IDS Nuclear Bill Referendum Thread VOTE UPDATE

[Dereich]

Ok everyone, Zanas has decided to take his anti-nuclear crusade to the people. In the legislature we recently passed VERY contentious bill titled the "Clean Power Act" which was a relic of the Ben Kenobi days which proposed creating 50 new nuclear power plants. After narrowing down the number to 5 and after two months of long debate the bill was passed 3-2. Zanas has now found it fit to bring it to a referendum. As I'm tired of the constant sniping in the election threads, I think it'll be best to continue the debate here. The final text of the bill as passed reads as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you'd like more information, you can check the offices of Zanas and Sjoyce where they have been fighting it out here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=158758.msg3671917#msg3671917
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=170391.msg3678323#msg3678323

and in the legislature where we debated the actual bill starting here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=112235.msg3636377#msg3636377

[Adam Griffin]

Kudos to Zanas for using a constitutional trick that I never bothered searching for in the past. I've been quite conflicted on the nuclear issue for a number of reasons.

On one hand, there are far superior ways to harness nuclear energy without resorting to the fairly dated pressurized water reactor technology. LFTR reactors, for instance, would eliminate most of the concerns shared by those on the left.

On the other hand, I am a huge proponent of regionalized energy and in some cases, am willing to take whatever form of energy we can harness in order to move us toward that goal.

And on the mutant third hand, some have debated whether or not we need any infusion of new energy into the mix at this point. The bill vaguely outlines that the nuclear plants will replace less efficient and dirtier forms of energy, but no concrete measures were outlined to guarantee that, unfortunately.

Since I get the chance to vote on this as a citizen, I'll be giving it great thought in the coming days.

[LastVoter]

After a discusion with Dereich about the specifics of the bill.  I found a couple flaws with it that I overlooked earlier(Originally I was advocating for 75/25 split between solar/nuclear investment). The main problem with this proposal is that it's a generation II reactor design, when we can be building generation III and III+ reactors in the near future.
The second problem is the vague language used about the benefit of this bill to the citizens of IDS and the precautions that will taken to mitigate hazards associated with nuclear reactors.

[Zanas]

Ok everyone, Zanas has decided to take his anti-nuclear crusade to the people. In the legislature we recently passed VERY contentious bill titled the "Clean Power Act" which was a relic of the Ben Kenobi days which proposed creating 50 new nuclear power plants. After narrowing down the number to 5 and after two months of long debate the bill was passed 3-2.

I'd rather say that I decided to make the most of what our Constitution has to offer in matters of democracy on a subject which has been thoroughly discussed and contested, as shown by the vote of 3-2 and the never ending debates in our mutual threads.

However, I think what you just opened can only be a poll on the referendum to come, since Article I, 7. of our Constitution states : "The Emperor shall be the chief executive officer of the Imperial Dominion of the South and is responsible for administrative duties including operation of Imperial regional elections."

Yes, I can be a real legal pain in the ass, like BaconKing but with much more presence... I furthermore encourage every IDS citizen to read our Constitution here, to better appropriate it, since we're probably be spending the Spring amending it heavily. It has some real nice features, and its only drawback is that it has not been given constant enough care. I however am very proud that it's still our First Constitution, and I will not advocate a Second one, just thoroughly amend the current one.

So now we're waiting for PiT to open up yet another booth, except if he has done so while I'm babbling on and on...

[Dereich]

After a discusion with Dereich about the specifics of the bill.  I found a couple flaws with it that I overlooked earlier(Originally I was advocating for 75/25 split between solar/nuclear investment). The main problem with this proposal is that it's a generation II reactor design, when we can be building generation III and III+ reactors in the near future.
The second problem is the vague language used about the benefit of this bill to the citizens of IDS and the precautions that will taken to mitigate hazards associated with nuclear reactors.

While the original reactors at the plant are of an old design the new ones being installed are of a much newer design circa 2007; https://www.mnes-us.com/us-apwr/overview

And as for your proposal, it would have been nice but Zanas (and Sjoyce, from outside the legislature) decided to the bill into a full referendum on nuclear power. I have said many times that I hope that a comprehensive energy plan that focuses on renewable resources comes after this, but this needed to be solved now to get the nuclear issue out of the way and provide an intermediary step to getting rid of fossil fuels.

[Dereich]

Ok everyone, Zanas has decided to take his anti-nuclear crusade to the people. In the legislature we recently passed VERY contentious bill titled the "Clean Power Act" which was a relic of the Ben Kenobi days which proposed creating 50 new nuclear power plants. After narrowing down the number to 5 and after two months of long debate the bill was passed 3-2.

I'd rather say that I decided to make the most of what our Constitution has to offer in matters of democracy on a subject which has been thoroughly discussed and contested, as shown by the vote of 3-2 and the never ending debates in our mutual threads.

However, I think what you just opened can only be a poll on the referendum to come, since Article I, 7. of our Constitution states : "The Emperor shall be the chief executive officer of the Imperial Dominion of the South and is responsible for administrative duties including operation of Imperial regional elections."

Yes, I can be a real legal pain in the ass, like BaconKing but with much more presence... I furthermore encourage every IDS citizen to read our Constitution here, to better appropriate it, since we're probably be spending the Spring amending it heavily. It has some real nice features, and its only drawback is that it has not been given constant enough care. I however am very proud that it's still our First Constitution, and I will not advocate a Second one, just thoroughly amend the current one.

So now we're waiting for PiT to open up yet another booth, except if he has done so while I'm babbling on and on...

No need for legal squabbles; this is only an informal poll to judge the mood. Although now that the real booth is open I guess its kinda pointless

[Velasco]

After a discusion with Dereich about the specifics of the bill.  I found a couple flaws with it that I overlooked earlier(Originally I was advocating for 75/25 split between solar/nuclear investment). The main problem with this proposal is that it's a generation II reactor design, when we can be building generation III and III+ reactors in the near future.
The second problem is the vague language used about the benefit of this bill to the citizens of IDS and the precautions that will taken to mitigate hazards associated with nuclear reactors.

And these reactors of III and IV generation might remain old-fashioned rapidly, if in the next decades it's possible to develop the nuclear fusion, which represents the future of the nuclear power, whereas the fission of uranium/plutonium/thorium is or it will be the past.

http://www.iter.org/

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nuclear fusion probably won't be viable as a source of energy for a while. I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

[Velasco]

Some people think that nuclear fusion will be viable in two, three or four decades. The real problem is that in the meanwhile we have to fight with a climate change that might have (and probably will have) devastating consequences and against which almost nothing has been done up to date.

Though it could look like the opposite, I have taken in consideration the reasons that can lead to a reluctant support of the construction of new reactors. What I don't understand is the uncritical enthusiasm towards the nuclear fission.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm undecided, so that means I lean yes because our legislature passed it and I don't like overturning things without a good reason.

[Dereich]

I'm undecided, so that means I lean yes because our legislature passed it and I don't like overturning things without a good reason.

In that case, as its a vote to overturn the bill you lean no

Also, I'm happy to address any concerns that may be keeping you from voting no on this referendum.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm undecided, so that means I lean yes because our legislature passed it and I don't like overturning things without a good reason.

In that case, as its a vote to overturn the bill you lean no

Also, I'm happy to address any concerns that may be keeping you from voting no on this referendum.

     I was concerned that confusion may result from the way that I posed the question, whichever way I put it.

[Napoleon]

Lol I like how anything and everything in the South becomes a partisan issue. This will be fun.

[Donerail]

Lol I like how anything and everything in the South becomes a partisan issue. This will be fun.

Yay for Operation Cottonfield.

[Zanas]

Seriously, Sjoyce, this has nothing to do whatsoever with Operation Cottonfield, and all to do with democracy. Are you not a man to support the will of the People ? If the referendum fails, the Act will be even more legitimate than when he passed the Legislature. I offered you that. You should thank me. (although you did sign the petition too... you should also thank yourself )

[Donerail]

Seriously, Sjoyce, this has nothing to do whatsoever with Operation Cottonfield, and all to do with democracy. Are you not a man to support the will of the People ? If the referendum fails, the Act will be even more legitimate than when he passed the Legislature. I offered you that. You should thank me. (although you did sign the petition too... you should also thank yourself )

I'm not talking about the referendum, I'm talking about how everything is a highly polarized partisan affair.

[Zanas]

I think this revived the South. Plain and clean. Confrontation compels to argue better, which is what we did, and I think the whole people of the South was a winner in this for they are much better informed now and can vote in all conscience.

[Donerail]

I think this revived the South. Plain and clean. Confrontation compels to argue better, which is what we did, and I think the whole people of the South was a winner in this for they are much better informed now and can vote in all conscience.

If everything (nuclear power, Constitutional amendments, every other damn thing) is a partisan issue, then it's very difficult to actually get both sides to come together and get something done for the good of our region. Certainly I'm guilty of it too, but what it did was inject bitter partisanship where there was none before.

[Dereich]

I think this revived the South. Plain and clean. Confrontation compels to argue better, which is what we did, and I think the whole people of the South was a winner in this for they are much better informed now and can vote in all conscience.

If everything (nuclear power, Constitutional amendments, every other damn thing) is a partisan issue, then it's very difficult to actually get both sides to come together and get something done for the good of our region. Certainly I'm guilty of it too, but what it did was inject bitter partisanship where there was none before.

Everything ISN'T a partisan affair though; the budget for instance was passed unanimously, with Zanas being one of the keys in preserving harmony. It just seems though that whenever an especially partisan issue comes through we get stuck on it for months.

[Donerail]

I think this revived the South. Plain and clean. Confrontation compels to argue better, which is what we did, and I think the whole people of the South was a winner in this for they are much better informed now and can vote in all conscience.

If everything (nuclear power, Constitutional amendments, every other damn thing) is a partisan issue, then it's very difficult to actually get both sides to come together and get something done for the good of our region. Certainly I'm guilty of it too, but what it did was inject bitter partisanship where there was none before.

Everything ISN'T a partisan affair though; the budget for instance was passed unanimously, with Zanas being one of the keys in preserving harmony. It just seems though that whenever an especially partisan issue comes through we get stuck on it for months.

Fair enough, some things like the budget aren't, but things like the recent Constitutional amendment were a largely party-line vote. The nuclear issue, where it could be reasonably expected that some Labor members would support the proposed plants (government replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon power) and some Federalists would oppose it (government spending money to influence markets or whatever), it seems to have become another party vs party one.

[Adam Griffin]

This is a stupid place to be arguing about this, but since SJoyce loves to throw the partisan label out there every chance he gets, we might as well. Nuclear is not popular among the IDS left. You have a lot of leftists in the IDS and most are in Labor. Whether or not you agree with them being here doesn't really make a damn, and I grow tired of the subtle whining on that subject.

It was months ago, and it's not as if the other side didn't try their own methods to rectify that. The IDS is active now - something the right never could have accomplished. Even with the Federalists' own Operation Carpetbagger in Dec-Jan, most of the ones dragged here don't even bother voting - which is how we whooped ya'll in both instances of March's election.

Not everything is a partisan affair, but it is funny that even when we don't try to make a particular issue partisan, it ends up being that way, anyway. I guess it takes two to tango. Sometimes I hold my vote just so the right doesn't knee-jerk and vote the opposite way.

This, however, is not partisan. It's ideological, and I'm sorry that the correlation you've drawn suggests otherwise. I was fine with the compromise that came out of the Legislature, but since it has been turned into a voting booth where I get to express my personal sentiments on the matter, I chose to vote against it after reviewing the matter further - as have others. I don't believe every piece of legislation should be voted on in this way, and believe it or not, I had nothing to do with this being put forward in the way it has. Nevertheless, it is what it is.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think this revived the South. Plain and clean. Confrontation compels to argue better, which is what we did, and I think the whole people of the South was a winner in this for they are much better informed now and can vote in all conscience.

If everything (nuclear power, Constitutional amendments, every other damn thing) is a partisan issue, then it's very difficult to actually get both sides to come together and get something done for the good of our region. Certainly I'm guilty of it too, but what it did was inject bitter partisanship where there was none before.

It's hardly a partisan issue.  I haven't voted yet because I don't know which way to go.  Adam Griffin has brought up good points. 

[Dereich]

Ok, with about one day left the referendum to overturn the bill is currently failing with

9 Nays to 5 Yeas

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fusion has been about two decades away for four decades now, so fusion power is not a reason to not build fission plants now.  I'm a proponent of nuclear power, but I'm not happy with the IDS owning the plants directly instead of providing some assistance to private utilities or even the TVA to own them.  So I'll be voting Aye on that basis.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am leaning towards a nay vote at this point, but I think there are several flaws that I would hope that the legislature could fix going forward, and hopefully on a bipartisan basis.

1. Vague notions of safety as a requirement are nice, but I would think in light of recent events (the last few years at least), that explicit prohibitions on them being built:

1) on Fault Lines
2) in Flood Zones
3) or in any other location where a natural event could endanger the plant and risk a meltdown. Like maybe Tornados in Texas or Hurricanes along the Gulf and Atlantic Coast.

2. The issue that True Federalist raised about ownership

3. If there are newer forms of technology available, then use them.