Talk:Economics of nuclear power plants

message: ... seem not to be that recent. --User:Haraldmmueller 08:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recent trends" 

message: This article contains the phrase "regulatory ratcheting" but I think most readers won't know what that means (I don't, anyway).  The linked source does not use the phrase.  I found a source which explains it as "continuous, retroactive change in nuclear plant regulations" and this does certainly seem likely to be relevant to an understanding of the economics of nuclear power plants, I think it would need to be explained more - and I'm not personally feeling confident that I know how to do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The term seems to come from Ratchet (device), referring to a tendency in one direction, while making it impossible to lose progress (for better or worse).
The structure of the article seems to rely on the three factors that slowed nuclear energy: Global market development (recession (2008?)),Energy market developments, and nuclear technological developments.
The regulatory concerns can be found under global market development, mainly that regulation has been less prone to invest in cleaner energy. I think that's the biggest takeaway, perhaps the bit about ratcheting was to differentiate it from the movements in the energy market that were mentioned as fluctuating in both directions. Especially since the article itself is hopeful of the unfriendly regulation being a phase (so not ratcheting), I think I'll just remove that mention and replace it with the link between laxer clean energy regulations and the 2009 recession.
I feel the sentence fits nicely with the rest of the paragraph now.
The issue of the super long lead section is still present. That would be the next step. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable of the topic can step in. 
--TZubiri (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tag the article with expert needed tag for now. Bobherry Talk My Edits  23:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "regulatory ratcheting" 

message: I will be working on editing this article and rearranging it to match the Wikipedia layout guidelines. If anyone has any suggestions I would be more than happy to hear them! I am someone who does not have much prior knowledge when it comes to this specific topic so again I will happily take constructive criticism.Pennynm (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on nuclear energy are likely to see increased traffic. Were you able to make any progress here? TZubiri (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing for Organization 

message: This article appears to be focused on negative messages and sources and includes multiple old sources of information.  
Edits are needed, among other things, to: 
- change the balance of the article (i.e., include information that is not negative), 
- provide a clearer distinction between first cost (i.e., capital cost) and cash operating cost after commercial operation,
- explain the environmental and electricity system benefits of nuclear power,
- include information and references from authoritative sources such as NEA and IAEA, 
- update the article to include new activity for nuclear power in the UK, UAE, and China (and the economic and environmental drivers of this activity), and
- mention the potential economic promise of Small Modular Reactors and Advanced Reactors (with links to other Wikipedia Articles, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor). AtomicJoe (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can do this using reliable sources, do go ahead Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Hope you still have time to do some of this. I suggest doing in small chunks - your point about capital and operating costs might be the best place to start as presumably not contentious. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I would be happy to work together with you on this - if you have time please reply Chidgk1 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced and out-of-date 

message: Operating nuclear utilities run nuclear plants economically. In 1980s, cheap natural gas threatened nuclear power. But, the supply/price/demand curves on natural gas saw the price of gas quadruple and more. As a result, the price of gas generated electricity was up to triple the price of nuclear generated electricity. This article does not go into that. Neither does it explain the amortization of the plant asset itself. Nuclear is up to 100 years of operation. Natural gas is 20 years. Wind and solar are far far less. WNP-2 was 10 times its estimate. It was paid off years ago and is now a highly valuable relatively inexpensive high power electrical generation asset for the Pacific Northwest US. These types the subjects need explored and a unbiased neutral approach needs to be presented. This article, if it was a food critic article would say, seaweed is a nutrient full of healthy ingredients. Steak, however, just makes sewage. This article needs to written neutral and balanced! 67.60.79.250 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit the article and improve it citing reliable sources - if you need advice on Wikipedia editing please ask  Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubsidized Utilities Find Nuclear Economical