Clean Energy Act

[Colin]

I would like to know your reasoning behind making Nuclear a hazardous or Non-Renewable Power Source?

[Colin]

I would like to know your reasoning behind making Nuclear a hazardous or Non-Renewable Power Source?

I would have though that Chernobyl would have been a pretty good justification, though that was more due to safety lapses on the part of the Russians, it showed just how lethal nuclear energy can be when mishandled.

But it hasn't been mishandled in this country. Their has only been one major nuclear accident and that was at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg. In that incident because of the good heat containment fields and radiological containment fields their was no radiation leaked into the atmosphere. Their was no contamination of any area outside the plant. Chernobyl only happened because it did not have any sort of containment field and was structurally too weak to safely contain a nuclear reactor. The reactor used in Chernobyl was too large for a containment field so instead of not building it or waiting for a large enough containment field to be built the Russian government gave the go ahead to build the plant without a containment field or the nescessary safety features need in the event of a nuclear disaster. This could not happen in Atlasia because we already have stringent safety laws concerning Nuclear power plants and any company that does not comply with these laws is penalized. So Chernobyl couldn't happen in this country and nuclear disasters would be very, very rare in a country like Atlasia.

I would also like to give you the example of France. They have the most nuclear power plants in the world but yet they have never had a major radiological incident.

[Colin]

All of the above is most certainly true, but if there were to be a nuclear accident (which despite its improbability is still a possibility) has the potential to have the long term effects of killing millions. That sounds quite hazardous to me.

While their is a very small risk their is no way of producing enough energy for the entire nation using the resources that are excepted under the Siege-Texasgurl plan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Four resources all of which produce very low amount of energy. Hydro is very expensive and takes alot of manpower to build and produce. You need to make a new lake, basically, for the generators to operate. Wind can only be used in areas were their is always a strong steady wind and were their is alot of land. I would also ask everyone to look into the current controversy over putting windmills off the coast of Massachusetts. Solar can only be used in areas where their is alot of sun light, like the southwest. I don't know about you but their is very little sunlight, due to clouds and shorter days, in the Fall and Winter up here in PA. That itself would rule out Solar as a very usable energy source. Biomass or Geothermal may be options. I don't know much about Biomass but I know that Geothermal can only be used in areas of volacanic activity, like Yellowstone or Hawaii, and while it has been put to good use in Iceland I don't see it creating much power here.

[Colin]

As General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers...

The NUM thinks that more money and resources need to be spent researching into cleaner and more efficient ways of burning coal (currently only a small fraction of the possible energy in a lump of coal is used. The vast majority is wasted), while encouraging the growth of certain renewable fuels.
The NUM thinks that the use of Oil and Natural Gas in power plants should be scaled down.

Now your support of that wouldn't be because you represent thousands of coalminers, now would it?

Yes it would be Daniel. As the head of a labour union he has to represent the intrests of those people who are part of the union he is a leader of.

[Colin]

Clean Energy Act of Nov. 22 2004 - Draft 3

Renewable - (As of Oct. 2004) – Electricity generated through the following methods Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal Wave, Nuclear Fission, Nuclear Fusion and Biomass.

Just a few things here. I have never heard of Tidal Wave Energy Production so if you could give me the FYI on that type of power plant that would be great and the inclusion of Nuclear Fusion is pretty much unneeded considering the Fusion is aleast 35 years away from success.

[Colin]

Clean Energy Act of Nov. 26 2004 - Draft 4

Definitions:

Clean Energy - A form of power generation that produces little to no pollution. Little meaning less than 5 tonnes of air pollution for yearly operation. (Currently the average Coal Plant produces something like 30-100 tonnes) This term also covers all renewable sources, and any future developments that meet these two criteria.

Hazardous or Non-Renewable Power - Oil, Gas, and Coal power production.

Renewable - (As of Oct. 2004) – Electricity generated through the following methods Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal, Wave, Nuclear Fission, Nuclear Fusion and Biomass.

Power Plant - Any structure that produces over 1000 Watts of electricity.

Small Generator - Equal to or less than 1000 Watts.

Efficiency – Reducing the amount of pollution produced by this form of power by 20% or more.

Sections

1. Regional Planning

A. The regions of Atlasia shall have 25 years to discuss, decide and implement the type of alternative, clean energy that suits their region the best. A plan for the elimination, reduction or regulation to increase the efficiency of non-renewable of heavy pollutant power production must be drafted and ready for implementation.

B. The federal government shall allocate rather total or partial funds to help the Regions meet these goals, providing that the Senate through a vote deems the plan feasible.

2. Penalties for failure of Regional Action

A. If the deadline is not met the Federal Government will intervene and implement a Federal plan to reduce, eliminate or increase the efficiency of hazardous power generation.

3. Back-up

A. The regions of Atlasia shall be required to have back up sources of energy (i.e. Coal, nuclear energy) available and ready to be used.

B. The Federal Government has the power to prosecute any lapse in this policy.

4. Citizen Power

A. Any citizen is allowed to own his or her own independent small generator of any make or model.

B. Any citizen that purchases a clean or renewable individual small generator for their home, or if a citizen purchases a hybrid or clean vehicle, the government will refund 20% of the cost.

C. Any business that purchases a clean or renewable individual small generator for their business or if a business purchases a hybrid or clean vehicle, the government will refund 15% of the cost.

Siege

I think you should changes 5 tonnes in the first paragraph to 10 tonnes so that Clean Energy would also include certain Clean Coal technology that is making Coal operations cleaner and more effecient. The main thing is that if this piece of legislation is passed would these Clean Energy Source provide enough power. Power grids are already heading near capacity and we have seen what has happened when one power station has a surge, the power outage that went across the whole Northeast a year ago. That is why I am pushing for this Clean Coal techonology because that would enable Coal plants that are operating as of now to convert to this new energy type and provide more megawatts of power that Atlasia needs.

[Colin]

I know that I am not an Senator, but if I may make a request... I used to work here you know.

I would like to attach a proposal to this bill that would call for federal funding of research into the building of Mag/Lev trains.

Mag/Lev Trains are a concept that is currently being realized in Japan.  The science behind the Mag/Lev is not fantasy, indeed it is very real.

http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/maglev.htm

These trains function by electro-magnetically charging a rail.  When the possitive and negative forces from train and rail interact, they repel and cause the train to lift off the rail.  This lack of friction then allows the train to be propelled forward at incredible speeds of up to 190 mph.  However, the trains are very safe and unless a severe maintinance mishap occures, the chances of derailment boarder on impossible. 

The trains would help protect the environment, as the cause no external pollution themselves and would certainly replace some airline and automobile travel.

I believe that this is a wise investment into science, the environment and the future of our nation.

I propose that this body make it a priority to fund research into this area for the next 10-15 years.  We should set as a long term priority, the construction of Mag/Lev lines btween San Francisco and San Diego and Boston and Washington D.C. by the year 2030.

I humbly ask a Senator to propose this as an ammendment to this bill.

Thank you.

I wil take my current Senate opponent's suggestion and propose an Amendment:



Mag-lev trains

1.  An increase in funding for research for Mag-Lev trains of $100 million over the next 20 years

2.  These trains are needed in the following Atlasia corridors. 
       
       a.  Houlton,ME (Canadian Border)-Bangor-Portland-Portsmouth-Boston-Providence-Hartford-New Haven-New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington,DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charleston-Savannah-Jacksonville-Daytona Beach-Miami (roughly I-95)
 
            1. Spur to East Stroudsburg,PA
             2. Spur to Atlantic City, NJ
             3.  Spur to Orlando-Tampa, FL from Daytona Beach
       
      b(main).  New York-Cleveland-Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-Denver-Salt Lake City-Reno-San Francisco (roughly I-80)

           1. Spur to Detroit, MI
                   
      b1.  Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo-Syracuse-Albany-Boston (I-90)
 
      b2. Chicago-Milwaukee-Maidson-Minneapolis-Fargo-Bismarck-Missoula-Spokane-Seattle (I-90/94) 

       c.  Candian border-Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego-Mexican border (I-5)

      d. San Diego-Phoenix-El Paso-San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans-Mobile-Tallahassee-Jacksonville (I-10)

     e. Mexican border-San Anontio-Austin-Dallas-Oklahoma City-Kansas City-Des Moines-Minneapolis-Duluth (I-35)

3.  Clause 2 shall be the top prorities.  We hope to get these in effect by 2025.  More corridors may come later

Mr. Senator if I could make a suggestion. Why don't you propose this as a seperate bill. This bill is already rather cluttered and I would rather see this as a seperate bill to be debated seperately from the Clean Energy Act.