Talk:BONES Act for Energy Artifacts and Green Development 672

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/05/2024 10:50 PM

Tabled by MGA Dr. Dakota Bones

BONES Act for Energy Artifacts and Green Development (BAEAGD) (672)

To recognize crude oil and coal as national artifacts of historical significance while promoting the development and integration of green energy sources in the Kodiak Republic, ensuring a sustainable future.

---

https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/BONES_Act_for_Energy_Artifacts_and_Green_Development_(BAEAGD)_(672) The Kodiak Republic Wiki BONES Act for Energy Artifacts and Green Development (BAEAGD) (672) Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette)

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 10/05/2024 10:50 PM

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/05/2024 10:51 PM

@Assembly Member Debate for the BONES Act for Energy Artifacts and Green Development (BAEAGD) (672) may commence.

@Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) Please present your statements when able.

Ewan Vraer — 10/05/2024 11:14 PM ((OOC: He actually did it what))

Tiberius Brown — 10/05/2024 11:16 PM I applaud Mr. Bones for making strides towards clean energy... albeit in a rather odd way.

I have a number of questions about this bill, primarily funding.

Mr. Bones has only allocated 5 million florins for the research and development of additional and new green energy technologies. I find that a number far too small to make a serious impact on the current barren wasteland of green tech. What good does Mr. Bones foresee with underfunded research and development in place?

Mr. Bones has allocated only 30 million for the installation of wind turbines. Based on my napkin math, such an amount would enable the government to build only two and a half wind turbines per year ((based on a rough estimate cost of 3 million USD per wind turbine)). That is not even including the maintenance of existing wind turbines, which is not accounted for. For reference, a three megawatt turbine has the ability to produce six million kilowatt hours per year.

Mr. Bones has allocated only 25 million for the installation of solar energy farms. A single megawatt solar farm costs somewhere between 3.5 million florins and 4 million florins. At this funding level, the solar farms built per year could effectively produce 6000 homes' worth of electricity a year. Not unsubstantial, but, once again, maintenance is not accounted for in this bill. For reference, a one megawatt solar farm can produce roughly 1.3 million kilowatt hours per year.

Mr. Bones has allocated no funds for the expansion or construction of nuclear power. Considering that a single nuclear power plant can produce 92% capacity, has more reliability, and produces eight billion kilowatt hours per year, this is idiotic.

Additionally, we cannot feasibly spool up our green energy industries in order to replace ubiquitous fossil fuel overnight. Some amount of time for the construction of facilities, the connecting of infrastructure, and the safe decommissioning of existing plants must be provided out of practicality.

Yungly Shoan II || Independant — 10/06/2024 7:42 AM This is nothin' short than the government giving the short end of the stick to businesses. The millions of florians are going to go straight into useless and failing green energy, while instilling into the minds of the youth the outdatedness of oil and coal, as if its as outclassed as a horse-drawn buggy.

However much I hate to agree with the more left leaning Kodiakian compatriots, we should instead invest in private nuclear energy businesses, not only does the sheer amount of power it produces naturally phase out coal and oil, it also helps out the mining companies, allowing them to switch from coal mining to uranium and other resources rather than completely shut them out with the wind turbines, and solar panels.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 10/06/2024 7:48 AM Yungly here has a good idea of what should be done related to the energy industry. Perhaps more people could take a note or two, to see if they learn something good.

Yungly Shoan II || Independant — 10/06/2024 7:49 AM My father taught me well in economics

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/06/2024 11:36 AM

Perhaps more funds can be found - for example does the "Coal Mine Escape Room" really need 10 million florins? Maybe at least half or a lot more of that can be moved for instance. Does a fashion show need 5 million florins?

In any case I will acquiesce to Dr Bone's inclinations for museums, as I do believe the development and promotion of green energy is excellent. I do agree that perhaps we do need more funding.

Regarding Nuclear, it is not forgotten per se, though I am unsure of the progress of Nuclear power implementation (see https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_Nuclear_Power_Act_(644) ) and perhaps focusing our energy regarding 'Nuclear Energy' policy specifically here would work better. Assuming Dr Bones intentionally is focusing on alternate green energy (wind and solar) here. I could be wrong, I can't read Dr Bone's mind after all. The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Nuclear Power Act (644)

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/06/2024 2:51 PM To quickly address this! The amounts given are better than the alternative of none at all! Additionally, I want to focus on businesses by providing them incentives to invest themselves into these fields rather than create the energy ourselves. Kodiak cannot afford to make every industry public! I am willing to increase the amounts, but I also want to be reasonable to the creation of green energy businesses in our country!

Yungly Shoan II || Independant — 10/06/2024 3:16 PM The government gives handouts to wind and turbine companies that cannot stand on their own? As well, you have not addressed the damage this could do to the mining section of the economy, aswell, the land used for wind turbines that could've been used for farming, housing, or even, a nuclear power plant. I'd argue that having this not invested is the better alternative, don't force Kodaikian citizens to pay for ineffective power generation

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/06/2024 5:24 PM

I shall note that the Government is already subsidising mining, since the year 651, to the tune of 1.2 billion florins per quarter.

Tiberius Brown — 10/06/2024 9:53 PM “Ineffective power generation”

Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 10/06/2024 10:50 PM In Article 1.3 it's stated that all crude oil and coal would be classified as an artifact. What is your definition of an artifact?

Saka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 10/07/2024 3:38 AM I’ll comment on this bill this afternoon

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/07/2024 4:15 AM If only we had bills that defined these things before!!!

Viktor Adler [PSV] — 10/07/2024 4:17 AM Bills should be self-contained in their definitions - otherwise we end up in a situation like this.

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/07/2024 4:17 AM There is no situation, this assembly just can’t use common scientific sense!

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/07/2024 4:18 AM It is literally defined as an artifact What an artifact is, is moot because this assembly does not want archaeological bills. Therefore Kodiak’s only official artifact would be these items

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/07/2024 10:42 AM

No, artifacts don't need to be defined by legislation to exist, surely, Dr Bones?

Scott Harm (Independent) — 10/07/2024 4:02 PM The problem with having bills be self-contained in their definitions is that done incorrectly, it can create conflicts in what the exact definition is. Ex: You define an object like a firearm under a classification, then someone defines those classifications differently in a new bill. When you could use the common legal shorthand of saying "The definitions of firearms are those from [insert bill here]" and having new bills refer to that

Viktor Adler [PSV] — 10/07/2024 4:16 PM That's an entirely valid point - if that other bill exists, which in this case it doesn't Scott Harm (Independent) — 10/07/2024 4:28 PM I do admit I'm speaking in general terms. These definitions aren't ever likely to clash.

Yungly Shoan II || Independant — 10/08/2024 6:30 AM We're arguing definitions over a bill that would like to put 5 million florins into a coal escape room. The notion to move to green energy is a nice sentiment, but until this bill is significantly revised, this will only go to harm Kodiak

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/08/2024 12:49 PM

(and a fashion show!)

Scott Harm (Independent) — 10/09/2024 10:03 AM I agree with Yungly. Also it doesn't actually prevent the usage of Coal, it just means that industries will move their coal extraction outside of Kodiak, harming local economies.

There is the option of adding high tariffs to coal imports to pay for this bill, but it doesn't seem to adequately address the country going greener.

Saka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 10/09/2024 10:32 PM I do not think this bill is a good idea. Even though we will put funding into green energy research, far too much money is placed into the energy museum, and not enough in the actual buildup of green energy. I ask Mr. Bones to remove the museuem funding and place more funding into the actual projects.

Tiberius Brown — 10/09/2024 10:39 PM I tend to agree.

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/10/2024 1:11 AM

Would @Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) like to respond to the MGAs?

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/10/2024 2:43 AM Convincing the MGAs is like pulling teeth, which I’ve done too many times already.

There is no banning of any current industries, the true purpose of this bill promotes the use of clean energy which it seems this government is opposed to.

Bones pulls out a piece of coal and sniffs it

The assembly likes to argue about lack of funding but won’t introduce anything to promote those changes later. This bill only promotes business and growth in a sector with very little legislation with a drastically small cost. It’s no wonder our people have so little trust in us

Bones puts googly eyes on the coal and names it Francis

Tiberius Brown — 10/10/2024 2:51 AM I support the green initiatives of the bill, I just wonder if sufficient funding is allocated. Have you read my analysis?

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/10/2024 2:55 AM I have, much of which I agree with, but the purpose isn’t to create these initiatives. The purpose is to move businesses in that direction and educate individuals

Tiberius Brown — 10/10/2024 2:56 AM Power production is a public service. It is not feasible to encourage private corporations to take over public services.

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/10/2024 2:56 AM Surely some will have to exist before a communist government can take them and utilize it

Tiberius Brown — 10/10/2024 2:57 AM Private industry? No. That's a rather reductive view. That assumes that only private industry can create production, which is not true.

aka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 10/10/2024 2:57 AM I disagree, green energy rollout can be heavily sped up by private companies constructing power plants, although their should absolutely be large scale government oversight to prevent them from overcharging communities for energy, and to make sure the power equipment stays on top shape.

Tiberius Brown — 10/10/2024 2:58 AM Or, to reduce the long-term and short-term cost, we can cut out the middle men and just have the government do it!

Saka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 10/10/2024 2:58 AM My main issue with sir, is the way too much funding is given to the museums which in my opinion isn’t nearly as important as fully funding green energy initiatives.

Tiberius Brown — 10/10/2024 2:59 AM SHRIMP claims constantly to be the party of efficiently spending government funds, and yet insists on making the government operate inefficienctly when it comes to vital public services.

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/10/2024 2:59 AM If I reduce the funds towards this museum and put more money towards the energy service would that make everyone happy?

Saka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 10/10/2024 2:59 AM ye

Tiberius Brown — 10/10/2024 2:59 AM Yes

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 10/10/2024 3:04 AM No Just joking, yes

Tiberius Brown — 10/10/2024 3:05 AM Antonio "Rain on the Parade" Rufian

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 10/10/2024 3:05 AM Needed to say it

Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 10/10/2024 3:06 AM Here are the changes: 10 million total towards museum 2 for all proposed exhibits 180 towards green infrastructure 40 wind 40 solar 30 hydroelectric 70 nuclear 20 towards green jobs 10 towards community engagement 30 towards research

Tiberius Brown — 10/10/2024 4:02 AM Much better

Saka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 10/10/2024 5:45 AM Full support to you

Saka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 10/10/2024 9:23 AM Motion to vote this

Coleman Ryle — 10/10/2024 11:53 AM After the funding amendments, I see no problem with this bill. I second the motion.

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/10/2024 12:15 PM

I'll allow some more time for people to review the amendment, but otherwise the motion will be accepted if there are no substantive comments.

Yungly Shoan II || Independant — 10/10/2024 1:43 PM When I believe my fortune is vast I remember what the government tries to throw at things, regardless, this is better than nothing, I believe the revised bill will be a small push in the right direction

J.F. Sassoon [SHRIMP] — 10/11/2024 8:53 AM I motion to vote.

Yungly Shoan II || Independant — 10/11/2024 11:00 AM I second

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/11/2024 10:08 PM

Motion passes! EasyPoll APP

— 10/11/2024 10:09 PM

Question Does the General Assembly approve the BONES Act for Energy Artifacts and Green Development (BAEAGD) (672)?

Choices

letter_a: Aye

letter_b: Nay

letter_c: Abstain

Final Result

letter_a: ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [16 • 70%]

letter_b: ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [4 • 17%]

letter_c: ▓░░░░░░░░░ [3 • 13%]

23 votes from 23 users

Settings

stopwatch: Poll already ended (2 hours ago)

anonymous: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

roles: Allowed roles: @Assembly Member

lock: No other votes allowed

Poll ID: 4d749736

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— 10/11/2024 10:09 PM

@Assembly Member Voting for the BONES Act for Energy Artifacts and Green Development (BAEAGD) (672) commences. Ensure you review the proposed legislation and vote.

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP

— Today at 11:46 PM

The BONES Act for Energy Artifacts and Green Development (BAEAGD) (672) passes with 16 Ayes, 4 Nays, 3 Abstains.

Debate will be archived and the law code updated.