Energy for the Future Bill 2014 (Debating)

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Polnut


Senator, you have 24 hours to make your case here.

[Deus Naturae]

What are these companies going to be researching? New drilling techniques? Energy production and supply has little to do with household energy efficiency, which is related to the amount of electricity consumed by households and not to how that electricity is produced or supplied.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The energy-efficiency is a separate component to the research and development component.

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[Dr. Cynic]

I like this bill and it's got my full support.

[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.

[Lumine]

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...

[TNF]

I think this is a fine bill, Polnut, and it has my tentative support. Like Senator Cranberry, I too have concerns as far as both the use of nuclear power and natural gas are concerned, but I am willing to swallow those if it means we can put energy independence and energy affordability back in the national dialogue.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Offering this to clarify a few things as well as make the text flow a little better. Would you consider this amendment friendly or hostile, Senator Polnut?

[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...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[Simfan34]

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

[TNF]

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

Fusion-based nuclear power, yes. Fisson-based power, not so much.

And Polnut, I was under the assumption that this bill was about research and development. At least that's what I got from my reading of it. What am I off on there?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I didn't realize before the coal ash spill, that coal ash is radioactive, but I suppose that was just a failure to cross apply certain scientific knowledge I already possessed. So times you need a vivid example to put two and two together.

I have long opposed the carbon tax (but consider it preferable to cap and trade, which I see as a Ponzi scheme at best, one big area of disagreement between myself and Duke), so if this returns at least some of that to the people and has a chance of passing, I lean towards supporting it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have long opposed the carbon tax

Why?

It is a unilateral decision on a global matter that would severely hamper our economy and competitiveness if the developing economies are not doing likewise.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I have long opposed the carbon tax

Why?

It is a unilateral decision on a global matter that would severely hamper our economy and competitiveness if the developing economies are not doing likewise.

Plus the carbon tax hinders rather than helps funding of the R&D of improving efficiency of current fossil fuel based engines and the alternative energy possibilities. Instead putting said money into the hands of untrustworthy beaurocrats. It hurts the working class much worse than the rich as I've shown via a University of Stanford article. That's why the Atlasian Carbon tax must die in an awesome blaze of glory.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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

Fusion-based nuclear power, yes. Fisson-based power, not so much.

And Polnut, I was under the assumption that this bill was about research and development. At least that's what I got from my reading of it. What am I off on there?

It's both - but the NEF is designed to fund the increased household support (low-income heating supplements and household energy efficiency grants) - not R&D. The first section deals with compelling suppliers to focus a set amount of their pre-tax profits to R&D. If they don't, then there is a tax penalty that goes into the NEF pool.  But I'm happy to add a

Plus there's no evidence at all that the carbon tax is a drag on the economy, it's an effective straw-man nonetheless. Plus a price signal works. Look at what happened in Australia, the period immediately after the carbon price was lifted, saw the carbon emissions increase to the highest level in 8 years.

[Deus Naturae]

But why require them to devote 20% of their profits to R/D? That's what my original post in this thread was about. It just seems incredibly presumptuous to think that, for every energy producer and supplier anywhere in Atlasia, at any time, the optimal allocation of funds to R/D is equal to or greater than 20%. Who is to say that they and their consumers wouldn't be better off if they invested 81% of their profits into expanding production, exploring new areas for resource extraction, purchasing new equipment, etc? The great thing about the market system is that firms which allocate their resources optimally and efficiently get rewarded with higher profits, and those that don't are punished with lower profits. When the government just decides that x amount of resources should be allocated to x, there's no reward/punishment mechanism to determine the optimality of this allocation. For these reasons, I introduce this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd be interested to see what others think of this amendment

[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?

[Lumine]

Senator Polnut, do you wish to wait a bit before judging both amendments or have you decided on them?
______________________________________________________________________________________

Personally I am torn with Deus's amendment, since I share some of his concerns. As I stated 20% does seem a bit high for me, but on the other hand if companies were to contribute a part of their profits it would make the program quite viable and we obviously need extra research on many energy issues. If we want to stake a middle ground perhaps we could lower the percentage or make it relative to the profits of said companies (although that's far more complicated).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The problem with Senator TNF's amendment is that it does not reflect the current intention of the Bill. The issue with Deus' amendment is that it removes corporate responsibility from the mechanism.

So I'm happy to juggle the numbers of the R&D component, otherwise the amendment from Senator Deus is unfriendly.

[TNF]

I am willing to withdraw the amendment I have proposed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have not the time to block quote Old Nixy baby, but I will do my best to response to his post.

1. There is a such a thing as multilateralism, no?

2. They told us in school that general knowledge doesn't require citation. It is a global matter, the tax is the action of one country, and I assume most people are at least familiar with the concept of outsourcing even if the finer particulars of "value migration" are not so widely known. What will likely happen is productive capacity will shift to countries with less standards, and thereby regress, not improve in terms of the overall picture environmentally speaking.

3. I recall reading that China had eclipsed us in carbon emissions and India was not far behind. I would also point out that whilst developing economies need some accommodation, there is no reason to repeat every single stage of the industrialization process either. An example of this was Russia leading up to World War 1 adopted several technologies and practices that allowed them to make enormous strides in production and industrialization. Use of latest technology, and on the flip side making that technology available, can skip some of the dirtier stages. You could make a treaty trading such access in exchange for a general agreement on carbon taxation levels.

4. Leaving any difficulties with Deus wording aside, technology is what will solve the problem not the means by which such is encouraged. It is therefore up to use to find the best means to incentivize research and deployment of such and I hardly think that there are only two undesirable means to effect that result.