The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[JerryArkansas]

I will withdraw both of my Amendments, and support the one proposed by Dereich

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Cost of commissioning a new nuclear plant is about $600 million off the top of my head. With only 11 plants, this project will be affordable for us.

[Adam Griffin]

     Cost of commissioning a new nuclear plant is about $600 million off the top of my head. With only 11 plants, this project will be affordable for us.

Is this for a 1500 MW reactor (just going off of the original proposal; 50 reactors producing a cumulative 75 GW)? Brief browsing on the issue is giving me multiple sources that indicate the construction costs for a new 1500 MW reactor would be in the vicinity of $1.5-2 billion.

[Velasco]

Well, I'm just reading about Atucha II, a nuclear power plant built recently in Argentina. It has a great thermal power (2,175 MW) and the reactor is of German technology (Siemens KWU). Initially the cost was estimated in $ 1.6 billion; the investment finally rose up to an amount of $ 3 billion. That gives you an idea of how "cheap" is building new plants. And, of course, the question of the nuclear waste isn't still solved, because there's not an actual solution to date. It's possible to make some research of new nuclear power plants around the world (costs, safety, technology, et cetera). By the moment, I can assure you that 600 million of dollars aren't enough to build a 1,500 MW plant.

[Zanas]

Yeah and those investments are only what is needed to build the plant in the first place. Nobody ever takes into account the cost of dismantling the plant when decommissionned a few decades later. It generally amounts to roughly the same as the building cost. One EPR reactor is being built in Finland and has been delayed several times and the budget soared. Same with the EPR in French Normandy. Nuclear energy is not safe, is not clean, and is not cheap.

I'll only support research and development funding on nuclear energy, because there could be breakthroughs that could make it just these three things : mainly achieving controlled fusion. But I'll not be supporting building even the first new nuclear plant around my neighbours and children here in the IDS.

I'll let each one of you either craft something amended or state their intent, and then we'll proceed on to a vote soon.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't know where I saw that figure. Maybe I imagined it. I would also note that, according to this Nuclear Regulatory Commission fact sheet, decommissioning a reactor typically costs $300-400 million.

     As for disposal of waste, I was thinking about the possibility of an underwater storage facility. Water is effective at shielding against radiation and it would severely limit any potential for radiation damage.

[Velasco]

I propose the following amendment to the text (this is the first draft):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dereich]

I feel like this should be its own bill. The current bill was clearly focused on nuclear power and while we should look at a comprehensive energy bill, I'd prefer to get the nuclear issue done with now.

[Velasco]

I feel like this should be its own bill. The current bill was clearly focused on nuclear power and while we should look at a comprehensive energy bill, I'd prefer to get the nuclear issue done with now.

I don't think so. My first draft is a declaration of intentions of how it should be approached the topic of the clean energy, and tries to give a more wide vision of the matter. The original Clean Power Act, as it was conceived, was reducing the options to the nuclear power: you take it or you leave it. It's a limited, shortsighted and erroneous approach, in my opinion. We might discuss a specific Nuclear Power Act, but I think it makes no sense to separate this topic of the energy debate in which it's immersed. I believe that energy is a topic of enough importance and we should take the trouble to discuss all the possible variants before taking a decision limited only to the construction or not of some nuclear power plants.

[Dereich]

I think we should really get movement going again. If it came to a vote I'd vote nay on Velasco's amendment. I agree that the current bill is poorly named, and calling it the Nuclear Power Act would be more appropriate. But what he's proposing is a totally different matter, and I feel that the current draft is a good idea.

[Velasco]

I think that our Speaker is busy with real life matters, for the present time.

I disagree with Dereich. What I have proposed has more relation with the subject that we are treating than what he affirms. As I said before, it's not possible to separate the debate on the nuclear power -- and I believe that we have exposed enough arguments to justify our opposition to the promotion of the energy obtained of the nuclear fission-- from the general energetic debate. We must approach the matter form a global perspective and not from a partial and segmented one.  

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I see that things have more or less ground to a halt here.

[Zanas]

Hey, sorry y'all for the continuing silence. Velasco said it : IRL matters. New job, with a co-worker in the office, so virtually no time then to come here, new appartment, with thus far no internet connection (I finally won the fight against my iphone to have it give me a personal hotspot though ! ). Now it should be better.

SO. Last time we were moving towards building 11 nuclear reactors. I think we cannot be voting on this without a cost estimation of building AND decommissioning all of them. PLUS, if there are 11 plants with one reactor each, we'll need 11 sites that accept to welcome a nuclear power plant, with its risks albeit its jobs also. Fukushima has been around, and we the opponents of this project will make sure it is again. The "nimb" effect should play.

We still don't seriously know what to do with the waste, and it should also be included in the cost, as well as the cost of uranium purchasing. PLUS, we'll need to buy this to Russia, Niger, or other such wonderfully democratic and trustworthy wountries... Energetic independence indeed...

This whole thing is insane. What we need is diversifying our energetic offer, not play all cards of the same deck.

Granted, though, I won't accept as Speaker that Velasco's amendment is included in the discussion, because it is too far away from the original object of the discussion. I'll greatly encourage him to craft this as a whole new bill though, if he hasn't done it since.

SO, now, what we need is a serious cost estimate. I still really don't know who we should be asking for this kind of thing in this game. Is it the GM ? But I can tell we don't have one for the moment... Or can it be the Governor/Emperor when it's regional matters ? Can the Emperor craft a cost estimate, or any Legislator ? I'll try to craft one for tomorrow, since this discussion has long been overdue. I'll really try.

Again, thanks for your patience, and let's try keeping on moving.

Also, I don't recall anyone proposing to sponsor the Congressional elections act or the Annexation of Coahuila and Tamaulipas act : can I infer from that that we tabled them ? Then we can keep on scrolling down the docket. I'll let you tomorrow to sponsor one or the other, then I'll introduce the following bills, and hopefully we can get to vote on the Nuke bill.

[Velasco]

Granted, though, I won't accept as Speaker that Velasco's amendment is included in the discussion, because it is too far away from the original object of the discussion. I'll greatly encourage him to craft this as a whole new bill though, if he hasn't done it since.

I was aware of that. My intention was calling the attention on how badly focused is the bill that we are currently debating. We should deepen in the energy debate -- and I might try to craft a new bill in the near future--  but I feel that if we pass this bill, our attempts to craft a legislation more kind with environment and the safety of our fellow-citizens might be somewhat useless. I share your points of view expressed in the previous paragraphs. As I stated before, there's no way to treat the nuclear fission waste safely in the long term. My feeling is that we shouldn't hide our heads digging a hole in the soil.

[Dereich]

Well I'd still like a vote on this bill; I think its an important step to better and more efficient power generation in the IDS. But I see the logic in waiting for GM analysis. So perhaps we should move on to the annexation bill and put the nuclear issue on hold? I'm willing to sponsor it and argue for it if no one else will.

[JerryArkansas]

we really need to get this moving on, this back log is horrible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

we really need to get this moving on, this back log is horrible.

     Indeed, we need to do something here.

[JerryArkansas]

I call that we have a new election for speaker.

[Dereich]

The election is coming up soon, we'll need to have a new election for speaker after that anyway so we should probably wait until then.

[Zanas]

Yeah sorry 'bout all that, I'm having terrible connection and RL troubles, so I really not have much time to come here. I don't see why you shouldn't freely start to discuss the other bills I had introduced though, even if we're a bit stuck on the nuclear thing. I had introduced them precisely in order to be able to lead several bill discussions at once.

I've made an estimate of the cost of building one nuclear plant of approximately 1000 MW : it amounts to $ 1.3 bn, if nothing goes wrong during building. The cost of decommissioning and demolishing it is more discussed, but amounts to a spectrum between half and the whole of the building cost. So one plant would amount to 2 or 2.5 bn dollars. So 11 would be 22 to 28 bn dollars.

BUT, we have to take into account the cost of the waste management. And this is the most difficult part : between those wastes, some have hugely long half-lives, and we'll have to manage their isolation for centuries. We just can't bury them underground for good and say it's over : we have to make sure, every year, every decade, every century, every millenium even, that our wastes aren't spilling and destroying the environment. This cost is pretty impossible to calculate. But when you see what's happened to the aeras around Chernobyl or Fukushima, or even if you have in mind the concerns at Hanford Site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#Environmental_concerns), you want to handle these wastes with care.

So I'll say roughly it's another $ 1 bn for each plant we have to fund for nuclear waste handling. So now we're up to $ 40 bn for the whole project. Seems like it's starting to be a lot of money for an awful lot of risks we're bringing upon our population, whereas we could use this much money to begin the necessary energetic transition we'll eventually have to make.

I'd still want a GM estimate of the thing, just to show you my calculations are not partisan. In the mean time, let's start discussing annexation, even if the elections are in a few days. Dereich sponsored it, so I'll let him explain what good the IDS has to hope for with the bill.

And again, sorry for the inconvenience.

[Velasco]

Hello, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad to see you again in the Legislature.

As Dereich says, we'll have an election this weekend and, if I'm not wrong, our Speaker is seeking for reelection besides the incumbent Legislator Dereich and the appointed one Gamecock. We must wait to see the outcome before going into a new election for the post, and if it's advisable.

(On the other hand, I'll be out of my hometown the next week, and I'm not sure if I'd be able to assist to debates from days 18 to 25. I'll try to check my email so, if you are going to vote, send me a private message).

As for the nuclear bill, I would permit to suggest that while we are waiting the GM analysis on the costs, we might think about all the implications of the subject that we are discussing, not only the budgetary considerations --quite deterrent as well--, and the need to undertake an authentic energetic transition. As the Speaker mentioned, the isolation of the nuclear waste must be for centuries. Think carefully about all the future implications because one day our heirs will judge us for the heritage that we have bequeathed them. These cans that one day we have sealed and buried underground might turn in an inconvenient inheritance.

I'd like to hear what Legislator Dereich has to say about the annexation project. Despite I stated my opposition, I want to know which reasons are behind this proposal.

[Dereich]

Ok, since things are going very slowly, I have some time on my hands and I really want to get through more of this backlog before elections, I'm just gonna sponsor the next three bills, all of which are currently un-sponsored and lay them out for debate now. Although I don't agree with them all, as sponsor I'll argue for them as well as I can. I don't think this should cause any problems, but if it does I'll happily do them one at a time.

1st: Annexation of the states of Coahila and Tamaulipas - the War vs the Drug Cartels"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Original sponsor: Former Speaker BenKenobi

The intent of this bill and its reasonings are laid out in its text; because of continued instability in Mexico, the northern territories are to be annexed and maintained in the IDS. Military forces from the IDS would be much better able to deal with cartel threats, local authorities in Mexico have a long history of corruption and collusion with the cartels. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Mexican states could benefit the economy; many Mexicans cross the border to work anyway, so why not make them citizens giving them all the benefits of Atlasian labor laws and social services? Finally, it is a just reaction to the movement currently mentioned to annex Canada; if the north gets sweet, sweet Canadian land, why shouldn't we get some new land as well?

I'm undecided on this bill. I don't really think the benefits outweigh the costs, especially in the short run. It probably makes more sense to just assist the Mexican government in their fight or end the cause of the fight then going to war over it. Plus, and this is SUPER important, it make our borders look ugly. Still, I'm sure there are more good reasons for it I can't think of at 2 AM and could easily change my mind about it if presented with them.

[Dereich]

2nd: Abolition of Income Tax act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Original Sponsor: Former Speaker Ben Kenobi. 

Vetoed by Emperor PiT with the following note:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess its now up for an override vote. The reasoning for overriding this veto would be if we felt that the IDS income tax provided too great a burden on IDS citizens (subjects?) and the abolition as well as the large cuts to government that it would require would lead to greater prosperity in the long run. Several state governments, including Texas and Florida do not use an income tax and neither have collapsed; in fact by many measures they are doing well.

Personally, I dislike this bill and will vote against it; I feel the budget we passed earlier makes much more sense. I can see why this would be appealing though, it does greatly simplify things for the common folk, and the income tax is much more inefficient then other taxes like a sales tax. 

[Dereich]

3:
BACON KING'S EMERGENCY FIXER-UPPER AMENDMENT!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Original Sponsor: BACON KINGMAN: ATTORNEY AT LAW

This is a constitutional amendment to do a lot of very useful things. First, it removes the position of Viceroy (equivalent to Lieutenant Governor) from the books, as it has been unfilled for quite a while now. The speaker would be next in line for Emperor with this. It also codifies the position of Co-speaker, a position which wasn't written into the constitution before but turned out to be very necessary. It also makes various fixes to problem phrases in the constitution and makes everything make more sense in general.

I can't stress enough how good an idea this amendment is. The constitution has long been due for an overhaul and Bacon King corrected even more than was needed at the time. Sure, the constitution is still an overlong wreck that needs to be pruned, but this leaves it as a well functioning wreck instead of one we all just ignore. Very good work, as expected of Atlasia's best attorney, BACON KINGMAN.

[Zanas]

I second the fixer amendment by BaconKing, and I think we should ask the Emperor to open up a booth on it some time.

I still am not in favor of the abolition of the income tax, as Dereich saif I think the budget we voted earlier in January makes sense. If it comes to a vote, though, I don't think it can achieve an overriding majority. (how much is this by the way ? 4 out of 5 I guess ?)

I am also not in favor of annexing two Mexican states along the border, because, let's face it, Mexico won't let us ! So it means WAR ! And we already have too many of our men and women abroad fighting wars to start one on our lands or the neighbouring ones. We could, on the other hand, start discussions with our Mexican counterparts on how to fix the real issues in those states and along the border, and maybe we, as a Legislature, could transform the bill in an official demand to the Emperor to meet with the Governors of Coahuila and Tamaulipas to discuss these matters. What do you think ?

As for the GM estimate for our nuclear plants project, do I have to go and ask the GM myself, or is it the Emperor's prerogative ?