Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 6

message: I think the list of "environmentalists" that support or don't support nuclear power could quickly get out of hand and grow unwieldy, I propose that we create a new article for just that, or just remove it from this article completely.  Does the nuclear power industry really claim many "environmentalists" support nuclear power?  Admittedly I haven't looked at the list in too much detail, but the "environmentalist" credentials for many supporters of nuclear power seem rather dubious.   
Also Benjamin, are you obviously trying to violate NPOV as some sort of test by labeling Richard Nixon and other supporters as "(criminal)"?  What is the context for such a label in a subsection section on nuclear power and alleged environmentalist supporters?  zen master    T  06:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as they are criminals they were never convicted so the article can't say that, but more importantly any context of how them being criminals relates to nuclear power and environmentalism is lost. I vote we remove that entire section but I suspect some people will disagree. zen master    T  18:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Larouche was convicted and spent five years behind bars. Nixon was pardoned - which if accepted, is the same as an admission of guilt.
Benjamin Gatti 06:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Done. The For against list probably isn't encyclopedic - for one reason because people have the right to change their mind - while encyclopedic information ought to be inherently stable. Thus it may be encyclopedic that - in 1977 Carter expressed concern about nuclear energy - but a timeless commitment is not factual. Happy to remove the box -  which was merely a piece of humorous wikiart, not to be confused with medical advice. Sure, i think nuclear has a clear and present track record of being unsafe, and I see no convincing evidence that any group of people is capable of handling "the ring" without it corrupting their soul. The news items speak to this. history speaks to this principle, and if you consider the supporters of nuclear power, there is a pattern of criminality and inhumanity - its just the epic nature of power of that kind - and the degree to which one must discount the real effect of radiation on humans in order to embrace power at any price - such people are either naive or sociopathic or they have access to a chain of logic which certainly hasn't been expressed here. So help out those of us who see the real risks of proliferation and user error ie chernobyle as real possibilities. How do you justify it? - you say we have new technology which is safe - only problem it isn't tested - so its experimental technology which is intended to prevent the risks. But the engineers who designed the old plants witnessed hiroshima - they knew the risks - are modern engineers smarter than - Einstien? probably not. What has changed - mostly, we WANT to believe it is safer - we have found someone who has proved nothing - who SAYS its safer. So we believe. That's Kool Aid - not logic.
So here's one sould who is not going to drink the Kool Aid - yes - we have incompatible definitions of sanity. So we are mutually insane - I can live with that.
Great Line - situation with Tucker Carlson "More Nuclear power plants are to Terrorism what orgies are to aids ."
Benjamin Gatti 01:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of enviromentalists who support/don't support to new article? 

message: I'd appreciate it if folks would read over and comment on Price-Anderson Act, containment building and Nuclear Power 2010 Program. Simesa 01:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure of the context. What does "Dominion-led consortium" mean exactly? zen master    T  02:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dominion , owns VEPCO (Virginia Electric & Power Company) and it's four nuclear units (North Anna and Surry).  Dominion now operates the Millstone units as well.  Thanks for looking the articles over. Simesa 04:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Related Articles

message: The statement is technically correct but misleading nevertheless.  Israel was de facto at war.  The other governments are dictatorships and at least should be so identified.  But other nations have had no problems.  Japan has a massive nuclear program, and reprocessing, but no nuclear weapons.  Taiwan has six operating reactors and doesn't reprocess.  It is either reprocessing or fuel enrichment thatis the danger, not the plants themselves.  In the case of Iran, Russia wil keep possession of the fuel it provides, leaving the enrichment project as the problem. Simesa 17:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear Proliferation

message: A number of edits were made on July 12 in various sections.  Please check History to find them.  
A proposal has been made in Price-Anderson Act's Mediation to combine it with mediation on Nuclear Power. At the moment, the vote is 3 to 1 against doing so, and the Mediator hasn't commented.  If a proposal is made for mediation on Nuclear Power, it will be posted at the bottom of this page. Simesa 01:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: July 12

message: I estimate ~$500 per KW investment for Wave energy with much lower operating costs - no fuel, and no danger - than NG or nuclear.
Chine and India are included in my global opportunity map - i think they both have substantial access to wave energy - less than average unfortunately. Electricity is the only form created by a nuclear plant (cogen not practical given the safety distance i suggest - could be wrong) I expect we'll peak at 9 Billion in 2050 (UN). "Can't leave people in poverty" - poverty is just another word for overpopulation. People need about 5 KW of energy per person to have stable populations. Assuming efficiency improvements and some advantage of scale (might not need to duplicate the military energy budget in every country) we might get that down to 1-2 KW per person - which suggests an energy horizon in 2050 of 10-20TW. Even conservative estimates suggest we could expect to get half of that from Wave energy - with perhaps the same again from wind energy. Benjamin Gatti
* That's nice, but information about wave energy belongs in an article on that topic.  Just as information about plungers does not belong in an article about wave energy, and information about knitting does not belong in an article about plungers.  (SEWilco 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marine energy tangent

message: Perhaps there should be a separate Nuclear power controversy page for controversial issues.  The top of this article can state that this page is about use of nuclear energy and refer to the specialized page.  (SEWilco 05:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear power controversy page 

message: "Expansion of nuclear in many developing nations is often justified by the "hidden agenda" of some countries to fuel the access to military nuclear raw materials. By doing so, global expansion of nuclear energy is highly likely to breach or undermine compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty."
"Nuclear power plants also have significantly higher emissions than renewable biomass cogeneration plants."
This needs to be included in the article. Benjamin Gatti
::The line "Nuclear power plants also have significantly higher emissions than renewable biomass cogeneration plants." makes no sense and is unsupported in the cite.  Biomass is a notorious greenhouse gas emitter - see biomass, "Biomass is sometimes burned as fuel for cooking and to produce electricity and heat. This is called Biofuel. Biomass used as fuel often consists of underutilized types, like chaff and animal waste. This is often considered a type of alternative energy, although it is a polluting one."  "For most developing countries in Asia, carbon emissions from biomass account for more than 50% of the total carbom emissions" .  The reason biomass claims to be low-emissions is that it is assumed that agriculture will increase to provide biomass and thus "close the carbon cycle" - which I submit is specious, since agriculture is declining with deforestation, not increasing. Simesa 04:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Agenda - great term 

message: : This article has been protected for far too long.  m:Protected pages considered harmful.  I'm unprotecting. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Tony. I would have welcomed some (any) input from Ed, but he has not responded to several of my querries throughout the course of the last few weeks (this being my 1st non-vandalism protection ever, and all). Let's hope the edit war won't reoccur. El_C 03:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for returning the page to the Wiki ("The Free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). The issue being what it is, and a matter of state secrecy to boot - I want to say again that it is offensive to the spirit of a liberalized press to impose totalitarian control on facts which tend to reflect poorly on governments. There are reasons to protect a page - for example a page about Jennifer Aniston - because while she is interesting to many, she also deserves to be treated with dignity - but governments, and their programs are not people, and they do not deserve the imposition of dignity and restraint - indeed if we learn anything at all from history, it is that such muzzlings do on balance far - far more harm than good. With respect, the editors and administartors which engaged in the recent censorship of this article have earned a measure of scorn and ought to reflect in future on whether they wish in their own small way to be identified with moderate chaos in the name of full transparency or with full censorship in the name of moderate "order". Benjamin Gatti 03:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: This article is NOT under Mediation, and the "text move" rules which were adopted for Price-Anderson Act mediation are not binding on the editors here.  They're just being used as an pretext to move text out of the article.
The United States is NOT anti-nuclear - we were building two nuclear units for the North Koreans after all. The US is anti-proliferation - that would be a correct phrasing.  And the House version of the new Energy Policy Act says "consideration of a variety of reactor designs suitable for both developed and developing nations;"
:Is the House version the final version? - Yes I think is the answer since the Senate had it first? No? Benjamin Gatti
The current volume of nuclear power is not due primarily to subsidies, which enabled nuclear power but all-in-all are rather small compared to the costs.
:C'mon - you know it's due to subsidies - particularly the PAA subsidy.
The new Energy Bill isn't law yet and shouldn't be cited as such.  In any event it's section on the [Nuclear Power 2010 Program] will be limited to three plants, hardly a viable industry's subsidy.
Saying "using the military to stimulate involuntary trade" is at best pov.
:OK then how would you put it - we roll up the ship every time a foriegn country with oil gets a political system which isn't universally commited to pumping oil as fast as possible? Who owns the oild? the government or the people? If the people want to sell it for their benefit - but we prefer a Suad family who will sell it to benefit only a few grotesquly rich - and may i add obese royal minority - is that volutary trade - or a heist. Say I went to your bank and said hire the people I choose to run this bank or i'll blow up the building - so they do, and those people put in a policy where I get to buy Simesa account for pennies on the dollar. Is that free trade - or banditry? Benjamin Gatti
::You should go back and read your history.  Nationalization of American assets, OPEC and the Arab Oil Embargo, lately Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his deal with China.  And the average Saudi citizen lives well enough that they import Filipino maids. Finally, the new Saudi king is notoriously anti-American. Simesa 07:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert to C-4's

message: They believe that nuclear power or coal are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached (see peak oil). Coal currently contributes significantly to problems like global warming, acid rain, various diseases due to airborne pollution, and the storage of large amounts of ash. Renewables have not solved problems like intermittent output, high costs, and diffuse output which requires the use of large surface areas and much construction material and which increases distribution losses. For example, studies in Britain has shown that increasing windpower production contribution to 20% of all energy production would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup. Increasing the contribution of intermittent energy sources above that is not possible with current technology . 
#Peak oil is a theory - subject to its own criticisms - it ought not be sanctified by casual referencing.
#The cause of global warming has not been established to the degree necessary for an encyclopedia - whether or not human activity is responsible continues to be debated. - and this seems hardly the appropriate place for that debate.
#As for Renewables, there is a plan published today that combines a wind farm with offshore NG - generating steady power with a substantial amount of renewable energy - so the critcism of RES is out of date and out of place.
#Studies have also shown that doubling nuclear power would decrease greenhouse emission by only a few percent as well - so rather than have an irrelevent statistics diversion - let's leave renewables for their proper place. I suggest as a rule that the discussion of unrelated topic be confined to a Wikilink only and that if an external link is necessary to make a point - that link ought to be placed on the subject matter page first and then wikilinked. Benjamin Gatti
:#Oil is a finite resource just like everything else.  Despite extensive exploration, little more is being found.  The question isn't if a peak will be reached but rather when.  Hubbert peak
:#The Wikipdia article on Global warming disagrees.  Certainly the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere has some impact - the only debate is how much.
:#Your plan is uncited, as usual.  And "NG" backup generation is still a greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuel.
:#More uncited and counter-intuitive "studies".  Nuclear displaces coal-fired generation, and that means reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
::Comparison of subsidies under the Subsidies section is a valid topic.   You simply don't want people to realize that renewables are heavily subsidzed. 
::Finally, using a "text move", a technique the editors of nuclear power haven't agreed to, as a device to eliminate facts you don't like is bogus. Simesa 07:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Move - Renewable discussion 

message: From what I know about waste management, the term storage means temporaryly and the term disposal indefinitely. So, everywhere in this article, I suggest that we use storage when we mean temporary storage and disposal when we mean permanent storage. --Philipum 14:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between "storage" and "disposal" 

message: This sounds like it belongs under Price-Anderson, but that artcle is under mediation and moving it isn't possible right now.  A better solution might be to find a more recent quote that also addresses the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provisions (when that Act is signed). Simesa 16:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: "Despite the claims of Proponents, including some national governments, that  these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology, taxpayer subsidized insurance continues to be a requirement in the US." What has the first part of the sentence got to do with the last? Break into two sentences. Simesa 20:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see any advertising.  Mentioning insurance, a minor issue, twice in the intro is hardly appropriate.  Key reasons for extending Price-Anderson is to allow the construction of a gas centrifuge enrichment plant in Ohio as well as a new DOE reprocessing plant for Pu-238.  And as anxious as you are to get the word subsidy in there, "backed" is the more accurate word - Wikipedia says the FDIC "guarantees" deposit accounts up to a certain amount, not subsidizes the bank's insurance. Simesa 04:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro sentence 

message: The following groups were removed as mention of opponents of nuclear power because their Wikipedia articles do not mention the issue: Sierra Club and Friends Of The Earth. (SEWilco 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opponents who are not documented as such