Talk:Nuclear energy policy

message: Readers here might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Nuclear_power_phase-out_talk_page_is_erroneously_redirected NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI,    screwy redirect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nuclear energy policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS101123+06-May-2009+BW20090506
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925194158/http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser2004.pdf to http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser2004.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625044818/http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/206749.pdf to http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/206749.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325171121/http://referendum.interno.it/referendum/refe110612/RFT0003.htm to http://referendum.interno.it/referendum/refe110612/RFT0003.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hey  I noticed you made an edit to this subsection that essentially reverted my changes back to the version of the article on July 24, 2021. Your reasoning was that the discussion of SMR companies/organizations was out of place there. I can see that rationale, but my goal wasn't to add that information in the first place; it was merely to provide better sources and more updated and accurate information for the existing discussion of SMR companies/organizations there. If you notice, the discussion remains because it was there on the July 24 version of the page that you reverted my edits back to. Much of that information, however, is poorly-cited or simply provides inaccurate information (e.g. CNEA is based in Argentina not Denmark, is a government agency not a company, and its SMR project, CAREM, has its own Wikipedia page). I think a case could be made for keeping the information and perhaps better explaining that these SMR projects are, at least in some part, an attempt to reduce carbon emissions (which I probably should've done in my edit). As it stands, the paragraph should either use my version (perhaps with a better rationale for inclusion) or be axed entirely if you feel strongly that it should not be there. Thanks. Gargleafg (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  I agree that the current text has errors and is out of place.  Feel free to fix it and move it to a better location, maybe by creating a subsection on SMRs under history and trends.  The Fukushima section might also be made a subsection, though it might better be framed as something on safety, accidents, and effects on nuclear power development, including Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as well as Fukushima.  The article could use some help. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historic net effect on carbon emissions and competition with renewable energy" subsection 

message: The Nuclear Energy Summit at the Brussels Expo on March 21st, 2024 deserves a mention in this article IMO, and perhaps even its own article.
See https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/22/24108679/nuclear-energy-summit-pledge-30-countries
archived at
https://web.archive.org/web/20240325103518/https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/22/24108679/nuclear-energy-summit-pledge-30-countries
Other sources needed, and comments welcome. Andrewa (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New support for nuclear energy