This bill seeks to ensure energy security and meet climate goals by switching to a nuclear-first energy policy, replacing fossil fuels and unreliable renewables with stable, zero-carbon power.
| Law | Previous | Proposed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nuclear Power |
Maintain existing nuclear only
|
Major nuclear build-out
|
|
| 2 | Renewable Energy Mandates |
Renewables priority
|
Nuclear-only energy policy (all fossil and renewable phased out for nuclear)
|
Party
Competence and Freedom (C&F) is a centrist, technocratic party. We advocate for competent government, individual rights, a free market with sensible guardrails, accessible, high-quality education, and principled opposition to extremism and populism on both the far-right and the far-left.
Core pillars
Activist · Age 61
A once-successful small-business owner who entered politics after a personal scandal exposed the hypocrisy of the establishment, Werner Müller’s charisma and street-smart instincts have made him a magnetic figure among disillusioned voters.
Live tally across each chamber. Weighted by seats held.
For: 8 / 69 seats (11.6%)
Against: 22 · Abstained: 25 · Not voted: 14
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance For Digital Freedom And Rights | 16 | No | ADFR's in favour of all clean and modern energy sources: we strongly support both renewables and nuclear (especially next-gen, smaller reactors). But phasing out renewables is both unrealistic and self-defeating: we need them, and a lot too, as nuclear cannot satisfy alone our country's energy needs (with plants taking about a decade to build). Renewables aren't "unreliable": they're just not efficient for nocturnal usage, although that too is only true to a certain extent (think of batteries for solar panels and plants), and we see no good reason to throw away all the work we and our entrepreneurs have been doing, as well as citizens buying more and more solar panels for self-consumption. For these reasons, ADFR cannot support this bill: we want a balanced energy mix, that is more renewables and more nuclear, as it is the only clean, sustainable option we have. |
| Competence And Freedom Proposer | 8 | Yes | No reason given |
| Homeland Alliance | 0 | Yes | We need domestic energy production. |
| Left Forward | 5 | Abstain | Building large numbers of new nuclear plants would come at an enormous cost. Around the world, these projects often rely on heavy public support, government guarantees or long-term subsidies because private investors are unwilling to carry the financial risk alone. Even then, the electricity they produce is often expensive for consumers. We should invest those resources in expanding renewables, modernising the grid and lowering energy bills instead of tying ourselves to one of the most costly forms of power generation. |
| Saxenheim Republic | 6 | No | We strongly oppose this proposal completely shifting to nuclear power is a big number and it needs lot of investment and decades of treasury. Shifting completely to nuclear energy instantly makes the government inefficient in radioactive waste management which are the wastes generated by using nuclear power. concentrating the nations energy on just one source threatens the energy security of the nation . by considering all these we oppose the proposal firmly. |
| Saxenheim Workers’ Union | 20 | Abstain | No reason given |
| Empty seats | 5 | Not voted |
For: 77 / 650 seats (11.8%)
Against: 204 · Abstained: 237 · Not voted: 132
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance For Digital Freedom And Rights | 151 | No | ADFR's in favour of all clean and modern energy sources: we strongly support both renewables and nuclear (especially next-gen, smaller reactors). But phasing out renewables is both unrealistic and self-defeating: we need them, and a lot too, as nuclear cannot satisfy alone our country's energy needs (with plants taking about a decade to build). Renewables aren't "unreliable": they're just not efficient for nocturnal usage, although that too is only true to a certain extent (think of batteries for solar panels and plants), and we see no good reason to throw away all the work we and our entrepreneurs have been doing, as well as citizens buying more and more solar panels for self-consumption. For these reasons, ADFR cannot support this bill: we want a balanced energy mix, that is more renewables and more nuclear, as it is the only clean, sustainable option we have. |
| Competence And Freedom Proposer | 77 | Yes | No reason given |
| Homeland Alliance | 0 | Yes | We need domestic energy production. |
| Left Forward | 50 | Abstain | Building large numbers of new nuclear plants would come at an enormous cost. Around the world, these projects often rely on heavy public support, government guarantees or long-term subsidies because private investors are unwilling to carry the financial risk alone. Even then, the electricity they produce is often expensive for consumers. We should invest those resources in expanding renewables, modernising the grid and lowering energy bills instead of tying ourselves to one of the most costly forms of power generation. |
| Saxenheim Republic | 53 | No | We strongly oppose this proposal completely shifting to nuclear power is a big number and it needs lot of investment and decades of treasury. Shifting completely to nuclear energy instantly makes the government inefficient in radioactive waste management which are the wastes generated by using nuclear power. concentrating the nations energy on just one source threatens the energy security of the nation . by considering all these we oppose the proposal firmly. |
| Saxenheim Workers’ Union | 187 | Abstain | No reason given |
| Empty seats | 52 | Not voted |
Every vote must state a public reason. Most recent first.
“We need domestic energy production.”
“We strongly oppose this proposal completely shifting to nuclear power is a big number and it needs lot of investment and decades of treasury. Shifting completely to nuclear energy instantly makes the government inefficient in radioactive waste management which are the wastes generated by using nuclear power. concentrating the nations energy on just one source threatens the energy security of the nation . by considering all these we oppose the proposal firmly.”
“Building large numbers of new nuclear plants would come at an enormous cost. Around the world, these projects often rely on heavy public support, government guarantees or long-term subsidies because private investors are unwilling to carry the financial risk alone. Even then, the electricity they produce is often expensive for consumers. We should invest those resources in expanding renewables, modernising the grid and lowering energy bills instead of tying ourselves to one of the most costly forms of power generation.”
“ADFR's in favour of all clean and modern energy sources: we strongly support both renewables and nuclear (especially next-gen, smaller reactors). But phasing out renewables is both unrealistic and self-defeating: we need them, and a lot too, as nuclear cannot satisfy alone our country's energy needs (with plants taking about a decade to build). Renewables aren't "unreliable": they're just not efficient for nocturnal usage, although that too is only true to a certain extent (think of batteries for solar panels and plants), and we see no good reason to throw away all the work we and our entrepreneurs have been doing, as well as citizens buying more and more solar panels for self-consumption. For these reasons, ADFR cannot support this bill: we want a balanced energy mix, that is more renewables and more nuclear, as it is the only clean, sustainable option we have.”