SENATE BILL: Clean Energy Research Act of 2014 (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3:

$5 billion shall be appropriated for the specific scientific research of biomass, ethanol, geothermal energy, non-uranium based nuclear power and solar energy in the form of photovoltaic panels, one billion each.

Section 4:

The Nuclear Power Amendment Act shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Lumine

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this.

[Lumine]

Pretty straight-forward, this is the first of a series of proposals I have for clean energy and the environment. More than the actual limited committment to this issue in the Constitution and the typical tax breaks, I decided to tackle three main issues (beyond the symbolic Section 1). First, increase funding to the Departament of Energy's science programs, second, allocate specific (and a large amount of) funding in order to pursue further research in the field (such investment is needed, I think, specially in regards to photovoltaic panels), and third, increase incentives for Nuclear Energy as a temporary solution and a replacement to coal and oil.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why do nuclear power stations need so much subsidies? 

[Cincinnatus]

Why do nuclear power stations need so much subsidies? 

Because the energy sector in general is subsidized.  I imagine however, Lumine is considering the enormous initial costs of building these plants.  In any case, subsidizing this sector wouldn't be the issue if we just nationalized it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not so hot about the Nuclear section either. I like the rest, but I do wonder how reasonable Section 3's size is dollar wise.

[TNF]

I am not so hot about the Nuclear section either. I like the rest, but I do wonder how reasonable Section 3's size is dollar wise.

I'd be fine with running a deficit if it meant allowing us to become energy independent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not so hot about the Nuclear section either. I like the rest, but I do wonder how reasonable Section 3's size is dollar wise.

I'd be fine with running a deficit if it meant allowing us to become energy independent.

Yes but how much are we getting in terms of approaching that goal with each dollar is the question. There might be dimishing returns beyond 1 or 2 and the last 1 or 2 billion would be better spent on infrastructure for instance, or some other form of research that is not listed in that section.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Science is good and you can quote me on that.

[Adam Griffin]

Based on several cost estimates I did last year, I recall that solar power in Atlasia is quite a bit cheaper than nuclear power. Hell, in real life, solar construction on a massive scale is already on-par with nuclear, when you consider all of the red tape and costs associated with waste disposal and safety.

Why do we insist upon advocating an "all of the above" approach, when most of those options are inherently inferior? We should be shutting down nuclear facilities and replacing them with federally-owned solar and hydrogen projects (with natural gas as a distant third option), not increasing the amount of subsidies given to the nuclear industry.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Can solar power plants provide power on the scale that nuclear power can? If so, and it's just as cheap, we should go for solar over nuclear given the undesirables are much less with solar.

[Frodo]

Another question you all should be considering (if you haven't already) is whether renewables are more reliable sources of power and electricity than nuclear energy. Especially for megacity metropolises.

Based on several cost estimates I did last year, I recall that solar power in Atlasia is quite a bit cheaper than nuclear power. Hell, in real life, solar construction on a massive scale is already on-par with nuclear, when you consider all of the red tape and costs associated with waste disposal and safety.

Why do we insist upon advocating an "all of the above" approach, when most of those options are inherently inferior? We should be shutting down nuclear facilities and replacing them with federally-owned solar and hydrogen projects (with natural gas as a distant third option), not increasing the amount of subsidies given to the nuclear industry.

Germany did that not too long ago, as I recall.  Apparently the renewable sector wasn't quite up to par so they turned to coal to serve as a backup.  And isn't coal more radioactive than nuclear waste?    

I doubt the climate change activists will be too pleased with that.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Science is good and you can quote me on that.

Back as recently as 2009 I used to be really into evolutionary biology and before I became a history nut in the early 2000s leading me into politics and economics, astronomy was my primary area of interest.

Unfortunately, there has just been so little time to devote to such any more.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why do we insist upon advocating an "all of the above" approach, when most of those options are inherently inferior? We should be shutting down nuclear facilities and replacing them with federally-owned solar and hydrogen projects (with natural gas as a distant third option), not increasing the amount of subsidies given to the nuclear industry.

Because in real life all of the above is rather necessary, but obviously things are different in Atlasia and maybe the realization of such applied in all areas thus is not quite universal.

Without fracking, perhaps a a safer, more-regulated version than real life, natural gas is probably going to be far less of an option cost wise.

[Adam Griffin]

Can solar power plants provide power on the scale that nuclear power can? If so, and it's just as cheap, we should go for solar over nuclear given the undesirables are much less with solar.

Logistically and based on the amount of land needed, yes. It'd obviously be a huge undertaking to retrofit our grid - which is the more complex part of the equation, along with energy storage - but it's perfectly possible with a large-scale effort. I'll see if I can find the costs that were quoted. I could be wrong about it being cheaper than nuclear in RL as of now, but rather the estimate was based taking into account the time it takes to apply for the permits and jump through the regulatory processes; it takes many years to open a nuclear facility. In other words, if you decided to begin the construction of a nuclear plant today, by the time it was operational, solar would be cheaper (therefore, it makes no sense to begin building nuclear facilities in 2014).

Germany did that not too long ago, as I recall.  Apparently the renewable sector wasn't quite up to par so they turned to coal to serve as a backup.  And isn't coal more radioactive than nuclear waste?     

I doubt the climate change activists will be too pleased with that. 

Perhaps a more tempered description of the situation would have been better. I mean that as we implement new forms of energy, we need to phase out the nuclear facilities - not shut them down abruptly. Germany was an interesting case in which they grossly overestimated the generation capability of their farms, they made the investments in an area where solar is horribly inefficient when compared to Atlasia, and they did not take into account secondary forms of energy to ensure residential and industrial power was unaffected.

We've had a decade of divergence from RL policy and have existed in an environment where solar subsidies (and renewable subsidies as a whole) have been far more substantial. As I mentioned above, the reality behind solar being cheaper than nuclear isn't so much rooted in the fact that it technically is yet, but rather, if you were to begin the process of construction on a nuclear facility today, by the time it is completed, solar would be cheaper. Again, though, I need to find those most recent figures in-game. Here is total system levelized costs for each one in 2018 (estimated) in RL:



As you can see, under best-case scenarios, solar is on-par with nuclear's worst-case cost scenarios. Given the incentives injected into the solar industry in this game over the years, an even more beneficial situation should exist. I'll admit that part of my motivation is to simply push us toward energy systems that are relatively clean, domestic, renewable and pose zero potential risk to the people who rely upon them or live within close proximity to them. We can build it - we have the technology.

[Lumine]

It's worth keeping in mind that guaranteeing sufficient baseload generation capacity (as opposed to peak generation capacity) requires that we rely on energy sources other than renewables at this point.

Solar and wind don't generate electricity through every hour of the day and every day of the year, and we have very little control over when they do. So until we make significant advances in energy storage technology, we will remain reliant on other sources of energy.

Averroes is right, and this kind of argument is pretty much what drove me to focus on Nuclear Power as a temporary replacement until more progress is made on the area of solar energy. I discussed this with Superique back in January, and it seemed to me that some areas of solar energy are still in need for further research and development, thus why I chose to focus on research instead of a massive building program that might or might not be in need of reform after a couple of years of functioning. Nuclear plants are often attacked as not being safe, but all the nuclear accidents we've seen are due to bad planning (Fukushima) and mistakes in terms of budget and maintenance (Three Miles Island and Chernobyl), the latter of which is already covered by two or three pieces of legislation that ensure the plants are properly regulated by the government.

Of course, this is just a start to a more comprehensive approach (instead of the long term plan that Griffin suggests, which would be the ideal). Now, if there's actual interest in transforming this bill into something more in line with a long term policy involving solar power plants as well, we could certainly start working with that (and I would love to see the Senate taking that approach).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about the wastes of nuclear plants though?

[Frodo]

What about the wastes of nuclear plants though?

I believe this bill dealt with that issue.

And here is an explanation of the process.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What about the wastes of nuclear plants though?

I believe this bill dealt with that issue.

And here is an explanation of the process.

That greatly reduces the volume of waste, but doesn't eliminate it completely.   Also if there is a need to transport the waste to a reprocessing facility as is often the case, that creates its own risks.

[Frodo]

What about the wastes of nuclear plants though?

I believe this bill dealt with that issue.

And here is an explanation of the process.

That greatly reduces the volume of waste, but doesn't eliminate it completely.   Also if there is a need to transport the waste to a reprocessing facility as is often the case, that creates its own risks.

Of course there will still be leftover nuclear waste -that's what permanent geologic storage facilities are for.  And it is worth bearing in mind that nuclear waste is less radioactive than coal ash, and there are much stricter procedures in dealing with it.  And once it is safely transported via train and/or road to Yucca Mountain, that place in RL has the legal capacity to handle up over 70,000 metric tons of the stuff.  And in our alternate Atlasian reality, there is more than enough room.  

[Frodo]

It's worth keeping in mind that guaranteeing sufficient baseload generation capacity (as opposed to peak generation capacity) requires that we rely on energy sources other than renewables at this point.

Solar and wind don't generate electricity through every hour of the day and every day of the year, and we have very little control over when they do. So until we make significant advances in energy storage technology, we will remain reliant on other sources of energy.

Averroes is right, and this kind of argument is pretty much what drove me to focus on Nuclear Power as a temporary replacement until more progress is made on the area of solar energy. I discussed this with Superique back in January, and it seemed to me that some areas of solar energy are still in need for further research and development, thus why I chose to focus on research instead of a massive building program that might or might not be in need of reform after a couple of years of functioning. Nuclear plants are often attacked as not being safe, but all the nuclear accidents we've seen are due to bad planning (Fukushima) and mistakes in terms of budget and maintenance (Three Miles Island and Chernobyl), the latter of which is already covered by two or three pieces of legislation that ensure the plants are properly regulated by the government.

Of course, this is just a start to a more comprehensive approach (instead of the long term plan that Griffin suggests, which would be the ideal). Now, if there's actual interest in transforming this bill into something more in line with a long term policy involving solar power plants as well, we could certainly start working with that (and I would love to see the Senate taking that approach).

I am assuming that by 'nuclear power', you are referring primarily to fission power.  At least I hope so.  It would be a shame to toss nuclear fusion power to the side when research is making great strides on making this potentially potent source of power marketable.  

[Lumine]

It's worth keeping in mind that guaranteeing sufficient baseload generation capacity (as opposed to peak generation capacity) requires that we rely on energy sources other than renewables at this point.

Solar and wind don't generate electricity through every hour of the day and every day of the year, and we have very little control over when they do. So until we make significant advances in energy storage technology, we will remain reliant on other sources of energy.

Averroes is right, and this kind of argument is pretty much what drove me to focus on Nuclear Power as a temporary replacement until more progress is made on the area of solar energy. I discussed this with Superique back in January, and it seemed to me that some areas of solar energy are still in need for further research and development, thus why I chose to focus on research instead of a massive building program that might or might not be in need of reform after a couple of years of functioning. Nuclear plants are often attacked as not being safe, but all the nuclear accidents we've seen are due to bad planning (Fukushima) and mistakes in terms of budget and maintenance (Three Miles Island and Chernobyl), the latter of which is already covered by two or three pieces of legislation that ensure the plants are properly regulated by the government.

Of course, this is just a start to a more comprehensive approach (instead of the long term plan that Griffin suggests, which would be the ideal). Now, if there's actual interest in transforming this bill into something more in line with a long term policy involving solar power plants as well, we could certainly start working with that (and I would love to see the Senate taking that approach).

I am assuming that by 'nuclear power', you are referring primarily to fission power.  At least I hope so.  It would be a shame to toss nuclear fusion power to the side when research is making great strides on making this potentially potent source of power marketable. 

Indeed. I tend to ignore fusion power since it was not as developed as fission power (and what we need is the immediate capability of producing the energy we need). Perhaps we should allocate another billion or a similar sum to fusion research as well?

[Frodo]

It's worth keeping in mind that guaranteeing sufficient baseload generation capacity (as opposed to peak generation capacity) requires that we rely on energy sources other than renewables at this point.

Solar and wind don't generate electricity through every hour of the day and every day of the year, and we have very little control over when they do. So until we make significant advances in energy storage technology, we will remain reliant on other sources of energy.

Averroes is right, and this kind of argument is pretty much what drove me to focus on Nuclear Power as a temporary replacement until more progress is made on the area of solar energy. I discussed this with Superique back in January, and it seemed to me that some areas of solar energy are still in need for further research and development, thus why I chose to focus on research instead of a massive building program that might or might not be in need of reform after a couple of years of functioning. Nuclear plants are often attacked as not being safe, but all the nuclear accidents we've seen are due to bad planning (Fukushima) and mistakes in terms of budget and maintenance (Three Miles Island and Chernobyl), the latter of which is already covered by two or three pieces of legislation that ensure the plants are properly regulated by the government.

Of course, this is just a start to a more comprehensive approach (instead of the long term plan that Griffin suggests, which would be the ideal). Now, if there's actual interest in transforming this bill into something more in line with a long term policy involving solar power plants as well, we could certainly start working with that (and I would love to see the Senate taking that approach).

I am assuming that by 'nuclear power', you are referring primarily to fission power.  At least I hope so.  It would be a shame to toss nuclear fusion power to the side when research is making great strides on making this potentially potent source of power marketable.  

Indeed. I tend to ignore fusion power since it was not as developed as fission power (and what we need is the immediate capability of producing the energy we need). Perhaps we should allocate another billion or a similar sum to fusion research as well?

Fusion research seems to be making plenty of progress on the money already allocated to it, though perhaps it could be accelerated if we put more funding behind it...  

[Potus]

Energy independence solves a lot of our problems, both foreign and domestic. Everyone is going to litigate the environmental aspect of this, but let me make the point about national security.

Atlasia should be gravely about the actions taken in "crimee" by the "homophobics." That's why a diversified investment in energy and research is important. A large part of the Russian economy relies on the energy sector. By developing nuclear power here, that allows (what's left) of our natural gas and oil industries to export their products and reduce Russian market share. Not to mention that this gets the world away from Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil.

Nuclear, when you help with the upfront capital investment, is a viable means of freeing up our energy resources for export. It's smart national security policy to promote nuclear power and increase American exports of energy. This legislation would curb Russian influence and reduce the power of the radical regimes in the Middle East.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I still haven't gotten to the links yet (take forever to load), but is there a tentative date when fusion, "goes nuclear"? How many years are we wlooked at, at this point?