Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Two suggestions.

Hi, my degree was in Nuclear Engineering and this article isn't bad overall. I recommend renaming the article to "Nuclear Power Technology," for starters.

I know there is another article called "radioactive waste," however it seems to concern itself only with the present state of the way waste is managed, and not the way it ought to or could be managed. This article seems to be the place to discuss the potential of nuclear technology itself, rather than merely how it is currently used, which is why my next comment concerns this article and not the "radioactive waste" article. There is little discussion here of the environmental debate over the disposal/burial of nuclear waste. It would be nice to see that topic expanded here. Along with that, and more specifically, there ought to be some discussion of the advances we have made in our ability to remove particularly long-lasting isotopes from the burial wastes (that would presumably go in Yucca Mountain).

The current standard for Nuclear Power Technology waste burial is to be able to predict the location's geological movement and its relationship with said waste for one million years. Such a feat is outside the scope of our current understanding of geology and is, on its head, patently absurd. The reason for the standard, however, is because some of the isotopes in nuclear waste have half-lives in the ranges of millions of years. These isotopes make up only a very very tiny fraction of the nuclear byproduct, but in the long long long term eventually become significant. The discussion changes altogether, however, when we start to consider what would happen if we were to remove the top five or so slowest decaying isotopes from nuclear waste prior to burial. Then, the necessary standard for predicting the geology of the burial site shortens to a few thousand years (at most, a much shorter time would actually suffice), which is within the scope of present human geological understanding.

We currently have the technology to remove these dangerous isotopes from nuclear waste, and it is in fact not even particularly difficult to do. Doing so poses the question: "Then what do we do with these isoptopes once they are removed?" Keep in mind that we are talking about a few grams or so of substance per ton of nuclear waste. One could easily cask and maintain these byproducts in a relatively small facility above ground (what we currently do, sadly, with all nuclear waste). In addition, there is a process known as transmutation in which accelerators or other sources are used to bombard and change the isotope into something else that decays faster. An article concerning a newer process in the removal of but one of these isotopes can be found here: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/November/05-neptunium.html Here is another article concerning older tried and true methods of removing specific isotopes: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/554187-eGETzf/webviewable/554187.PDF And there are other methods still which I won't get into here. The point is that the technology is there and it is very important to the future of nuclear power. Thanks for your time.

Note: I am not in fact a practicing Nuclear Engineer or employed by any facet of the industry, I do however see a great deal of good in the use of nuclear power, and a great deal more potential. Sadly, misinformation is the plague of the information age, and very very few people understand nuclear power technology and its potential, but many are willing to loudmouth their ignorant opinions against it. Concerning the below comment, which requests topics be concerned with the generation of nuclear power, I would remind them that the burial of waste is one of the direct factors that has prevented the expansion of the generation of that power, and therefore directly correlates with the topic. (It fits in with the Byproducts -> What is done/can be done subsection proposed below.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.211.28 (talk) 22 June 2008

You might try using more paragraph breaks to make it easier to read your text. I don't have a reference but it has been said that people in charge don't want to get rid of the waste because it may become valuable in the future, such as breeder reactors, research, and military applications. Have you considered this line of thinking? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for responding. I've broken the one large paragraph into three for easier reading.

I am familiar with what you are referring to (waste becoming useful in the future) and have considered it. The fact is that nuclear "waste" as we know it today in the United States would be useful this instant if the reprocessing of spent fuel was not illegal in this country. Unfortunately, reprocessing was made illegal by President Carter during his tenure in office. The reason for the illegality is due to the fact that during reprocessing it becomes relatively easy to obtain Pu-239, one of the isotopes capable of being formed into "the bomb." Along with verbally discouraging other countries from reprocessing spent fuel, which would enable them to more easily obtain the fissile materials necessary for the bomb, Carter wanted to show that the US would put its money where its mouth was, so he made it illegal to reprocess in America (even though we had the bomb for quite some time already). Reprocessing was made legal again by President Raegan, but President Clinton re-reversed the law back to Carter's era. It's worth noting that no evidence has ever shown that the illegality of reprocessing in America has had one iota of impact on other countries' decision to reprocess.

As it stands today, many countries reprocess spent fuel to cut down dramatically on waste tonnage left at the end of the nuclear fuel cycle and to reduce the amount of mining required to sustain their operation. Generally, it is not economically advantageous at this time to reprocess in America because the mining of new Uranium is cheaper even than the reprocessing of old. (The reader may be interested to know, however, that France is in the list of countries that currently reprocess.) Thus, nuclear waste will become useful at exactly the instant when reprocessing it becomes more economical than mining new fuel (and when the law stops arbitrarily disallowing it). That is, unless the public decides it wants less nuclear waste in our country and is willing to spend the extra few cents to reprocess what we've already produced.

Either way when nuclear waste goes in the ground (which must occur, reprocessing in the middle or not), my first post applies. Reprocessing is relatively well known and I wanted to put something out there that is a bit more technical, less well known, and far more exciting for the overall viability and safety of burying spent fuel.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.211.28 (talk) 22 June 2008

Pictures

There seems to be a stretch without pictures between the Water and Health effects sections. One of the more interesting sights at a nuclear power plant is Cerenkov radiation. The picture could go in the high-level radioactive waste section. The caption could say something like: The glow from highly radioactive fuel rods is Cerenkov radiation or The intensity of Cerenkov radiation is roughly proportional to the level of radioactivity. A different idea would be to put pictures of a recently removed fuel rod and an old fuel rod side by side... This would be visually stimulating and it would explain the principle of decay. Mrshaba (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a comic book, it's an encyclopedia. It is entirely appropriate to have sections of text... 199.125.109.108 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Its not a comic book? Im on the wrong site. And if the article has one piece of space without a picture, i find its either 1. really sad, or 2. really short :D 10max01 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More Info About Nuclear Power Plants????

I have to do a huge, fatty report/debate on the idea of buliding one of these monstocities (don't check my spelling!!) in my town. I am arguing FOR it, and need more info about this. Any percentages of accidents compared to sucesses, maybe? Idk, but anything besides the crappy articles on it would be FINE!!!

Thanks!!Iluvvampires (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)iluvvampires

Well I would start by going to the NRC website and seeing what there is. I would also check out some books on the subject, though you might have to buy them from Amazon.com. You can also check your local university to see if they have any books, though the larger the university the better. Also, the newer the book, the more accurate the data. There are also some monthly publications, such as Nuclear News shich I subscribe to and provides very detailed information on the status of the industry. I think the subscription is something like $25 for a year. I am not sure how long you have to do this report, but that is where I would look.

Also, if you are going to be debating with someone arguing the anti-nuclear side, make sure you research books by Helen Calldicott. she is a big anti-nuke and tends to make up data to support her case at times. Not saying her arguments are totally baseless, but its always good to study the other side of your research.Polypmaster (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidently that last bit was added because this article does not accurately portray all sides to nuclear power? If so, that needs to be corrected. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy debater? If so i can help with it, but i doubt nuclear power is the best. 10max01 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute about new matter

• A dispute about some new matter:
  1. At 21:45, 31 May 2008 User:Johnfos inserted 4 Kbytes of matter about matters affecting reliability of nuclear power stations, with the edit comment "Reliability: expanding for NPOV".
  2. At 03:20, 3 June 2008 User:Lwnf360 reverted this addition with edit comment "the only source used in the additional sections is rmi.org, an admited anti-nuclear group".
  3. At 03:37, 3 June 2008 User:Johnfos added a new section "==Complexity==", about 2 Kbytes.
  4. At 04:06, 3 June 2008 User:Daniel.Cardenas removed this addition with edit comment "Complexity: section moved to nuclear safety. Per agreement on talk page, this article is mostly about nuclear power technology".
  5. At 04:31, 3 June 2008 User:Johnfos added about 3 Kbytes about reliability with edit comment "expanding for NPOV".
  6. At 06:43, 3 June 2008 User:Lwnf360 removed this addition with edit comment "Reliability: removal of POV edits. I discussed this on the user's talk page. Please don't engage in a revert war on this. Rather, discuss on article's talk page."
  • The disputed matter seems to me to be relevant to the operation of nuclear power stations, if it is true. Whether or not facts (rather then opinions) in this matter come from a pro-nuclear site or an anti-nuclear site or neither, they may be valid, IF they can be independently verified: please discuss their verifiability here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the above material pertains to the section called "Debate on nuclear power", but there is actually remarkably little debate going on here. The section is quite short and there are many relevant issues which are not discussed, and most of what has been said has a one-sided pro-nuclear slant. I have tried to remedy this situation with the contributions made. I have cited a range of verifiable sources, including papers, reports, and news items, and if there are any factual errors in the material inserted, I would be happy for them to be pointed out.

One important issue which is not discussed in this Debate section is the debate about "Alternative reactor designs", and I am adding a small section on that now. Johnfos (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been previous discussions about article content. Most people agree that the article should be about the technology with just a mention of issues. If the "Debate" section can't be kept small, then I'm in favor of moving it completely to the safety article. Others have suggestion this in the past also. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. The main article needs to accurately summarize any subarticles. You can't say oh I'll just hide that in a subarticle so that no one sees it. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is much debate on topic. For more information go to the subarticle... Theres going to be a lot in the debate section since the NFL has made alternative fuels their topic for policy debate next year. (and i know a few who comment here on the current topics) 10max01 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, please don't try and censor what is being said in relation to the nuclear power debate. There are many verifiable sources which discuss the debate and WP readers are entitled to encyclopedic NPOV coverage...

Nuclear power has been called "the world's most misunderstood energy source" and there has been a renewed debate about nuclear power in recent years. Some propose an expansion of nuclear energy and others are against the expanded use of nuclear power.

I am adding the expanded "Reliability" section to the article again; but this time have removed a paragraph in order to reach agreement on the inclusion of this material. Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Debate discussion is endless. There needs to be a scope to the article. In scope is technology. Out of scope are pros and cons. This is per prior discussion with editors. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Persian version has been Featerud Article. I request from Administrators for add to article. Thank you Ladsgroup (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done—WWoods (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ladsgroup (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nuclear power/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unfortunately, I am failing this article because it is severely lacking inline citations. The section "Nuclear reactor technology", which also has a {{refimprove}} template, has no references. "Low-level radioactive waste" and "Depleted uranium" are other sections that don't have references; there are several more. Please resolve these issues and then feel free to return the article for renomination. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is "severely lacking inline citations". It might seem like we have lots of references here, but there is much totally unsourced material. This should be removed or citations found, per Wikipedia:When to cite. Johnfos (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Request

I just realized that I am not yet a confirmed user, and therefore cannot edit this page at this time. In reading the section 6.3 Environmental Effects, the article states that nuclear power emits "direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions (water vapor, CO2, NO2)." While this statement is factually true, it is slightly misleading because of the three gasses listed only water vapor is directly emitted, while the more worrisome CO2 and NO2 are completely indirect. For reference, please see article Environmental effects of nuclear power and the citations within there. If an auto confirmed user would take the time to make this more clear in the primary article and then delete this section of the talk page, I would be grateful. Something like "direct water vapor emissions, indirect CO2 and NO2 greenhouse gas emissions" would be more accurate. Blazersguy (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. —WWoods (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliability

There is a section about sun/wind energy that needs to be deleted. It's got nothing to do with the subject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.69.203 (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Have another look, I took a shot at it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant shut down must be mentioned or else we just don't have an NPOV article... Johnfos (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on that point. The KK plant shutdown was simply not unique in history and has no claim to a place in a summarizing article on nuclear power. In the same country just a few years earlier they had the TEPCO data fabrication scandals, which by ANY metric was more damaging to the nuclear industry worldwide and domestic, as well as the electric grid itself.

The correct way to accomplish what I believe you're striving for would be to have a brief list of the largest common cause plant shutdowns in history. I don't have this information right now, but if I or someone else finds it, I think the appropriateness of it would be well founded, unlike mentioning this single incident simply because it was a media-fair. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This KK situation incident is mentioned in the debate section because there has been a lot of debate about it. Simple as that. Johnfos (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What is so special about the KK shutdown? Any industrial plant would have shut down and been examined. And is "Some radioactive material was released" using weasel words? Radioactive material is released when a cinder block breaks, as well as during normal operation of a coal-fired power plant. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the wording if there is better wording that could be used, and include the appropriate citation to support the change. Johnfos (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. While the news media tend to gravitate towards stories that involve the word nuclear, that does not make it a unique event. Similarly, the outage in Florida a couple months ago shutdown a couple reactors AND a couple coal plants, yet the news focused almost exclusively on the nuclear plants. I don't know if it is because using 'nuclear' grabs people's attention or if it is terms like SCRAM, but a plant shutdown does not necessarily mean a newsworthy story.

I also agree that saying "some radioactive material was released" is misleading. I am not sure on the specifics of this incident, but radiation is one of the worst understood concepts there is, and just saying radiation was released without quantifying it to some extent is dangerous. If there are specifics on the amout released, someone should probably add the amount and the relation between that and average background radiation. Polypmaster (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the wording if there is better wording that could be used, and include the appropriate citation to support the change. Johnfos (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn it, the thing that got reverted was a pretty significant keystone I thought.

Not included in this data is plant size, which also strongly factors into integration with the grid. For nuclear power, reliability metrics compare favorably to other power sources, it has a median unit size larger than any other power source. This means that a large grid is needed to accommodate nuclear, and a sweeping common cause unplanned capacity for many plants can put stresses on the grid.

My problem is that most readers won't be able to put something like the KK plant into perspective. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that the KK incident is not directly related to the reliability of nuclear power. Everything is affected by earthquakes and a power station that was shut down for inspection following an earthquake says nothing for or against the reliability of that type of power source. That could have happened to any type of thermoelectric station. The mention is superfluous. The simple reporting of the incident doesn't transmit any new information to the reader. If some sort of conclusion can be drawn from that incident at the KK or other plants then that should be part of the section using KK as an example, but as it stands that's now how the section reads. The current paragraph has absolutely nothing to say for or against the reliability of nuclear power. It needs to be removed and completely rewritten. Nailedtooth (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and being in the "reliability" section also means that the expected reliability is an issue. The power companies are familiar with reliability and the design and proposal documents probably include the expected reliability and expected reasons for problems. If the plant is operating within the expected reliability then it's as reliable as expected. Did someone check the expected reliability? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, here is the current text for rewriting:

On 16 July 2007 a severe earthquake hit the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. The plant with seven units is the largest single nuclear power station in the world. Some release of radioactive material occurred and all of the reactors were shut down and are expected to remain closed for damage verification and repairs for at least one year.

Environmental Impact

I am concerned that saying a nuclear power plant does not produce any direct CO2 is misleading. Under normal operation that is indeed true, but the backup diesel genreators certainly produce greenhouse gases. Those are rarely used, but in the case of a disconnect with the grid and a SCRAM they would indeed come online. I am not sure about the percentage of the time a diesel generator is online on average, but if that information exists it may be best to mention that. Polypmaster (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is now explicitly "under normal conditions" (grid synchronisation isn't unique to nuclear generation, after all) -- Ratarsed (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fusion

The article does not really indicate that fusion reactor technology, though it has been researched since the 1950s, is not yet anywhere close to actual implementation as an energy source. I think something to this effect should be added to the article, as one could easily come away with the impression that fusion work is right around the corner, when even if breakeven is achieved in the next 5-10 years (which is optimistic to say the least), actual conversion to power stations will surely take longer. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Supply Question

At one point we read that there is an 80 year supply of nuclear fuel today, that is, U-235. In the Breeder Reactor section it says there is a 5 billion year supply of U-238 fuel. Since U-238 is only 140 times as abundant as U-235, I don't see where such a huge number can come from. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That 80 year figure comes from the assumption that we do not recycle and reuse fuel. The Earth's crust contains 2.7 ppm by mass, of which 99.2745% is U238 and 0.72% is U235 (The remainder is 0.0055% U234). Current thermal (slow) neutron reactors run off of the U235, not the U238. Essentially there is enough U235 in the world to run the current nuclear power plants for another 80 years. Fast reactors, or breeder reactors use the U238 as fuel and also can convert U238 into U235 (U238 + Neutron = U239 : U239 decays into Np239 : Np239 decays into Pu239 : Pu239 can be used as fuel and also decays into U235). Therefore, if we can run our current plants for another 80 years with the 0.72% of the Uranium, we can run at the same generating capacity for another 11,111 years, assuming no loss of fissile material. A once through fuel cycle like we use now, however, only uses 1 to 5% of the possible energy. This is mostly due to fission products building up in the fuel and making the nuclear reaction inefficient. If we were to recycle and reuse, in theory we could have between 225,000 and 1.1 million years of fuel left. I still have not gotten to 5 billion, so if someone else sees something I missed, please add it on. I have a feeling the 5 billion year number is actually referring to all possible nuclear fuel, which would include Thorium (3x as much as Uranium). That does not get you to 5 billion either, so I am not sure. Regardless, 225,000 years worth is a lot of fuel. I am curious if power plant efficiency is assumed to be higher in the billion year figure, though that would not help enough either. Ok, well someone let us know if I missed something. I hope this helped some. Polypmaster (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The 5 billion year figure comes from Bernard Cohen. See McCarthy's synopsis. It assumes economical extraction from seawater and breeder reactors to use U238, but not thorium.

The article still needs to be fixed. The 5 billion year fuel supply is about ultra-low grade extraction processes. By the same argument, there is 50 million years of U-235 left for conventional reactors. Cohen's estimates about uranium from sea water should go somewhere else, and somebody should insert the correct figure about how much breeder reactors proportionally increase our fuel supply. I assume it is on the order of 100-fold for uranium, and about 300 or 400 fold for thorium, which is more abundant. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the 80 year figure is out of date — it's now up to 100 years.

—WWoods (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's 100 years "at present consumption level". Double consumption and it drops to 50 years. Quadruple consumption (bringing it to about half the supply of electricity), and it would drop to 25 years - by the time the reactors were built the supply would be gone. When I look at the photo on the uranium report of a typical Uranium mine I wonder if you wouldn't be able to get a lot more energy from covering the mine area with solar panels than you do from the Uranium. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your figures assume a once-through cycle. Multiply any once through figure by 20-40 times to account for reprocessing. Then add recoverable but not currently economic ore to account for increases in uranium prices (which doesn't affect the price of nuclear power much, because so little uranium is needed). Add thorium reserves to account for breeder reactors. Conservative estimates stretch into the hundreds of years, even assuming nuclear provides all of our energy, not just electricity.

Also, I don't think the uranium deposits in the arctic near Baker Lake, Nunavut, Canada are going to be giving us much in terms of solar power.Nailedtooth (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, reprocessing fuel from conventional reactors gives a 30 *percent* increase in uranium utilization. see ref #1 in Nuclear reprocessing. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the articles you link to. "...recycling plutonium once as MOX fuel... ...[extends] energy extracted by only about 30%." (emphasis mine). The article states that recycling plutonium, uranium and actinides could increase the extractable energy by a factor of 60. My estimate was 50-300% low. Nailedtooth (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the Peak uranium pertain to this question? Simesa (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When Seaborg discovered The practicality of using EE90Th232 to fuel the operation of EO92Pu233 Nuclear power plants he is quoted as having said that he had solved the problem of nuclear fuel requirements "for the next 3000 years". WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Improvement of Nuclear power stations.png

Hi, I have a very small suggestion for the article. Image "Nuclear power stations.png" which is actually a map should be improved: Crimea must be the same colour as Ukraine itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.131.51 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alarming Article

Jeffrey St. Clair of Counterpunch has written an alarming article, titled Pools of Fire: The Looming Nuclear Nightmare in the Backwoods of North Carolina about the Shearon Harris nuclear plant there of which I think a mention should be included in "Accidents" section. I'd suggest at the bottom of the paragraph which includes the link to the report An American Chernobyl: Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986. 4.246.205.246 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the heavy bias in the article (presented through complete and total lack of knowledge concerning spent fuel pools, meltdowns, etc.), there is no accident being discussed. Only an what-if scenario that doesn't get most of the facts right. So I would say no. THaskin (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Map out of date

The map of countries with nuclear power plants is out of date, Ontario is building a new plant near Toronto is open by 2018. Canationalist (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they're still at the planning stage. Darlington Nuclear Generating Station says "OPG has also begun the process for building up to 4 new nuclear units ... No decision has been made on what technology will be used but the government has indicated its preference for the CANDU design."

But Italy is also planning new reactors, and I don't think Denmark has built one yet.

—WWoods (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no decision concerning building nuclear reactors in Italy, right now there are only discussion. As of Denmark, they had three research reactors, all of them decommissioned now. There was never any commercial reactor in Denmark.Beagel (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Following countries are missing or incorrect:

• In Africa: Ghana, Namibia, Nigeria - considering first NPP.[1]
• Albania - considering first NPP.[2], [3]
• Belarus is still considering, construction doesn't start yet. (see Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant)
• Turkey started the bidding process [4]. Is this still considering phase or already construction phase?
• Tunisia - considering first NPP.[5]
• Azerbaijan doesn't have any NPP yet, so it should be marked as considering first, not as considering new.[6]
• Mongolia - probably considering the first NPP, not building yet.[7]
• Venezuela - considering first NPP.[8]
• Bangladesh - considering first NPP.[9], [10]
• Thailand - considering first NPP.[11]
• Bulgaria- construct for construction of new NPP has signed (see Belene Nuclear Power Plant)

Beagel (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would go by the PRIS database, they do have some authority to declare the official construction start seeing as how they're the IAEA. [12]. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Denmark has never had a neuclearpowerplant there was a test fasility called risø that now is researtch center for sustainable energy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.91.85 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved the above comment by 89.150.91.85 to end of the Talk section for clarity. Simesa (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Debate on Merging Criticisms Into Sections

Such merging would be a great disservice to the average reader. I understand the fervor of some to make anti-nuclear points anywhere and everywhere, but we've had this discussion before and it would make the sections horrendously long and filled with charge and counter-charge and (to the average reader) meaningless nuances. It's far superior to lay out the essentials and then concentrate the extensive debate in an appropriate section for that. Simesa (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As it's been a week and there's been no other discussion, I'm going to remove the tag. If anyone objects, put the tag back in and we can discuss this after folks come back from the Labor Day holiday. Simesa (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental effects Under normal generating conditions, nuclear power does produce

The most important greenhouse gases are:

water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth.

Depletion of Freshwater Resources

Lack of contribution to hydrologic cycle.

In practice, about 60-75% is evaporative, depending on atmospheric factors.

pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen Manic mechanic (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are true, but I would be careful with saying 36-70% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. Not only is this a large discrepancy, but the addition of water vapor by nuclear power is a drop in the ocean compared to the water vapor already in the atmosphere. Also, water vapor can be removed from the atmosphere far easier than CO2 can (rain). Water emissions from power plants are also a couple of orders of magnitude from having an appreciable affect on the environment. Also, the emission of water vapor into the atmosphere is not limited to nuclear plants; this is a primary byproduct of the Rankine cycle, which is used by just about every steam-driven power plant. This is emphasized more in nuclear power because it is the only emission into the atmosphere and because the standard nuclear plant is larger than the standard coal or natural gas plant.

The depletion of freshwater resources is a good point, but is only a real factor for those built on relatively small bodies of water. Those on the ocean, seas, or large lakes like the Great Lakes have little to no problem with this because their reservoir is so large relative to the amount of energy expelled and water needed. Situations like the one in France that happened a few years ago are serious events, but must remain in context with the fact that there really should not have been that number of plants along the same bodies of water. This is again not only a nuclear power problem though. Had the nuclear plants been replaced by an equal (in Megawatts) amount of coal plants, the same problem with the river temperatures would have happened. The difference is that the nuclear cores need to have adequate core cooling at all times, which proved more difficult with high water temperatures. This is more about bad placement than bad design though. It is a limitation, but with good placement does not have a serious effect on the environment as a whole.

I am not sure what you mean by 'lack of contribution to the hydrologic cycle.' As far as I understand, water vapor from a nuclear plant would contribute to greater atmospheric water vapor and eventually that vapor would follow the cycle like any other water. Also, water vapor effects are mostly the problem of plants with cooling towers. Those that dump the waste heat into a reservoir like the ocean or other large body of water would not contribute significantly to the hydrologic cycle because their waste heat is minimal compared to solar radiation. I am curious what you mean, so if you could elaborate that would be great. Thanks. Polypmaster (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MERGE: competing nuclear-debate articles

The article Anti-nuclear movement has a large (and very unbalanced) debate section. It didn't even link to Economics of new nuclear power plants until I put that in. We've had this debate before, but should we have one unified Nuclear Debate article? Simesa (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Energy development article also contains a list of nuclear energy pros and cons, and probably should be merged as well. Simesa (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted Merge notices in Anti-nuclear movement and Energy development articles and Discussion pages just now, and suggested we debate this for a week before merging the various debate sections here in Nuclear Power. Simesa (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I pointed the relevant section in Nuclear energy policy to here. Simesa (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the same for the criticisms in the Complexity section of Nuclear safety. Will now merge text in here. Simesa (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the non-economic criticisms from Economics of new nuclear power plants and will merge them in here later today. Simesa (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed all the Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power links I could find to Nuclear debate, which now points to "#Debate on nuclear power" here. Simesa (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I merged as much of Nuclear energy policy pros and cons into here as I thought I could. May have been a little sloppy, as it's so early in the morning. We'll have to re-organize the Debate section here after all the merges are done. Simesa (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: The reason the Nuclear controversy article was deleted is given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear controversy. It might not apply to a balanced and well-referenced Debate. Simesa (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I merged in the Anti-nuclear movement and Nuclear energy in the European Union debate texts. Simesa (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the last merge just now, the text from Energy development. This completes the Nuclear Debate merges. Simesa (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Pushing

This morning I deleted a paragraph which added nothing to the article except to push a POV allusion, which was based on an NOT-YET-ACCEPTED, NOT PEER-REVIEWED, DRAFT report by an infamous aging anti-nuclear kook which said at the top of the first page:

"A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.

That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; ...

I'm sorry, but based on the above the author is obviously senile. I read the job ads - China, South Africa and yesterday an unnamed very-wealthy Middle Eastern country are all hiring in droves. National governments are reversing their anti-nuclear positions. There are 35 new plants planned for the U.S. alone so far, and BOTH our Presidential candidates are anti-global-warming and receptive to more nuclear power. The actual situation is that nuclear power is currently undergoing a renaissance - to aver otherwise is strongly indicative of a loss of touch with reality. And the above is without a carbon tax ever having been enacted.

The POV-pushing that's going on in these articles is flat unconscionable. Simesa (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe he's too young at 61 to be senile. His conclusions still aren't rational, nor was the allusion he allegedly made (which, by the way, was misquoted - Lovins did not use the word "intermittent", he used the even-less-approriate word "unreliable"). Simesa (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." I contest the reliability, the third-partyness, and it being published. (In my opinion it also borders strongly on being from an extremist source, but the first sentnce here is enough.) Simesa (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Breaking out the Debate section into a Nuclear Debate article

It's premature to do this, but Nuclear Power has gotten to be very long and the Debate section is about half of it (and about to get longer as I/we do the merges). How would everyone feel about taking the Nuclear debate redirect and making it a separate article? Please discuss before doing. Simesa (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone see anything wrong with doing the above? After all, Global warming controversy has its own article. Simesa (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and do the move to Nuclear power debate and change the pointers (especially Nuclear debate) to point to that article. Simesa (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you've been making. The debate article helps keep this article concise, and I think the split was done about as POV neutral as possible. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

add INL to External Links section

{{editsemiprotected}} The Idaho National Laboratory is DOE's lead nuclear laboratory. Can someone please add the link to the lab's Web site www.inl.gov in the 'External Links" section.

Thanks, Htomfields (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Mishlai (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition. It was requested by a user whose only edits have been to create linkspam to INL. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor issue - not worthy of essays or insults on my limited vocabulary

Proponents of nuclear power aver that... Cool word and maybe even mainstream in some places. Is "Allege" or "claim" not sophisticated enough? --JimmyButler (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on both counts - aver is an excellent word, and it's also rather obscure. However, I'm not a fan of "allege" or "claim", in that both of those words, to me at least, carry something of a negative connotation. In both cases I think it would make it sound like the writer was rather skeptical of the "alleged claims". I've therefore changed "aver" to "contend", which sounds better and more neutral to me. If anyone disagrees, by all means think of a better word - as we've seen already, English has a lot of near-synonyms for this. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail of technology?

A recent edit added a couple of paragraphs on Light water reactor and Heavy water reactor beneath the cooling water section. Would the material sit better in the "Nuclear reactor technology" paragraph, above? Indeed, is the subject already adequately dealt with there? There is a {{main}} tag to the "Nuclear reactor technology" article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove it and leave a note to the editor suggesting that the information be added to the Nuclear reactor technology article that you referenced or its many relatives. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Definition of fusion power

I am Aggrevated that you want to talk about "Fusion Power" in a so called Nuclear Power article but you dont want to include a definition of what fusion energy and/or power is in that article. Yet when you go to Nuclear Energy they refer you to Nuclear Power. Where does an alien go to register? WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC).WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Fusion Energy should be dedfined in the article as follows

That Mechanical and/or electrical power that can be extracted from the increased kinetic energy of motion of achieved by the combining of small atoms into an atomic configurations having less stored free energy. This differs it form Fission energy in kind and I think that the definition of fission energy could be improved as I also attempted to do in the article. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In summary, Your Nuclear Power is looking like a Wall Street Business Report in the shouffle of which the subject matter, (Nuclear Energy) is being neglected in favor of historic and current and potential future events. But if you are going to do that, you shouldn't eleminate the Nuclear energy subject matter article. WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing about Nuclear fusion in the Nuclear Power article it that we've done fusion power. We just haven't got it under control yet. And we're bogged down in interests that are unrelated to solving the problem, And I guess that it is the NPOV requirement that prevents us from getting the priorities straight. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I would agree that "nuclear power" includes fusion, fusion is not commercially used at present. This article... well, I'll just quote the italicized text at the top of the page:

"This article is about applications of nuclear reactors as power sources. For the underlying energy itself, see Nuclear energy. For the nuclear power debate, see Nuclear debate. For countries which possess nuclear weapons, see List of states with nuclear weapons."

Given an extensive fission industry and that fusion is still experimental/in-development I think it appropriate to mention fusion in proportion to it's use (not that much) and then refer users to the main article on fusion.

I think that some portions of the article are biased towards fission in their description, but any inclusion of fusion in the descriptions should make clear that fission is widely used, and not give undue weight to fusion. "How it works" for example, makes the assumption that fission is being discussed (and I wrote that section). It wouldn't hurt to explain that the same process could be accomplished with a fusion heat source, but that fission technology is more developed is actually in use.

Similar problems exist with descriptions throughout nuclear articles that tend to focus on the workings of pressurized water reactors without giving the reader clear indication that not *all* reactors work like this.

In any case, further treatment of fusion in this article should be minor. Mishlai (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree until you included Nuclear Energy under the subject matter for this article. Now I think you should at least have some reasonable definitions and distinctions about the different kinds of Nuclear Energy in order to get away from the miss mash of undifferentiation of information that you are accumulating. As an Engineer I make a distinction between feasabilities and design problems and try to keep the basic principles straight and wonder what you are trying to do in the subject matter of the article. Personally, I think that Nuclear fusion is an important part of Nuclear Power development but unutilized due to a lack of present applications. Now if we just had a new Nuclear War, or needed a new Panama Canal or needed tunnels or something like that it would become a more important and noticeable subject matter. It's like trying to get important information by reading the local newspaper. But it doesn't sound like the way to create an encyclopedia of subject matter. WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think our disagreements are large. Nuclear energy and nuclear power both include fusion, which is why fusion is mentioned in this article. Some of the early discussion should be modified to clarify that the nuclear heat source could, at least in theory, be fission or fusion (or indeed decay heat) but that in practice only fission is used commercially, blah blah blah.

Clarity and readability are of concern, too. I would suggest that the definition you've suggested is too technical and not very explanatory. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." It's common for articles to briefly address a sub-issue and then refer the reader to the main article for more information. That has been done in this article for several things - including fission, fusion, nuclear reactor technology, and so on.

Is your main problem with the article simply that a definition of fusion has not been included? Mishlai (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more that I'm interested in Nuclear Science and technology and I think you have a good article about Nuclear Power but a poor one about Nuclear Science which you'vge mixed in by eliminating the Science of Nuclear Energy, which I'm really really interested in. If you'll look at my [[ Talk:Nuclear model}} you'll see that this science involves correct basic concepts, which are getting lost in the mileau of Newspaper type reporting; as aren't practically all scientific type subject matters. But you're supposed to be building an ongoing encyclopedia of knowledge, and I cant see why it shouldn't be as accurate as possible. I think that Einstein said that Science is not malicious, but very meticulous. But it appears that progress in basic physical and chemical principals but rather Mathematical explanations is the main goal in determining what is tried and accomplished. Incidently, I hope that you have read Richard Rhodes "The making of the Atomic Bomb", Which shows what can when somebody in authority can call in an Engineer and tell him "I want you to develope an Atomic Weapon" and what went on after that. Well thank you for the reply. WFPMWFPM (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that nuclear science is considered synonymous with the article on the atomic nucleus. Perhaps there would be a good place to start? Often information is distributed among articles in a way that may not be immediately obvious, so I encourage you to follow the links around, try to sort out where the best place to make a change or addition would be, and then either make it or suggest it in the talk page.

You can properly indent your posts on the talk page by adding one more colon than the post in front of yours. This makes it easier to see who said what.

You'll also find that the article on nuclear fission is far more technical than this one. Fusion may be the same, I haven't looked.

Newspaper reporting is often distorted where science is concerned. If you have a peer-reviewed journal that describes the information more accurately, then that is a good source to use. Just be sure that you have a source of some kind, and that the material is not WP:OR Mishlai (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The strangest thing about this discussion is that the original definition in question (posted in the article on October 1, 2008) seems to be a somewhat confused description of fission, not fusion. HowardMorland (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Plant or station?

Is a nuclear power place called a nuclear power station, or a nuclear power plant? Everyone who I know thinks it's called a plant mainly because of The Simpsons, but then again our teachers say that it's a station. In this article, I've seen it referred to as both. Is there a specific name you should call it, or as in this article, both names are correct? Wikiert (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's only a slight semantic difference between the two in english. 'Plant' refers to the buildings, grounds and equiptment while 'station' refers to both the 'plant' and the services it provides. So, very technically, 'station' is more correct, but that's really getting pedantic. Nailedtooth (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was even as clear a distinction as that: from my experience, the two phrases are exactly equivalent and are just regional variations. The primary American use seems to be "plant", the primary British use seems to be "station". In either case though (and elsewhere) both phrases tend to be understood to mean the same thing. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking about the meaning of the words 'plant' and 'station'. That's why I said the distinction between the two is really pedantic. You have to consult a dictionary to find any significant difference between the two terms and people usually invoke synecdoche with the term 'plant' to refer to the functions too. So, there really is no difference between the two unless you really, really, really want to make it an issue.Nailedtooth (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, absolutely. Sorry if my statement sounded like I was trying to make an argument of it - I was just emphasising the point that the difference between the two is miniscule at best, so there's no use worrying. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 15:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, non-nuclear central electric-power generating installations are also generally called "plants" in the US: eg, hydroelectric power plant, coal electric power plant, etc, seldom or never "station". I think British usage may favor "station" for these too, but I'm not sure. Wwheaton (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe you're correct. "Power station" is the standard use in the UK as far as I've encountered regardless of the power-generation method used, I live very near a disused coal-fired 'power station'. Certainly though (perhaps partially due to the Simpsons as mentioned above!) the term "power plant" is readily understood here as well. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

VBER-300

The Russian floating nuclear power station says a VBER-300 325-MWe reactor might be used on the ship/barge. Apparently this is a relatively new reactor design [13] [14] [15] [16]. I'm going to start work on a stub article on it now VBER-300, but I'd appreciate additions. Simesa (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: There's a really detailed and interesting discussion of small reactor technology in [17]. I haven't linked it anywere in Wikipedia because I don't know the policy on using other encyclopedias as external links. Simesa (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Made graph

I added this graph to the commons. I didn't exactly know where I would put it, so I figured I'd just post it here for now. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you go back quite a bit earlier there is another interesting, and related bit of information that could be graphed - the average capacity factor of nuclear reactors jumped from about 50% to the current 90% between the early years and the last decade, presumably because of the learning curve. Worldwide the capacity factor is much lower, about 80%. Delphi234 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think that this picture might be close to what you're talking about. Yes it did jump, but it wasn't exactly sudden. And now that we're talking about this, I think I'll post another graph that I made for Intermittent energy source that I thought was uber-cool. I love digging around EIA numbers and making graphs, so if there's anything else you want to see let me know. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jumped wasn't necessarily the best word, because yes it was a slow long increase, but a very dramatic one. Delphi234 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reprocessing

I think it should be noted that the US is currently constructing a reprocessing plant at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina that will blend weapon's plutonium with depleted uranium to make mixed oxide fuel.

A42579 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's technically a reprocessing plant, even though it is a MOX fuel plant. Simesa (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PLEX

Currently the Plant life extension wikilink goes to Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program. However, PLEX (nuclear usage) is actually a much more well-established process that has been performed on a large number of plants. Does anyone have the expertise to write this article and link it to Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program? Simesa (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ITALY

Today Italian Parliament has voted to produce power by nuclear energy.It's time to change the article.Giosue' Campi (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? I tried doing some Google searching but couldn't turn up anything. Also, your edit isn't particularly clear: what referendum are you referring to? — QuantumEleven 10:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Italy_rejoins_the_nuclear_family_1007091.html

"The adoption of new energy legislation in Italy means the official end of anti-nuclear policies. Planning for new reactors can now begin in earnest."

—WWoods (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the map to reflect this. TastyCakes (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Great - thank you! — QuantumEleven 07:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Economics

This article has an awkward and very undeveloped Economic section. More could and should be said in regards to this issue in this article, not just in related ones. Why nothing about the Price-Anderson Act (U.S.), without which the nuclear power industry would not exist in America? Also, nuclear power has higher capital investment costs than other sources, such as coal and wind. A balanced and developed article would surely mention this. Also, another sentence or two at a minimum is needed within the High-Level Waste subsection, as there is not enough development with regards to the [U.S., Nevada] Yucca Mountain proposal (because of various factors, such as the ascendency of Sen. Harry Reid, the repository is effectively dead). Dare I wade into editing this article?Jack B108 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Economics used to be included - at length - in 'Nuclear Power', but were spun-off because they're very complex and required more space than could be allotted under just a sub-heading. Furthermore, most of what you mention has nothing to do with nuclear power, but instead the implementation of nuclear power in the United States, a different subject altogether.Nailedtooth (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Total energy

This is a heads up, that there is an odd discrepancy between the electrical output of a nuclear reactor as measured by the U.S. and the IEA, in kWh and in BTU. If you ask the output in kWh, you get the right number. But heaven forbid you ask what it is in BTU, as instead of converting energy to energy (my calculator says that 1 kWh is 3412.141633 Btu), the number gets multiplied by from 2.9 to 3, making the odd assumption that you wanted to know the thermal output of the reactor before it made any electricity. For wind that would be like multiplying the output of a wind farm by 2, or 20, saying well, I thought you wanted to know the total energy in the wind that day... Only nuclear and geothermal are adjusted in this manner. The IEA multiplies nuclear by 3, using an assumed efficiency of 33%, and geothermal by 10, using an assumed efficiency of 10%. I would suggest a phone call to the DOE and the IEA is in order, asking them to use real numbers... Delphi234 (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you ask for BTUs it's not crazy to think you wanted to know about heat production. The heat isn't a trivial number, since it has to be dealt with one way or the other; it's also proportional to the amount of fissile material consumed. But, yeah, being clear that it's thermal rather than electrical energy would be good. And BTUs, rather some ~metric unit like MW-days, yuck.

—WWoods (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is if you didn't change the question - what is the output? Energy can be measured in many units, and the conversion factors are completely fixed. To get a different answer you have to ask a different question, such as what is the thermal output of the reactor core, which can be measured in any unit of energy, kWh, Btu, and yes even MW-days. It is important to be accurate about the actual output, and not adjust the answer depending on the units of energy used. Whoever came up with the idea of converting kWh to Btu using different conversion factors depending on what you were getting your electricity from had a really bad idea, and there is no reason for going along with it here. It inflates the output of the reactors of the world from 2.1% of total energy to a fictitious 6.3%, which may have been the idea - to make it look like more energy was being obtained from nuclear power than really is obtained. Why the same thing is done with geothermal is another question - is the geothermal lobby that big that they want their output to look 10 times bigger than it is? Delphi234 (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just getting the numbers wrong yourself. See [18], which gives the electricity production by source. Worldwide nuclear power is 14%. When you consider all forms of energy including transportation fuels and such that nuclear has no market share in, then the share decreases to around 6% by the method of your source. 6.3% is reasonable, not fictitious, the 2.1%, however, is simply something you made up. "Total energy" is a nonsense measure anyway. That sort of measure in no way takes into account the usability of the energy. So say we're using natural gas to heat a home, you're "using" all of the energy you burn, and you could replace it with a space heater powered by nuclear power for a much lower efficiency due to the efficiency of the nuclear plant. But you could also have installed a heat pump (that can only use electricity and not heat), which would be powered by nuclear-electric power and smash the efficiency of the natural gas.

IMO, the 6.3% kind of number is fictitious. Nuclear is 14% of electricity. You can make no other meaningful statement b/c it will be comparing apples and oranges. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My numbers are not wrong, the IEA (and EIA) numbers are wrong, because they multiply them by 3. and they say so. Any property of apples and oranges can be compared, such as color, mass, size, shape, and oh yes calorie content, or energy. As much as 90% of the total energy we use is wasted, but there is no excuse for not using correct mathematics in converting one energy unit to another. If we got 6% of our energy from nuclear, and 14% of our electricity from nuclear, then that would mean that we got 0.06/0.14 or 43% of our energy from electricity. Oops, according to the very same IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2008,[19] pg. 28, electricity is only 16.7% of total energy, so if nuclear is 14% of electricity, and electricity is 16.7% of total, then nuclear is 0.167*0.14 or 2.3% of total. Instead of fixing the problem, the U.S. has compounded the problem by using about 10,000 Btu/kWh for other energy sources as well (just for giggles, check out the tables of "Btu per Kilowatthour", which would be like a table of inches per foot year by year and ranging from 35 to 72, instead of just using 12).[20] For example, if you look at the graph that Frank Mierlo created for World energy resources and consumption, Image:World Energy consumption.png, and I do not know the exact reference he used in 2007, but it shows nuclear about three times hydro, although the reference given now shows nuclear and hydro both about the same, as they are, while the reference used originally evidently used the fictitious times 3 multiplier only for nuclear. The reference in the article today,[21] uses a fictitious multiplier for both nuclear and hydro, showing that hydro in 2006 was 29.728 Quads and nuclear 27.758 Quads, yet that would be 8,712 TWh, but pg. 19 of the Key Stats gives only 3,121 TWh for hydro, which is actually only 10.65 Quads (1 Quad = 1x10^15 Btu). What we have is not a case of comparing apples and oranges, but a case of comparing the energy content of apples and oranges and multiplying the calories by three for one because, what, it has more vitamin C? Makes no sense at all. If we were using the thermal energy output of a reactor for anything other than to heat up the ocean or river or evaporate water in a cooling tower, then nuclear reactors would have two energy outputs, one kWh, the other Btu, and either could be converted into the other (using the correct conversion factor of approx. 3412 Btu/kWh) and added together. As it is, the additional heat is not used for anything and should not be included in the total. Delphi234 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your numbers ARE wrong. Let's get something something straight first: there is no "fictitious" multiplier. There is thermal energy and useful energy. Thou shalt not compare thermal energy of petroleum to useful energy of nuclear - that is exactly what you did. According to what you said, the IEA report would contradict itself. I'm sure it makes sense in your world that you found an error they made, but in the real world, they tend to double check their calculations. You said "0.06/0.14 = 43%" would be contradict the fact that we get 14% of our energy from electricity. Umm, yeah, because you did it wrong. Try:

(.06 / (.14/.33) ) = 0.141428571

Hey! It's that 14% there. How did I get this? Because the majority of electricity generation is by thermal plants, and they generally average somewhere around 33% efficiency. If you divide by .33, you get (very roughly) the raw thermal energy being used. But we don't care about waste heat right? Right. However, the other 94% of our total energy use is also being counted in thermal input. Not useful energy. Over 50% of total energy use is oil by that very EIA report. Where is oil used? Well, over 60% of oil is used in transportation. Petroleum driven transportation is driven by internal combustion engines. Those engines have an efficiency of 20 to 40% when comparing power delivered to the crankshaft to energy content of the liquid fuel.

You may compare the crankshaft power output of an engine to the electric output of a nuclear power plant, or you may compare the thermal content of the fuel burned to the thermal power of a nuclear power plant. You may not compare the thermal content of oil to the electric output of a nuclear power plant, which is what you just did. Furthermore, we can't get numbers for the crankshaft power of cars, we only know the amount of fuel burned and the heat content. However, that is generally considered to be roughly fair, since they have (ballpark) comparable efficiencies. If you drive an electric car, then the efficiency of wall power to crankshaft power is something like 90%, combine that with the nuclear plant efficiency, 0.9*0.33 = 30%. That doesn't even take into account the fact that a large amount of oil is burnt idling at stoplights. Even if we only used petroleum coke fired plants, electrifying transport would decrease the amount of fuel used for distance moved. Thus I make statements like I did before that even 6% is a conservative number for nuclear's share of world energy. Nuclear power makes higher quality energy for the same thermal power as oil (the elephant in the room that makes up the majority of thermal energy use).

Nuclear useful to other's thermal

0.167*0.14 = 2.3%

Nuclear thermal to other's thermal (correct)

(0.167 / .33)*0.14 = 7.08 %

This version is correct, and should be on the page, to whoever has write permissions. Here's an unambigious source:

IEA Key World Energy Statistics

Right at the beginning, page 6 (PDF page 8), is the graph of TPES (total primary energy supply). Nuclear is 6.2% of world TPES, as of 2006.

Correspondingly, in electricity, nuclear is 14.8% of total share (page 24 / pdf page 26).

Uvdiv blog (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear thermal to other's useful

(0.167 / .33)*(.14/((1-.14)*.3+.14)) = 17.8%

The first one and the third ones are incorrect. They are unfair comparisons. The middle one still isn't 'fair' but it's the best we can do with recorded data. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that someone started this thread by pointing out that you were comparing apples and oranges. If you are getting energy from a source, add it to the total. If you are getting something that you can get energy from, like oil, add that to the total. They don't ask, How much energy did it take to get that oil? The reason you can not make up a number for nuclear is that the thermal output is not useful, and it is artificial. You can not say well actually we are only using 1% of the available energy from the Uranium, for example. The only number you can use is that actual output of the reactor, in kWh, which can then be converted to Btu using 1 Btu = 3412.14 something, and anything else is pure fiction. Creating a table, like the EIA does, for converting kWh to Btu is ludicrous, and the EIA should be ashamed of themselves, and we have no reason for following their folly.[22] Delphi234 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead section revised

I have revised the lead section to make it less detailed and (I hope) more coherent, and fixed some minor inaccuracies (eg, "nuclear power" is surely not a "nuclear technology"). Some of the material I have removed might go into later sections of the article. There are wikilinks to supporting materials, but several good general references to primary sources should probably be added. Wwheaton (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Advantages

Please give us some advantages of Nuclear Power! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.120.248 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No global warming? No more sending our money to the middle east to buy oil? Energy independence? That's just for starters. 129.2.106.74 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Before Chernobyl, it was accounted that burning coal to produce electrical energy released more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear power (coal contains small but significant amounts of radioactive material). Since Chernobyl, nuclear power's record is much worse.... but I am not sure if coal is cleaner in this way.Edwardspat (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly entry into article, modified or not: "Nuclear power is key to increasing productivity. The reason has to do with energy flux density. This is the density of energy flux over an area. In the case of nuclear power, it is land area, on which human activity is based. Nuclear energy delivers more energy per unit mass of fuel. Hence, the development of nuclear energy delivers more energy per unit area of land. This means the specific use of nuclear power delivers higher energy flux per land area than other forms of power. That same land, thus electrified, can be used for other purposes. This turn leads to increased productivity of the electrically powered machines and hence the personel that use them in that area. This is turn increases the productivity of a nuclear plant into societal productivity. More can be done with less. However, the overall result is not just productivity. Nuclear electrification of productive machines increases the capability of economic association between people on a given land. This is the physical quality that leads to the general formula of productivity per capita per land area, of "power of the people"". At the very least, somewhere there ought to be a list of economic advantages and reasons. 74.195.16.39 (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Your forget something the nuclear energy produces hidrogen that can be used as an energy source and purified water(it can purify salad water too) because at that high temperature everithing dies and the result is purified water. and the 95% of the things that it uses can be recicled, the japanese are looking to make something to recicle it and produce mucho more 150%. And dont think that the nuclear energy is like a nuclear bomb. You think in Chernobyl but the dams cand explode and kill you, the oil plants too, the wind turbines can hit a plane, or fall and kill you too, solar energy you need 100000 plants to make 1 volt per 1hour and only at day the wind energy needs a lot of space too. Everithing is dangerous if you don't invert the necessary money for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.178.53 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/advantages-of-nuclear-energy.html everithing you need is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.178.53 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 74.195.16.39 -- you're proposed text sounds great, but it's written in the style of an essay with a thesis. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to have a thesis or a point to get across. They're simply supposed to describe the topic. So, yes, describe how nuclear power is energy efficient. But simply state the facts. That's all. ask123 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Debate section

The "debate" section of this article should be limited to the scientific debate on the efficacy, viability and safety of nuclear power. There should be no interest group arguments made there (either on behalf of or against the nuclear power industry). I bring this up because the section leads one to believe that certain issues are more controversial than they really are. For instance, nuclear waste storage technology isn't really controversial as a technology. In fact, it's incredibly effective. The debate over nuclear storage is more focused on who (which state/terrotiry) is willing to take nuclear waste containers and store them. Many say "I don't want it in my back yard." It's not because there's actually a substantial risk of leak (one leak in a period of hundreds of thousands of years would be exceptional and surprising). It's because, leak or not, no one wants to take it. Similar issues exist on the flip side of the debate. There are areas of debate that are minimized by nuclear proponents but remain significant. ask123 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseload and France

I understand that nuclear power is baseload power, meaning that it can only cover the lowest power consumption level (at night) because once you start up a nuclear power plant, you have to keep it running. Is this correct? If so, that should be explained in the article. But this makes me wonder, how can it be that in France, 78% of the electricity is covered by nuclear power? Do they store the excess power at night and then use that stored energy during the day? Or do they maybe export power at night (and then maybe in exchange import during the day)? DirkvdM (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that nukes can't vary their output, but rather that their fuel cost is so low that they're about the last plants you'd want to cut back. There are issues if you want to change the power level rapidly, both on the reactor side and (as with coal) on the steam side of the plant, so it's good to have some hydro and/or natural gas in the system which can react rapidly to changing demand.

I know France sells power to neighboring countries; I don't know if they do much with storage.

—WWoods (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually France adjusts its nuclear output to the demand level (e.g. see EU-Energy Policy Blog), while promoting electric heating to increase the baseload at night (Economic Implications of Peak vs Base-Load Electric Costs on Nuclear Hydrogen Systems p.5).

See also this FAQ-Answer by Mycle Schneider. --zaphodia (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Another resource:: world-nuclear.org. It is worth distinguishing clearly between the fact that nukes will default to taking up base-load (as a consequence of being able to underbid other major electricity suppliers on spot markets) from the *claim* that nuclear stations can't vary their output. This claim is seen (at least by implication) in a lot of places -- for example Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants. France is proof to the contrary. AndrewBolt (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The ability of a nuclear reactor to vary its output is based on design. CANDU and BWR derived reactors have no problem varying their output to follow load. Many other reactors can do it too, but lose some efficiency in doing so. Newer reactors generally have greater load-following capability. Nailedtooth (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way; its easier to stop feeding the coal plant than to turn off a wind generator (well...you can't even do that) or to lower the output of a nuke. However, it can be done, especially in countries that have virtually no alternative. The common misconception that nukes can't vary their power is based on ease of use. Annihilatron (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read a paper from the France governement showing demand on daily and annual basis. Most of the time, they use gaz powered station to meet daytime peak demand, (maybe some coal but i'm not sure of that one), witch is about 6 GW more electricity during the day (gaz is 4 GW). The rest of peak demand is met by hydroelectricity. Finnaly, the french nuclear reactor have only 77% capacity because they shut some of them during the summer (less heating needed I suppose). Peak demand goes from 12 TWh/week in december and january to 8 TWh/week in june, july august. So nuclear power cannot meet daytime or instataneous peak demand, only annual peak demand. (gas meet daytime peak and hydro instantaneous peak demand)

http://www.rte-france.com/htm/fr/mediatheque/telecharge/statistiques_annuelles_2008.pdf (In french)

--132.203.168.176 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really feel that the section about baseload power or flexibility of nuclear power plants is really clear. At first, I thoughs ALL nuclear reactors had fuel issues, so they couldn't vary their output without losing economics effectiveness. Now, it's seems that new designs can vary their output but are still limited to 100 "output holes" per year without having fuels "economics consumption problems" (I'm pretty sure gas stations can have something like more then 400 variation without a single loss in economy, THEY can meet daytime demand)

Plus, it would be pertinent to talk about the low marginal cost of nuclear, i.e., nuclear is baseload because its cheap to operate, costly to build, hence it should sell power all the time. Second, it's baseload because it may use its fuel less economically if they lower output too much, i.e. more then 100 times a years, and that is for newer designs, older or some others design have more limitations then economics of fuel. 132.203.171.42 (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Impartiality

Please can someone change the line '(including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union)' to order countries alphabetically. I dont understand why there is a US bias I dont beleive US were leaders in this case. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.204.146 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Kool Aid

This paragraph:

Spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be handled with great care and forethought. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over the course of thousands of years of time. After about 5 percent of the rod has reacted the rod is no longer able to be used. Today, scientists are experimenting on how to recycle these rods to reduce waste. In the meantime, after 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed, although still dangerously radioactive.

not only shows bias; it makes no sense.

Compare "thousands of years" with "40 years"

Tyrerj (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Although clumsily written, it is more or less correct and makes perfect sense. Obviously the contributor was attempting to put the radioactivity of spent fuel in some sort of context. If on Day 1 you walked up to a freshly discharged spent fuel assembly and gave it a big hug you might recieve a potentially lethal radiation dose in, say, 1 second. But if you waited 40 years, you might have to fondle it for 1,000 seconds, about 17 minutes, to get the same dose (I just say this for illustrative purposes, I don't know how long it really takes to recieve an LD50 dose from spent fuel), so the spent fuel would still be considered dangerously radioactive. It would take thousands of years more before the radioactivity dropped to levels comparable to the ore the Uranium was originally mined from to be considered "safe". Whether the paragraph is biased is subjective. The sentence, "After about 5 percent of the rod has reacted the rod is no longer able to be used." appears to be a crude attempt to convey that only a small fraction of the original fuel is responsible for the bulk of the radioactivity but I think it just confuses the issue and is addressed in the reprocessing section later on. I would be OK with dropping that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubbaloo (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request (footnote 46)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Dead link @ footnote 46. New link structure ("new-reactors" vs "new-licensing"), root filename @ link unchanged. Please replace --

<:ref> [http:://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf "Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications"] (PDF). U.S. [:[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]. 2008-07-24. Retrieved 2008-07-25. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)</ref>

with --

<:ref> [http:://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf "Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications"] (PDF). U.S. [:[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]. 2009-09-28. Retrieved 2010-01-08. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)</ref>

--Sparks1911 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under origins, there is a for parallel uranium enrichment. The statement before that mentions that Hiroshima and Hagasaki were the first cities bombed by nuclear weapons. The phrasing of that sentence implies that both cities were bombed with plutonium weapons, which is incorrect (Nagasaki was bombed with Uranium based Little Boy, Hiroshima with plutonium based Fat Man). That needs to be clarified, and the citation needed for the uranium enrichment can easily be done with a point the to the Wiki article about Oak Ridge, Tennessee (one of the major sites for enrichment, with K-25, S-50, and Y-12 working on U-235 and X-10 plutonium production feasibility plant.) Both Hanford, WA and Oak Ridge, TN were important enrichment sites, so it seems the previous authors knew about Hanford, but not Oak Ridge.

I'm not sure how one would describe this on the "Nuclear_Power" page, so I was going to put this on a talk page anyway, before finding out about the semi-protection. I do know the paragraph is clumsy, and the information requested by the is well laid out in sister pages about the Manhattan Project.

-- Tir-Gwaith (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. When using the {{editsemiprotected}} template, the request needs to be specific to a 'Please change X to Y' level of detail. If you'd like to provide that level of detail, someone will insert the change for you unless there is a good reason not to do so. Alternatively, you can leave the suggestion here and an editor who is interested in this subject may choose to work it into the article. We do not allow other article to be used as references, but you could look at the sources in the other article and see if one or more of them covers this. Enjoy, Celestra (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nagasaki was bombed with Uranium based Little Boy, Hiroshima with plutonium based Fat Man"

Nitpick: It's the other way 'round: Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima.

—WWoods (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reprocessing + fast breeder reactor

Both in this article + the nuclear reprocessing article, it isn't well described how the reprocessing is done. For example, is the reprocessing a seperate step, or is it simply immediate consumption by other reactors (such as the Integral Fast Reactor) ? Please clarify and add required modifications to article.

In addition; nowhere in the article is a link to fast breeder reactors, nor are they described here. 87.66.48.19 (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 19% not substantiated

For reference #6 of percentage of electrical energy created by nuke reactors the referenced link does not prove that... in fact by calculation you only get something like 11.2%. The place that references the 19% is the US EPA here: http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html

Maybe someone can make that change?

98.168.148.62 (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ref redirected to correct and updated USEIA page. Plazak (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits by FellGleaming: what and why I've reverted

Randall Thompson can not be called an "unreliable source." [23]

The word "claims" is frequently used in debates. "Concludes" is not accurate when there is a debate around the meaning of the study.

Nuclear waste is unarguably an "unsolved problem" and it is fair to use those words in the text. [24]

The edit here is innacurate[25]. The report says: "But, says the MIT report, even reducing completion time to just four or five years, and lowering construction costs by a quarter, would still not put the plants in contention with coal, and would just barely match the price performance of a CCGT using high-cost gas." Rndm85 (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You oject to the word "concludes" for an MIT study-- but then substitute in "concludes" for an anti-nuclear study by Brookings? That is rather inconsistent, don't you believe? A study can and does reach a conclusion, whether or not any outside debate exists. The word is correct as used.

Randall Thompson is a conspiracy-theorist who claims shadowy figures from the nuclear power industry have repeatedly tried to kill him, as well as stealing unpublished copies of his manifesto. But I'm not how that is relevant to my own edits. I didn't remove any material from him. As for nuclear waste, to anyone with knowledge in the field, as a technical issue it was solved long ago, and plenty of documentation exists for that fact. What remains is a political issue, seized upon by anti-nuclear advocates who exploit irrational fear for stymie progress in the field. I am restoring the edits you wholesale reverted. If you want to discuss them individually, I would be pleased to discuss them here. FellGleaming (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need in this article for scare phrases like "unsolved problems". Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Randall Thompson - people have the right to to read the information. His background is significant, and the reporting organization has been around for over 30 years. It's okay if you want to add facts to the article, but do not delete sources just because you disagree with their perspective.

Nuclear waste is an unsolved problem. All you have to do is search here. There are problems with leakage, earthquakes, terrorism, as well as a place to store it. (example) It is one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear power and is a point that should be mentioned. It is not exclusively a technical article. Basic points of the debate should be mentioned in their relevant places, and then covered in depth in the main article on the nuclear power debate.Rndm85 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the word "concludes" wasn't mine. I was restoring a deletion and missed it.Rndm85 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on nuclear power. Mentioning the pet theory of every anti-nuclear activist is a violation of WP:UNDUE, as well as an attempt to make this a WP:COATRACK article. As for nuclear waste, it is a solved technical problem, solved many times over in fact. Vitrify the waste and drop in an ocean trench -- what's the problem? In fact, even vitrification isn't strictly necessary. Given the trillions of tons of radioactive uranium, thorium, radium, and other nuclides already in the ocean, we could simply grind up the nuclear waste and disperse in the sea. On technical grounds, that would solve the problem with zero risk to humanity or the environment. The only thing preventing that (or any of the other dozens of possible solutions) is the ignorance of anti-nuclear activists, who sadly understand little to nothing about radioactivity, and how prevalent it already is in the environment. For example, you regularly hear activists shrieking with fear over radiation releases that expose people to less radiation than one would receive from eating a single banana (from the radioactive potassium found naturally in bananas). Granite countertops are radioactive. A cross-country flight gives you a major dose of radiation. Live in a Rocky Mountain or New England state, and your backyard already contains many kilograms of radioactive waste -- waste left over from when mother nature made the planet.

But all this is neither here nor there. WP has articles on nuclear waste, the anti-nuclear movement, and the debate over nuclear power. Your attempts to replicate all that material here (and replicate in a non-neutral tone) is POV pushing, and a violation of WP policy. The article is already pushing the boundaries of proper entry length, and WP is already suggesting that material be split out.

Finally, your continued reverts are going against consensus here. Please stop your wholesale reverts to the article in cases where you do not have consensus. FellGleaming (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think that Rndm85 was doing anything significantly biased here by reverting the recent edits of FellGleaming. One or two of Rndm85's specific changes perhaps were unnecessary, IMHO, but the rest removed some subtle bias. The Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab study (2008) should "conclude", as well as the Brookings Inst. study (2004) regarding cost, and this, the original wording, is a better summary: "Brookings Institution suggests that new nuclear units have not been ordered in the U.S. because the Institution's research concludes they cost 15–30% more over their lifetime than conventional coal and natural gas fired plants." The Brooking reports also says "That no new plants have been ordered despite these significant adjustments only furthers the impression that finances, more than regulations, continue to pose the primary barrier (p 5)". I know Brookings did mention "soft demand" for more capacity since the 1970s, but that doesn't seem to be their main explanation for the paucity of new nukes. Somehow the MIT (2003) study is an issue? Well, if that is what you are discussing, I prefer the word "conclude" there, as I am the one that put that quote and ref into the Economics section, but I think this is an issue with us because the Brookings paper cited the 2003 report, right?

Nuclear waste is an unsolved issue in the mind of much of the general public and the utilities in the U.S. Wikipedia reflects the consensus (or equal viewpoints, at least) on what people think. Therefore, I think it's fine to call high-level nuke waste disposal an "unsolved problem". The use of a word like "unsolvable" would reflect bias, but not this wording, as it gives wiggle room. The very fact that a multibillion dollar nuclear waste R&D project was recently shut down in the home state of the U.S. Senate Majority leader suggests that there "is" a problem. Why were billions being spent in the first place? Why was the debate of the closure of Yucca Mountain project so contentious if waste disposal was a moot issue? Industry and much of the gov't wanted Yucca Mtn. Yet Nevada residents and others were very up in arms. If Yucca Mountain WAS the solution, it is gone, and we now have a problem. The utilities do not like having that waste sitting too long in the ponds next to the plants: they wanted to ship it to Nevada. This does not suggest a settled issue. Jack B108 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguing that government action proves a problem exist is circular logic. Does the invasion of Iraq prove Hossein had WMDs? As for waste storage, many reactors have been storing their waste on site for 30 or even 40 years now. It's generally kept in a very small pile in a single warehouse...they can continue to do so for another century if need be. Yucca Mountain was a government-mandated site -- it's not something the utilities were demanding. They're forced, in fact, to pay several hundred million dollars each year to fund Yucca Mt.

As for public perception, you are certainly correct. However, the fact that the problem is one of public perception, rather than an innate technical issue, needs to be clearly communicated to the reader. FellGleaming (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming: Your perspective above is very highly biased. Grind up high level waste and drop it in the sea? I highly doubt that is realistic or without extremely high risk. Claiming "zero risk to humanity or the environment" is quite an exaggeration.

I think my edits have been fair. I haven't deleted any new sources that you've added, and like Jack B108 mentions, "unsolved problem" is different from "unsolvable problem."

I'm not a zealot. If someone shows me proof that it's safe and feasible, I will say okay to nuclear. But both sides should be heard.

Storing high level radioactive waste on-site at multiple low-security locations around the country (and World) is extremely risky. E.g., storage pool fires.

It's not accurate to put Randall Thompson in the same category with "every anti-nuclear activist." Rndm85 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right; he's worse. He's spent the last 10 years working as a clown in a travelling circus (no joke, unfortunately: truth is stranger than fiction) and he claims that shadowy government figures killed his brother in law, tried to kill him, and stole copies of his anti-nuclear manifesto. This is your "reliable source"? FellGleaming (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove sources/info. The statement is a counterpoint to the conclusions of the study. Rndm85 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I spoke very briefly in late February with Stewart Brand after he gave a talk on the subject of clean energy. He told me in answer to my question that he changed from being anti-nuke to 100% for nuclear power gradually, around 2000 or so, when he began looking further into the large-scale numbers that had been accepted as gospel by anti-nuclear people. He said to me of his protester days, "They cherry-picked statistics and didn't tell us the whole story." Brand is now convinced that nuclear power is the way forward, with solar, wind and thermal energy helping to fill a fraction of the full need. Nuclear power must be the main driver. The speech Brand gave delineated his thoughts on exactly that subject for an hour. It was inspiring!

The problem of storage is not trivial but not impossible to solve. There are many great ideas that have been and can be employed. Working examples are legion; we cannot call it an unsolved problem.

At any rate, this article should not be made to bend too far in the direction of anti-nuke. It should not give those voices the last word. Each entry of someone who talks against nuclear power should be countered by accurate numbers and authoritative figures. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article shouldn't have any point of view. It should attempt to present all sides of the issue. Don't delete sources and points of view just because you disagree. That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rndm85 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit: it should not be called an "unsolvable problem" but it should not be called a "solved problem" either. Rndm85 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rndm85, do the math yourself. There are enormous amounts of radioactive isotopes already in seawater. All the nuclear waste in the world wouldn't raise ocean radioactivity by even a measurable amount. So where is the risk? The objections raised to land storage are even more fallacious. Yes, in 1,500 years a drum might start leaking. So? We would have to ignore the situation for several decades in other for that link to eventually migrate to a water supply.

Compared to other forms of power, nuclear is by far the safest. Wind turbine accidents, for instance, has already killed several people, despite generating a tiny fraction of what nuclear does. In 5,000 total reactor-years of operation in the US, no commercial nuclear plant has ever caused a radiologic hazard that has killed or damaged the health of even one person. The best record by far of all forms of power generation. Nations like France and Japan generate the bulk of their electricity with nuclear, and they have cheap, reliable, clean power as a result. Nations like Denmark, on the other hand, attempt to rely on wind power, giving them the highest cost of electricity in Europe...and even still, they can't generate more than 20% of their power from wind, because of the non-dispatchable nature of the source. As for coal, it releases far more radioactivity than does nuclear (coal contains substantial amounts of radioactive elements) and it releases them directly into the environment, with zero monitoring.

As for your edits, you are going against the consensus of several other editors here. I ask you once again to adhere to policy on WP:CON and disruptive edits. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to pull "WP:CON." There are 4 people in this talk thread and the only other person who agrees with you (Binksternet) admits that they're editing it to promote a certain political agenda:

"At any rate, this article should not be made to bend too far in the direction of anti-nuke. It should not give those voices the last word. Each entry of someone who talks against nuclear power should be countered by accurate numbers and authoritative figures."

2 out of 4 is not a consensus. You cannot just delete reliable sources because you don't agree with them. Rndm85 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are reverting changes by Simesa, Binksternet, and myself. The only person making these changes is you. FellGleaming (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: You have reverted nearly a dozen edits across not just this article, but Chernobyl compared to other radioactivity releases and Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Not only is this a 3RR violation, but you are inserting original research, POV pushing, and violating civility policy by personally attacking other editors. Please stop the edit warring and start working to improve these articles. FellGleaming (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who is reverting my edits, stalking me by looking up my contributions to Wikipedia and then reverting them. I am not reverting your edits, I'm just adding back the sources that you have removed from my edits. (I generally don't remove new information, I have just been adding information back that you have deleted.)

Stop making up fake issues and threats in an attempt to remove points from articles that you disagree with from a political standpoint. You're trying to bully people to get valid opposing viewpoints removed from Wikipedia.

The Institute for Southern Studies is a credible, nonprofit research center has been active for 40 years. They have made claims in their article, and people should be able to read it on Wikipedia. If you want to put an opposing viewpoint to articles in Wikipedia, you're free to do so, but do not delete sources just because you don't agree with them. I have never attacked other Wikipedia editors. Stop being a bully. Rndm85 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

ISS is an activist organization. Their information is self-published, and designed by their own admission to promote a particular point of view. I suggest you review WP policy on self published reliable sources. FellGleaming (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving the indents back to the beginning of the line because it's becoming too indented. I'm also continuing the discussion from Talk:Chernobyl compared to other radioactivity releases below. (see next line)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory's study is also self-published. They have a $1.4 billion budget and benefit from construction of nuclear plants. There are few unbiased sources on controversial topics. Controversial articles are made up of differing opinions, and the readers can read the original sources and decide for themselves. The Wikipedia article should be unbiased, but it can reference unbiased sources as long as they are credible and well referenced (as ISS is). Your personal opinion about whether a well-cited source like ISS is innacurate is irrelevant. If you disagree with a source, you can add another sentence with a counter-source, but don't delete sources in an attempt to skew Wikipedia articles in favor of your personal political opinion. "Travelling circus performer" is obviously highly biased language. Thompson has a long history in the nuclear industry, and therefore deserves to be mentioned. If you have a source that credibly calls him a "travelling circus performer" then you can add it to the article as a counterpoint to what he says.

"Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they witnessed there was a public health tragedy... Randall Thompson could never be accused of being a knee-jerk anti-nuclear alarmist. A veteran of the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program, he is a self-described "nuclear geek" who after finishing military service jumped at the chance to work for commercial nuclear power companies. He worked for a time at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant south of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania's York County, but quit the industry six months before the TMI disaster over concerns that nuclear companies were cutting corners for higher profits, with potentially dangerous results."[26]

You are also deleting references to studies by MIT and Princeton in order to further your political views. You can add whatever sources you want to the articles, but stop deleting credible sources just because you disagree with their conclusions. Rndm85 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, my source for Thompson being a travelling clown is from the very same source you just cited. Did you not even read the entire article? Here is the relevant section:

“ Today they live quietly in the mountains of North Carolina where, inspired by time spent seeking refuge with a traveling circus, they have forged a new career for themselves as clowns -- or what they like to call "professional fools." ”

The article goes on to say Thompson believes his brother in law was killed (and he was attempted to be killed) by a government conspiracy, the same conspiracy that stole his manuscript. He's a loon, in short, which is why no reputable source has ever published him. Further, he gives absolutely zero evidence to back up his claims. FellGleaming (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)