Yes, he's an academic lawyer, not an academic scientist, there is a difference. Please show me a single scientific credential, or that he has any scientific training? Does he have any? no. I do not know how you hold these two viewpoints concurrently, you write -  You need to look at your sources a bit harder. For example oilprice.com is produced by CNBC, which is part owned by General Electric.  Then when the tables are turned and they don't like it, they write  I'm not wasting my time on this rubbish in what can only be regarded as a nice display of routine inconsistency from my friend. Not a single reliable scientific source supports Sovacool, not a shred of support, However that which was published by oilprice.com is supported by numerous scientific publications which can be found in the Deaths/TWh section of this talk page. That useless rubbish Mojochan calls is a peer reviewed paper published by a team of actual certificate holding scientists in a scientific journal ( read- not the demonstrably misleading, scientifically discredited publications of an anti-nuclear lawyer). I've no doubt Sovacool is an academic lawyer, possibly even a good one at that, but an authority on nuclear power, warranting the amount of weight he is given in this encyclopedia article on nuclear power? Please. 

 :::::::I really never cease to be amazed by my friend mojo chan, how someone can call a peer reviewed paper a useless reference as they do is entirely beyond me. Everyone is free to read the paper by asking their local University nicely, that is, if they do not already have a subscription like many editors here do. All other editors, who are affiliated with a college, or ask nicely at their local College, can read it. Secondly, the opinions are not mine, they are of those who published the paper, and the paper is a correct exposure of how Sovacool's methods are unsound and statistically skewed. It is not a matter of disagreeing, it is a matter of whether or not he is consistent with his methodology, and factually correct. As Sovacool has a book on why he does not like nuclear power, and his publications have been discredited, he should be toned down in the article, as he is given too much weight. For example, his opinions in the decommissioning section and the greenhouse gas section of the article are not at all substantiated, the reality of affairs is in direct contradiction to his opinion.  

 ::::::: I wouldn't mind if he was factually correct on the issues he raises, and just had a differing viewpoint, that would certainly be fine(eveyone's entitled to their own view), but he is not factually correct, and therefore he is not encyclopedic. 

 :::::::  I disagree, you should expect truly reliable sources to be unbiased. Now, I'm not advocating Sovacool to be removed completely, on the contrary, I think he serves as a good example of the anti-scientific tactics used by some within the anti-nuclear power movement, and if pushed by someone I might even fight to keep him in the article if someone were to want to censor him entirely,(Something Mojochan is quick to do with many of my scientific sources). I'm simply  advocating that the references that lead to him, should be attributed to him, and that his undue weight in the article be toned down. Furthermore, and I cannot stress enough, it is really not a matter of viewpoint, it is a matter of whether or not what he writes is factually correct or not. He has been called out on numerous statements and publications of his by actual scientists, so therefore, whichever editor has included him so neurotically as often in the article as he presently is are pushing an unencyclopedic and factually incorrect source. Sovacool is given pride of place in the article, this would be akin to giving the likes of factually incorrect anti-global warming advocates or anti-vaccination advocates undue weight in the global warming and MMR Vaccine page, and stating their opinions as fact without first declaring according to Benjamin K. Sovacool... or in respect to vaccines, according to Andrew Wakefield.... So you really have to ask yourselves,  is it the job of an encyclopedia to give, (like the media do - because it sells paper,) equal weight to both parties - those that have the weight of evidence on their side, with those that are scientifically discredited. Or is it our job to give ~90% of the weight to those with the evidence on their sides, and ~10% to those that have been discredited. Controversy and debate may be juicer to some editors, but to me encyclopedias should rather be about actually displaying which side, the evidence supports/ which side is factually correct. 
 :::::::