Government to Build 2 Nuclear Power Plants
by George Stewart of The Scientan National Gazette

The Government of Scienta announced today plans to build 2 new nuclear power plants.  Citing a lack of available energy, the Minister of Energy, Dr. Richard Pavel, stated

"Our national energy production is reaching a limit.  We can not afford to delay this any longer... The cost to industry, and our people, will be far greater then if we do not build them."

According to Dr. Susan Belanger, the director of Scienta's currently only nuclear power station,  stated in a recent interview

"Just last month we hit a spike of nearly 90 percent of capacity.  This is a nuclear power plant, there is no such thing as going 110 percent.  If demand goes above what we can physically produce, there will be power outages."

Just last year however, the government delayed the building of any new power plants, nuclear or otherwise, citing the economies lackluster performance in recent years.  "Everybody expected our energy demand to decrease when the economy began leveling off" said Dr. Pavel "...this is clearly not what has happened."

Most engineers and economists agree that the additional demand for energy has resulted from mining companies expanding into new minerals as they try to recover from slouching prices, and the discovery of large high-concentration lithium deposits which many companies are hoping to kick-start the Scientan economy, resulting in many companies building new facilities even while taking a heavy loss.

The opposition and many critics however believe now is not the time.  Elizabeth Trust of the Free Market Party, and Member of Parliament for West Cantowan said during the following question period:

"Where is the money going to come for this?  The Progressive government has not explained how we are going to pay for this, and frankly it just isn't truly needed.  Sure, demand spiked once last month to 90%... but most of the time it is closer to 50%.  If the current station is running at half capacity, clearly there's time to wait.  The government keeps saying we will be running a surplus once the economy picks back up.  Let's first see if they will keep that promise, and then worry about building mega-projects."

Critics have also claimed that other sources of energy, which currently account for about a quarter of energy production in Scienta, would make a more suitable alternative to nuclear energy.

"Nuclear power is simply too dangerous.  Just because there hasn't been a nuclear meltdown here in Scienta doesn't mean it can't happen...  The price of a single disaster is just too high, we must use other options." states Conrad Noyes, the leader of Scientans Against Nuclear Energy (SANE).  SANE has already announced it will conduct protests in front of the Parliament Buildings in Sophias, and sit-ins at both future sites.

However, SANE may have a hard time convincing the population.  Polls taken show that nuclear power is clearly the most popular option for a new power plant, with 40% of respondents reporting they believe nuclear energy to be either best choice.  Wind power was next at 24%, followed by 17% claiming solar power to be the best option, and only 4% believing coal or fossil fuel to be the best option.  About 15% of respondents believed other types of energy production would be better.

Proponents of nuclear power also pointed out that with two new plants, Scienta would have enough excess that it could begin to sell energy to neighbouring countries that may be suffering energy shortages of their own.

According to documents obtained from the Ministry of Energy, the first plant will be built in the north, 75km south of the Green River, and the second about 50km north of the Heckler river in the south of the country.  Locations the Ministry claim are safe from environmental disasters, although they also state the facilities will be made earthquake resistant, and state they will be able to withstand quakes of up to 7.5 on the Richter scale.

Reply

Scienta Pushes Non-Proliferation Treaty:  An interview with Dr. Jonathon Crast, the Scientan delegate at the IARNPT negotiations
by Valentina Lamb of the Scientan National Gazette


Valentina Lamb: Dr. Crast, let me jump right in, it is abundantly obvious to anyone watching these negotiations, that Scienta has been very vocal, and pushing hard for a treaty.  Why such a hard push?  Does Scienta actually want a treaty, or is it just trying to make a name for itself?

Dr. Jonathon Crast: We need this treaty, and by we, I don't just mean Scienta.  Technology across the South Pacific is expanding rapidly, and that includes nuclear technology.  There are already 5 nations in the South Pacific that have nuclear weapons, including nations that have been involved large scale wars.  And others we don't even know if they have them or not, they keep it secret.  The situation is simply getting out of hand.  As for Scienta trying to make a name for itself, this is true as well.  Scienta is a nation that prides itself on science and understanding, it is high time for Scienta to use this understanding and step up and become a larger player on the world stage.

VL: If the situation is so bad, then why does Scienta even want this treaty?  Many in our military, including the Chief of Defense Staff herself, have said we need our own nuclear weapons.

Dr. C:  As I said, it is getting out of hand, but it isn't hopeless yet.  If we build nuclear weapons ourselves, we will only encourage other nations to follow suit.  We need to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons in the world, not increase it.

VL:  But if the government wants this treaty so bad, then why is it poking holes in it?  You haven't put up any opposition to nuclear sharing for example.  Do you actually think it is ok for a nation with nuclear weapons, to hand over nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states?

Dr. C:  No we don't, but if we oppose nuclear sharing, there are important nations that we believe will not sign this treaty if we insist on banning nuclear sharing.  Frankly, we would love to see a world without nuclear weapons altogether, but that would not be realistic.  Either we push a treaty that will get signed, or we get nothing.

VL:  Many people are accusing this government of pushing nothing.  We've already allowed exceptions in some of most important demands.  In barely a day, we've gone from demanding a ban on nuclear weapons in space, to saying it's ok for a nation to put hundreds, even thousands, of nuclear weapons into orbit for the sake of "propulsion."  Same thing for a ban on nuclear weapons on international territory.  You said this nation wants to become larger player on the world stage, but does really have the back-bone to do it?

Dr. C:  As I said before, we need to push for a treaty that will get signed, not to push an idealistic treaty that will die on the table.  As for using nuclear devices for propulsion, it is a legitimate method that Scienta itself has investigated, and there are ways to allow for this, while stopping actual weapons from going into orbit.  Any exemption that allows for this will include rules that will moderate it and keep it from being abused.  We have said we will not sign a treaty that allows for the placement of warheads hanging above our heads, and we stand by that promise.

VL:  Are there any points that Scienta will absolutely not bend on?  What is our red line in the sand?

Dr. C:  As mentioned, nuclear weapons in space.  Also, we must have a cap on the number of nuclear weapons each state must have.  Further to that, nations that do not have nuclear weapons should not be prohibited from building them later, otherwise, already nuclear nations will only have a monopoly on them.  Finally, we want to see a ban on all atmospheric nuclear testing.  If these conditions are not met, we will have no treaty.

VL:  If Scienta does not want nuclear weapons, why push so hard to retain the right to build them?

Dr. C:  Because that's our nuclear deterrent.  While we hold no nuclear inventory, we easily have the technology and expertise to build them.  That in itself creates a deterrent.  Most nuclear capable nations don't want to see other nations build a nuclear arsenal, any more then we want to see any nation build a single bomb.  If we and other nations retain the right to build nuclear weapons, then those nations with them will have to avoid doing things that encourage non-nuclear nations from building them.  If we and others are prohibited from building them, then they will have free reign to act as they please.

VL: What about arms reduction?  The negotiations have so far focused on nuclear weapons, and not their delivery systems, or arms in general.  What do you see in store when the negotiations reach that stage?

Dr. C:  At this point it is really hard to say what the other nations are going to push for.  As for Scienta, we wish to see this part of the negotiation limited to nuclear weapon delivery systems, and even then, there are a few things that we won't allow.  We absolutely won't sign any treaty that restricts anti-ballistic missile systems in any way.  Also, we will not allow any article that limits our nations rocket and space programs.

VL:  Finally, what about the issue of inspectors?  Many feel that allowing inspectors into the country will infringe on our sovereignty, and other nations have already been on record that they will not allow them.

Dr.C:  Any treaty that is meant to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons will be pointless if there is no way to ensure it is being enforced by the signatory nations.  If a nation is going to make a promise to dismantle weapons, or follow certain rules regarding transportation or nuclear propulsion in space, then they will simply have to allow for inspectors.  As for us, we will likely have to allow them too.

Reply