Talk:Economics of nuclear power plants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Proliferation and Terrorism[edit]

The last sentence in this chapter is far away from touching the relevant fields of concern in both proliferation and terrorism prevention. BR MG 2013-10-17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.5.6.220 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This Article reeks of Bias[edit]

The sources cited are disproportionately critical of nuclear power plant economics. Prominent critics of nuclear power are quoted directly and extensively while prominent supporters are rarely quoted if at all. Pro-nuclear viewpoints are virtually unrepresented and sources that show nuclear energy in a favorable light are questioned in an apparent attempt to poison the well.

One paragraph addresses the problem of nuclear power plant aging like this:

New reactor designs have been proposed but there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly.[61] Mistakes do occur and the designers of reactors at Fukushima in Japan did not anticipate that a tsunami generated by an earthquake would disable the backup systems that were supposed to stabilize the reactor after the earthquake.[62][63] According to UBS AG, the Fukushima I nuclear accidents have cast doubt on whether even an advanced economy like Japan can master nuclear safety.[64] Catastrophic scenarios involving terrorist attacks are also conceivable.[61]

An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents would be expected in that period.[65][66] To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the world since 1970 (one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of generation II reactors. This leads to on average one serious accident happening every eight years worldwide.[63]

In terms of nuclear accidents, the Union of Concerned Scientists have stated that "reactor owners ... have never been economically responsible for the full costs and risks of their operations. Instead, the public faces the prospect of severe losses in the event of any number of potential adverse scenarios, while private investors reap the rewards if nuclear plants are economically successful. For all practical purposes, nuclear power's economic gains are privatized, while its risks are socialized".'[67]

The Italic part can be seen as a pro-nuclear viewpoint offering a solution to the problem, though it is hard to tell considering that it does not even make up a whole sentence. The rest of the sentence and the entire paragraph (bolded) is critical of future power plants. This is not even close to being a balanced, neutral and impartial point of view.89.160.217.101 (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You say the article "reeks of bias". Please provide full details of recent, reliable, unbiased, sources which you would like to see included. See WP:RS. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider becoming a registered user, see WP:IP ... Johnfos (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No ongoing discussion, so I will remove the POV tag. If discussion starts again, I would suggest inviting energy economics expert, Prof John Quiggin (User:John Quiggin), to join in... Johnfos (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)