wholesale renewables supply like that.

You are right, but I can not really stomach nuclear energy being called a "short-medium term option". We until now have found no way what to do with nuclear waste ultimately, and if we continue to expand nuclear energy, we will just have to deal with an even bigger amount of radioactive waste sometime in the future.

Anyway, research might prove a solution to this, and does not do that much harm, so I guess my criticism is void.

[Cranberry]

Senator, the research doesn't advocate for the expansion of nuclear or natural gas. It is highlighting that we cannot ignore them if we are talking about short-medium term options. We cannot suddenly create wholesale renewables supply like that.

You are right, but I can not really stomach nuclear energy being called a "short-medium term option". We until now have found no way what to do with nuclear waste ultimately, and if we continue to expand nuclear energy, we will just have to deal with an even bigger amount of radioactive waste sometime in the future.

Anyway, research might prove a solution to this, and does not do that much harm, so I guess my criticism is void.

I believe Nuclear Energy is a sensible medium term approach (and I advocated for it in my Clean Energy Reseach Act), and it's certainly more efficient than using oil or coal. It produces more energy and while the waste is a major issue, Atlasia has several pieces of legislation in place to regulate certain aspects of nuclear plans to deal with that in the best way possible. We are ahead of OTL America on many aspects and in a few years I believe we will be able to get most if not all of our energy from renewable and environmental friendly sources, but unless we use nuclear energy in the transition phase we would be stuck with oil, gas or coal, and each one of them comes with environmental (and geopolitical in case of oil) dilemmas that it would be best to avoid.

I actually like the spirit of the bill, although, wouldn't 20% be a bit high? I recognize that the more income we gather for NEF the better, but that might be too much for some of the minor companies, or at least that's the impression I have...

I guess discussing whether Nuclear Energy is a sensible alternative, I still have to make that one point. I do not dispute that nuclear energy is far more climate neutral than oil, gas, coal and the lot; yet nuclear energy is so much more of an unsolved problem to me. We have absolutely no clue, and there even our research will have helped, we have absolutely not the smallest of clues on what to do with the nuclear waste. Yes, we have mid-term solutions that don't really work, but where should we put the nuclear waste in the end? This waste is dangerous, extremely dangerous, and unless we find a way to eliminate it somehow, we are stuck with the same problem, and the worst thing to do is to make this problem even bigger by producing even more nuclear waste.
I know it is hard to find alternatives for oil/gas/coal in the transition phase, but I don't think nuclear energy should be it...

[Cranberry]

I respect Senator Cranberry's concerns about nuclear. But I do think we need to be realistic. The reality is that nuclear is there and whether we like it or not, it is a way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, until the renewables can be brought online as a wholesale load of the electricity mix. Wind, solar, geo-thermal etc are not going to become wholesale load in the short-term. That's a reality, so we do need to be pragmatic.

I would also stress that my intention is that the NEF fund the household credits and increases to the value and eligibility of existing low-income support. But if you'd like to have a separate element that deals with increasing government R&D, I'm open to it.

So I'm not sure I can support the amendment until Senator TNF can clarify his intention.

I guess you are right, nuclear energy is definitely better than coal or oil. I also do know that it is quite safe nowadays, at least more modern plants. My only concern with it is that we do not have found a way to deal with the waste ultimately, but I suspect when we fund research that will help clearing up on that issue as well.

I would just say nuclear energy is the long-term energy solution right in front of our noses.

I would say it is the long-term problem with the nuclear waste that's in front of our noses.


Regarding Senator Deus' amendment, I just feel he has a little bit to optimistic opinion of the free market. I guess they would not spend a single penny for research of renewable energies if we did not tell them to do, as oil and gas is more profitable to them in the sense that they earn more money from it. Plus, Senator Polnut's bill just tells them that they should spend at least 20% of their profits, and not in any way prohibit them to spend more. But anyway, following Senator Deus' views of the free market and his argumentation, they would spend exactly the amount most profitable to them. If said amount is above 20% of their profits, they will continue to spend this very amount; if it is under 20%, they will nevertheless spend 20% of their profits, and since every company has to do it, they will not have a disadvantage to their concurrents. So where is the problem you tried to solve?

[Cranberry]

Nay

[Cranberry]

I would have preferred 20% for R&D, and I guess this would have passed this Senate; but yeah, I will still support this of course.

[Cranberry]

I guess NAY, too.
I prefer 20% over 10%; but I will of course support the bill also if the amendment is approved.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

They are not covered in this bill because they already have the incentive and therefore spend those money in R&D, I should assume. Because we need more R&D when it comes to renewable energies, we need to give other power and fuel companies an incentive - this bill.

[Cranberry]

To force companies to give up further profits by mandate of the environmentalist lobby wing is simply a non starter.

lel

[Cranberry]

They are not covered in this bill because they already have the incentive and therefore spend those money in R&D, I should assume. Because we need more R&D when it comes to renewable energies, we need to give other power and fuel companies an incentive - this bill.

Why would a power plant invest in research of renewable technologies? Power plants themselves don't manufacture the turbines, generators, etc that they use, they purchase them from manufacturers (ie, the companies whose job it actually is to research, develop, and manufacture equipment). You think a company whose job it is to generate electricity is just going to open up a manufacturing plant? It makes no sense to require them to research renewable technologies when their job has nothing to do with developing renewable technology.

No, but you know just as me that you can't simplify this the way you just did. Research and Development is more than just manufacturing the turbines and generators; it's just equally trying to update your power plant building so to make it loose less energy, need less energy in general, maybe building stuff to reduce CO2 or whatever else there are emissions, etc etc... No one forces them to research a brilliant innovative idea, we are just forcing them to do their homework for our environment.

[Cranberry]

I guess I like the redraft more than the old version; so yeah, I would prefer the redraft version.

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

x Cranberry