# Talk:Nuclear power

By "fukushima incident" section the graph frame on right says "Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org."  No indication when graphs will show again, or when they were broken.  Why not leave the old graphs until new ones work ?   If shared code broke, why was it not backed out ?  When did graphs break, when did the "technical issues" start ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Those are very good questions, that however have no answer since more than a year due to disinterest from the Wikimedia foundation. Ita140188 (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rod57: I've fixed a few on this page FYI, you can help porting extensions by following instructions at Template:PortGraph :) —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 17:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There's uncited statements in the article including entire paragraphs.
At over 10,000 words long, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a comment: according to WP:TOOBIG, 10,000 words does not mean it's too big necessarily: "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.". This article's large scope may justify the length, although I agree some details may be trimmed (especially in the debate section, by far the largest one). As for the uncited statements, could you add tags to them when you see them so they can be fixed? Thanks Ita140188 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
@Ita140188 the article needs reorganising into more of a summary format linking to main articles on the different sub topics.
For example, the third paragraph of the lede,  a WP:NPOV stretching polemic about nuclear safety,  could be cut and handled later in the article with a shorter summary section containing a main article link to Nuclear safety and security.
In its current form, the article tends to go into too much detail in sections where there are already main articles that cover the detail. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
In principle I agree. A lot of this extra content was added (or kept) in response to comments from the GA review and as a result of compromises among different points of view among editors. I can try to trim these parts and add missing references to avoid going through a full GAR if you think there is a chance. Ita140188 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't disagree with: "the article tends to go into too much detail in sections where there are already main articles that cover the detail." but overall, this subject is a HUGE subject, and so the overall article will be big.
I'm sure we could make much of it more concise, but I almost see this as a list article: "List of topics related to nuclear power" because of the number of associated articles. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@Ita140188 and Avatar317: It has been a while since the last major edit to the article. Are either of you, or anyone reading this, still interested in working on this article? For the comments about the page size above: I think its OK to have lots of sections with a brief introduction and a hatnote above the text where the reader can get more information. This will help with navigation and prevent this article from getting too big. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm interested in working on it.  If you point out places where you think there are problems, I can work on improvements. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
@Avatar317: I have added citation needed tags to uncited statements in the article. I also suggest that interested editors read through the article and move information to other articles that are too detailed for a general article like this. Generally, I suggest that each heading (no matter the level) have 2-4 paragraphs underneath it. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion: "2-4 paragraphs"; I'll work on it in the next couple days. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Of course I'm also interested in continuing working on it. Will keep an eye on the changes and try to add references and trim the article where needed in the next few days Ita140188 (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
@Avatar317 and Ita140188: There are still citation needed and failed verification tags in the article. Are you still interested in working on this? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I had to pause the work as I was quite busy off-wiki recently. I will resume the revision this week. Ita140188 (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Please create Wyhl Nuclear Power Plant for all references regarding anti-nuclear protests, and use Wyhl only for the town. Thanks in advance. 217.250.254.53 (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not how we do things on Wikipedia. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The introduction contains the following sentence: 
Nuclear power plants supplied 2,602 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in 2023, equivalent to about 9% of global electricity generation, and were the second largest low-carbon power source after hydroelectricity. 
See "Energiebilanz der Nuklearindustrie. Analyse von Energiebilanz und CO²-Emissionen der Nuklearindustrie über den Lebenszyklus" (Wien 2011). 
rough transltion of p. 5/6 (pdf)
Uranium mining causes much CO². 
In scenarios with ore grades of 0.1 to 2%, the energy required to generate one kWhel is 2 to 4%. 
As the ore grade decreases (0.01% and 0.02%), this energy requirement increases to 14–54%. This results in CO2 emissions of 82–210 g/kWh. 
The ore grade becomes the decisive influencing factor. 
Beyond a certain ore grade (limiting ore grade), the energy required for uranium mining becomes so great that the overall energy balance becomes negative. 
Figure 4 shows the limiting ore grade for the "Average" scenario: At an ore grade of approximately 0.02% and below, the required energy input increases sharply relative to the output, until it finally exceeds it at between 0.008 and 0.012%. Above this ore grade, the operation of nuclear power plants no longer generates an energy surplus. At low ore grades, the results are also highly sensitive to changes in mining depth and extraction efficiency.
This strong dependence of the energy surplus on the ore grade of the uranium used is particularly relevant, as the trend over the past five decades has shown a continuous decline in ore grade, and forecasts predict that the ore grade will continue to decline in the future. 
Currently, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), one-third of the estimated uranium resources have an ore grade below 0.03%. 
The global average ore grade over the past five decades has been between 0.05 and 0.15% (Mudd/Diesendorf 2007b; ISA 2006, p. 96). 
The majority of global uranium deposits are found in difficult-to-exploit, so-called unconventional resources. CO2 emissions, water and energy requirements, and the costs of uranium mining are therefore likely to increase in the future.
page 9: The contribution of nuclear power to climate protection is put into perspective by the declining ore grades: While nuclear energy can be described as "low-carbon" at high ore grades (0.1 to 2%), at ore grades of around 0.01%, CO2 emissions rise to 210 g CO2/kWhel. While emissions are still lower than those of coal or oil (600–1200 g/kWhel), they are significantly higher than those of wind (2.8–7.4 g/kWhel), hydropower (17–22 g/kWhel), and photovoltaics (19–59 g/kWhel). 
Furthermore, the use of nuclear power as a means of reducing greenhouse gases is expensive and slow. It takes decades for a net reduction in GHGs to occur (Pasztor 1991; Findlay 2010). The CO2 abatement costs of nuclear power are higher than those of any other possible technology except traditional coal-fired power plants. Wind turbines and cogeneration plants are 1.5 times more cost-effective in reducing CO2 than nuclear power, and energy efficiency measures are up to 10 times more cost-effective.   (end of translation)
this source (de, 2024) reports a Life Cycle Assesment (LCA) made using DIN-Norm EN ISO 14044. 
The principles and rules for a life cycle assessment are defined by international standards and have been incorporated into the DIN EN system.
results: 

The GWP of an average onshore wind farm at a strong-wind location is 7.9 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour (CO2 eq./kWh) of electricity, and 10.6 g of CO2 eq./kWh of electricity at a low-wind location.
Energy Payback Time (EPBT) is the energy payback period. This is 2.5 months for high-wind turbines and 3.2 months for low-wind turbines.
[https://www.fachagentur-wind-solar.de/fileadmin/Veroeffentlichungen/Allgemein/FA_Wind_und_Solar_Kompaktwissen_Oekobilanz_Windenergie.pdf#page=3
The values for nuclear energy vary widely in the literature, depending on whether only the energy generation process in the narrow sense or the entire life cycle of a nuclear power plant is considered. The IPCC 2014 report 10 alone assumes a range of 3.7 to 110 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour] 62.143.251.185 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The reference is given in the Production section: [1]. --TuomoS (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ita140188: what made you think my changes were disruptive? I was porting the charts from the Graph extension, and I thought these charts were useful. The graph extension doesn't have a max-height property, and we need to have the graphs that big for accessibility reasons anyway. I see no problem with my changes. It's at the start of a section anyway, not the middle. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 17:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the graphs entirely btw if they are redundant. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 17:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
phab:T376845 is of interest —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I am aware of the limitations of the new chart extension. As it is now, in my opinion it is not ready to be deployed to articles (see my comment on the extension). The charts are way too large compared to any other element in the page. I don't see how "we need to have the graphs that big for accessibility reasons". Can you point me to any guideline that says we need charts to be full screen for accessibility? This is not how we have done things until now. For comparison, default standard image width is 250px. I would think an average chart with a few data points like the ones here should be approximately the same size. If a user needs larger images and charts, the page looks as a whole can be changed from the browser. For example, Wikipedia on my browser is zoomed in 150% at all times. This zooms in every element equally, which is the best way to make a page accessible. Ita140188 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
@Ita140188: well I think that the whole point of using the Chart extension, rather than an SVG is so that you can have an interactive graph. When you have something interactive it needs to be somewhat big to allow people with limited vision or smartphones to use it. That's my take at least. But that being said, I understand your concerns with the Chart extension so I guess we can postpone the update to a later date. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 21:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Actually, another idea: we could try to make it collapsible. Thoughts? —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 21:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I think making it collapsible does not solve the problems that I highlighted. Uncollapsing it would still completely disrupt the page and make it impossible to read the text while seeing the chart for example. In my opinion the only good solution right now is to migrate the chart to an SVG. Hopefully we will one day have a functional, beautiful, and usable charting library on Wikipedia (on the style of OWID for example). Ita140188 (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Ok, agreed —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 09:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Just letting you know, thank you. 204.102.229.130 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The caption says Argonne-West. That's technically correct since Idaho National Laboratory used to be known as Argonne West. NPguy (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)