Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 9

message: Discussion as to whether or not Oldberg's papers should be referenced.  Discussion is interesting for its definition of "Ad Homenin" as well as for its discussion of when references should be included.Chuck Simmons 01:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk stuff... 

message: I have replaced the image of a nuclear powerplant with sunflowers (Image:Nuclear Power Plant.jpg) in the foreground with this (Image:Nuclear_Power_Plant_Cattenom.jpg) much higher quality image. Which I believe was the original image here anyway. I think that the image with sunflowers may be construed as being pov. The sunflowers are purposefully juxtaposed with the power plant in the background (it is an image taken by the plant organization itself, afterall) likely in order to portray an image of environmental consiousness or one of "being green". The image I replaced it with is merely one showing a power plant and a blank field (slightly brownish grass even) with nothing in it. It is much more honest/neutral and the reader can see much more detail of the power plant. (full disclosure: I am very "pro nuclear" when it comes to nuclear power, I just feel that it should be represented as honestly as possible when being professionally presented, as is the case here.)--Deglr6328 02:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the original picture was a very good aerial view of Leibstadt - Image:Nuclear_Power_Plant_Cattenom.jpg is also used on nuclear power plant.  The Image:Nuclear Power Plant.jpg was obtained with some difficulty from the Nuclear Energy Institute as a free-to-use picture showing the key buildings without revealing details.  The name of the plant is even unknown, as the utility insisted on anonymity. Simesa 17:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I just read this article which is about nuclear power in Finland and about the new reactor being built that will go oinline in 2009.  Reading the cost per Kwh and other considerations made me think that the diffrences in cost of nuclear power really does seem to differ drastically from country to counrty.  I though we might want to include a look at the factors that contribute to these diffrences in the article.  Dalf | Talk 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intresting page on Nuclear Power in Finland 

message: I just received an e-mail from the NRC, which I'll add to CRAC-II and NUREG-1150 as they requested.  Please see the Discussion for those articles. Simesa 08:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, I'll check it out Benjamin Gatti 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRC's Position on CRAC-II and NUREG-1150 

message: For news on the Department of Justice indictment of First Energy and several employees/contractors, see Davis-Besse and the reference. (I have to read it all myself yet.) Simesa 21:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies from wikipedia editors which have used wikipedia to downplay the dangers of nuclear energy are being accepted at User Talk:Benjamin Gatti ;-) I told you so doesn't even begin to describe it. Benjamin Gatti 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the part where a Nuclear plant was mismanaged and violated saftey rules but still was caught before anythign bad happened and then people are in the process of being punished? Dalf | Talk 02:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dalf,, I mean that part where Simesa has been arguing ad nauseum that plant operators would never exploit the Price-Anderson free-ridership problem by cutting corners on safety - when low and behold, the temptation to ignore safeguards is in fact so strong that employees are willing to risk 20 year prison sentences in order to falsify inspections and do whatever to keep a plant operating - including putting the public in danger. Your response is akin to suggesting that the indictment of Jack Abramoff jist goes to show that corruption is being well-managed by the justice department. The truth in both cases is that these indictments reflect the tip of an iceberg. This indictment demonstrates the degree to which very ordinary persons (see Banality of evil) are willing to violate nuclear safety regulations. Benjamin Gatti 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my mistake.  I did not realise that when you said the dangers of nuclear energy you actually ment the dangers of the Price-Anderson act, my mistake. Dalf | Talk 04:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meant Price Anderson Act, and the 97% subsidy of nuclear over safe clean alternatives. All I ask is that we confront the risks openly here, rather than tow the NRC propaganda line rank and file. Benjamin Gatti 04:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point.  OUt of curiosity (and I really am curious) is there an equvilent to the PA-Act in say France or FInnland or any other country?  I am asking because you ahve very frequently asserted that without the act there woudl be no plants.  It strikes me that the PA act only governs 104 of the 404 plants in the world. Dalf | Talk 04:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that the US was the moving force for nuclear plants in the west. I believe the US built the first plants, spent the lion's share of the research costs, and set the course for the rest of the World - The US has more plants that other country, and all of France's plants, which has the highest saturation are of US Design. That said, the Soviet nuclear enterprise is either completely novel, or the benefactor of US research by espionage. I also believe that reactors in most other countries are state-owned, which puts the risk back on the taxpayer in much the same way - however, it also changes the profit motive as the operators serve at the pleasure of the public - and not to serve the interest of investors. This story underlines the difference which is quite simply, that investors want to see the rate of return they were promised, and that the only way to meet that goal (and to receive the performance bonuses) is to reduce costs without reducing electricity, and the obvious way to do that is to cut corners on safety. In Europe, there is no profit incentive to reduce costs, so that while the risk is similarly the burden of the taxpayer, the counter-safety incentive of the Price-Anderson is unique to the US. Benjamin Gatti 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To take the case of Chernobyl - essentially there is not. The cost has fallen to the G8, UN, World Bank, the US and others perhaps to raise some 300 Billion dollars (about the cost of the War to Christianize Muslim Oil in Iraq) needed in Belarus to deal with the fallout, and some to pay the Ukraine to shut down the other (3?) reactors at the same station. But for GB, France, Germany, Finland - one only presumes - based largely on them being more socialist that the United States, that the insurance of such plants is presumably more socialized as well. The Medical costs would fall on the socialized medicine system, Liability in those countries is considerably less of an issue anyways, which leaves the cost of unusable real estate, and there my guess is that the likelihood of being reimbursed would vary widely based on the ability of the various party's to pay. Bearing in mind the great challenge of funding the existing social services in Europe into the next few decades, I would place very shallow odds on injured parties ever seeing much more than world-subsidized health-care as a response. Benjamin Gatti 02:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I found this comment on my discussion page) - it seems to touch on Sweden at least - Benjamin Gatti 05:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Bad writing of mine. What I intended to write was "Thus the state assumed the responsibility to insure for the utilities regarding accident costs above ~$10 billion". The remainder stays the same. The state insures the company, because the insurance companies cannot. My own country, Sweden, imposes a nuclear tax as payment for this service, and so could (should) the USA.--Sinus 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not even read the whole P-A act article but I think if we could come up with enough (sourced) details of liability in other countries it might make for an intresting section of the article. Dalf | Talk 07:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Capone was convicted of tax fraud. --James S. 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davis-Besse Indictments 

message: I archived this discussion.  I started an off-topic discussion of Solar because nuclear proponents made an overly generalized claim about "all" renewables when they really meant Wind.  I claimed that Solar was cost-effective for society to day.  Others questioned my assertion.  Various references and numbers were tossed around.  Chuck Simmons 21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Discussion 

message: Is there any particular reason why we need two separate articles? --Robert Merkel 08:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I couldn't find any reason not to. Just create a redirect. I think however, that while there is little controversy about what a nuclear reactor is - the use of nuclear energy is highly controversial, and touches on the entire life cycle of nuclear energy from the coal plants used to power the refining plants to the long term storage and mobile Chernobyl's. Benjamin Gatti 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark this on the calender. I agree with Ben. Actually, nuclear power and nuclear power plant are 2 different things. This article is a discussion of nuclear power and it's uses, history. Plant is on the specific place where nuclear power is generated. 2 different things. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not merge this with [[nuclear power plant]]? 

message: Bush is going to invest in clean, safe nuclear energy. Guess that means we won't be needing the Price Anderson trillion dollar insurance subsidy for the dangerous kind of nuclear energy anymore. Benjamin Gatti 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good news 

message: The actual internal workings of Nuclear Power plants is something that has been glossed over in this Wiki article.  It is possible to provide flow diagrams of the basic processes, plus their chemical formulas.  How would people feel about this?
:As the workings vary with type, it may be more suitable on the pages for individual reactor types.  Some diagrams are already held on these pages, see Current Technologies section of this article. --OscarTheCattalk 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions On Provision of Advanced Technical Material 

message: I haven't participated in the debate at all here, but I have a quick question. Has there been any talk about splitting this article up? It's 70K. Too long. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Most sources express the amount in cubic metres. It's quite difficult to accurately estimate the amount of waste by it's weight while it's easy when expresses in cubic metres. Does anyone object to a change? --Scandum 01:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusing thing about this is that nuclear fuel is exceedingly dense.  So, either way, that point should be made clear in the context of the nuclear waste discussion. --Robert Merkel 01:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 cubic metre of nuclear waste weights about 9 tonnes. [www.uic.com.au/wast.htm] I don't feel like calculating the exact value though, mainly because I forgot how and the elements the waste is composed of isn't easy to find either as well as depending on the plant. Then again, non of the other sources are clear which leaves much to be said about the accuracy. A plant doesn't necesairly have to run at full capacity either. I'd say the yearly 3 cubic metres of waste estimate per plant is a fair intuitive value. --Scandum 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonnes vs Cubic Metres 

message: Started this Article to document Bush's propoganda. Benjamin Gatti 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean safe nuclear energy.  See my justification and vote/discuss there. --Robert Merkel 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Clean safe nuclear energy]]

message: Removed original research not in Oldberg's peer-reviewed paper.  Removed POV assertion that NRC and ASME ignored Oldberg.  Wrote to NRC and requested their position on Oldberg's work.  Simesa 18:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldberg "implications" 

message: What %?
:Yes - good point. I believe its around 70% of (electric) but I left out the actual because I didn't have a ready reference. One is needed. Also for the US. Percentage doesn't matter as much because the US doesn't have the highest percent, it has the highest absolute production so it should be expressed in nameplate gigawatts. Benjamin Gatti 14:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 70% was the figure I remembered, but http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html says 78.1% in 2004; I guess they brought a new plant online. For the US in 2002, 19.9%, 98.9 GW capacity, 780 TW-hr production. —wwoods 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: while France produces the highest percent of its energy from nuclear reactors.