Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 10

message: "Coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel,"
Excuse me?!
GeoAtreides 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes it is. Not per ton, but per kWH. Man with two legs 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where, when, and according to what source.  theanphibian 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  has a nice table with comparative life-cycle costs by country.  Note that the table is too high for new nuclear: lifetimes are 60 years or more and load factors are exceeding 90%.  Simesa 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? 

message: Does the quality of water needed be of importance? Meaning acidic levels needed/restricted or even amount of debris allowed, etc
-G
:Remember, cooling water only goes through the condenser: reactor water is treated first.  At least one plant uses seawater for cooling.  Debris in the water can be important in limited cases - for example, the Salem units sometimes derate due to a large amount of grass in the Delaware River after a major rainstorm.  Plants with cooling towers have no such problems (although excessive heat can be a problem if not designed for). Simesa 04:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of water needed

message: This article does mention Thorium and there is another article on the thorium cycle but do you think it may deserve a little more of a mention due to its environmental implications? 
raptor 14:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thorium?

message: I would like some input/help on Template:Nuclear Technology, which I was hoping could help organize some of the nuclear technology articles and improve browsing.  This template would eventually grace this page at the bottom. If you could perhaps add catagories/topics or suggest catagories/topics on its discussion page or my talk page I would appreciate it.  Lcolson 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Nuclear Technology]] 

message: Among other edits, I removed the result of the UK advisory panel that "This panel also concluded that the possible disadvantages of nuclear power outweighed its advantages. " since this was nothing to do with air pollution. Oscarthecat reinstated this sentence but I still feel that it belongs elsewhere, not in air pollution. Comments? Maybe that whole paragraph should go. Joffan 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air pollution 

message: The article really needs a source for "Water vapour is the only emission from nuclear power plants." Bayerischermann 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: supplied Joffan 03:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Vapor 

message: Does anyone here understand Finnish?  They have a beautiful article on the subject, and a translation might serve this article well.  The Jade Knight 02:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish article 

message: I think the use of the word "aver," in paragraph 4, is clumsy.  Why not just use "believe?"  Drogue 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial Details 

message: An edit to text supplied by me earlier produced the statement that "Oldberg and Christensen (1995) averred the existence of a statistical fallacy in the technology that is used in the safety-related inspections of tubes in steam generators in PWRs. Thousands of tubes are in each PWR, and such tubes have burst in the past thus contaminating the secondary loop of cooling water. The current policy is to periodically inspect each steam generator and plug any tube showing a certain degree of through-wall corrosion anywhere along its length [50]. Oldberg and Christensen asserted that false indications of defects would sometimes occur, thus making the statistical calculations more complicated. (The USNRC apparently rejected this claim - Oldberg, 2005.)"  This edit prevaricates the issue in the following two ways.  First, while it is true that the text "averred" and "asserted" the existence of a statistical fallacy, the edited text fails to reveal that a) the assertion appeared in a peer-reviewed article in the scientific literature and has not been refuted in this literature in the 11 years since it was made b) the demonstration provided in the peer reviewed literature is mathematical and brief, making it unlikely that it is incorrect and c) whether or not the USNRC rejected the claim is irrelevant for, under the scientific method, claimants are required to submit their arguments, using facts and logic, to the peer review process.  The USNRC has, actually, submitted claims within this process and its claims have been rejected by this process.  None of this is mentioned.  The process of science is, actually, to assume that a published result is correct unless and until a mistake is revealed in it by an article published in the peer reviewed literature.  Like the USNRC, the person who supplied the Wikipedia edit bypassed the scientific method to assert his or her non-peer reviewed interests and opinions.  This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's rules barring "original research."  Second, contrary to the edit, the claims of my paper do not limit the scope to inspection methods for steam generator tubes.  To the contrary, all methods of inspection that share certain characteristics of steam generator inspection methods share the revealed weakness.  They include all of the various methods of inspection that attempt to detect defects in materials.  Some of these methods have been and still are used in the inspection of the reactor pressure vessel.  Nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand rupture of the reactor pressure vessel, with the result that the rupture of one would produce vast loss of life and property damage.  Also, the statement that "Oldberg and Christensen asserted that false indications of defects would sometimes occur, thus making the statistical calculations more complicated" is false and misleading.  Complications in statistical calculations is not an issue. The fundamental problem with steam generator inspection methods and all other defect detection methods in current use is that they violate probability theory in relation to statements about their reliability.  As statistics assumes probability theory, statistics does not apply to these tests. Terry Oldberg 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit prevaricates issue of statistical fallacy in defect detection methods 

message: I suggest that the SL-1 was a minature-design military reactor that had little applicability to commercial nuclear power plants (the military reactors not being subject to the NRC, or the then AEC).  Nor is 1961 the right period for the decline of nuclear power. Simesa 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is not germaine to this topic. ==DV8 2XL 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to SL-1 accident 

message: In  some cost numbers are bandied about.  The capital cost of $1,300/kw for a coal unit was surprising.  But I'd like to see life-cycle costs, including carbon-tax equivalents. Simesa 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...all the new Gen III and III+ plants come in at between 1,000 and 2,000 USD/kw. The actual costs of building a Gen III nuke is less than it was 20 years ago for Gen II plants. There is also the modularity of these plants, with expectations that the cost falls as additional modules (units) are added to a location...the cost drops significantly.
69.181.173.36 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some new cost numbers debated 

message: "To pay for a permanent repository, an interim storage facility, and the transportation of used fuel, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act established the Nuclear Waste Fund. Since 1982, electricity consumers have paid into the fund a fee of one-tenth of a cent for every nuclear-generated kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed. Through 2004, customer commitments plus interest totaled more than $24 billion."  Simesa 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for how the British nuclear program would pay for disposal of its waste (but recall that British spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed).  I found  and that British Energy will pay in .  Canada apparently bills its consumers and has a fund as we Americans do. Simesa 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payment for Yucca Mountain / Waste Disposal 

message: How does one reverse changes someone does to a Wiki article?  I was in the middle of reading this article, and someone came along and deleted the article on nuclear power, to replace it with poo and fart jokes.
:This is standard infantile Wikipedia vandalism; see WP:VAND and Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism for instructions on how to help keep things tidy.
:Atlant 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone's destroying this page 

message: The current article discussion on fuel resources is somewhat confusing.  I've included the text here:
"At this cost level, available reserves would last for 50 years at the present rate of use. Doubling the price of uranium, which would have only little effect on the overall cost of nuclear power, would increase reserves to hundreds of years. To put this in perspective; a doubling in the cost of natural uranium would increase the total cost of nuclear power 5 per cent. On the other hand, if the price of natural gas was doubled, the cost of gas-fired power would increase by about 60 per cent. Doubling the price of coal would increase the cost of power production in a large coal-fired power station by about 30 per cent. The Analysis Group Uranium - a sustainable energy source"
First, the link to The Analysis Group Uranium is dead, and I was unable to find the publication itself at their website.  
Second, this may or may not be factually true, and I don't really have time to fact-check it, but the wording is confusing. It is unclear if the supply will increase or the demand will decrease due to price increases.  I've seen estimates of tens of thousands of years worth of nuclear energy supplies, so I'm guessing this is probably due to making different methods of uranium recovery economically viable.  If that is indeed the case, a better approach would be to say something like the following:
"Currently mined resources will provide another 50 years worth of uranium supply at present demand levels.  If the price of raw uranium rises by 100% above current levels, would double the economically available resource pool.  Such an increase would have a minimal effect on the price of nuclear energy to consumers, icreasing the cost by only about 5%, because raw material cost is only a small fraction of the cost of this type of energy production. "  Tomteboda 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it may be prudent to explain the difference between reserves and resources.  Maybe just one sentence.  A lot of groups incorrectly use these terms (usually to say that we'll run out of uranium in 50 years, or oil a lot earlier than that).  Its been while since I had a geolologist explain the terms, but I think a reserve is whats proven to exist, a resource is what is speculated to be economically available and can change if prices increase or technology changes (like a doubling of price of a comodity increases the resource base by a factor of four).  I would suggest just wikilinking these three words (reserve, resource, resource base) with their articles, but I can't find a good definition of them (geologically speaking) on wikipedia.  As I've had it expalined to me, there is more than enough uranium resources in the world to continue with a once through cycle for a long time (thousands of years?), but mining that much (or other technologies such as extraction from sea water) could be bad environmentally speaking.  Whereas switching to breader reactors could potentially extend the current reserve for thousands of years (or so I've heard).  Lcolson
A 2003 speech by a VP for exploration at Cameco, a major uranium mining concern, seems to thoroughly refute the implication that uranium that is readily recoverable at current prices will only last 50 years. 24.118.70.156 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel resources 

message: I am strongly opposed to graphite moderated reactors being merged into this article. It often makes sense to cover a subject in a single article, but I am against merging articles into other articles unless it would involve a lot of duplication or if it makes no sense to have them separate. Also, the nuclear power article is already very long. If anything, it should be split into separate articles. -- Kjkolb 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, just as Kjkolb has expressed it, above.  Moonraker88 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphite moderated reactors merge 

message: In the "Health effects on populations near nuclear plants" section, it mentions that "several large studies"  have found no increase in cancer mortality in areas surrounding nuclear power plants. Would it be possible to get a citation on some of those studies? (Wow, sorry about the number of edits) Trappleton 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct. It is the converse that needs to be answered: there are no 'large studies' showing an increase in cancer...
216.203.27.99 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No increase in cancer mortality? 

message: I suggest that a reference on commercial fusion power plant design could be mentionned in the section Experimental technologies.  See for example : http://www.efda.org/eu_fusion_programme/downloads/scientific_and_technical_publications/PPCS_overall_report_final-with_annexes.pdf ClaudeSB 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything to write about commercial fusion plants until there is one designed?  There have been experimental ones for decades, and plenty of designs which are dependent upon the final details needed to exceed the break-even point.  It's hard to know what the size and shape of the magnetic throat can be without knowing the geometry and scale of the ignition mechanisms.  (SEWilco 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the section contains Experimental.  Such a reference would simply give the readers more information on what is planned after ITER to go to commercial generation of electricity from  the experiment. ClaudeSB 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New reference

message: At present there is a link to Thermocouple. It's not strict, but this generally refers to a device that measures temperature difference. Energy production by this means is described in Thermoelectric effect. Anyone mind if I change the link?  Moonraker88 09:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Moonraker88 18:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Radioisotope thermoelectric generator

message: Why does this article exist?
I was going to add some content to it, but I see the article is not really finished and is cut and pasted from Nuclear power.  Why was it created?  What is it for? — Omegatron 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nuclear power controversy]] 

message: You state early in your article that France gets 80% of its ENERGY from nuclear power. This is incorrect. The reference you cite has the correct information. France gets 80% of its ELECTRICITY from nuclear power. Please cporrect this oversight. DL 206.223.231.29
:Dave, this is the perfect oppportunity for you to be bold and begin your career as a Wikipedia editor!
:Atlant 13:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France and nuclear electric generation 

message: I added more deatial on specific reactor components, and an external link to a more detailed and current discussion--some of the links are dated.KonaScout 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How it works section 

message: The following text was taken verbatim from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_power_reactors without attribution, so I deleted the text:
There are several components common to most types of reactors:
Fuel: Usually pellets of uranium oxide (UO2) arranged in tubes to form fuel rods. The rods are arranged into fuel assemblies in the reactor core. 
Moderator: This is material which slows down the neutrons released from fission so that they cause more fission. It is usually water, but may be heavy water or graphite. 
Control rods: These are made with neutron-absorbing material such as cadmium, hafnium or boron, and are inserted or withdrawn from the core to control the rate of reaction, or to halt it. (Secondary shutdown systems involve adding other neutron absorbers, usually as a fluid, to the system.) 
Coolant: A liquid or gas circulating through the core so as to transfer the heat from it. In light water reactors the moderator functions also as coolant. 
Pressure vessel or pressure tubes: Usually a robust steel vessel containing the reactor core and moderator/coolant, but it may be a series of tubes holding the fuel and conveying the coolant through the moderator. 
Steam generator: Part of the cooling system where the heat from the reactor is used to make steam for the turbine. 
Containment: The structure around the reactor core which is designed to protect it from outside intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any malfunction inside. It is typically a meter-thick concrete and steel structure.
Simesa 21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text copied verbatim

message: Someone put up a one-line stub on the Emergency core cooling systems.  This not only needs a decent writing, it begs articles on nuclear safety grade and on Reactor Protective System.  Anyone care to take a stab at them? Simesa 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECCS 

message: Should this article be semiprotected, which prevents editing by anonymous users and accounts less than four days old? Nuclear power is a controversial topic, and this article is currently vandalized several times a day. Recent contributions by anonymous users have been almost entirely vandalism. About two days ago, I examined the last 50 edits of this article. I believe that the following figures are accurate, but it was a quick count. Only 5 out of the last 25 edits by anonymous users were not vandalism. 3 out of 13 edits were not vandalism if edits by the same person/source are counted as one edit. If the multiple posters were all the same people, that means that only 3 out of 13 anonymous editors were not vandals. Also, 2 out of the 3 non-vandalism edits were reversions of vandalism by anonymous and new users. Therefore, only a single anonymous user added content. The content added was not great and no sources were provided for the content added. In addition, 3 out of the last 4 "red link" users vandalized the article. This article was the first one edited by all 3 users. The red link user who did not vandalize the article has been editing for a while. He or she would still be able to edit the article if it was semiprotected. 
I think that the article should be semiprotected. It is vandalized regularly, the ratio of good to bad edits by anonymous users is very low, it would free up the time of legitimate contributors and it would prevent visitors from encountering a vandalized article on an important and almost certainly highly visited topic (the vandalism has gone unreverted for a while in some cases). Users who would be unable to edit the article would still be able to suggest changes on this talk page. -- Kjkolb 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally.  The subject is controversial but important in the present world wide discussion surrounding climat change. ClaudeSB 13:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. —wwoods 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be semiprotected? 

message: While informative, the "Capital Costs" sections contains some blaring examples of nonNPOV. For instance:
"New thinking has been applied not only to the technology and design of the next generation of nuclear reactors. The same must also be applied to future construction contracts for nuclear plants and the burdensome regulatory environment that our children will suffer because of if not corrected."
I have tagged it, but an expert should revise it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oconnor663 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that not only Capital Costs but the whole Economy section needs a rewrite. I will attempt to chew my way through it in the next few weeks. --Joffan 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the Capital costs section back to Feb 1st version, which was sourced (unlike the current version), and better in my opinion. (Not that it was perfect - it could still do with improving.) Rwendland 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Capital Costs" section neutrality 

message: There is a lot of undue concern that nuclear power stations would be a tempting target for terrorists, and that therefore they need incredibly strong countermeasures (i.e. infeasable, so we mustn't have nuclear power). This neglects a key point - terrorists aren't trying to "destroy nuclear installations", but "to kill people and promote panic". But society is only as well protected as its weakest link. So, it's pointless to worry about 'armour-plating' for nuclear installations, if a terrorist can simply blow up a shopping mall/poison water supplies/etc. Unfortunately, this concern (though spurious) is a common worry among many opponents of nuclear power, so it is necessary to address it. RichardNeill 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Richard. If we are doing our jobs correctly, the article will not advocate or condemn nuclear power. It will be a neutral examination of the subject. Also, the article should not fuel concerns or allay them. Instead, concerns documented by reliable sources will be included in the article, and counter arguments from reliable sources will be given, if they exist. I would not be strict on listing sources for fundamental information, but anything potentially controversial and/or anything that would not be known by someone who is familiar with the basic concepts should have a reference. -- Kjkolb 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism risk 

message: "The media, however, should be held accountable for sensationalism and one-sided reporting concerning the nuclear power industry. Using the Russian-designed Chernobyl reactor in arguments against US-built nuclear power plants is a favorite tactic of the anti-power camp as well. The fact is that even the US nuclear plants built in the 1960s are a safer design than Chernobyl. But using a design inferior to even our own 60-year-old designs in arguments against todays generation of nuclear power plants is an argument doomed to fail. Most people will react as expected when asked if a Chernobyl-like reactor should be in their back yard. If given the choice between a modular pebble bed reactor producing clean and reliable electricity and a smoke-belching and ecologically devastating coal- or gas-fired plant most people should make the intelligent decision. Fear-mongering and doom-and-gloom predictions that have never come true have sold a lot of newspapers and raised ratings on many a nightly news program but what Americans want now and for their children is a clean and reliable source of electricity that will not pass along an ecological disaster to future generations."
The above quote from the 'Other Economic Issues' section contains strong personal bias on the author's part, unfounded claims, no referencing and is written in parts from a US citizen's first-person perspective rather than the third person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.53.148 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Pro-Nuclear Bias within 'Other Economic Issues' Section 

message: How much waste is produced per tonne?
There is a a mention to a yearly average but nothing that I could see per tonne.
:This is an interesting question.  How much waste per MWhr-electric.  There are several possible answers -- with and without reprocessing, just the spent nuclear fuel or everything, and for a typical cycle or for lifecycle.  I can tell you this much - the answer has changed in the last 10 years.
:"As of December 2005, the United States accumulated about 53,440 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors." 
:Bernard Cohen is quoted as saying "Fueling a reactor for one year requires about 350,000 lb of raw uranium to produce about 1,000,000 KW of electricity for about 7500 hours."   We can figure it out from this.  That's an 85.6% capacity factor, which is a little low nowadays but close enough.  Natural uranium has 0.711% U-235 and we're going to want maybe 4.2% (I never designed a two-year cycle, but that sounds about right).  So 350,000 lbs * ( 0.711 / 4.2 ) = 59,250 lbs of uranium going into the core per year; 59,250 / 2.205 = 26,871 kg = 27 mt (metric tons of uranium).  From my own experience, 54 metric tons of uranium per 2-year cycle is probably roughly right.  So that's 26,871 kgU / ( 1,000,000 kw * 7500 hours ) = 3.6e-6 kgU of spent fuel per kwhr-electric, or 0.0036 kgU per Mwhr-electric.
:So there's your answer: based on Bernard Cohen and an average 4.2% fuel enrichment, roughly 3.6 grams of spent nuclear fuel per megawatt-hour-electric for a typical cycle, assuming no reprocessing and not considering the other kinds of waste (paper waste, discarded equipment, building and dismantling the plant, etc.). Simesa 06:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "53,440 metric tons" would...the entire 60 year spent fuel (with no reprocessing) supply would fit into medium sized Walmart covering a 100 foot by 360 foot space about 2 meters high. That's it. 60 years worth. This is about the amount of coal ash produced from a 1,000 MW coal plant after about 5 days of operation.DavidMIA 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wastage

message: There are several canards in this article that need to be eliminated. One of them is the statement "Construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. declined following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl." Although the Three Mile Island unquestionably had a large impact on the nuclear power industry, construction of plants actually declined in response to the 1973 oil embargo, which lead to a recession which dramatically reduced the projected future demand for electricity. The oil embargo also resulted in inflation, which made financing such capital intensive projects difficult. A look at the list of cancelled US plants shows that most were ordered before the oil embargo (or before the full effects of the embargo were realized) and a large share of the cancellations occured before the TMI event in 1979. Moreover, most of the plants whose construction was started were completed. Of the plants whose construction had started but later cancelled (there were only a handful), the blame could be placed as much or more on poor project management and governance (think of the famous WPS "whoops" bond defaults). I'll condense this into something suitable for the wiki entry.
:That doesn't make sense. If one source of energy is in decline, it makes sense to either save energy or step up the development of alternative sources. Or, better, both. Building fewer alternatives makes no sense at all. The list you give shows that quite a few of the cancelled ones were commissioned around 1973 (but also before that). But that doesn't say how many in total were commissioned when. And the cancellations took place much later. So this looks like rather shaky original research. DirkvdM 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he's substantially correct.  But skyrocketing construction costs (due largely to skyrocketing regulation causing unbelieveable construction delays) also played a major role.  I somewhere have data from a now-defunct list-of-cancellations webpage that showed that of the "balloon" of cancellations approximately one-third happened before TMI.  (CECo complained bitterly when the Quad Cities units cost $300 million each - contrast that with the $5 billion price tag of some later units.)  I'll try to dig up the data. Simesa 08:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I now read in the article that it says that the oil crisis caused an economic crisis, and with the high construction cost of nuclear plants, that would indeed be a reason to stop building them, hwoever odd that would seem in the light of the cause of the crisis. Of course accidents are a good reason to stop building plants. But I beleive that already in the seventies there were protests against the unsafety of nuclear plants. The skyrocketing regulations you mention must have something to do with that. DirkvdM 12:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Common Knowledge"

message: I think this is a very good article, and have made a few small contributions.
In relation to "Concerns about nuclear power", I've added a new sub-section dealing with "Serious accidents which have occurred."  I'm happy to discuss this further if necessary. Johnfos 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not totally against it, but in fairness do you note that the few RBMKs and roughly dozen B&W PWRs are not typical of the vast majority of nuclear power plants?  The damage that occured at TMI from the PORV failure wouldn't happen at any plant with either a direct or a redundant measurement of water level inside the reactor vessel (relying on one indirect measurement is, in my opinion, a design flaw). Simesa 08:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New sub-section

message: I guess I'm against a merger.  Length is an issue, but basically as long as both articles are accurate I'd let sleeping dogs lie. Simesa 08:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Nuclear power controversy]] 

message: Throughout the article, pros and cons of nuclear power are presented as positions of proponents and opponents. Why? I know that in reality people often first take a stance and then come up with the arguments, but that is no reason for an encyclopedia to present the pros and cons in that way. Why not just call them what they are, pros and cons? DirkvdM 12:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pros and cons in stead of proponents and opponents 

message: Simesa, you reverted a lot of edits, but then put them back, but with a change. The way you did this makes it hard to see what you did. You said you'd explain here, but seem to have forgotten. So I reverted that reversion, so you can do your edits separately. Hope that's ok. DirkvdM 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in the process of working on it, please wait a couple of hours for a more finished product.  I was just writing to the NRC for clarification of a statement, which pending their response I will put in unaltered.  Etc., I'm not sure how much more yet.  Simesa 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it for the night.  I did re-order one section a lot, and added whole new words on "vulnerability to attack", but I think it's substantially what you wanted.  I suggest we work from this version, as there is a significant amount of new stuff. Simesa 07:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rereversion of simesa 

message: An editor removed the top-of-page link to Nuclear power controversy.  I would be inclined to restore it, except there is a large amount of info in our section "Concerns about nuclear power" which also has a link in it.  Should we move the material and restore the link up top?  Comments, suggestions?  Simesa 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for discussing, I removed it because it conflicts with the styling system of wikipedia. "Top links" are only meant for disambiguation, see Wp:disambiguation#Top_links, and Wp:otheruses, and should only be used where there is confusion over naming conventions. Nuclear power controversy is not another term for Nuclear power but rather a subtopic. Links to "Nuclear power controversy" should stay under "Concerns about nuclear power" and "See also". The machine512 23:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can, however, be linked to in the intro, so I did just that. The wording might not be ideal, but the content of what I wrote is important enough for the intro, I'd say. DirkvdM 13:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I have the probem that it deflects readers from the current section inside Nuclear power.  Also, the writing is somewhat sensationalist and somewhat oversimplified.  We need to discuss what to do here. Simesa 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link(s) to [[Nuclear power controversy]]

message: I've been reading through the "Concerns about nuclear power" section again.  Another indication of a pro-nuclear bias is the way in which opponents views are sometimes presented in very short and simplistic ways, without attribution.  For example...
:Accidents sub-section: "Opponents argue that a major disadvantage of the use of nuclear reactors is the threat of another nuclear accident or terrorist attack and the possible resulting exposure to radiation and social disruption."
:Nuclear proliferation sub-section: "Opponents of nuclear power point out that nuclear technology is often dual-use, and much of the same materials and knowledge used in a civilian nuclear program can be used to develop nuclear weapons. This concern is known as nuclear proliferation and is a major reactor design criterion."
In both these cases these statements are made in a single short paragraph at the beginning of the sub-section and then the remainder of the rather long sub-section will largely be a response to the simplistic concerns.
  
This is another example of lack of balance in the article. -- Johnfos 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that we're trying to put too much into nuclear power that belongs in nuclear power controversy.  The Concerns section is very large.  We should move as much of it as possible into the controversy article, so that we have a complete article there.  Simesa 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No.  Nuclear power controversy is a POV fork and needs to be merged back into this article.  Then this article can be split in a more neutral way, like splitting out the parts about different types of reactors, or effects on the environment, or whatever.  "Controversy" is too broad, arbitrary, non-neutral, and just results in lots of material being duplicated.  Separate articles like History of nuclear power, Nuclear power and the environment, Nuclear power economics, etc. are better ways to split up an article like this. — Omegatron 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplistic presentation of opponents views

message: I am still concerned about the US focus of this article, particularly in the "Concerns..." section.  The US situation is mentioned many times, and sometimes the reader may be left thinking that that perspective is representative of the whole world. 
 
A worldwide perspective is needed in an article such as this.  There seems to be considerable public concern about nuclear power in countries such as Germany, but I don't see it mentioned.  And I would have thought that more attention could be paid to nuclear power in developing countries.  Surely this is where many people's concerns lay?
For these reasons I'm adding a "globalize" tag at the start of the "Concerns..." section. -- Johnfos 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable. Simesa 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. ethnocentricity

message: I am still concerned about the inadequate attribution of sources which occurs in this article.  I've mentioned the issue several times above and have given some examples.
  
It's partly a case of unsubstantiated statements being made, and partly a case of the over-use of nuclear industry sources which may give a one-sided perspective.  
So I am adding an "Unreferenced" tag to the Concerns section. -- Johnfos 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate attribution

message: There are many unfavourable comments about renewable energy technologies made in this article.  For example, in this relatively small section of text in the Concerns section, hydroelectricity comes in for criticism in two places:
:"Some other energy sources, such as hydropower plants and LNG carriers, are more vulnerable to accidents and attacks (due to having no guard-patrolled protected zone, missile shield or containment structure), and may be more likely to be near major population centers. Nuclear power plants are normally located a minimum distance from large population centers, although there are locations where the populated area has grown out to the plant and (in Russia) some plants are co-used for district heating.
:Nuclear power is not easily scalable - it is best utilized in sizeable plants connected to a grid with sufficient spinning reserve.
:Accidents
::See also Nuclear safety and Nuclear meltdown
:Opponents argue that a major disadvantage of the use of nuclear reactors is the threat of another nuclear accident or terrorist attack and the possible resulting exposure to radiation and social disruption.
:Proponents argue that the potential for a meltdown in well-designed reactors is very small due to the care taken in designing adequate safety systems, and that the nuclear industry has much better statistics regarding humans deaths from occupational accidents than coal or hydropower.[35]"
I've already said that I am no supporter of large-scale hydro and I believe it is a technology with some significant challenges.  But I am surprised to see it referred to in this way, and for the discussion to receive such prominence in a nuclear power article.  Three lines into the "Concerns about nuclear power" section and hydropower is being discussed.  I can only think that a point of view is being pushed.
::I agree: this all belongs in nuclear power controversy where alternative energuy sources are discussed.  Simesa 03:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No.  That's a POV fork. — Omegatron 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydropower

message: The criticism of renewables seems overdone and there are professionals who say publicly that some renewable energy technologies are a better option than nuclear power:  Concentrating solar power better option than nuclear.  But I can't see any favourable comments about renewables being included in the article.  Clearly Renewable energy commercialization is an active area, so this seems to be another case of one-sided reporting.  
 
It's interesting how an article such as Renewable energy commercialization can be written without any unfavourable comments about nuclear power, and yet the reverse is not true.  Again, things seem rather one-sided.  -- Johnfos 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there be an article which compares all energy technologies?  It seems reasonable for all to be compared, and if this were done in one article then there would not be bits and pieces of comparisons scattered across many articles.  (SEWilco 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found one.  Energy development].  (SEWilco 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Firstly, I'm sorry to have rambled on so much.  And thank you, Simesa, for the couple of comments you just made.  
I'd like to try to re-structure the Concerns section a bit. Part of this will involve being very up-front about Chernobyl, and of course including Simesa's excellent analysis of this.  (We need to be up-front.  I believe there is a lot of fear about Chernobyl that comes from ignorance of what actually happened, so providing good info can help people with this).  It will also involve some deletions of text.  (For example, I think comparison with renewables should be left to the Nuclear power controversy article.) 
I can only give this a good go.  See what you think.  If there is a strong objection to something I've done, please revert. -- Johnfos 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we move forward?

message: Since Sprotection was removed, this page has had four stupid vandalisms in under 18 hours.  While it is heartening to see that so many readers are consulting us, I recommend Sprotect be put back on. Simesa 07:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sprotect Please

message: The size of Nuclear Power was that it was too big, and about half criticisms.  I moved the criticisms back to Nuclear Power Controversy (that's linked twice in this article).  Maybe we'll break Accidents out of that. Simesa 07:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued

message: This part is partially wrong.
The problem with high summer temperatures are environmental limits on maximum river water temperatures. If the river temperature is already very close to the maximum to begin with during a heat wave, the rejected heat from the nuclear power plant may push water temperatures beyond environmental standards. In countries with a decidedly anti-nuclear policy like Germany, the power plants will have to reduce power, in other countries, like France, these environmental regulations will be temprarily lifted...
In terms of heat rejection ability, the few degrees Celsius difference between Winter and a Summer heat wave are insignificant for the power plant. --Dio1982 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waste heat in water systems 

message: This is in regards to the mention in the article about the policy of the United States on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 1977, Jimmy Carter issued an executive order banning the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. The Washington Post article talks about some ideas being floated within the Bush administration that would require processing to be restarted if they are to get off the ground. That's it. No public announcement has been made about allowing reprocessing. The Washington Post article even says that Bush has not made up his mind on whether to approve the plan. When the Bush administration reverses Carter's executive order (or whatever they do with that type of thing) and allows reprocessing to resume (or even says that he intends to take steps to allow reprocessing again), then I would say that the policy has been reversed. -- Kjkolb 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. reprocessing policy 

message: Guess what!  I can't find an article on the recent tritium leaks, nor are they in nuclear power nor in List of civilian nuclear accidents!  Anyone care to tackle it?
Background: PWRs use a solution of boron in their coolant (water) to control the reactor's power level.  As the fuel burns, there is less fuel to keep the plant critical and more neutron-poisonous fission products inside the fuel - these effects reduce reactivity.  To keep reactivity (and power level) constant, PWRs reduce the amount of boron in the water - by blending in non-borated water.  Well, that means some of the highly-borated water has to go.  And it does - very slowly, into a river.  This water has some tritium in it - if you hit boron with a neutron, often you get tritium.  The tritium decays away, but there's always a little left - it's no problem to put it into a river.  But a problem occurred when the pipe to the river developed leaks - then the tritium got into the ground, and into the groundwater.  Infinitesmial concentrations - but measurable.  And any amount of a radioactive substance is enough to scare people.  Exelon, I understand, bought some houses.  Simesa 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tritium Leaks

message: These articles have much duplication of material. I propose that that Nuclear reactor should be renamed to nuclear reactor technology or something similar. The duplicated material, like history and fuel cycle should be moved to this article.Ultramarine 10:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead.  Maybe make subarticles? Simesa 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just about to rename this article Nuclear reactor and redirect this article to Nuclear power, since the two are synonyms.Yeago 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoa, nevermind. The wikipedian who will unknot this mess of article-misnaming and content overlap will be a bold editor indeed. I am not it! =)Yeago 02:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, one of us just condensed Nuclear Power Plant into these two articles, and combining the two would make the article too lengthy.  We are more likely to break stuff out than to further combine. Simesa 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. As far as I can see, nuclear power is separated into two parts. One discussing more the social/economic importance (nuclear power(, the other being a more technically minded one (nuclear reactor). As such, I would recommend the breaking up of stuff, too. --Dio1982 11:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree they are two separate articles! But because the naming scheme is a little vague there is a lot of duplicate information. Obviously, nuclear reactor is way more technical than this article. Yeago 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear power vs. Nuclear reactor 

message: That's a dreadful picture, shows more of the sunflowers than the power station. The last one used wasn't great, but at least it was on-topic. --Oscarthecat 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the small screen, it shows the turbine buildings and containment buildings better than the Cattenom picture.  However, when the original of Cattenom is viewed, the detail is very sharp.  May I suggest we crop the Cattenom picture to better show the plant itself?  Maybe a vertical slice with one cooling tower? Simesa 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, NEI had great difficulty in getting the sunflower picture. No plant wanted to give any details away, and even this plant didn't want to be identified by name. Simesa 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cropping sounds good, it's certainly nice and sharp.  Or there's a few others such as Chapelcrosss, Grafenrheinfeld or Ignalina.  I guess Homer's place of work is a no-no. --Oscarthecat 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for the suggestions, I've now put a cropped version of the original pic on the article. --Oscarthecat 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just observing that there seems to be a double standard here, the Renewable energy article has several pictures with even more nature and less power plants.Ultramarine 10:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will go start on that next.  Want to keep the pictures pertinent to the articles. --Oscarthecat 10:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I'm sorry, but it looks like a dog's breakfast at this point.  What the hell was wrong with the way it was before? --Robert Merkel 12:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just moved the list from another article merged into this one. Feel free to improve it.Ultramarine 18:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet point list in subsection "use" 

message: The articles no longer has duplicated material. But the titles are not good, there will some controversy regarding almost everthing in most subjects, so it is unclear what should be where. For example, waste storage is certainly controversial but is now in the main article, presumable since it is part of the fuel cycle. I propose mergin the articles back again. If this is too long, move some material to better named articles like moving some material to the nuclear fuel cycle article.Ultramarine 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No opposition, so done. I suggest moving some material to for a new article about nuclear power history or for example some of the proliferation material to that article is the current article is too long.Ultramarine 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How about creating History of nuclear power? The current section is quite long and detailed.Ultramarine 19:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear power vs. Nuclear power controversy - round 2 

message: I proposed that this article be semiprotected a while back due to constant vandalism by IP addresses and very new users. It was protected for a time, but the protection was removed and the vandalism quickly returned. I think that the article should be semiprotected indefinitely or at least for significant periods of time, such as six months or a year. It is a waste of resources for people to monitor this article for vandalism, revert the vandalism and deal with the vandal (warning or blocking) when that vandalism can be reduced to virtually nothing without significant negative consequences. Here is a link to my previous posting on semiprotection. I doubt that the figures have changed much in the short time that has passed. Here they are: 
:Only 5 out of the last 25 edits by anonymous users were not vandalism. 3 out of 13 edits were not vandalism if edits by the same person/source are counted as one edit. If the multiple posters were all the same people, that means that only 3 out of 13 anonymous editors were not vandals. Also, 2 out of the 3 non-vandalism edits were reversions of vandalism by anonymous and new users. Therefore, only a single anonymous user added content. The content added was not great and no sources were provided for the content added. In addition, 3 out of the last 4 "red link" users vandalized the article. This article was the first one edited by all 3 users. The red link user who did not vandalize the article has been editing for a while. He or she would still be able to edit the article if it was semiprotected.
The contribution of anonymous users almost always has to be reverted because even when they do not vandalize the article, the poor writing and/or a lack of references force us to revert. Anonymous users will still be able to post to the talk page, so if they would like to contribute, they can with the assistance of a member. I think that a message to these users should be put at the top of the page telling them how to get attention using the "edit protected" template. Also, anonymous users can simply join Wikipedia and edit the article themselves after a few days. 
So, the majority of anonymous contributions to this article are vandalism, some are reversions of vandalism by other anonymous users (semiprotection will stop the vandalism from occurring in the first place), almost all of the rest are not vandalism but are poor edits and have to be reverted, which leaves very few truly good edits made by anonymous users. 
Besides freeing up good contributors' time to work on articles instead of reverting vandals, there are other benefits to semiprotection. Some of the vandalism is not reverted for a long time, so semiprotection would prevent visitors from seeing inaccurate content, offensive content or no content. Also, sometimes the vandalism is not caught for much longer periods (there might be some in the article at the moment). This usually happens when someone else edits the article after the vandal instead of reverting. It is easy for this to happen because most people do not check for vandalism before editing the article and unless the vandalism is blatant or the article is very short, the vandalism, especially deletion of content and altering facts (such as slightly changing the melting point of a substance or changing the first job that a person got or the month of his birth), has an excellent chance of going undetected for a long time or even indefinitely when the article is subsequently edited, especially when the next edit is not vandalism. Unfortunately, this seems to happen a lot. When I do not edit for a little while, I often find vandalism that has gone unreverted for days on the articles on my watchlist. Frequently, the article was edited after the vandalism. I wish that there was an option on my watchlist to show the last edit by an IP address on every article edited in the last week. Anyway, I think that we will gain much more by semiprotecting this article than we will lose. -- Kjkolb 04:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: There are two assertions in the Opening Paragraphs which make reference to future events. How can these statements be squared with "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball?"
they are: 
1. That New Safe Plants will soon be built (in future)
2. Even more Plants may be built. (in future)
:1.Well, 2 EPRs are currently beeing built and the contract for 4 AP1000 has been finished and signed for China. Construction will commence RealSoonTM
:2.Given the long lead times for licensing this is very true. Currently something like ~40 new reactors are going through the lengthy (and expensive) licensing process. Most of them ought to survive it and will be built...
--Dio1982 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward-Looking Statements