MW: The WAMSR Creation Bill (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2024, 05:38:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  MW: The WAMSR Creation Bill (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: MW: The WAMSR Creation Bill (Passed)  (Read 1775 times)
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 11, 2014, 06:57:10 AM »
« edited: October 14, 2014, 07:31:58 AM by Cris »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative GAworth.
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2014, 10:58:36 AM »

I would like to thank the Archduke for bringing this bill to the floor. As many of you know, I have always been one to support our alternative energy sector. Nuclear energy has recently been demonized, for very valid reasons. However, this type of reactor can help allay those fears. They can use the waste from other Nuclear plants as it's fuel. The fuel is only radioactive for 100 or so years after usage, unlike regular waste, that can be radioactive for hundreds of thousands years. Molten Salt is safer than the usual water cooling system. I can go on more about the reactor system but let me get to the bill.

WAMSRs are new and need financial assistance to become a main stream system. $1 Billion dollars would build around 4 reactors. I picked the states below because of population and government locations.

If you have any questions, critiques, or amendments, I look forward to seeing them.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2014, 12:18:18 PM »

Representatives?
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,528
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2014, 08:44:46 PM »

I am not a fan of nuclear power plants, but I understand that they are necessary to meet our energy demands. Maybe we could chance this so that WAMSR replaces our current reactors as they are safer and cleaner?
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2014, 02:33:10 PM »

I am not a fan of nuclear power plants, but I understand that they are necessary to meet our energy demands. Maybe we could chance this so that WAMSR replaces our current reactors as they are safer and cleaner?
From what I could find We have 8 nuclear power plants currently in operation here in the Midwest. I could see a sunset clause for these reactors and additonal money for the building/retrofitting of the WAMSRs. I am down for that.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,528
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2014, 11:10:11 AM »

I am not a fan of nuclear power plants, but I understand that they are necessary to meet our energy demands. Maybe we could chance this so that WAMSR replaces our current reactors as they are safer and cleaner?
From what I could find We have 8 nuclear power plants currently in operation here in the Midwest. I could see a sunset clause for these reactors and additonal money for the building/retrofitting of the WAMSRs. I am down for that.

Awesome. If WAMSR's are cleaner, safer and better overall, they should replace what we have.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2014, 11:13:22 AM »

Anyone desire to present an amendment?
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,409
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2014, 03:59:43 PM »

Again, where is the billion bucks coming from?
Logged
LeBron
LeBron FitzGerald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,906
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2014, 06:07:01 PM »

When it comes to energy efficiency, I like to look for more cost effective and safer ways to address the issue especially solar energy panels.

So I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power plants either, and I would prefer to see an added clause to forbade the construction of any new nuclear power plants, but I like the intent of this bill to better stop nuclear waste from building up. Just the cost is kind of unsettling with nuclear energy becoming a thing of the past. I'm just not sure we that many new reactors.
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2014, 10:20:58 PM »

Again, where is the billion bucks coming from?
From the 30% of the 46 Billion raised by the Royalties designated for Environment and Energy.


When it comes to energy efficiency, I like to look for more cost effective and safer ways to address the issue especially solar energy panels.

So I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power plants either, and I would prefer to see an added clause to forbade the construction of any new nuclear power plants, but I like the intent of this bill to better stop nuclear waste from building up. Just the cost is kind of unsettling with nuclear energy becoming a thing of the past. I'm just not sure we that many new reactors.
I agree that solar is the way to go, however, having a diversified energy sector which includes much safer Nuclear Reactors is the way to go. I am not a fan of banning all future construction of Nuclear Plants, but we can add language making it so only WAMS Reactors are allowed?
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2014, 12:31:32 PM »

If I'm right, the representatives' intent is of insert a point in the bill that say that WAMSR replaces our current reactors.
I'm right? If yes, please present an amendment.

PS. I support this.
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2014, 02:20:34 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative GAworth.


Sound Okay?
Logged
LeBron
LeBron FitzGerald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,906
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2014, 09:38:50 PM »

When it comes to energy efficiency, I like to look for more cost effective and safer ways to address the issue especially solar energy panels.

So I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power plants either, and I would prefer to see an added clause to forbade the construction of any new nuclear power plants, but I like the intent of this bill to better stop nuclear waste from building up. Just the cost is kind of unsettling with nuclear energy becoming a thing of the past. I'm just not sure we that many new reactors.
I agree that solar is the way to go, however, having a diversified energy sector which includes much safer Nuclear Reactors is the way to go. I am not a fan of banning all future construction of Nuclear Plants, but we can add language making it so only WAMS Reactors are allowed?
I would be okay with that, and the amendment's friendly!
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2014, 09:45:07 AM »

I open a 48-hour vote on the GAworth's amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,528
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2014, 09:59:26 AM »

Aye

I'll be introducing an amendment after this vote.
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2014, 12:31:01 PM »

Aye
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2014, 02:13:22 PM »

The amendment has passed!
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,528
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2014, 11:18:12 AM »



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
LeBron
LeBron FitzGerald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,906
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2014, 10:09:53 PM »

That's actually a really good revision. I would have never thought to do that, honestly. The original bill only covers CO, SD, MN and IA, but neglects ND and other states that have very serious problems with toxic waste evisceration. I support the amendment.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,528
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2014, 09:45:11 AM »

There were some grammar issues with my last amendment, so I will withdraw it and introduce this new on with the correct language.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2014, 10:23:57 AM »

I am not totally on board with this one. I am all in favor of removing the States, but the replacement is where I have a problem. There is no timeline to phase out the old nuclear plants, and with that, we would need to increase the funding. This pays for four, maybe five, reactors, we currently have 8 traditional reactors in the Midwest.

So basically, I am in favor of the removal of the States. But against the other changes.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2014, 02:13:50 AM »

I open a 48-hour vote on the Gass's amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2014, 11:55:03 AM »

Unfortunately NAY
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2014, 06:37:48 AM »

The amendment failed, with 1 Nay.
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2014, 10:24:32 AM »

Here is my amendment.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.