[GA|DRAFT] Nuclear Energy Scheme

Techislovakia

Techislovakia

TNPer
NUCLEAR ENERGY SCHEME

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: IDK/Manufacturing?
Proposed by: Techislovakia

Description:

AIMING to encourage nations to invest in nuclear power, in order to reduce global emissions through providing an international exchange of information to help nations begin their nuclear power programs and ensure both safe and efficient collection of nuclear power.

RECOGNISING that nuclear power has been proven to be among the most environmentally friendly power sources, producing even less pollution than solar power. While understanding that nuclear power plants produce vastly more power than any other type of green energy.

REALISING that nuclear power plants are responsible for fewer deaths/birth defects each year than people killed in car crashes and that nuclear power is extremely safe. It is also known that people die prematurely due to pollution and that nuclear could reduce this.

DESPITE the fear of nuclear power by the poorly educated majority we must be aware that a nation can have nuclear power without nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is the least popular form of energy, even less than coal or oil and that this is based on prejudices based on very little fact.

NOTING that good training is essential for safety, and that waste management must be handled carefully by governments in order to store the small amount of waste safely.

ASSERTING that nuclear power is the only way at large that green energy can be provided to all nations cheaply and effectively.

MANDATING that nations should make nuclear power available, and invest in it with great haste.

URGING all nations to legalise the usage of fissionable materials for the purposes of energy production which may take place under strict government control for safety purposes.

HOPING that an increase in demand for nuclear power will lead to faster development of new nuclear reactor technologies.


Status: The best (requires 0 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 7 days

_____________________________________________________

Ok this is Draft number two... any ideas, criticisms or changes are welcome
 
Firstly, I think this proposal has potential. Although this is the first time I try to help with drafting proposals, I do think there are a number of things that need changing.

1. It's unnecessary to underline, as well as capitalize, as well as bold, as well as italicize words; one of those four will do, preferably capitalizing or italicizing.
2. Interpunction. I think the resolution as a whole should read as one sentence. So use semicolons instead of dots.
3. When the preamble ends, note "Hereby:" or something similar. Then, switch to the simple tense when the meat of the proposal comes in.

Techislovakia:
AIMING to encourage nations to invest in nuclear power, in order to reduce global emissions through providing an international exchange of information to help nations begin their nuclear power programs and ensure both safe and efficient collection of nuclear power.
Click to expand...
I'd leave the part "in order to reduce global emissions" out.
Your preamble as a whole is too long.
RECOGNISING that nuclear power has been proven to be among the most environmentally friendly power sources, producing even less pollution than solar power. While understanding that nuclear power plants produce vastly more power than any other type of green energy.

REALISING that nuclear power plants are responsible for fewer deaths/birth defects each year than people killed in car crashes and that nuclear power is extremely safe. It is also known that people die prematurely due to pollution and that nuclear could reduce this.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest merging these two clauses altogether, because they both deal with the advantages of nuclear energy.
Also, I'd just say "...producing relatively much less pollution than solar power." or something along those lines. It decreases the wordiness of your preamble. Personally I wasn't aware people die prematurely due to pollution, but I guess that's just me.
DESPITE the fear of nuclear power by the poorly educated majority we must be aware that a nation can have nuclear power without nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is the least popular form of energy, even less than coal or oil and that this is based on prejudices based on very little fact.

NOTING that good training is essential for safety, and that waste management must be handled carefully by governments in order to store the small amount of waste safely.

ASSERTING that nuclear power is the only way at large that green energy can be provided to all nations cheaply and effectively.
Click to expand...
What's the point of the last clause of the preamble?
MANDATING that nations should make nuclear power available, and invest in it with great haste.
Click to expand...
Why "with great haste"?
URGING all nations to legalise the usage of fissionable materials for the purposes of energy production which may take place under strict government control for safety purposes.

HOPING that an increase in demand for nuclear power will lead to faster development of new nuclear reactor technologies.
Click to expand...
This is fine to me :)
 
Eyes that do not Lie:
Firstly, I think this proposal has potential. Although this is the first time I try to help with drafting proposals, I do think there are a number of things that need changing.

1. It's unnecessary to underline, as well as capitalize, as well as bold, as well as italicize words; one of those four will do, preferably capitalizing or italicizing.
2. Interpunction. I think the resolution as a whole should read as one sentence. So use semicolons instead of dots.
3. When the preamble ends, note "Hereby:" or something similar. Then, switch to the simple tense when the meat of the proposal comes in.

Techislovakia:
AIMING to encourage nations to invest in nuclear power, in order to reduce global emissions through providing an international exchange of information to help nations begin their nuclear power programs and ensure both safe and efficient collection of nuclear power.
Click to expand...
I'd leave the part "in order to reduce global emissions" out.
Your preamble as a whole is too long.
RECOGNISING that nuclear power has been proven to be among the most environmentally friendly power sources, producing even less pollution than solar power. While understanding that nuclear power plants produce vastly more power than any other type of green energy.

REALISING that nuclear power plants are responsible for fewer deaths/birth defects each year than people killed in car crashes and that nuclear power is extremely safe. It is also known that people die prematurely due to pollution and that nuclear could reduce this.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest merging these two clauses altogether, because they both deal with the advantages of nuclear energy.
Also, I'd just say "...producing relatively much less pollution than solar power." or something along those lines. It decreases the wordiness of your preamble. Personally I wasn't aware people die prematurely due to pollution, but I guess that's just me.
DESPITE the fear of nuclear power by the poorly educated majority we must be aware that a nation can have nuclear power without nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is the least popular form of energy, even less than coal or oil and that this is based on prejudices based on very little fact.

NOTING that good training is essential for safety, and that waste management must be handled carefully by governments in order to store the small amount of waste safely.

ASSERTING that nuclear power is the only way at large that green energy can be provided to all nations cheaply and effectively.
Click to expand...
What's the point of the last clause of the preamble?
MANDATING that nations should make nuclear power available, and invest in it with great haste.
Click to expand...
Why "with great haste"?
URGING all nations to legalise the usage of fissionable materials for the purposes of energy production which may take place under strict government control for safety purposes.

HOPING that an increase in demand for nuclear power will lead to faster development of new nuclear reactor technologies.
Click to expand...
This is fine to me :)
Click to expand...
Ok I'll take your suggestions on board and begin editing.

btw the bold, italics, capitals and underline were done as a joke to mess with IA (the author of the current GA proposal) on the NS forums
 
This is already looking much better. I have some word-smithy suggestions, but I will wait for your next version and see if they still apply.
 
No I'm not, I'm just procrastinating a ton and using my exams as an excuse for it... sigh

If anyone remembers can you remind me on US election day: next tuesday/wednesday so I remember to actually do something
 
I'm just going to drop a note to let you know that I am going to have a look at this (I promise!) and not to give up while you wait. I just want to give it the time that it deserves.
 
I agree that this has real potential. Since nuclear waste is usually a large concern, might want to mention that nuclear waste can be recycled into a "mixed oxide" for production of more energy. That way, don't have to worry about what to do with the waste...we can recycle and reuse it!

Maybe add a section/clause that includes or encourages R&D into atomic batteries (no reaction, just isotopic decay creating energy in a battery that could last 10-20 years)?

This would affect the Energy industry. That's what coal, oil, solar, all would be.

Otherwise the suggestions that Eyes that do not Lie put forward are great! Don't let this die...I'd love to see this move forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top