Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 4

message: I want to Object to where the intro is going.
First I think "Energy over Time" is silly - i inserted to make the point that Power is not Energy.
Second - this appears to be a narrow discussion of the use of nuclear power rather than say coal or wind. We have exactly zero comparisons to the relative benefits of Chemical or Biological alternative to Nuclear Power as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Which raises a problem. We should disambig Nuclear Weapon, reactor, energy, Power (Nation), as well as fission and fussion, because a discussion of sustained energy (power) cannot more than speculate about fusion, and it is misleading to suggest that the power of the sun is the same as the 6.8% of the world's energy which is provided by nuclear fission reactors.
Benjamin Gatti 03:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power is not Energy any more than squareroot is addition - Energy from nuclear reaction includes the bomb 

message: In Five Days if there are no votes against losing the Tag - the Tag should be removed by Consensus.
It strikes me that we've found some comity, the latest movement is less about POV and more about ontology.
The proposed Introductions (other than mine of course) are fairly bland with respect to POV, and in short I don't see a huge discrepency. Ultra seems to be pushing for vaguely sourced assertions in favor ("some governments" is vague), and while its unencyclopedic IMHO, its not aggregiously POV, so Here's ONE VOTE FOR REMOVING POV. Benjamin Gatti 06:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose Losing the POV Tag 

message: There's a few numbers, but the balance of sources do converge on this number 6.8% of energy etc... Since I'm the only other source contributer on that - I'll stipulate to the higher number - as comfortable.
And it is very important in the first few sentences to establish the scope of the article.
Any person of ordinary intelligence can see that the article is not about nuclear weapons. It is not about "natural decay" which makes the next sentence (Could replace oil) a non sequitor. And if it is about Fusion, then scratch all the "realistic" assertions.
This is a factual article describing the source of near 20% of the world's energy. Any Nuclea Power technology which has significantly contributed to that 20% is welcome - all others need not apply.
Benjamin Gatti 06:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percent isn't Disputed 

message: "Canada is planning to build new reactors, or reopen old ones.". News to me. Any sources? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Form the source in the article "* In Canada, 'planned' figure is 2 laid-up Pickering A reactors and 2 Bruce A units." Ultramarine 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Building Reactors

message: A google search of "Nuclear Power" returns several pages of entries not one of which refers to anything other than the generation of electricity by fission. I vote for the article to express the commonest meaning of the word - leaving pedagogy to the disabiguation line.Benjamin Gatti 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Google says Nuclear Power is Fission

message: I re-worded the sentence in the intro again to change the text so that it does not use the phrase "peak oil depletion" which I don't think is logicially/grammatically correct.  If it is in the strictest sense grammatically correct it is at the very least confusing and awkward when read.  The problem as I see it is that peak oil is not a very accurate term.  It does not refer to the process so much as the peak itself, therefore the term "peak depletion" does not make a lot of sense.  In energy and environmental circles people will read this and immediately understand when you say "peak oil" you are referring to a process, but most native English speakers wont unless they already know about the phenomena and the various attempts to apply it to a global scale.  
The wording I replaced it with "to decline in availability" refers only to the part of the "Hubbert peak process" that is releavent to the sentence and is intuitively understood by nearly all English speakers.  It also is one that they will likely click on as the idea of scarcity of resources and cost of oil is one that people read about in the news a lot and they can relate to.  If someone generally follows the evening news about gas prices with interest, they are very likely to follow that link.  
If everyone disagrees with me that if fine but as a compromise if you want to change it back could we possibly change it to "Hubbert peak depletion" instead as this is less likely to sound awkward to the reader. Dalf | Talk 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about instead of "begin to decline in availability" something more simple like "begin depletion"? zen master    T  02:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned that up just now and hopefully addressed Benjamin's separate criticism below.  Prices will go up precisely because there is less oil available, we will have to make do with less ability to do work since alternatives aren't nearly as good nor are they ready to full the ever increasing depletion gap. zen master    T  02:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it one mroe time to read "alternative to fossil fuel should they become less practical due to depletion", since most models of how the peak will go do not involve a rapid decreas in avalibility when depletion starts but a gradual increas in cost that grows faster and faster untill it becomes unsupportable.  Is this ok? Dalf | Talk 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last change works for me. Perhaps we should have started this content dispute one edit at a time ;)  Though I suspect the final product would be stylistically ... errr .... interesting. Dalf | Talk 03:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not actually speculation, it's a factual statement within the context of industry/governmental advocacy for an increased usage of nuclear power in the future, which is necessary (at least arguably) because of peak oil. zen master    T  02:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen-master is correct here.  The eventual depletion of fossil fuels (and more importantly the desire to take preemptive steps to insure our way of life is not disrupted) is a significant driving force behind Nuclear power development (or at least the people lobbying for it) and also behind the same push for renewables.  The details are speculation, theories on when this peak will be reached vary from some time next year to about 30 years from now for oil and +10-20 years for gas.  But, no one denies that it will happen.  The models it is based on are the same ones that they use for logistics planning in exploiting individual oil fields and mines only applied to a global scale. Dalf | Talk 02:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak oil 

message: This link is on the Nuclear reactor page and shows a graph of how many Nuclear power plants came on line each year.  I thought it was intresting. Dalf | Talk 03:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intresting link 

message: Can I just mention the news article today in which a whistle-blower gets beat up for shining light of problems in a nuclear facility.
Uh and that's in the American States (As one wikipedians said).
I just want to share how comforting it is to know that nuclear facilities are run by people who would have whistle-bloweres beat up the night before they testify - it goes well with the idea that nuclear power is so very safe - we ought to put it in the hands of more people.
Can't wait.
Benjamin Gatti 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have URLs/citations for this info? indeed interesting, thx. zen master    T  03:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Are these allegations just localized fraud or something larger about the industry/lobby as a whole?  What evidence or allegations might these whistle blowers present besides fraud?  Are there any suspects?  Why aren't we hearing more about this in the media? zen master    T  08:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems we got a healthy dose here in Charlotte - his picture was on (Probably Fox or MSNBC or both since that's my typical cable news fare) There's a fair chance that it was nothing - and he just angered some people, but the logic is missing. Even if a guy bumps you or perhaps hits you - I doubt that would be enough provocation to beata man to a pulp and leave him for dead - that explanantion doesn't presume rational actors. The idea that he and another have been threated verbally, and then there is follow through on the eve of testimony - that presumes rational actors with a secret. I would therefore put more weight on the explaination which presumes rational actors - until shown false.
Benjamin Gatti 00:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Alamos Lab 

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: Nuclear power is energy generated from nuclear reactions or decay of an atom. After having dropped the a-bomb on Hiroshima President Dwight Eisenhower of the United States commissioned the USS Savannah as the flagship of his Atoms for Peace Campaign hoping to represent a peaceful role for the twin terrors: the a-bomb, and a nation willing to use it. Atomic energy as it was first called was held out as an endless source of electricity abundant enough to share and "too cheap to meter". An unfortunate series of accidents and political cover-ups led to the formal organisation of grassroots so-called environmentalist groups including greenpeace which contiue to oppose the use of nuclear power because of the long term problems of storing radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive contamination by an accident, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Recent concerns about global warming have caused even some environmentalists to reconsider its potential as newer designs once again hold out the promise of safe, clean, and abundant energy. It is disputed whether the risks of nuclear power can be mitigated through new technology.
*I think we agree this is a solilique on the social rather than the scientific issues related to nucular power. There are many truly intresting tidbits which are less well know - such as that nuclear power was pushed - more because Ike wanted atomic reactions to do as much good as they had done evil, and the industry was compelled quite literally by a sense of atomic-regret. the other is the foundational issue of greenpeace, and - as you say - that renewable energy proponants are split on the issue. I suggest that the links are the best use of this artical, since details on Chernobyl belong under chernobyl, reactiondetails - including the venting of krypton probably belong under that particular reactor - because there are other form of this title which to which that does not relate. We're overlength generally, and i think it is due to lack of subject matter discipline.
*I was sort of hoping we could try one change at a time and discuss it before moving to the next.  In the case of whole sections of information like this about Eisenhower we don't have to start with exact wording but instead what information specifically we would like to include.  After we decide on what information is general enough for an overview describing Nuclear power in the generic then we can decide on a wording that fits into the rest of the intro with out sounding like a non sequitur. Dalf | Talk 20:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Proposal by Benjamin

message: Nuclear power is energy released by the destruction of atomic particles. Nuclear power currently provides 2.5% of the worlds energy. Due to growing concerns related to the use and availability of fossil fuels, some governments continue to invest in nuclear power because it could provide reliable energy at market prices with less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. It's use however is controversial because of the long term problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is disputed whether the risks can be suffeceintly reduced with new technology.
Benjamin Gatti 01:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Intro by Ben

message: :See section below for comments and responses to the numbers in (())
Nuclear power is power, usually in the form of electircity, generated by harnesing the energy released in a controled nuclear reaction. It currently provides about 17% of the world’s electricity and 6.8% of total energy. Nuclear power was first commercially used in the 1950's. It was initially viewed by many with significant optimism as a nearly limitless source of cheap power.  However, in the decades that followed a number of accidents at nuclear facilities and the continued unresolved problem of long term storage of nuclear waste, shook public confidence in the technology.  As a result new construction on nuclear power plants, especially in western countries, all but stopped.  In recent years growing environmental concerns, projections of future energy demand, concerns about long term availability of fossil fuels, and the view of nuclear power as a reliable and relatively clean power source has prompted some governments to reinstate or start commercial nuclear power programs.  Its use however is still controversial largely because of the long term problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for radioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  As a result there is significant debate both internationally and within nations about the comparative benefits and risks of the technology.
*How is this version?  I am not 100% happy with it myself (and I wrote it) I would like to have some better details about exactly when new construction stopped in the west (a decade or half a decade will be fine).  I also tend towards run on sentences and poor punctuation etc.  I tried to write it so that it did not sound like each sentence was written by one side or the other and frame the whole thing in terms of the actual use of nuclear power in the world.  I did not mention any countries specifically only "the west" which I think is important since it includes a large portion of users of nuclear power as of a few decades ago.  This does omit the USSR and its descendant states but I don't know if there was a similar stop/slow down there at the time (though given that Chernobyl was there one would expect this).  In any event what does everyone think? Dalf | Talk 02:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Constitution of India states India to be a sovereign, secular, democratic republic. India is a federal republic, with a bicameral parliament operating under a Westminster-style parliamentary system. It has a three branch system of governance consisting of the legislature, executive and judiciary.
===History===
*This is good in that it is a bit more comprehensive - I understand the desire to touch on WWII but that is merely a proxy for Hiroshima which is the real connection. Leaving the reader to understand the relevance of WWII is unencylopedic.
**Actually I did not specifically call out the bombs because nuclear weapons are not and example of nuclear power in terms of how this article is addressing it.  I don't want to leave the reader to make the connection I only want to postpone that connection until the reader gets to the history section.  That said changing it to something like: "First commercially used a decade after the use of nuclear weapons to end World War II; it was initially viewed with significant optimism as a nearly limitless source of cheap power." I am not sure if the ; is correct there but you get the idea.  Does that look better? Dalf | Talk 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Intro Proposal by Dalf

message: *This is good in that it is a bit more comprehensive - I understand the desire to touch on WWII but that is merely a proxy for Hiroshima which is the real connection. Leaving the reader to understand the relevance of WWII is unencylopedic.
**Actually I did not specifically call out the bombs because nuclear weapons are not and example of nuclear power in terms of how this article is addressing it.  I don't want to leave the reader to make the connection I only want to postpone that connection until the reader gets to the history section.  That said changing it to something like: "First commercially used a decade after the use of nuclear weapons to end World War II; it was initially viewed with significant optimism as a nearly limitless source of cheap power." I am not sure if the ; is correct there but you get the idea.  Does that look better? Dalf | Talk 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: *The repetitious use of the word "view" is unverifiable. It was presented, advertised, promoted are verifiable facts, but unless you have a poll which states how these messages were perceived - perception is unverifiable, and misses the point. The action is the promotion of the thing - one might even blame the viewers for their errors in perception. Let's not convict bystanders - let's name the names of those who sold us a bill of goods. Benjamin Gatti 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: View as Passive Voice

message: Does Decay accurately describe forced destruction?
*Decay is the correct scientific term, and the terms forced and destruction are somewhat incorrect form a scientific stand point.  The process is natural in that it is inherent to the elements and happens naturally at a slower rate.  Fission plants simply induce criticality causing the reaction to happen much faster, and nothing is destroyed that would violate several laws of physics, the material is transmuted (though I am not sure that transmute is 100% correct scientifically).  In any event decay is the correct term. 
**Decay is the natural breakdown which occurs in stored uranium and is governed by the half-life phenom. Atomic energy actually refers to the conversion of mass into energy using the formula E=MC2 where E is Energy (not Power) M is Mass and C is the speed of light. In practice Power is derived from this process by placing atomic mass close enough that the natural decay of one atom releases accelerated particles which bang into another mass and compel the immediate conversion of mass in that atom - which in tun etc etc chain reaction.
***I am glad that you put the distinction here between raw energy and power.  It applies to your argument above about weapons.  In this case it does not apply since the whole point of the power plant is to convert this raw energy into power.  It is true that the process is artificially speed up in a nuclear reactor but the process is the same.  The equation for conversion of mass to energy (with total conservation of the two) applies.  But if we want to be more clear how about: Nuclear power is power released as part of a controlled nuclear reaction constituting either the fission or fusion of atomic particles.'  It is explicit and describes exactly what happens. Dalf | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comments/questions

message: *As I understand it there have been a number of accidents involving actual power plants, research reactors and storage facilities.  Not all of them have been fatal but all have contributed to one degree or another to public opposition to the technology.  I think the details can be mentioned in the article.  In fact I think we could even do a section on accidents (though I think including that information in the history section first THEN seeing it deserves its own sub-heading would be the way to go).
** We should agree that it is the gravestones and the horrible nature of the death which has people concerned. Non-fatal accidents are used to punctuate the more important fatal accidents.
***Oh I think the environmental damage is an issue for a lot of people.  I also think that all of this should be mentioned in detail in the article not in the introduction! Dalf | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatal?

message: *I really like the parts of the last sentence that you struck out for the following reasons: It shows that the debate is more than academic, the results of this debate have a real impact on what sort of power plants get built.  While I have no doubt that the issues is discussed in countries without the capability/resources/will to build nuclear power the impact of the debate in those areas is less significant to the use of the technology.  The wording also adds a sort of connection to the rest of the introduction so that it does not seem to come out of nowhere as an added sentence to the end. Dalf | Talk 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Last sentence

message: (Redirected from Nuclear Power)
Nuclear energy is energy released from the nucleus of an atom by the conversion of its mass to energy consistent with Albert Einstien's formula E=MC^2 in which E = Energy, M = Mass and C = the Constant Speed of Light. Nuclear energy was first used in 1895 by German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen to produce X-ray photographs. Nuclear energy was later used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States of America to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, Japan by means of the atomic bomb. After the War, Nuclear energy was harnessed to create electricity and today supplies some 2.5% of the World's energy. The use of Nuclear energy for peace or war is controversial because of the long term problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential forradioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is hoped that new reactor designs and underground storage schemes could prevent these problems.
:Comments:
:* X-Rays aren't a nuclear phenomenon. Referring to Henri Becquerel and the Curies would be more accurate.
:* Energy from nuclear fission was harnessed to create electricity and provide naval propulsion...
:* It is hoped that new reactor designs could prevent operational hazards and underground storage would alleviate the risks associated with spent fission fuel.
:Atlant 16:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think mentioning that it is power derived from nuclear reactions and linking to the article on it is better than trying to describe the process in the introduction.  I changed my proposed version above to do this and removed the word decay. Dalf | Talk 00:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: added disambig with Nuclear powers after reading this link. Dalf | Talk 00:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Does "energy" include transportation fuel?  I don't think so.  I've read nuclear would have to increase over 100 fold to match fossil fuels (that would be 500% of world energy which doesn't make sense).   I changed the intro to say "about 5%" which seems better than a huge range. zen master    T  06:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An Accurate Intro

message: I have removed that part of the sentence mentioning the heat wave in France from the introduction (this has been reomoved and reinstated before now). The fact that a heat wave caused thousands of deaths in France has nothing to do with nuclear power and mentioning this in the introduction is confusing. The effects of increasing water coolant temperature on the generation of nuclear power is mentioned in the disadvantages section further on, so it is not disregarded in this article. --AjAldous 12:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding heat wave

message: I am working on a proposal to use obsolete single hull ships at sea with Dual Driven LNG-fired turbines and Wave energy (when available) with an undersea cable(s) and seasonal migration up and down the california coast providing partially renewable peak power during the respective seasonal peaks. The system needs no redundant generator because it is always spinning. It integrates renewables as available while providing 100% utilisation of the mechanical investment. And it solves the problem with oil extraction of the US coast - which is what to do with the NG - Over the long term, if hydrogen storage becomes available, such can be generated and used to sweeten the NG, or burned directly creating 100% renewable energy from a scheme which starts today as LNG at 100% reliability and availability - Now in what way is such a scheme any less tested than a pebble bed reactor, any greater cost than a nuclear plant, and in hte end any less "realistic" as you claim?
Benjamin Gatti 21:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: realistic counter proposal 

message: Curious point on India and China - according to US Stats, when countries supply a moderate level of electricity - the population stabilizes, which suggests that if an environmental source of energy were found, future impact on the environment caused by growth, water consumption, construction, deforestation for foodcrops housing & roads and competition for natural resourcs could be reduced while increasing education and literacy would result. In short the argument for nuclear power could be very strong.
Benjamin Gatti 02:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy = Population Stability

message: If no one has objections I want to reorder this talk page so that all the discussion about the introduction is together and basically in the order that it happened.  I wont remove any comments and I will leave associated comments together so they make sense.  What will change is as follows:
*The headings Intro revisited and intro needs to provide interesting facts - which are supported in the article will be merged under one heading Introduction with a sub heading of Content and style and the section for proposals of what the intro should look like will have the subheading Proposals and then perhaps a subheading at the bottom for Votes and discussion that we can use once we have a few proposals up that people like.  I suspect we will be bale to narrow it down to 2 or 3 proposals and then I bet we will be able to get a number of people to vote.  Granted a lot of people don't like voting on everything but in this case I think it will serve us well, and there are a number of lurkers around who are interested and probbly following parts of this discussion who will contribute their opinions if we get that far.  
The other sections Storage (was Cheap not the same as realistic), realistic counter proposal, Energy = Population Stability will be merged under the heading Economics of Nuclear vs. Renewables or some other better named heading that someone will suggest in the next 12 or so hours.  This section will be left at the bottom (or top what do you think) to record what was done.
 
Dalf | Talk 02:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, I am more interested right now in getting the introduction section done and agreed upon then we can start the history section (which I think needs a lot of work).  If any of the other stuff comes back up we can dig it out or summarize it. Dalf | Talk 04:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: I want to Object to where the intro is going.
First I think "Energy over Time" is silly - i inserted to make the point that Power is not Energy.
Second - this appears to be a narrow discussion of the use of nuclear power rather than say coal or wind. We have exactly zero comparisons to the relative benefits of Chemical or Biological alternative to Nuclear Power as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Which raises a problem. We should disambig Nuclear Weapon, reactor, energy, Power (Nation), as well as fission and fussion, because a discussion of sustained energy (power) cannot more than speculate about fusion, and it is misleading to suggest that the power of the sun is the same as the 6.8% of the world's energy which is provided by nuclear fission reactors.
Benjamin Gatti 03:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power is not Energy any more than squareroot is addition - Energy from nuclear reaction includes the bomb 

message: In Five Days if there are no votes against losing the Tag - the Tag should be removed by Consensus.
It strikes me that we've found some comity, the latest movement is less about POV and more about ontology.
The proposed Introductions (other than mine of course) are fairly bland with respect to POV, and in short I don't see a huge discrepency. Ultra seems to be pushing for vaguely sourced assertions in favor ("some governments" is vague), and while its unencyclopedic IMHO, its not aggregiously POV, so Here's ONE VOTE FOR REMOVING POV. Benjamin Gatti 06:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose Losing the POV Tag 

message: There's a few numbers, but the balance of sources do converge on this number 6.8% of energy etc... Since I'm the only other source contributer on that - I'll stipulate to the higher number - as comfortable.
And it is very important in the first few sentences to establish the scope of the article.
Any person of ordinary intelligence can see that the article is not about nuclear weapons. It is not about "natural decay" which makes the next sentence (Could replace oil) a non sequitor. And if it is about Fusion, then scratch all the "realistic" assertions.
This is a factual article describing the source of near 20% of the world's energy. Any Nuclea Power technology which has significantly contributed to that 20% is welcome - all others need not apply.
Benjamin Gatti 06:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percent isn't Disputed 

message: "Canada is planning to build new reactors, or reopen old ones.". News to me. Any sources? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Form the source in the article "* In Canada, 'planned' figure is 2 laid-up Pickering A reactors and 2 Bruce A units." Ultramarine 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Building Reactors

message: A google search of "Nuclear Power" returns several pages of entries not one of which refers to anything other than the generation of electricity by fission. I vote for the article to express the commonest meaning of the word - leaving pedagogy to the disabiguation line.Benjamin Gatti 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Google says Nuclear Power is Fission

message: "the unsolved problem of storing radioactive waste for 10,000 years"
NUCLEAR WASTES DO NOT LAST 10,000 YEARS!  The longest lived wastes last only a few hundred years.  Another POV statement that has just been removed. Andros 1337 00:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has added it back in and I once again reverted it.   THERE IS NO WAY I WILL LET A HUGE LIE BE IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE..  I have also changed the template to TotallyDisputed. Andros 1337 01:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: .  Scroll down the page and see for yourself. Andros 1337 01:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this URL disprove the claim of 10,000 years?  Uranium and other "fuel" sources used in nuclear power are radioactive themselves for greater than 10,000 years, right? (it's not just the "waste", environmentalists' "unsound" point against nuclear power basically argues that the fuel itself is waste, given that it is highly concentrated and radioactive [more or less])  Is this URL's hundred years point specific to "new" reactor types only perhaps?  Would nuclear power justifiably be considered even more "unsound" if the full truth of accidents etc was known?  We can change the sentence in the article to something like "between 300 and 10,000 years" and/or note the waste estimate is disputed if you truly desire.  This website has a very pro industry slant to it, how did an "institute" get a dot edu anyway? zen master    T  01:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposed to putting any number at all.  I would support "an indefinite period  of time" but putting an exact number is wrong because we are talking about many different kinds of waste and some of them will last longer than others.  Additionally the length of time they remain dangerous depends on the environment they are stored in, what manner they are stored and what technological changes may happen.  In any event I suspect that at least some of it will not be safe to say put in the water table for significantly longer than 10k years and some of it would be ok in a few hundred.  We are talking about a wide array of different substances and so giving a number like a hard and true fact is simply wrong.  Mind I am not saying that the 10k year figure is not in the ballpark if you are talking about the vast bulk of the material in question but neither am I saying that we (or anyone) really knows.  What we can all agree on is that it will outlive us in its radioactivity and so for all intents and purposes it is indefinite. So I would support the totally disputed tag.  Also in regards to Ben's comment about removing the nopv tag.  I think we need to have the WHOLE article overhauled before we remove that. Dalf | Talk 03:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "indefinitely" sounds good to me. zen master    T  03:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear wastes 

message: I re-worded the sentence in the intro again to change the text so that it does not use the phrase "peak oil depletion" which I don't think is logicially/grammatically correct.  If it is in the strictest sense grammatically correct it is at the very least confusing and awkward when read.  The problem as I see it is that peak oil is not a very accurate term.  It does not refer to the process so much as the peak itself, therefore the term "peak depletion" does not make a lot of sense.  In energy and environmental circles people will read this and immediately understand when you say "peak oil" you are referring to a process, but most native English speakers wont unless they already know about the phenomena and the various attempts to apply it to a global scale.  
The wording I replaced it with "to decline in availability" refers only to the part of the "Hubbert peak process" that is releavent to the sentence and is intuitively understood by nearly all English speakers.  It also is one that they will likely click on as the idea of scarcity of resources and cost of oil is one that people read about in the news a lot and they can relate to.  If someone generally follows the evening news about gas prices with interest, they are very likely to follow that link.  
If everyone disagrees with me that if fine but as a compromise if you want to change it back could we possibly change it to "Hubbert peak depletion" instead as this is less likely to sound awkward to the reader. Dalf | Talk 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about instead of "begin to decline in availability" something more simple like "begin depletion"? zen master    T  02:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned that up just now and hopefully addressed Benjamin's separate criticism below.  Prices will go up precisely because there is less oil available, we will have to make do with less ability to do work since alternatives aren't nearly as good nor are they ready to full the ever increasing depletion gap. zen master    T  02:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it one mroe time to read "alternative to fossil fuel should they become less practical due to depletion", since most models of how the peak will go do not involve a rapid decreas in avalibility when depletion starts but a gradual increas in cost that grows faster and faster untill it becomes unsupportable.  Is this ok? Dalf | Talk 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last change works for me. Perhaps we should have started this content dispute one edit at a time ;)  Though I suspect the final product would be stylistically ... errr .... interesting. Dalf | Talk 03:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not actually speculation, it's a factual statement within the context of industry/governmental advocacy for an increased usage of nuclear power in the future, which is necessary (at least arguably) because of peak oil. zen master    T  02:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen-master is correct here.  The eventual depletion of fossil fuels (and more importantly the desire to take preemptive steps to insure our way of life is not disrupted) is a significant driving force behind Nuclear power development (or at least the people lobbying for it) and also behind the same push for renewables.  The details are speculation, theories on when this peak will be reached vary from some time next year to about 30 years from now for oil and +10-20 years for gas.  But, no one denies that it will happen.  The models it is based on are the same ones that they use for logistics planning in exploiting individual oil fields and mines only applied to a global scale. Dalf | Talk 02:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak oil 

message: This link is on the Nuclear reactor page and shows a graph of how many Nuclear power plants came on line each year.  I thought it was intresting. Dalf | Talk 03:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intresting link 

message: Can I just mention the news article today in which a whistle-blower gets beat up for shining light of problems in a nuclear facility.
Uh and that's in the American States (As one wikipedians said).
I just want to share how comforting it is to know that nuclear facilities are run by people who would have whistle-bloweres beat up the night before they testify - it goes well with the idea that nuclear power is so very safe - we ought to put it in the hands of more people.
Can't wait.
Benjamin Gatti 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have URLs/citations for this info? indeed interesting, thx. zen master    T  03:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Are these allegations just localized fraud or something larger about the industry/lobby as a whole?  What evidence or allegations might these whistle blowers present besides fraud?  Are there any suspects?  Why aren't we hearing more about this in the media? zen master    T  08:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems we got a healthy dose here in Charlotte - his picture was on (Probably Fox or MSNBC or both since that's my typical cable news fare) There's a fair chance that it was nothing - and he just angered some people, but the logic is missing. Even if a guy bumps you or perhaps hits you - I doubt that would be enough provocation to beata man to a pulp and leave him for dead - that explanantion doesn't presume rational actors. The idea that he and another have been threated verbally, and then there is follow through on the eve of testimony - that presumes rational actors with a secret. I would therefore put more weight on the explaination which presumes rational actors - until shown false.
Benjamin Gatti 00:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Alamos Lab 

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: I re-worded the sentence in the intro again to change the text so that it does not use the phrase "peak oil depletion" which I don't think is logicially/grammatically correct.  If it is in the strictest sense grammatically correct it is at the very least confusing and awkward when read.  The problem as I see it is that peak oil is not a very accurate term.  It does not refer to the process so much as the peak itself, therefore the term "peak depletion" does not make a lot of sense.  In energy and environmental circles people will read this and immediately understand when you say "peak oil" you are referring to a process, but most native English speakers wont unless they already know about the phenomena and the various attempts to apply it to a global scale.  
The wording I replaced it with "to decline in availability" refers only to the part of the "Hubbert peak process" that is releavent to the sentence and is intuitively understood by nearly all English speakers.  It also is one that they will likely click on as the idea of scarcity of resources and cost of oil is one that people read about in the news a lot and they can relate to.  If someone generally follows the evening news about gas prices with interest, they are very likely to follow that link.  
If everyone disagrees with me that if fine but as a compromise if you want to change it back could we possibly change it to "Hubbert peak depletion" instead as this is less likely to sound awkward to the reader. Dalf | Talk 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about instead of "begin to decline in availability" something more simple like "begin depletion"? zen master    T  02:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned that up just now and hopefully addressed Benjamin's separate criticism below.  Prices will go up precisely because there is less oil available, we will have to make do with less ability to do work since alternatives aren't nearly as good nor are they ready to full the ever increasing depletion gap. zen master    T  02:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it one mroe time to read "alternative to fossil fuel should they become less practical due to depletion", since most models of how the peak will go do not involve a rapid decreas in avalibility when depletion starts but a gradual increas in cost that grows faster and faster untill it becomes unsupportable.  Is this ok? Dalf | Talk 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last change works for me. Perhaps we should have started this content dispute one edit at a time ;)  Though I suspect the final product would be stylistically ... errr .... interesting. Dalf | Talk 03:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not actually speculation, it's a factual statement within the context of industry/governmental advocacy for an increased usage of nuclear power in the future, which is necessary (at least arguably) because of peak oil. zen master    T  02:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen-master is correct here.  The eventual depletion of fossil fuels (and more importantly the desire to take preemptive steps to insure our way of life is not disrupted) is a significant driving force behind Nuclear power development (or at least the people lobbying for it) and also behind the same push for renewables.  The details are speculation, theories on when this peak will be reached vary from some time next year to about 30 years from now for oil and +10-20 years for gas.  But, no one denies that it will happen.  The models it is based on are the same ones that they use for logistics planning in exploiting individual oil fields and mines only applied to a global scale. Dalf | Talk 02:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak oil 

message: This link is on the Nuclear reactor page and shows a graph of how many Nuclear power plants came on line each year.  I thought it was intresting. Dalf | Talk 03:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intresting link