Jump to content

Talk:Nuclear power debate/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Environmental effects section

In the Waste subsection it says

The argument has been made that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[51][52] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[53] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.[54] These statistics reinforce the scientific consensus that man-made fossil fuel waste has caused global warming.

I don't understand the last sentence, why the previous mentioned statistics reinforce consensus on global warming.Ornilnas (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Really, wouldn't a debate about the use of nuclear energy include advantages too? All I see are "Critics say", "Critics believe". Rather then just listing the aspects of nuclear energy production and its problems, can't we do a clear set list of advantages and disadvantages? Much more clearer then whats here right now. Everything's probably deleted though, so meh.

I agree. I am currently writing my second paper on nuclear energy as a viable energy source, and in doing so have realized the many pro's behind nuclear power. Few/None are listed or discussed or even mentioned in this article. If I had time, I would re-write (or intensively edit) this article. In the mean time, this article should be removed because of its unfair bias against Nuclear power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.169.197 (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Safety Section

This section is very much in need of some citations. It's also my hunch that the POV and tone are way off, but I'm pretty new and I don't want to over template the section.RJS29 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The section on "Takaimura 1999..." factually incorrect. It will be deleted. There is no "Takaimura" perhaps it is a mistake for Tokaimura. HIRAKU.N (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The entire section is completely and utterly biased. mäkk (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've completely deleted the safety section and merged it with the accidents section, since they really go hand-in-hand. A brief introduction to the more specific sections replaces the former safety concerns section. The reason I did this was because not only was the safety section extremely biased, it was also redundant with the following section about health concerns. I think it's a vast improvement. mäkk (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The POV stuff is back in sans citations so it looks like a Ralph Nader OpEd. You may want to check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.254.150 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a debate is to present all sides of the argument. How can this be done when you are censoring the information? The Japanese incident is FACTUAL and can be found in many duplicate sources, whether or not spelling was a problem. BIASED? That is damn right when self appointed special people are constantly deleting and censoring info which doesn't jive with a ridiculosly PRO NUCLEAR fantasy. There are many cites of hopeful technology which is just pure fantasy at this point. Left in. Factual info with or without an immediate cite BECAUSE IT IS WELL KNOWN OR QED, NOT AN OPED is cut. This is way biased over the mother article on nuclear power, even where edits are peridically blocked when more info which is contrary to the industry is added. And this is supposed to present the debate. This "debate" premise is off anyway, since there are various debates on issues within and without the industry. PRO versus ANTI sets it up to be EITHER YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US, a really simplistic Bush doctrine. DUH!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.234.62 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC) This person is a perfect example of one who exercises willful ignorance and blind adherence to one side of the argument. Even if you disagree, everyone, even liars, scumbags... are entitled to their opinion.

Hey anonymous IP address, some things you need to do: 1. Learn what the difference between an encyclopedia and a debate is. 2. Learn what neutral point of view is. 3. Stop trying to put propaganda in an encyclopedia article. 4. Get a Wikipedia account. Korin43 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Korin, you know the saying "when you assume, you make an..." Why are you assuming the writer put propoganda in an encyclopedia article, doesn't know what an encyclopedia is, and doesn't know what "neutral pint of view" is? From the above entry? You're reading more in there, so pretty biased yourself.

By the way, the Wiki tutorial on neutral point of view is incomprehensible and condescending. This is because there ain't no such thing as neutral "POV", particulary in a debate. There have been debates and encyclopedias for millenia before Wiki came along, children. You can't have it both ways: neutrality and debate. Some other writers here are on to something with the suggestion of writing about the debate rather than debating about it.

Finally, propaganda rests primarily on the nuclear industry proponents. That is why that prefix "pro" is in there. Questions and critics of that limited propoganda come from a much broader universe of discourse, facts, and inquiries. Just what is the accused writer's propoganda? To broaden the debate and not delete or censor information? That is what is written. That is neither propoganda nor a point of view. Good suggestions to yourself, Korin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.176.61 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you've seen their edits and are just looking at the talk page. Check out the revision history and it becomes fairly clear why these reverts are being made. Edits by 4.158.234.62 are extremely poor quality and attempt to change the article from an encyclopedia tone to a debate, which is not. Several edits by them are not a problem, but as their only acceptable edits are changes in wording, it's simpler to just revert them.

I am aware that you can't have NPOV and a debate at the same time. Wikipedia articles require NPOV. From this you can logically determine that Wikipedia articles are not a place for debates.

And I agree that this article should be about the debate itself, but I doubt it could be done well, and would probably be similar to how it is now. A better solution would probably be to delete the article. Nuclear power has more than enough information about the debate. Two paragraphs is probably good.

Korin43 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Korin continues to demonstrate his/her bias and urge to purge. I have submitted excellent quality factual material in either section and it has been deleted. Some remains. I am aware of junk submited, but don't throw us all in your "them." How dare you. The power article was devoid to sorely lacking of the continuus points of debate within and without the industry and proponents seek to sanitize the industry, although the article is improving with time. Korin would like us all to born yesterday, or better yet today. The article about the debate could be done very well and has been done well.

It is also untrue that Wiki is not a place for debates. Debates and disputes are recognized throughout. Read more Wiki, Korin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.234.126 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Hazard article

The Nuclear hazard looks like it should be deleted. Comments? Simesa (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, worthless article. It should be deleted/merged into something else in the nuclear family. It's sole redeeming quality is the mention of dirty bombs, which are already mentioned in this article. Mishlai (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Marked for deletion. Mishlai (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- this doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry. It lacks neutrality and would best be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.173.203 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of View problems

In Economics:

This is a controversial subject, since multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Which power source (generally coal, natural gas, nuclear or wind) is most cost-effective depends on the assumptions used in a particular study — several are quoted in the main article. A thoughtful analyst would consider the preponderance of evidence as well as methodologies from existing studies and their methodology. A thoughtful analyst would have a healthy skepticism for "studies" sponsored solely by industries themselves. Finally, broad based studies indeed hold more weight than other studies, since there are truths independent of the investigators' agendas.

This paragraph seems to be saying how sources should be chosen, which isn't the point of this article, with a pretty heavy anti-nuclear bias. I don't see how it adds anything. I'm not removing it because it may have some use to it, I just can't think of a way to condense it.

In High Level Nuclear Waste:

The same organizations usually oppose, and lobby against, processing the waste to reduce its radioactivity and longevity, and also oppose unproven and unsafe attempts at isolating the residual waste from the environment.

Adding [citation needed]

In Health Effects on population...:

While there have been numerous studies conducted on the effects of nuclear radiation on workers and nearby residents, it is difficult to find a reliable consensus. The focus of these studies is typically carcinogenic effects of the radiation. Many studies have been conducted, but due to administration by biased parties, their resulted are frequently contaminated. However, most studies conducted by non-profit, neutral agencies have found no compelling evidence of correlation between nuclear power and risk of cancer.

Adding citation needed, but the next line seems to completely invalidate this. Does [citation needed] go before or after the period?

In Public Confidence:

Polls consistently show that populations continue to oppose, or as the industry would say, "fear" nuclear, but desire the energy security.[citation needed] A comprehensive public opinion survey, performed in May and June 2006 in the European Union member countries, concluded that EU citizens perceive great future promise in the use of renewable energies, but despite majority opposition, nuclear energy proponents argue it also has its place in the future energy mix.[58]

What the purpose of this? Removing.. Korin43 (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is the most POV-laden I've seen on WP. It is supposed to describe the debate but instead it reproduces it. Unsupported allegations are introduced not as arguments but as facts. A lot of it seems to be invented. A long section describes spent fuel as a valuable heat source. I've been following the debate for thirty years and I've never seen that introduced as an argument for nuclear energy. It can't be an important part of the debate. The article isn't supposed to be a forum for expressing opinions. For it to serve as a valid information source it would have to be heavily edited and honestly it probably isn't worth the effort. I pale at the thought of the recriminations between contributors.--Cde3 (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

YES to above and here is the problem. Presently this entire article is just a chat room or blog debate with no groundrules for debate, so degenerating to a pissing match. What this should be is a descripton of the debates within and without the industry. It should describe the history to present of the people and groups involved, their points of debates, and their effects on the industry. Let's name the names and such in the article, people. Then if someone from either POV is concerned about what Nader or Cheney said, there will still be no question about what was said or done. Its up to the reader to form an opinion. Now they are shrouded in mystery, ie."some opponents claim," and there are just some bizarre entries as per heat thing above. Not scientific, logical or anything. This would help to structure this much better. This would be a typical encylcopedic entry.

Let's take, for example, the waste section. Writers are debating just how dangerous high level wastes are, how long they should be contained, how much it will cost, etc. This is ABSURD. There is no debate there. REALLY! COME ON! The debates are where to store them, broken promises of permanent storage solutions, who should pay, how responsible individual utilities should be, citizen impact on the process, etc etc. These debates are well documented.

And another writer here is correct that there are various debates and concerns. Leaving it in terms of "Nuclear, either you are for or against it" conveniently sets up a duality which obscures the story. For example, industry workers want their jobs and plants, but do not want permanent storage on their land, so have debated with the US government for permament storage solutions. Some anti nuclear activists are more concerned with the "not in my back yard" and set up the dynamic of increased cask storage in other peoples' (often tribal peoples') backyards. Now back to the existing article and there is some nutty statement about someone thinking that cask storage is best because it could be valuable in the future??? Wow. So the stalemate is now glorified, with no description of how it got that way. This is just unaccepatable and frustrating. WE deserve better.

So lets "get her done." Giving notice to contributors at the site would be preferable to just wiping out the article and starting from scratch.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.234.152 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this article about Nuclear Power Debate or Nuclear Power Hazards?

Is this supposed to be a debate? I could only read mentions to hazards from nuclear power, what about the benefits? This article is completly biased towards the anti-nuclear movement, WP is supposed to be unbiased. Either change this article or rename it to Nuclear Power Hazards.--83.132.83.105 (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OR...... contribute some of those FACTUAL BENEFITS about the industy, if you can find them. WP is supposed to advance the knowledge base, not be willfully ignorant. One finds very little of the history of industry hazards, greed, corruption, and just don't give a damn behavior. WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON?? The "movement" is the vast majority of humans on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.234.62 (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This unsigned comment is a perfect example of the problem described in the previous unsigned comment. The writer clearly is so biased he thinks the article is okay. Adding information about the benefits of nuclear energy (eliminating pollution and greenhouse gases from power plants and local devastation due to coal mining, oil drilling and transport; freedom from dependence on nondemocratic governments for energy supplies; energy supplies adequate for thousands of years) is adding more debate but isn't adding information about the debate. My opinion is that the nuclear energy debate isn't really a subject and this article serves no purpose.--Cde3 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the mentioned benefits are not about nuclear power, but are critiques of coal and oil. These are irrelevant to a debate about nuclear energy on its own merits. So what are the exact benefits again??? Spell out exactly how nuclear is free from dependence on nondemocratic governments. Like Russia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.176.61 (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, see, that's exactly the problem. People approach this article just enraged that someone could disagree with their opinions. The rage spills over onto this discussion page, which is supposed to be about the article, not about the subject and certainly not about opinions about the subject. So I mentioned some benefits of nuclear energy in parenthesis to make that point and what I got back was more debate. So am I supposed to show why it is that nuclear energy frees countries from dependence on coal and oil? Should I explain how destructive fossil fuels are and prove that part-time energy sources won't replace them? That goes totally against WP's policies, plus it's pointless because short snippets of debate like we see here will never have any effect.--Cde3 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No rage expressed in the aforementioned entry. And still waiting for the positives. You're obfuscating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.234.126 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are so many blogs where this topic is debated, you'd be much better off debating on them. The number of people who will read your opinions here is trivial. For some good information on nuclear energy's benefits, please look at http://gwperplexed.niof.org/thecase.htm. The page clearly favors nuclear energy, but all the information comes from authoritative sources.--Cde3 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line is that its contradictory to have a page called a debate that only has one side. This really is Nuclear Power Debate: Con, which is fine, but ludicrous in it's current title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.222.135 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My god these "anti-nuclear" types posting here are about the most closed-minded it's possible to get! Of course there are benefits to nuclear power, there wouldn't be any power reactors if there weren't. For one, it is base load power which is not dependent on it being daylight with minimal cloud cover (like Solar), not dependent on a necessary wind speed (like wind turbines) can be built in most locations (unlike hydroelectricity and geothermal) and does not emit CO2 as part of electricity generation (unlike coal, oil and natural gas). Furthermore, it is a large source of energy which doesn't take the food out of people's mouths, unlike bio fuels. Does any of this count as "advantages"? The "debate" is whether the benefits outweigh problems and negatives, NOT that there are no benefits at all. People who foam at the mouth and claim there are none aren't the "informed people" they imagine they are, and are simply arguing out of pure bigotry. Maybe the problems and risks do outweigh the benefits, but don't deny that the benefits exist if you want credibility.

Delete this Page?

Nuclear power has a section on the debate, and it has as much information as we really need about it, so I propose that we delete this page. It's an interesting page, but there's no reason it should be part of Wikipedia. Korin43 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Several persons have suggested the article should be deleted and no one has argued against deleting it. Suppose we set a sundown date and if no one objects we'll just do it. How about April 20?--Cde3 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'm not entirely sure of what the deletion policy is. The article on it says we can place a 'delete this' tag on the article, but only to do that if we think that no one will be against it. Korin43 (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Better to go straight to WP:AFD. I think in this case the decision to delete (if it turns out that way) needs more validation than WP:PROD would provide. Rd232 talk 04:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The debate section of weak, but deserves its own section Paxuscalta (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The original concern was that there were a number of articles that each had a "nuclear debate" or similarly-titled section, which when their contents were added together would have made the already-long nuclear power article very long. This was both a convenient place to link all those sections to, as well as giving space for a genuine discussion - however, I agree that the article as-is is grossly biased against nuclear power. Simesa (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Now March 2010 and not deleted. It would be a good article to keep if it actually addressed the topic it said it addresesed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.206.146 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As a Mechanical Design Engineer for a nuclear plant - The suggestion that the laws of the Carnot heat cycle and engine can be violated is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. See wiki on thermal efficiency sub heat engines. Please someone delete all the discussion to recapture of waste heat. Remember... if the utilities could capture the heat, and turn it into electricity, they would.... then, they would sell it to you! 4.79.200.34 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Highly radioactive waste as a power source

This article contains the suggestion that highly radioactive waste is a great thermal power source. Surely the person who wrote that knows a lot of research projects and prototype plants where this is tried out? Could you give a link? I would love to hear more about this exciting area of research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.236.115 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made this same mistake in the past. Here are the numbers, they do not work out as the article indicates. There are many seperate lines of reasoning that you can use: 

 - Virtually all spent fuel is stored on site where it was used.  Nuclear power plants have massive cooling systems for the reactors.  Where is the cooling system for the spent fuel?  If it were emitting half the heat, it would require half the cooling system.
 - About 80% of the heat from waste comes from the decay of fission products (around 20% from transuranics, and this fraction increases over time).  There is a total of 200 MeV available per fission.  About 160 MeV is released immediately, leaving just 40 MeV to be released by fission product decay.  Most of that decay happens over a few hundred years, as opposed to the original fission, which happened over, say, one year.  So the power level of decay has to be 1/1000 of the power level of fission.
 - Or, just calculate: https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Ah44oEzedZrfdGc1OVJHWHh6TDRpYmxCLXdGY3RwaGc&hl=en&single=true&gid=0&output=html

Iain McClatchie (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the suggestion in the article anymore. Maybe it was deleted since this question was asked, since it never figured importantly in the debate. James Lovelock offered to store spent fuel under his house to benefit from the heat, but I think he was only being rhetorical.--Cde3 (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m not a regular editer of Wikipedia but I had such a problem with the following paragraphs I thought I should comment:

“Though it is not a viewpoint that figures prominently in the debate, some individuals suggest the value of spent fuel would be enhanced by using it as a heat source. According to a U.S. Department of Energy report,[45] the initial heat produced by U.S. nuclear waste will be on the order of 30 to 50 times the heat flux in the Geysers geothermal reservoir in California. According to The California Energy Commission,[46] Geothermal Energy in California website, in 2007 California produced 13,000 gigawatt-hours of geothermal energy. Assuming the conservative estimate of 30 times this amount of heat flux for U.S. nuclear waste, 390,000 gigawatt-hours of energy is produced annually by U.S. waste. This is close to half of the power output by America's operational reactors (806.5 billion kilowatt-hours (bkWh in 2007).[47]

390,000 gigawatt-hours is the equivalent of 219,956,237.507 barrels of fuel oil (US). The energy return on investment for SAGD is 5.2/1.[48] Therefore, the heat flux of America's nuclear waste has the potential to produce over a billion barrels of synthetic oil annually.

The U.S. has approximately a quarter of the global inventory of spent nuclear fuel; therefore the potential exists for the development of significantly more unconventional deposits with imported spent fuel. Essentially America's total oil demand could be met from the output from the global spent fuel inventory. But that would require converting all energy use to electricity, for one thing. So this statement is rather hopeful, if not bizarre.”

- “Some individuals”, who? - “heat flux 30 to 50 times larger”, the introduction of the report referenced mentions that the rate of heat production ‘decreases rapidly with time after emplacement’ and suggests that this heat will lead to changes in the environment which will provide the energy as opposed to directly from the waste itself; misquotes the report. - “assuming conservative estimates”, it makes too many assumptions without stating them. - “806.5 billion kilowatt-hours”, the information is now out of date --138.253.231.149 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me find this section. It's another instance of this article's existential fallacy. Almost none of the article discusses the subject, which is supposed to be the nuclear power debate. Instead, the article is just a jumble of opinions related to nuclear energy. This whole section on using decay heat as an energy source could be deleted without diminishing the value of the article. But, truth be told, that is true of nearly the whole article. I don't think the nuclear power debate is even a subject. People debate over nuclear energy; people discuss the groups involved in the debate; but no one discusses the debate.--Cde3 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Gamblers Fallacy

"Considering that there have been regular nuclear accidents and "near miss" situations of potential disasters at nuclear generating plants, there is a higher probability for these events."

This is illogical. If you pulled a slot machine many times and did you hit the jackpot, your chances are not increasing, they are as low as they were when you started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.197.86 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC) It also isn't true. There have not been "regular nuclear accidents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.206.146 (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on nuclear optimism

Folks, there is a straw poll set up for the Nuclear optimism article. If you are interested please enter your opinion in the discussion page.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics / Darlington

This is in reference to the opening of the Economics section and the linkage to the Darlington Power Wiki. i) The link provides no useful information in reference to the economics. ii) The section is misplaced as it should be placed under the heading costs of new plants iii) The section is bias in its representation of the information. The cost of the Darlington facility totaled $14.5 Billion (in Canadian 1993 dollars) which was a cost overrun of about 7.1 Billion from the planning. However 70% of this overrun was incurred due to interest caused by government delay of the construction. The following is a link to a site which is pro-nuclear [1] I am bias in my opinion of nuclear energy and as such don't think I should re-write the section but think it should be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully.4 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I'm removing the notability tag as this topic is quite clearly notable, and the nuclear debate has played out recently on the pages of the New York Times, see A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power and Revisiting Nuclear Power: A Debate. Historically, the application of nuclear technology as a source of energy (and as an instrument of war) has been controversial.[1][2][3][4] Nuclear power became an issue of major public protest in the 1970s and 1980s.[5] In some countries, the nuclear power conflict "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies".[6] -- Johnfos (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl

There is a discussion below at whether the currently labelled page "Chernobyl Disaster", should be moved to "Chernobyl Accident" or possibly "Chernobyl major nuclear accident". Anyone wishing to comment/vote is invited to do so at [2] or talk:Chernobyl disaster. Simesa (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

There has been a lot of editing since the POV tag was added to the top of this article, and I'm wondering if it is still needed. If indeed it is still needed, please explain why. Johnfos (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is saturated with POV. It isn't, and never has been, an article about the nuclear power debate, but rather has been a debate. The POV's of the various editors show clearly, each editor seeking to impose his own POV on the article and to undermine other editors' POV's. We don't, and haven't, seen any discussion of the various factions and their motives, not counting the occasional slur, and little is shown about the history or the dynamics of the debate or its effects. Instead, we merely see arguments put forth that are gleaned from different advocacy groups, each argument presented as proof validating the editor's viewpoint. It would be extremely misleading to an innocent reader to let him peruse the article under the impression that it would educate him objectively and disinterestedly about the debate. The article doesn't even inform the reader about nuclear energy, since only opinions and conclusions (all from advocacy groups) are offered.-Cde3 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is probably appropriate to keep the disputed tag at the top of the article. When you think about it, our inability to co-operatively edit and come up with a satisfactory article here is just an extension of the wider nuclear power debate.
I've had a keen interest on the diffusion of technologies for many years and have never seen a technology polarise people's opinion like nuclear power. Even the debate about nuclear weapons doesn't come close to what has happened with the controversy over nuclear power. And it's not going to go away any time soon.
So I've also added a controversial template to this Talk page, for the guidance of editors. Johnfos (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing quotation in reference

It's there, in the section, "RENEWABLES in relation to BASE-LOAD ELECTRICITY DEMAND", more than half-way down. The asterisk was deleted, which may be why your search didn't find it.--Cde3 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the relevant section. I think I see what has happened. Apparently a number of small quotes from WNA have been cherry-picked to provide a negative commentary on renewables and then run together here to give the impression of one long paragraph. Johnfos (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent book on the nuclear power debate

The article devotes an entire section ("Recent book on the nuclear power debate") to a single book on the subject. I have not read the book, but it seems to me that to single out one book for this treatment is over-the-top. Any useful facts from the book should be distributed in the appropriate sections of the article, without turning the entire section into an advertisement. Any thoughts? Plazak (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to expand this section and include other books also, as I think this article does need additional content; Nuclear or Not? is another book that could be discussed. One thing I like about the section as it stands is that it summarises the arguments and is scrupulously neutral, presenting seven points for and and seven against; in an article carrying a POV tag that is a big plus. Johnfos (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If this list of points is useful as a summary, then it should not be placed here in the middle of the article; instead, it should be near the start of the article, and the book footnoted as the source. Putting it where it is just adds disorganization to the article (admittedly a common problem in wiki articles, where editors plop factoids willy-nilly without consideration to fitting them into the article). Expanding this section into something like "Recent books on the nuclear power debate" would likely just increase the disorganization. Plazak (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As I say, it summarises the arguments and is scrupulously neutral, presenting seven points for and and seven against, and so is useful to readers. Why don't you shift it and put it where you think is best? Johnfos (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You are the one who considers it useful as a summary, not me. Were it up to me, I would just scrub this section. Plazak (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I have shifted the text up to provide an overview of debate. Johnfos (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Danger of Uranium 235?

The article mentions that Uranium 235 is dangerous but fails to mentioned why. Uranium 235 is dangerous primarily due to it's toxicity, not it's radiation. It's decay rate is around 0.01 Curies for a mass of a few kilograms (ln(2)*20 moles/700 million years, convert to atoms/second), which ends up at around 5 microsieverts of gamma radiation per hour at one metre according to this radiation calculator: http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx. According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435) you could have it on your bedside table for a few weeks and not get more than your normal annual radiation dose (or use it as a pillow for a night and still be under the detection threshold for an increase in cancer). 82.11.1.60 (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More than 71 Ktons nuclear waste in the US only

Contradictory?

I was reading through this article and it says: "While there have been some disastrous accidents in the past, the reactor design was typically at fault, and modern reactors are significantly less prone to such accidents.[82] Actually, human error was the significant factor in the Chernobyl accident, as well as most others." The two statements contradict each other. Which is correct? 120.145.159.87 (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One way to interpret this is to say that human error causes accidents, but poor design makes those accidents into disasters. I seriously can't believe some of the decisions made when designing the Chernobyl reactor. Positive void coefficient my ass, that seems criminal to me. No offense CANDU. IDK112 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Research Funding

I'd like some more citations to support the article's statements about government funding of nuclear research. Are they talking about the national labs? How does one distinguish between military and civilian programs? If the navy spends $five billion developing naval reactors, and this contributes to the design of a civilian reactor, how do you count that spending? Counting that as a $five billion dollar subsidy of the nuclear power industry would be absurd. IDK112 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The loose writing and loose relationship between Atomic Energy Commission / Dept of Energy research for weapons and weapons systems and electric power generation in civic society is obvious as one reads this (late 2011). User IDK112 has a point.

Here is Sherrell R. Green, a insider, on lack of industry R&D, and the irrelevance of Federal R&D:
"... the nuclear industry invests less on R&D, as a percentage of gross revenues, than practically every other major industry you might name."
At the same time,
"... for too long the federal sector has tended to focus on 'basic science' to the detriment of use-focused R&D. .... Often, many of the challenges are in technology development and systems integration phases of development – not in the very fundamental basic research. This (technology development and systems integration) is the so-called “valley of death” between discovery and impact. It is precisely this type of RD&D that has been out of favor for too long in the federal sector, and where the interface between the federal and private sectors is broken."
As interviewed on http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/ posted Saturday, November 19, 2011
I do less Wiki article authoring these days, because the citation syntax has grown too complex for me. Maybe you can help.
About Sherrell R. Green, who is quoted:
The author has worked in Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of the world’s premier energy research laboratories, for over three decades. He has seen the ins and outs of the Department of Energy, and its national laboratories. He has been involved in major long-term international collaborations. He has supported the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in their work, and worked with the nuclear industry. The only thing he hasn't done is write for Wikipedia here. The author adds, "these venues are populated with extraordinarily bright, committed people with noble motives. Yet 'business-as-usual' doesn’t seem to be working very well in the US."
Jerry-va (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliability Section / Intermittancy

This section needs cleanup in general, as well as explanation and clairification.

This has been brought up on the Talk:Intermittent_energy_source page, and needs to be discussed here. There is labelling of nuclear power as an "intermittant" energy source, which appears to be founded on a common, lay definition of intermittant, backed up by a single source outside of the electricity industry.

My points against:

(1) The terms "baseload," "intermittant," "peak," "reliable," and the like have specific meaning when applied to power generation. They may or may not be mutually exclusive - it is possible to be baseload & intermittant, or peak & reliable. Using a more common definition stinks of the "evolution is just a theory" argument.

(2) It's an overall negative argument. If nuclear power plants, with CF >=90%, are "intermittant," is there such thing as a "reliable" generator? The section also becomes self-contradicting with "Sovacool says that previously intermittent sources such as wind and solar..." (emphasis mine), when the Intermittent_power_sources page has wind CF of 20-40%.

(3) Some of the points raised don't seem to apply to reliability or to nuclear power in general. There's a mention of geographic smoothing with regards to wind and solar... which have little to do with a discussion on the reliability of nuclear power plants. A comparison of capacity factors, downtime, and the like are needed, but this isn't a wind or solar power page.

(4) The argument is explained in a generally poor fashion. Again, see the Intermittent_power_sources page. The sections on solar and wind are easy to read, explain how each term applies to that method of generation, and then explains possible solutions. They both have multiple sources. The nuclear section reads as a short blurb without any substance, and cites one source. That same blurb is used verbatim in this article. If nuclear power is going to be considered intermittant, it ought to be presented in the same fashion as the others.

(5) The aformented source is not from the electric/power generation industry. A discussion on the reliability of nuclear power plants uses language from that industry, the same as any other specialized topic. This goes back to point #1 above.

General cleanup: The paragraph discussing high ambient temperatures I feel was written well. The preceding paragraph (quick shutdown / slow restart) should be expanded in some way, even if linking to a separate article explaining the "nuclear-physics reasons." The rest of the section needs cleaned up, tying in with point #3 above - "According to a 2011 projection by the International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world’s electricity within 50 years, with wind power, hydroelectricity and biomass plants supplying much of the remaining generation." Again, unrelated to nuclear power efficiency. Inqrorken (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliance on probabilities

The article below seems to me to have some interesting ideas:

Fukushima: Probability theory is unsafe

Even though it is only one person's view, perhaps we could incorporate it? Any comments?--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, not solely because probability theory is also on which airplane safety and the chance of cancer from asbestos and radiation exposure is also based. See here -http://fora.tv/2007/09/14/Could_Nuclear_Power_Save_the_Planet#fullprogram

This article is severely biased

Whole stretches of this article goes unreferenced, there is also too much reliance on the opinions of anti-nuclear proponents who really are not qualified to discuss the issue, Benjamin K. Sovacool and Mark Z. Jacobson for example, both have been demonstrably proven to be biased.


There is a section reading - 'Use of waste byproduct as a weapon'

But no mention of radiopharmaceuticals produced by Nuclear reactors that save millions of lives every year.

This article is not balanced and does not present the reality of the debated.

Needing revision and mention is that hydropower is similarly not privately insured against the worst case scenario, another Banqiao dam failure.

The Chernobyl section needs some numbers to quantify the death toll,

The High-level radioactive waste management section is entirely backwards as brought up on its talk page,

and so on. Boundarylayer (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

PUA

A PUA character(s) somewhere on this page is preventing maintenance bots from cleaning it up. I can't find it/them. — kwami (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Cleaned up the article a bit, let me know if you have an issue with any of my edits.75.148.183.153 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I'm looking back through a lot of Johnfos's edits, and I think a lot of the information changed has resulted in a signifigantly more POV article. I feel the article is currently biased towards the anti-nuclear debate, when it should be showing both sides equally, not putting out nuclear argument and then "crushing" them with questionably sourced statements. 75.148.183.153 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the IP I was using was apparently shared by someone back in 2013 who vandalized a bunch of articles, I've made an account to avoid confusion with him. Jadebenn (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thermodynamic efficiency.

This sentence:

"Nuclear plants require slightly more cooling water than fossil-fuel power plants due to their slightly lower generation efficiencies."

needs rewriting for two reasons. First it illustrates the problem with the antinuclear bias of presuming that Light Water Reactors ARE nuclear power rather than explicitly stating that LWRs are what is being referred to. Second, what is being referred to is the fact that LWRs have a lower thermal efficiency than new fossil fuel power plants. This is not generation efficiency and it is not plural.

Perhaps it should also be noted, since the GE-Hitachi PRISM reactor is currently before the NRC for approval, that Generation IV nuclear power plants will, in many cases, require less cooling water due to greater thermal efficiency. In some cases, they would require no cooling water because higher operating temperatures would allow the use of a Rankine cycle turbine rather than a steam turbine.

Tyrerj (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess it should read "... a RankineBrayton cycle turbine rather than a steam turbine ...". --Robertiki (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

More on antinuclear bias and naming

Searching on the news I found:

  • "Boiler explosion"
  • "Three burn victims transported to hospital after reported explosion at Cambria Cogen plant"
  • "Boiler explosion occurred on Unit 3 at PG&E 170 MW Hunters Point power plant"
  • "Anatomy of a Catastrophic Boiler Accident"
  • "Worker dies of injuries from plant explosion"
  • "Seven Dead From Hot Water Accident at Power Plant in India"
  • "Steam-pipe explosion at China power plant kills at least 21"
  • "TECO investigators identify cause of Gannon Station explosion"
  • "2007 New York City steam explosion"
  • "China blasts: Tianjin port city rocked by explosions"
  • "Worker Injured in Coal Power Plant Explosion"
  • "SoCal Edison Will Dispute Report on Plant Explosion"

Why if that happens in a nuclear plant should we read:

  • "Nuclear explosion"
  • "Three burn victims transported to hospital after reported nuclear explosion at Cambria Cogen plant"
  • "Nuclear explosion occurred on Unit 3 at PG&E 170 MW Hunters Point power plant"
  • "Anatomy of a Catastrophic Nuclear Accident"
  • "Worker dies of injuries from nuclear explosion"
  • "Seven Dead From Nuclear Accident at Power Plant in India"
  • "Nuclear explosion at China power plant kills at least 21"
  • "TECO investigators identify cause of Gannon Station nuclear explosion"
  • "2007 New York City nuclear explosion"
  • "China blasts: Tianjin port city rocked by nuclear explosions"
  • "Worker Injured in Coal Power Plant Nuclear Explosion"
  • "SoCal Edison Will Dispute Report on Plant Nuclear Explosion"

If it is to be specific, for other than nuclear plants, we don’t read of ’’thermodynamic’’ or ’’chemical’’ explosions. And to be noted: if that should be the case (to specify), 99,9% of cited nuclear explosions are not of the ’’nuclear’’ type.

Wikipedia is full of titles with that bias. Let us start with Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents. Reading I don’t find nothing to identify it as ’’nuclear’’, the correct title should be "Radiation accidents and incidents". "Nuclear accident" is a misnomer almost in all the cases. Chernobyl 1986 is not a "nuclear explosion accident" but a "steam explosion and radiation accident". Beware of the carefully crafted wording of the antinuclear bias: the words you speak change your mind as you speak. Thankfully there are only a few of "nuclear accidents" and none was ever near the definition of a "explosion".

Let us take a look at some: Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents.

Before starting a overhaul of wrong titles, I would like to assay the present consensus. --Robertiki (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. One thing I noted was the " Fukushima disaster" which refers not to the thousands killed by the few that *might* be killed by radiation. That said, I do not like your chances. Things said often enough become true, and "Nuclear is evil" is now pretty much beyond redemption. At the end, cheap solar and wind will make the argument irrelvant. Tuntable (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

While you might prefer some precise meaning for "nuclear accident" eg:a criticality accident, it's totally common for laymen to describe an accident in any part of the nuclear industry as a nuclear accident. The same way that "forestry accidents" aren't "faller accidents" or "crane accidents" ,the accident took place in the forestry industry and that's how it's described.Dougmcdonell (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Nuclear power debate. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Solar plus energy storage much cheaper has ended debate

I think the debate has ended with Solar with energy storage costing half of what it takes for a new nuclear plant. New Solar and energy storage coming up regularly, no new nuclear plants being proposed in the U.S. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've undone your bold edit. While it's amazing that solar is cheaper than new nuclear, this will not be the end of the story as (a) existing nuclear is still cheaper than solar (b) solar has other disadvantages such as it's longer-term storage needs and it's use of surface area. There is still literature indicating that nuclear has a role to play in the "cheapest/optimal" energy system. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've undone your bold undo. If you have recent references about nuclear being cheaper than please post it. As far as verbage of is/was, it is standard wikipedia style to use past tense. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

On phone, but see work by Jesse Jenkins on the role nuclear might play. Wikipedia style of tenses is consistent with normal English language: don't put things in the past tense if they're presently true. The source also failed verification : you made a general claim based on one example from one state of one country. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Going Nuclear

A fair and honest debate?

While a first reading the might give the appearance of a fair and honest debate, a closer look highlights that the general tone of the article is carefully loaded towards the nuclear power industry. For not only is the case for nuclear power stronger than that against, but many of the quoted statements are shamelessly pro-nuclear. Given this, should not the article present a balanced case for renewable and nuclear power? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.24 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral

Some parts of this article are written as an opinion piece. See things like: 

Greenpeace and some other environmental organizations have been criticized for distributing claims about CO2 emissions from nuclear power that are unsupported by the scientific data. Their influence has been attributed to "shocking" results of 2020 poll in France, where 69% of the respondents believed that nuclear power contributes to climate change.

The claim about Greenpeace is NOT supported by the [3]quoted news piece. 2A02:2788:7C8:610:FDFF:58AA:F23:2BD9 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ Robert Benford. The Anti-nuclear Movement (book review) American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 89, No. 6, (May 1984), pp. 1456-1458.
  2. ^ James J. MacKenzie. Review of The Nuclear Power Controversy by Arthur W. Murphy The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 467-468.
  3. ^ Walker, J. Samuel (2004). Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 10-11.
  4. ^ Jim Falk (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press.
  5. ^ Jim Falk (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press, pp. 95-96.
  6. ^ Herbert P. Kitschelt. Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1986, p. 57.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_power_debate/Archive_2&oldid=1234504355"