The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Velasco]

Since SJoyce gets to choose his replacement. I choose mine - Velasco.

You going to veto that as well, PiT?

Thanks for choosing me, but I suppose that it makes sense if PiT chooses a Fed.

[Velasco]

I appreciate Ben's esteem towards my person, but the so-called emperor has the prerogative of nominating the substitutes when there are vacancies in the Legislature. Personally I'd prefer by-elections than personal appointments. On the other hand, if I have to be a part of this body some day, I prefer winning an election in my own right.

By the way, I had got more votes than BK and jerryarkansas, but i was defeated because the tiebreaker used between these two were the second preferences. More than a half of BK's second preferences were voters that put me in the first place. Ironic, isn't it? Regardless these facts, I accepted the result because that's the electoral legislation in force and I will accept whoever PiT wants to appoint to the Legislature.

[Velasco]

DOCKET A:
-Annexation of the states of Coahila and Tamaulipas

Please, lordships, if you are going to discuss that ridiculous motion, at least write the name of the Mexican state correctly. It's Coahuila, not Coahila. Thank you.

[Velasco]

Hello, Legislators. I think that Dereich is right. It would be necessary to advance a bit with the processing of these unsolved matters. I hope to be able to get up to date soon.

[Velasco]

I would offer an amendment that states

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are kidding, don't you? With the due respect, I think that it's a matter too serious to treat it carelessly. On the other hand, sending nuclear residues to the Dark Side of the Moon would be prohibitively expensive and I don't believe that PiT was ready to sanction it.

[Velasco]

I think I'm not ready to sponsor any of these acts, though some touch points that this Legislature should debate thoroughly. I believe that to worry about the state of the protected areas in our region and having sources of clean energy are questions of enough importance and I acknowledge the merit of the Legislators SJoyce and Ben Kenobi in seeing it.

Nevertheless, in the question of the Regional Parks Network exists a potential conflict of competences between us and the Federal Government, as it has been noted. I agree with Zanas in which nuclear power of fission raises more problems than it solves. The potential risks -See Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima- and the unsolved question of the waste are serious inconveniences. Only in the case that Lovelock is right and we're really condemned to return to the Middle Ages in the future due to the consequences of the Global Warming I would consider it, in other case I'm not willing to sponsor new fission plants.

I'd like to know if it's possible to ask somewhere about the state of the protected areas in our region. I think that if the Federal Government manages them well there's no question. Regardless, I'm open to hear proposals to expand our Park network, even if this supposes creating a regional one, besides the National Parks (I think it wouldn't be so expensive after all). As for sources of energy, I think we should promote new legislation on renewables.

I expressed several times my vocal opposition to the annexation of Cohauila and Tamaulipas and I don't see the point in creating a Federal Congress in Atlasia. In spite of my support in general lines to the new administration in Nyman, I will be opposed to the annexation of Canada (don't they even try to ask Canadians?) or any other territory. Our republic is sufficiently extensive.

[Velasco]

Are you thinking of nominting someone to cover the vacant seat?

[Velasco]

I can see the good intention of these dispositions, but unluckily they are not enough. Many of the resultant -and extremely dangerous- isotopes of the process of nuclear fission disintegrate completely in thousands of years. Even if the nuclear waste is well isolated in a secure place, in a so prolonged period of time anything could happen. Material suffer corrosion and conditions may change in a way that the place couldn't be safe anymore. This, besides the radioactive fugues, is the main problem of the energy produced by the nuclear fission of cores of uranium and plutonium. The nuclear reactors of new generation are very safe, it is possible to argue, but when an accident happens, consequences are catastrophic. There are areas around Fukushima that won't be able to be populated in decades and centuries.

On the other hand, the construction of new nuclear plants is very expensive -partly due to the great security measures that are necessary to implement- and I can't see who's gonna want to buy the old plants. It sounds a bit unrealistic to me, honestly.

[Velasco]

Well, I'm just reading about Atucha II, a nuclear power plant built recently in Argentina. It has a great thermal power (2,175 MW) and the reactor is of German technology (Siemens KWU). Initially the cost was estimated in $ 1.6 billion; the investment finally rose up to an amount of $ 3 billion. That gives you an idea of how "cheap" is building new plants. And, of course, the question of the nuclear waste isn't still solved, because there's not an actual solution to date. It's possible to make some research of new nuclear power plants around the world (costs, safety, technology, et cetera). By the moment, I can assure you that 600 million of dollars aren't enough to build a 1,500 MW plant.

[Velasco]

I propose the following amendment to the text (this is the first draft):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Velasco]

I feel like this should be its own bill. The current bill was clearly focused on nuclear power and while we should look at a comprehensive energy bill, I'd prefer to get the nuclear issue done with now.

I don't think so. My first draft is a declaration of intentions of how it should be approached the topic of the clean energy, and tries to give a more wide vision of the matter. The original Clean Power Act, as it was conceived, was reducing the options to the nuclear power: you take it or you leave it. It's a limited, shortsighted and erroneous approach, in my opinion. We might discuss a specific Nuclear Power Act, but I think it makes no sense to separate this topic of the energy debate in which it's immersed. I believe that energy is a topic of enough importance and we should take the trouble to discuss all the possible variants before taking a decision limited only to the construction or not of some nuclear power plants.

[Velasco]

I think that our Speaker is busy with real life matters, for the present time.

I disagree with Dereich. What I have proposed has more relation with the subject that we are treating than what he affirms. As I said before, it's not possible to separate the debate on the nuclear power -- and I believe that we have exposed enough arguments to justify our opposition to the promotion of the energy obtained of the nuclear fission-- from the general energetic debate. We must approach the matter form a global perspective and not from a partial and segmented one.  

[Velasco]

Granted, though, I won't accept as Speaker that Velasco's amendment is included in the discussion, because it is too far away from the original object of the discussion. I'll greatly encourage him to craft this as a whole new bill though, if he hasn't done it since.

I was aware of that. My intention was calling the attention on how badly focused is the bill that we are currently debating. We should deepen in the energy debate -- and I might try to craft a new bill in the near future--  but I feel that if we pass this bill, our attempts to craft a legislation more kind with environment and the safety of our fellow-citizens might be somewhat useless. I share your points of view expressed in the previous paragraphs. As I stated before, there's no way to treat the nuclear fission waste safely in the long term. My feeling is that we shouldn't hide our heads digging a hole in the soil.

[Velasco]

Hello, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad to see you again in the Legislature.

As Dereich says, we'll have an election this weekend and, if I'm not wrong, our Speaker is seeking for reelection besides the incumbent Legislator Dereich and the appointed one Gamecock. We must wait to see the outcome before going into a new election for the post, and if it's advisable.

(On the other hand, I'll be out of my hometown the next week, and I'm not sure if I'd be able to assist to debates from days 18 to 25. I'll try to check my email so, if you are going to vote, send me a private message).

As for the nuclear bill, I would permit to suggest that while we are waiting the GM analysis on the costs, we might think about all the implications of the subject that we are discussing, not only the budgetary considerations --quite deterrent as well--, and the need to undertake an authentic energetic transition. As the Speaker mentioned, the isolation of the nuclear waste must be for centuries. Think carefully about all the future implications because one day our heirs will judge us for the heritage that we have bequeathed them. These cans that one day we have sealed and buried underground might turn in an inconvenient inheritance.

I'd like to hear what Legislator Dereich has to say about the annexation project. Despite I stated my opposition, I want to know which reasons are behind this proposal.

[Velasco]

I would suggest keeping the annexation stuff on the back burner as a negotiating chip with the Canada stuff (ideally we'd expand north, but if the other regions are greedy and refuse to grant us anything even though they're gobbling up Canada)...

Do you want to expand The South to Ontario, Alberta or Prince Edward Island? Maybe New Foundland? Honestly, I see all this Canada stuff quite silly. Some regions have empty states or populated only by 1 or 2 people. Then, what's the reason behind to expand northward? I suspect that the will of annexate our northern neighbours is caused by the fact that their hockey teams always defeat the Atlasian ones.

I don't have major objections to the fixer amendment as it's written. I think it might fix some unclear sections of our legislation, so I second it.

As other have stated, the best way of dealing with the troubles on the other side of Rio Grande is cooperating with Mexican authorities, both with the Federal Government and the Governors of the frontier states. We must bear in mind that one of the big problems there is the weakness or the lack of presence of the (Mexican) State, which is replaced by local powers, mainly the drug cartels. Corruption is a major issue as well. Only assisting them in what we prune, we will be able to advance towards something similar to a solution. A permanent dialog with our Mexican counterparts is necessary in crucial topics such as immigration and the cooperation to the development, which is the only rationale way to solve so many troubles, at least in the mid or the long term.

[Velasco]

Aye on the fixer-upper. Nothing against carrots, on the other hand.

Congratulations to Zanas, Hash and Dereich for their election for the new Legislature.

[Velasco]

Can we proceed with anything while this court case about the election is up?

The election outcome was correct according to the laws that are in force down here. That lawsuit might continue its course, but in the meanwhile we should continue debating and presenting amendments, aprove or reject them. I ignore the reasons behind this obstructionist maneuver.

I believe that comrade Bacon King has some reason: this game needs a revolution. If some sociopath's heads roll...

In all seriousness, this case and the reactions to it resembles me the very different reactions from the goody-goody Southerner establishment when the Bacon King vs IDS and vs Ben Kenobi lawsuits were triggered. Oh double standards...

Oh I would reject SJoyce's amendment. Security and waste processing questions again.

[Velasco]

I will resist all attempts to remove me from office, especially in favour of some guy who couldn't even bother to vote for himself.

All the incumbent legislators in this chamber were elected under the 50 posts rule. If you were irregularly elected, Zanas, Dereich, jerryarkansas and myself were elected too under a rule that apparently 'violates' the Atlasian Constitution, so we must be removed. The application of retroactivity to the last election, as the attorney pretends, might drive to a complete absurdity.

I must remember to this Chamber that I failed to be elected in the December election due to another flaw of our electoral legislation, though absolutely in accordance with the federal laws. I accepted that outcome because I believe in the Empire of Law. Do you believe as well, fellow Legislators? Do you accept that the principle of retroactivity is incompatible with a Constitutional State? In that case the lawsuit must be withdraw or at least modified in the final points. The outcome of an election cannot be changed applying legislative modifiations with retroactivity.

Is our vote on the fixer-upper amendment valid ?

Is the subsequent referendum currently opened in the Voting Booth valid ?

Who is presently Legislator ? Can we really proceed with anything if we have a Legislator who is one but not one ?

Who are we ? Where are we going ?

I feel the only solution is to cancel the whole thing and have it again. I also feel we need to maintain in effect the effects the election had until the moment this trial was introduced, ie : our vote on BaconKing's amendment, and the referendum on it.

For now, I don't think we should be voting on anything, but we can debate.

Under my point of view the members of this Legislature are legally elected, unless a High Court says the opposite. We must continue with the work for the one people has voted us. Voting included.

Oh I would reject SJoyce's amendment. Security and waste processing questions again.

Security? Our reactors are surrounded by electronically-monitored fences that are patrolled by armed guards. The reactor containment buildings are designed to be impervious to impact by aircraft. The by-products are not enriched enough to create any kind of nuclear weapon. As for waste processing, we've already gone over that.

Electronically-monitored fences and armed guards are not immune to natural catastrophes or human mistakes. Did you read our objections about the storage due to the extremely long life of the uranium or plutonium isotopes?

[Velasco]

Yes, of course.

It's important the additional "or how many are provided by the Federal Constitution at the time of the voting booth's opening".

[Velasco]

I also estimate the efforts of the Legislator to reach a compromise solution. The current redaction is certainly better, or at least more acceptable, than the initial.

I coincide approximately between 90% and100 % with exposed by the Legislator Hashemite.

Nevertheless, I have some nuances to do. The most fervent supporters of the nuclear fission power are in the habit of raising a false dichotomy between this source and the combustion of fossil fuels, tending to place nuclear power as the only 'clean' alternative. Nuclear power does not emit carbon monoxide, but the nuclear fission generates radioactive waste: let's stress once again that is not a clean energy. I believe that the dispositions for the waste processing are an advance with regard to the usual practice in previous decades of throwing happily the cans into the Ocean. Still, the nuclear waste will continue being a potential risk in the decades and centuries to come.

I admit that I'm reluctant to build new plants but, far away from raising a closed and irrational opposition, I stated that it's necessary a diversification of the energetic sources, in the hope that progressively we could replace the energy production with renewable sources.  I'm aware that the region lacks of a great potential for wind power, with the exception of Texas. We have enough sun hours, but I know the habitual objections about the current costs. Nevertheless costs can diminish in the medium and long terms with further development and research. Also, it's possible to find imaginative solutions. See how Germany dominates in wind and solar power via democratizing energy. Germans don't live in a tropical paradise, but half of their renewable power is owned by particulars.

http://www.ilsr.org/germany-solar-power-wins/

I'll go into this later on and, by the way, I'll try to avoid the usual demagoguery of electoral campaigns. In any case, if I feel compelled to reply some deceits, I'll use my office to make statements As for the current bill, I'd like to see some estimation of the costs before casting my vote.

The IDS is also especially unlikely to have such an act of god like the Japanese earthquake and even in that event, we've had strict standards for such an incident since 2007, as seen here https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Southeast_Nuclear_Energy_Initiative. Its still a cause for concern, but with appropriate safety standards such an incident is something that needs not happen.

The South is far from the Ring of Fire, but we are not inmune to other natural catastrophes like hurricanes and floods. See the map linked below that shows the location of nuclear facilities in relation with the risk of floods. Climate change will increase these events in the future.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NuclearFloodsFinal_Highres.png

[Velasco]

At the request of a member of our legislature, would you redo the cost estimate for our nuclear bill? The number of nuclear plants has been reduced to 5.

IDS Clean Power Act - (5) 1200-MW water-pressurized reactors

Construction Costs: $11.941 billion
5-Year Operational Costs*: $4.209 billion

Total 5-Year Cost: $16.150 billion

*(Fuel, Maintenance, Staff, Decommissioning; $0.02/kWh)

Well, I see that Adam estimates an average cost of $ 2,388 billion per plant, raising to $ 3.23 billion with operational costs. So I move the following question to PiT. If we undertake this investment, does budgetary availability exist to approach other energetic projects in the next years?

[Velasco]

Thanks. So if we pass this bill and the federal government finances the 20% of the costs, we'll have to undertake an investment of $ 9.553 billion in construction costs with an additional amount of $ 3.367 billion in the following five years.

It's a huge sum and it would consume a very important part of our budget. I understand that we might need financing for other projects in the future and not only for the ones related with the energy production. This investment might suppose an eventual increase of the taxes, if the income is not sufficient to undertake projects that could be considered to be necessary for the progress of this region.

I have another question, do you have any idea of where it is more necessary to construct these plants, if we approve this bill?

[Velasco]

Yes, that split between solar and nuclear projects might have been another compromise solution. Unluckily, compromise seems to be difficult to achieve in the present circumstances, due to the polarization that SJoyce's pronuclear campaign has generated. I think Seatown's proposal stresses in a certain way another flaw that I pointed in the beginning of this debate: focusing the energy policies only in the nuclear question. I always advocated to have a global perspective on this issue.

Said this, I'm inclined to vote no on this bill for two reasons: first, I share Zana's concerns and views, at least in a majority; second, budgetary considerations.

Still I estimate the attempt of coming to a commitment on the part of the federalist legislators, but this issue has been tackled badly from the beginning. So we have a tie at the moment.

[Velasco]

Thank you for keeping the vote open for me.
Call me the pawn of the 'nuclear lobby' and hate me all you want, but I took this seriously and voted my conscience. If you want to bitch, then go right ahead.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll never do that. Some people whom I would never be call "pawns of the nuclear lobby" go even further. James Lovelock, a scientist whose theories are controversial but to whom nobody might accuse seriously of being an ignorant on these subjects, thinks that the climate change is irreversible and that nuclear power is the only viable alternative today. He says that it's too late to try other solutions. Maybe Lovelock is perceived as a catastrophist by many, but I tend to respect the opinion of this person in particular, despite my deep dislike of nuclear fission.

As soon as this law has been passed, I would like to collaborate in the future to develop the energetic legislation and to look for other alternative solutions to coal and the fission of the uranium.

[Velasco]

Aye on the amendment.