Talk:Nuclear Power/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of enviromentalists who support/don't support to new article?

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)

Zen, I wasn't aware that Nixins and Larouche's credentials as criminals was a matter of point of view. Perhaps you are aware of a point of view which excludes breaking and entering and tax fraud as criminal acts in the US? please explain. Actually, I restored the viewpoint neutrallity of the article by adding the "environmentalists opposed section. You should be chiding whoever inserted the flamebait section "environmentalists for nuclear power" as intentionally violating the delicate balance we have all so honorably worked to attain.

There would by the way be a huge number of environmentalists from belarus who would oppose nuclear power - but they are dead, do the souls of those killed by nuclear power count as opposition?

Why is the status of persons as "Environmentalists" more pertainant than the status as "Criminals" or "Racists" (bob jones university and high profile supporters thereof- including our good President GW Bush)

Indeed, if nuclear power is being supported by criminals, then I think that is very pertainent - far more so than the tenuous commitment of lone individuals to environmental responsability. Benjamin Gatti 15:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)

I agree that the sections don't belong at all. You don't fnd them in other articles. Simesa 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would support zen master's proposal to remove the environmentalist supporters/opponents section if Benjamin Gatti would remove the box in the talk secion which begins: The neutrality of this article is so biased it boooooooooooggles the imagination. and if he stops suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is either crazy or criminal. pstudier 23:32, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)


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)

Read The Nuclear Energy Option. Cohen is very good at estimating and comparing risks. Basically, nuclear is safer and cleaner than fossil fuels. Renewables other than hydroelectric currently produce very small amounts of very expensive power. Hydroelectric has killed hundreds of thousands (see Banqiao Dam), and it would probably be politically inpossible to build another major dam in the US. pstudier 23:55, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


What is the purpose of adding a list of people who do/don't support nuclear fission? Furthermore, examining possible criminal acts by supporters/opposers serves no purpose unless the criminal acts are relevant to the topic at hand. I have no doubt that by trolling prisions I could easily find thousands of criminals who don't like nuclear power, or that do, but what's the point. This whole section needs to be dropped, as well as the idiotic statements about "corporate subsidies". Coal is able to kill 300,000 people per year through pollution without paying a dime, and you gripe about nuclear subsidies? Like or dislike, but it is the ONLY mainstream source of power that comes even close to paying its own way. vertigre

The article mentions "Opponents of nuclear power, like Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Friends Of The Earth", but none of the Wikipedia articles for those organizations indicate that those organizations oppose nuclear power. Greenpeace has been opposed to nuclear bombs. (SEWilco 05:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC))

New Related Articles

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)

I am not sure of the context. What does "Dominion-led consortium" mean exactly? zen master T 02:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dominion [1], 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)


I am not particularly fond of the PA act page, personally. The PA act is a little more nuanced than credit is given for. Furthermore, the chernobyl numbers are a joke, did the soviet union even have $280 billion in the 80s, or today for that matter? Furthermore, was this including damages caused by having firemen and soldiers throw pieces of material back into the reactor with their bare hands, and the damage to the citizens who were told not to leave? It's hard to blame nuclear power for such abject stupidity. A more legitimate number would come from taking all the reactors of the same or similar design, calculating total damage caused (virtually all of it due to Chernobyl), then subtracting out the costs that would be incurred by an alternative power source such as coal. Be sure to subtract out all the costs, like the people who would have died of lung cancer, etc... Then you have a realistic number. The problem with most of this accounting is similar to the problem with accounting for badly out of the money options. Most of the time you make a little money, sometimes you lose a lot when somebody exercises one. If nobody exercises, you can't really say your profit is the actual money you brought it, as that is not your EXPECTED profit, just when you get lucky. By the same token, you don't fire someone when one of them gets excercised, because that's not your EXPECTED loss. If on the whole (doing it thousands of times) you would make a profit, then you consider it a profit (for purposes of punishing or rewarding the person who made the choice) no matter how it turns out. It is especially dishonest to take the entire cost of a catastrophy, and apply it against one source of power, but not apply the costs of catastrophies to other sources of power. The "cost" of making a choice is only the cost of the choice minus the cost of the alternatives.

NIMBY vs. NIABY

It is my impression that there are not a large number of opponents of nuclear power who approve of nuclear power in "Other People's Backyard."

Certainly Greenpeace is universally opposed.

The article goes on to say that people who already have nuclear plants are interested in more. - this is logical because their property values are already discounted for the presence of nuclear energy - bringing more jobs is a plus, aith little _Marginal_ costs in terms of negative housing values. But in any case - it is inconsistent to say people want them in their own backyard - and then complaint about NIMBY hypocrisy. Opponents to nuclear are I suggest not hypocritical on that level (They may drive hummers - which is a different issue) So I suggest we drop NIMBY as use the more accurate NIABY. Benjamin Gatti 02:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are locales with nuclear power plants that don't want more, and most locales without nuclear units don't want any - hence NIMBY. NIABY concerns refer more to the importing of protestors into an area that does want more nuclear. The two concerns are different, hence both should be mentioned. Simesa 17:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you've confused the NIMBY term. It characterizes the hypocricy of people who like the idea of renewable energy, but don't want wind tubines where they can see them, in general who beleiev such things should exists, such as half-way houses, mental institutions, homeless shelters, and needle exchanges, but are horrified at the prospect of any of these things being in their own posh neighborhoods. The word implies there are people who are Pro-Nuclear power, but opposed to having a nuclear plant in thier neck of the woods. Certainly, we have no such voices active in this forum, there have been no articles suggesting that such people exists, and every confrontation, insult, and disagreement present on these pages suggests that nuclear is either fine and dandy, safe and secure - or it not fine, not safe, and not dandy, not here, not there, not in a train, and not in the rain. So unless there is an actual cite to a significant group of people who are PRO-nuclear but ANTI-nuclear in theor own neighborhood - the term is in violation of wiki rules - as origiinal research.Benjamin Gatti 04:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is quite true. There are a lot of people (myself included) who, though they be physicists staunchly in favor of nuclear power, believe that it should not be deployed near major metropolitan areas. I don't particularly believe that Coal should be either (and am strongly NIAMBY with respect to coal), but I don't think that precisely makes me NIMBY, even though I live in a city. In any case, I largly agree that we should leave the NIMBY terms out, as people tend to be NIMBY about any power source, but more NIAMBY about nuclear, thus the NIMBYism isn't directly relevant to Nuclear in comparison to other power sources. If the locales that were willing to have reactors were allowed to have them, there would be no shortage of sites for plants. It's the importation of protestors that is more of a problem. Vertigre
You start by admitting such people are plentiful, then deny they can exist regarding nuclear power??? Simesa 04:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Certainly NIMBYs are plentiful with respect to other issue, and I named several. But I for one have never heard any significant voice praise nuclear in general while damning it in their own neighborhood, I would suggest the opposite generally is true, that most people think if we have to have nuclear, better in "our" country than in iran, north korea etc... So the term NIMBY doesn't really apply. The NIMBY group is the people who are right now criticizing the Cape Wind project - some prefer a beautiful coast to a clean environment. But again, i see no evidence of a nimby voice re nuclear, unless we have a quote, than really it is original research and better left to peer reviewed journals than to encyclopedias.

Benjamin Gatti 05:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can give you one off the top of my head - Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. He's pro-nuclear but doesn't want the Yucca Mountain repository on the Nevada Test Site. Simesa 05:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
... Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this week touted the pro-nuke provisions before Congress. "You're going to see a movement toward nuclear power," he said. ... [2] Simesa 28 June 2005 08:10 (UTC)


Yours is a good point. In France as well, Nuclear power is welcome, but nuclear storage has raised the NIMBY hackles even of proponants. Could we incorportate the very different attitudes between generation and storage? I think its true that nuclear generation in the vicinity means cleaner air, but storage is viewed as all negative. It is interesting that nuclear is processed by burning the dirtiest coal in poor regions, power is generated in rich areas, and then the waste is sent to poor areas. Are we not engaging in the rich dumping their trash on the poor?

Benjamin Gatti 28 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)

The TVA is hardly in a rich region - many other plants are in the boondocks as well. TVA power drives the Portsmouth enrichment facility. And Yucca Mountain isn't in a poor area - it's in the empty area of the Nevada Test Site and the Nellis Air Force Base Test Range. Of the six proposed sites for new construction, only one is in an "affluent" area (Lusby, MD). Simesa 29 June 2005 01:41 (UTC)


TVA power is some of the dirtiest. It is in standing violation of EPA standards. North Carolina is suing TVA to clean up its act. As you say it drive the processing plant. Actual Power plants seem to be prevelent in the north east, with coal dominating the southern and central regions - if i remember. Yucca is relatively sparce, but people live their, the don't benefit from nukes, why shouldn't the people who want energy bury that trash in their own vegiitable garden - ain't so safe perhaps?Benjamin Gatti 29 June 2005 01:57 (UTC)
Think of TVA nuclear units supplying their fuel enrichment facility. There are more of every kind of power plant in the Northeast - power from Ohio and Canada is sent to the Northeast. No, no one lives anywhere near Yucca Mountain - it's federal land [3]. Simesa 29 June 2005 08:32 (UTC)


Processing Plants have coal fired power stations in the US. Near is a question of scale. There are more dirty ops, mining, polluting industries in poor neighborhoods. Benjamin Gatti 29 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)
Guys, this is just asinine. Does nuclear produce more energy than it takes to extract/process the ore, and build/maintain/run the plant? Absolutely. Claiming that a little bit of electricity comes from coal, to produce fuel, that produces much more electricity is just foolish. I could just as easily claim that the nukes produce the electricity for their own reprocessing, as well as the customers, and the coal plants make extra electricity for the consumers, but it matters not a whit. Furthermore, characterizing Yucca Mountain as a poor region is extremely dishonest. It is part of a federal nuclear test range. Not only does nobody live there, but the place has been bombed by our test nukes more times than I have fingers and toes. Somehow, life goes on. Detonating nuclear weapons above ground within a hundred or so miles of Las Vegas, OK. Burying nuclear waste safely underground where it will not escape for AT LEAST a few tens of thousands of years (by which time it will be largly harmless, though perhaps slightly more radioactive than the nearby rock), not OK? Vertigre


"Certainly Greenpeace is universally opposed." Whatever do you mean? There is nothing in Greenpeace which mentions nuclear power. 207.195.192.73 7 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

"Nuclear power has no disadvantages. Only hippies don't like it."

An editor just replaced a section with this salient sentiment and since it so accurately reflects the views of some of my colleagues, i thought i'd preserve it here for the record.

colleagues, wow, what a sophisticated word for people who probably flip burgers for a living--172.150.154.125 13:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a hippie. Granted, i own a home, lease a car, eshew smoking, and am married with children, but as long as i have reservation about a deadly form of medical experimentation, i'm a hippie.

no, that doesn't make you a hippie, it just means you want the terrorists to win, pay attention to your propaganda--172.150.154.125 13:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

hip hip hooray Benjamin Gatti 29 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)

An administrator reverted those edits in under 4 minutes. They were grossly inappropriate. Simesa 29 June 2005 08:33 (UTC)

Nuclear Proliferation

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)


NPOV Proposal - Let's each editor agree that nuclear is safe - or that it isn't safe, and then be consistent with that assertion.

  • Nuclear is safe - therefore the Price Anderson is unnecessary, Nuclear plants should stand in line with wind generators at the same insurance office to get standard accounting insurance.
  • Nuclear isn't safe - we need Price Anderson - and it's probably a really bad idea to build more of these things. (Ben)(Zen Master)(Belarus)(Greenpeace)(Ralph Nader)
  • Like to have it both ways - wants nukes, doesn't care why or how. Says Nukes are safe - says Price Anderson is necessary (Bush)(GE)(Bechtel)(British Nuclear Fuel)(Simesa)(Pstudier)
As soon as a maximum insured amount is decided on, I believe the industry would be happy to insure for that. I suggest the value of everything in one-sixth of the EPZ. Till then, we'll need Price-Anderson. Simesa 30 June 2005 16:42 (UTC)

-1/6 the EPZ - something something zone, probably a radius from the plant - just curious what that is, and why you suggest a sixth - but its not critical.

Just explain for the people why this isn't the case for windmills? Benjamin Gatti
What windmills? The only windmill farm I know of is in Altamont Pass, and that's not near anyone/anything. Simesa 30 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)
Wy isn't it difficult to insure windmills - could it be because windmills are safe - and nuclear power is ... dangerous?

Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

In 1957, according to Public Citizen, the United States Senate stated that Price Anderson should only be needed for ten years because "the problem of reactor safety will be to a great extent solved and the insurance people will have had an experience on which to base a sound program of their own."

Oops not solved in 42 years. Insurance people have had experience - can you say chernobyl - ain't touchin it.

Just admit it - Price Anderson is a blatent admission that nuclear reactors are not safe and are not insurable, and could not so much as pay the rent on their radioactive double-wides without copious transfusions of wealthfare. Benjamin Gatti 30 June 2005 19:45 (UTC)

The insurance people have essentially _no_ experience. The only experience they have is Three Mile Island, and that cost essentially nothing under Price-Anderson. All the insurance people know is that the maximum amount would be more than TMI and less than Chernobyl. Simesa 30 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

If you're right, and nuclear has a cost advantage in the market and it is safe, why don't you join with other like-minded individuals to insure and fund nuclear, then you can benefit by selling it to me, or by using the energy to build SUV's. Where I object is when you can't find enough people who agree with <Strikout>me</Strikout>you, so in a secret coven, the government decides that I _HAVE TO_ join with nuclear supporters to fund and insure nuclear energy. I really don't want to, and in a free market, i shouldn't have to. So Price is a violation of my right to free association etc ... How do the insurance people know more about Wind - or about flying a private rocket, or about any other thing - they make an educated guess - that's not the problem so much as that nuclear energy isn't competative if it had to pay the market price for its insurance. How is that not fact? Your POV that insurance companies refuse to participate is POV, the truth is nuclear investors don't see a competative advantage if the cost of insurance is included in the market - so they leaned on congress to externalize the cost of insurance. Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

I didn't think that Wikipedia is a place to argue what the law or policy should be, but since you bring it up my opinion is that Price Anderson should be repealed. My favorable opinion of nuclear is well known. I think nuclear would still be viable without P-A, but this can only be truly determined in a free market in which both subsidies and unnecessary burdens are eliminated for all energy sources. For example, wind is the only non-hydro form of renewable energy with any significant production. It gets tax credits of 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour, which coincidentally is the same as the operating cost of nuclear power including provisions for nuclear waste and decommissioning. pstudier 2005 July 1 00:28 (UTC)

I concur. I am not proud of subsidies - even for wind - see my contributions to subsidy - because they encourage consumption by denying the consumer the full dollar value of not consuming. I do think that "Free" markets should try to impose the costs of "pollution" fairly - so a consumption tax on oil is in order. But the voters hate the word tax, and they like pork barreling - its a flaw in democracies generally, Alexis de Toqueville could elaborate. Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

Treatise by Vertigre

I'm eliminating this section, as this is not the proper place for it. I should not have brought it up here. Vertigre

Comparative Subsidies

If we're going to discuss renewable subsidies, it needs perspective - it can source it adequately if that's the complaint.

option II leave out renewable subsidies. Benjamin Gatti 30 June 2005 02:42 (UTC)

  • Extensive discussion of the estimated "real cost" of various energy sources for producing hydrogen to fuel onroad vehicles may be found in a recent article in Science. Although nuclear power is not included, the methodology may be of interest and, to a knowledgible person, may suggest a way of comparing the "real cost" of nuclear power to that of alternatives. Myron 30 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)
This reference [4], while unacceptably conservative, does contain a valid list of the "supply side" subsidies renewables benefit from. I'll look for better sources. Simesa 30 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

"A multibillion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. While previous renewable capacity built with liberal government subsidies is widely acknowledged to have been uneconomic and is at risk with falling electricity prices ... "

could be equally true as

"A multibillion-dollar government crusade to promote nuclear energy for electricity generation, now in its Fifth decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. While previous nuclear capacity built with liberal government subsidies is widely acknowledged to have been uneconomic and is at risk with falling electricity prices ... "

It's a source, but the source is clearly POV - in that sense its not an NPOV source of fact, just a source of opinion.

"Mandatory labeling of electricity sold to consumers, sought by some, should be rejected."

What's wrong with truth in advertising - consumers are conspirators in the production of the things they consume - why should they be shielded from their conspiracy? ~~

"Environmentalists should respect consumers' decisions to define "green" energy however they wish"

So all words should be deprived their meaning in order to confuse the issue - wow this guy fell out of the orwellian doublespeak tree and hit every branch on the way down. Benjamin Gatti

Subsidies List

Supply-Side:

  • Tax code preferences for renewable energy generation (federal and state).3
  • Ratepayer cross-subsidies for renewable energy development (state).
  • Mandatory utility purchases of power generated by renewable energy sources at the utility's "avoided cost" (federal/state).
  • Imputed environmental costs ("full environmental costing") to penalize fossil-fuel generation planning choices (state).
  • Fuel-diversity premiums to penalize reliance on natural gas in power generation (state).
  • Government payments for renewable energy research, development, and commercialization (federal and state).
  • Early entry into open-access programs for renewable energy generation (state).
  • "Green pricing" programs that are subsidized by the utilities' other electric sources (state).

Demand Side:

  • Taxpayer subsidies for energy-efficiency programs (federal and state).
  • Ratepayer subsidies for energy efficiency, so-called demand-side management, or DSM (state).
  • Minimum energy-efficiency building and appliance standards (federal and state).

-A Long List doesn not a big subsidy make - some are redundant.

"A rough estimate of electric subsidies for renewables and conservation over the last 20 years is between $30 billion and $50 billion, which does not include the substantial private costs associated with building and appliance energy-efficiency standards. This represents the largest governmental peacetime energy expenditure in U.S. history"

-This is meat. lets say $50Billion. What do we estimate for Nuclear - i think in the neighborhood of $300 Billion, but nuclear is a forward looking subsidy - like social security, the obligation to store nuclear waste projects forward and is unfunded - meaning there is not an interest bearing instrument set aside to generate the modey needed to fund storage for thousands of years. So how do we get from these numbers to Renewable get the most subsides? Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

-LOL, so you just made up a random number for the nuclear, and then you compare it with another (uncited) number for renewal? Do you actually have evidence for either of these numbers? Furthermore, the important consideration is subsidy per Joule of energy, which you blatantly disregard. Nuclear provides vastly more power than any renewable source, including Hydro. You also left off the largest renewable subsidy, the right of Hyrdoelectric dams to wipe out the northwestern Salmon, to the tune of Billions of dollars per year (times about 40 years or so....). Please, give me a break. Vertigre

Request For Cooling-Off Period

Due to the frequent editwarring on this article, I filed for a Cooling-Off Period. Simesa 1 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

I suggest that the state of the page during the cooling off period should be decided by the non-moving party - or is cooling off a POV oriented policy? Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
POV edits are the reason for reqesting the cooling off period. As to which text should be preserved, I believe a consensus version would be appropriate. Simesa 3 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)
To the contesting parties: As soon as some key comrpomises are reached based on consensus, I will lift the protection. Please try to stay focused on achieving this as the article cannot be protected indefinitely. Let me know if there's anything I could do. El_C 5 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)

Criticisms and Life Cycle

It would be more appropriate if the text matched the heading, and if the sources actually said what the text says they did. Simesa 3 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

The life cycle part is a joke. Can you find a citation that indicates that the US mines (Note, present tense) on Indian land? Furthermore, can you find a source that says what fraction of the Uranium was intended for Civilian Nuclear power, vs. cold war nuclear weapons, which are quite unrelated. Furthermore, this whole section says almost nothing about the life cycle (more often called the fuel cycle), such as the difference between closed and open, for instance. In addition, the Feds sold off their Uranium business (for a tidy sum, that I'm sure you won't be subtracting from your "subsidies") years ago, so at best, your information is out of date. Also, do you have any evidence that enrichment plants have coal fired generators, and even if they do, who cares. Just subtract the energy required to mine and refine the material from the electrical output of the plants, it's that simple. This is often done for other energy sources, and it works here to, stop slinging mud. Also, where did you get the 240 million years figure, I know you just made that one up to. Some elements are RADIOACTIVE for 240 million years (technicalities here, that are I'm sure far over your head), bbut it's a far cry from saying something is radioactive to saying it's lethal. Water can be lethal, and Sea Water is radioactive, come up with a legitimate point please.

I fixed this section, though perhaps it needs a little more work, and a little too much of my POV shows through. Vertigre

RfC

This page has been listed as needing an RfC, as seeing as it's currently locked that indeed appears to be the case :-). I want to ask both sides here to clearly and briefly state what they feel should be in the article, what shouldn't, and why. This way we can understand each other clearly and people new to the debate (waves!) can understand what's happening. Thanks in advance! Dan100 (Talk) July 5, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Hi Dan, The long raging debate as to whether nuclear power is good or bad has leaked into the wiki. Personally, i'm pushing for equal rights for both sides. i don't much care what style is adopted, but i'm less than keen on one POV being presented as if it were the wiki speaking, while the other POV is presented from third parties. Third party presentation is fine, but any - and i mean any stylistic presupposition which allows the government pro-nuclear POV better than equal rights is being parodied, ridiculed, illuminated, and pummelled mercilessly. You should be able to guess the POV's. I'm a renewable energy freak, and we have nuclear engineers taking the "Chernobly didn't ever happen approach - or if it did - it won't happen here because - and i quote "the people are different." The problem with that rationale has centered on the fact that the nuclear industry refuses to pay for its own insurance - and I intend to make that fact very (did i say very) clear. (Deadbeat engineers). Benjamin Gatti 5 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Arguments should be be supported by verifiable and reliable sources. Benjamnin Gatti insists on presenting personal opinions as if they were facts, or uses outdated sources (like statistics from from time of the Reagan administration), or in many cases no sources at all. Please check history of his edits. Ultramarine 6 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Yes - like any respectable conflict, both sides claim God, NPOV, and common sense are on their side. In that respect at least, this is a proper pitched battle. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for having the opposive view "parodied, ridiculed, illuminated, and pummelled mercilessly". It is the place for factual, emprirical arguments. Ir you don't have any, keep quiet. Ultramarine 6 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

Dan, the problems seem to have been editwarring, excessive pov without citations, misrepresenting citations, even a paragraph that was basically a commercial for renewable power. Currently the parties are battling it out in Price-Anderson Act (RfC, RfP, now RfM and likely RfAr), but this article definitely isn't resolved yet. For your background, I'm a nuclear engineer who hasn't had contact with the industry for a decade, Ben does something related to wind power and has a wife who was in Kiev at the time of Chernobyl (this from the PAA Discussion), and Pstudier appears to be on vacation. I suggest you read Price-Anderson Act as background material. Simesa 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

P.S. - Since I made the last changes perhaps you should ask Ben what changes he wants. I think the Intro paragraph is poor, and I will go through the article again tonight. Simesa 6 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
Having gone through the article, the Intro is my main concern. The Life Cycle paragraph is from a biased source - I recall that most of our uraniumm comes from high-grade Canadian and Australian deposits, and I will try to find a source - this one says uranium mining on Indian lands has stopped [5]. The paragraph on Operating Costs misspells competitive and doesn't mention that nuclear has very low fuel costs compared to coal. Other than that I'm basically happy with the article. However, as I said, I made the last edit. Simesa 7 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
Oh, and we have that crazy caption on the second picture. Simesa 7 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

I went on "vacation" because I am tired of dealing with Benjamin Gatti and his attitude that everyone who disagrees with him is crazy, or evil or in his own words Deadbeat engineers I am an engineer but I have never worked for the nuclear industry. pstudier 2005 July 6 23:34 (UTC)

I also gave up on this article because of Benjamin Gatti. My view of it is that where NPOV wording is possible it should be used and where it is not then all sides should be represented in an equal and non-biased way. Benjamin bealieves that there is no such thing as a neurtal sentene which contains a fact as he wants to dispute every face and characterize any source of any fact as one side or the other. Going so far as to sugest that the best solution would be POV forking either in the article or into several articles. When that was explained as not an option on wikipedia, we moved on to re-defining terms or the scope of the article to exclude materal. I can't really speak to what has been going on for the last month or so since I more or less threw my hadns up in disgust and left. Dalf | Talk 7 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)
Ah yes I also forgot to mention selective archiving of active discussion on the talk page to remove arguments made by people with opposing views. This article could really be good but it really does seem to be getting worse. Dalf | Talk 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

I agree with the general consensus here. I'm a physics major, and I currently work in finance. I have absolutely no loyalty either way, but I do know something about energy generation (I sit next to our utilities traders, in addition to everything else) and risk analysis. Benjamin Gatti is the primary provider of FUD and spin here, I think. I have at least kept my more spinny points relatively contained on the talk page. I would like to add some real content to the page (half lives of common waste materials, actinide distributions, fast breeders, gen-IV), but I have no doubt that Gatti or another anti-nuke will just deface it again. The page should not be POV forked, it should require actual sources to back up the more outlandish (and really, clownish) claims made. Seriously, the pro-nukes (If they are even pro) have been very fair, but Gatti just posts random numbers he flat out made up as if they were facts, and that has to stop. Vertigre

First - I didn't Ask for the Page Protection to stop you making your points. - Referring to my cotributions as defacing is just a bias on your part. I happen to think the "Nuke is Safe" crowd are desecrating the graves of those killed in Chernobyl - with the equivelent of the "Holocaust never happened" genre comments. So show me one number plucked from the air - i'm waiting for you to back up your slander - while we're waiting - perhaps you'd like to explain why nuclear reactors need a 300 Billion dollars insurance policy at taxpayer expense (Because they're perfectly safe - would be WRONG) - perhaps you can name one other energy technology which needs a Federal Insurance Bail-out? The Article was marked NPOV when II found it - with both sides openly resigned to perpetual POV wars. Benjamin Gatti

Actually I was pretty optimistic about a good NPOV article until you showed up. I was (and am) realistic about the fact that all of the editors here will never agree themselves but a good NPOV article is possible here. Instead we have the article as it is. Where even the first sentence is factually incorrect. Dalf | Talk 06:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Pretty Positive with a label of totallydisputed over the article - when I came - i did not inject controversy into this issue - its been there forever. Benjamin Gatti
Actually at the time of your first edit the article was under {{NPOV}}. It did notget the {{totally-disputed}} tag until June 4th over two weeks after you had arrived and made 99 edits (assuming my count just now was correct) to the article. Dalf | Talk 06:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
If safety is your concern, you might find it more productive to bring rail transport up to speed. The number of people killed and maimed by trains vastly overshadows the victims of nuclear power, and yet, they devote a single paltry paragraph to railway disasters. Most of the article blithely ignores the danger. --Yath 05:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said it was safe, that is a misrepresentation of what I actually said. What I actually said is more along the lines of "Coal kills more people every year than 60 years of nuclear war/nuclear weapons/nuclear power did in TOTAL, even including Hiroshima and Nagisaki", which is not to imply that it is safe, merely that the alternatives are especially ghastly. I was also very clear about my support for PA. The fact is that no means of generating energy is completely safe. Some kill a few (or a lot of) people every year, others kill nobody, but have the RISK of killing significant numbers in case of failure. Even solar has the potential to kill people (small odds of maintainance of the arrays hurting someone, multiplied by a very large number of arrays, for instance). At this point insurance becomes relevant, especially since the sources that kill people every year get to do so for free (because we are accustomed to it), but something that doesn't generally kill people has to pay big time if it ever does. You want to see some numbers? Here they are, http://gristmill.grist.org/comments/2005/4/7/143956/8950/28. I dare you to try to find ANY even reasonably reliable numbers comparing nuclear power to Coal that shows nuclear kills more people. You simply will not be able to, the science on this subject is so overwhelming that no such study exists. Go ahead, show me your numbers, I've shown you (some of) mine. Vertigre

While it's true that coal/gas kills - most of the lives taken (400,000 if we agree) would be closer to the end of life than to the beginning - so that should matter. Second, I absolutely am in favor of coal being charged for its pollution - i couldn't possible overstress that point - here's to governor Easly of my fair state who is suing Tennesee for their coal emissions. Solar has a curious risk - if concentrators are used, but as a flat panel the risk is consistent with any matter of a similar size. "I dare you to try to find ANY even reasonably reliable numbers comparing nuclear power to Coal that shows nuclear kills more people. You simply will not be able to, the science on this subject is so overwhelming that no such study exists. Go ahead, show me your numbers, I've shown you (some of) mine."

What a Puerile Dare - I'm certainly not going to defend the coal industry - devil take 'em for all I care. Wind is the faster growing energy source, its also the cheapest by most calculations, and certainly would be cheapest if nuclear subsidies were lifted and pollution was taxed (to address the deaths you refer to). You need those numbers? Benjamin Gatti

Go ahead. Find numbers that say that wind can generate electricity for $.03-.04/KWh, if such numbers exist. Keep in mind a few things. 1) Land isn't free. 2) Wind generators generally run at (on average) ~30% capacity. 3) Include the cost of backup generation, if you're going to make wind more than ~20% of the total. 4) Subtract the federal subsidies. 5) Use current numbers, not "best case" numbers that might be possible 20 years down the line. Vertigre

Nuclear fuel

Nuclear fuel cycle, Nuclear fuel or this article give very little information on the question that I have on my mind. Here is what I know and what I don't know. Please help to me fill in the gaps:

  • On average some 0,15 % of the uranium ore is U3O8 (not uranium, right?)
  • Of that uranium about 0,71 is U-235.
  • Nuclear fuel is UO2.
  • Of that uranium ca. 3 % is U-235.
  • How much of the uranium fuel sticks/pellets is UO2? Or uranium?

TIA, EnSamulili 20:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Uranium ore sometimes contains over 20% uranium, see [6]. I believe the lower limit for mining is currently about 0.1% uranium. pstudier 20:17, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Enrichment mentions up to 5 percent 235U in light-water reactors. It mentions UO2 conversion, but that is a chemical process which would not alter the isotope ratios. The fuel is placed inside metal tubes whose composition is not defined. (SEWilco 05:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC))
Usually the tubes are made of Zirconium, due to its small neutron cross section. This can cause problems, as under intense heat, the zirconium will react with water to produce Zirconium oxide (a type of glass), and Hydrogen gas.

July 12

A number of edits were made on July 12 in various sections. Please check History to find them.

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

If nuclear power was so dangerous we couldn't have sustainable nuclear reactors..

The workers would die off too quickly. If someone wants to research 'just' nuclear power, they should be able to go to this article and read 'just' about nuclear power. Put the politics on a different article. That's enough. Is that too hard? Keep the enviromentalists off the thread regarding nuclear power and put them on the "Controversies of Nuclear Power" page.

I don't understand the ecofreaks that will come on here and deface a straight forward article about how nuclear power 'works'. Are they afraid someone might make up their own mind that nuclear power is not inherently bad. We only hear about the bad things. I suppose the same that deface a page such as this are against using RTG's on our space probes. How many of those listed enviromentalists are against oil production at our current rates? Things like this have to be cost/benefit. In other words, you can have your cake and eat it to. Why not complain about hydroelectric power, because it damages the local ecosystem. One might argue that we should use hydrogen power. I ask, how do you suppose we make that hydrogen? Do you want to produce it by burning oil for electricity? It would just be for show. Look, if the nuclear program is actually held accountable, and not allowed to become corrupt or negligent, 99% of all accidents involving radioactive contamination can be avoided. This also applies to the entire nuclear program in the U.S., when Nevada refuses water rights to Yucca Mountain. Yeah, THE planned storage facility for all nuclear waste in the U.S., which is also encompassed by our main nuclear test site. It's common sense to place our nuclear waste here in permanent storage, deep underground. The containers are going to be hauled in by rail. What is the problem if storage containers are crash tested and deemed safe? I'm assuming that Yucca Mountain uses an independent rail system, perhaps federally owned?

Wijiwang 08:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC);

Wiji, There is Nuclear Reactors, reactions, and a host of places for "How Nuclear Power Works." For some reason - this article - and i have tried to move it to nuclear debate - became the place to describe how nuclear power works in terms other than science - such as politics and economy. The truth is we don't hear about the bad things - nuclear plants are secret and they keep their accidents secret - while beating up informants. as for cost benefit - the cost of nuclear energy has been subsidized - which removes the cost benefit rationale from the market - readers need to know that nuclear energy is not a fairly traded commodity, but rather a government program to squash competition. The problem is I don't want to fund a business which is dangerous and unnecessary - and i don't think the government should take my money for the purpose of funding an uncompetative enterprise - let the free market work this out. If communism worked so damn well, why were their bread lines in the 70's 80's and 90's? Benjamin Gatti

P.S. RE "I ask, how do you suppose we make that hydrogen? " - there are about 5 terrawatts of energy in the ocean, all of which hits land at some point. that is several times more energy than we need (5000x by some estimates) so why not use wave energy - www.windwavesandsun.com Benjamin Gatti

BEN, CHECK YOUR NUMBERS!!!! You claim that 5 terrawatts is 5000x our current energy needs. That would make our current energy needs roughly 1 GigaWatt (1 GW). NOTE: There are reactor designs that produce more than 1 GW EACH. Most power plants produce around 1 GW of energy, and the electricity production capacity of the US is on the order of 500 GW, and electricity is less than 40% of our energy use. Here's one source http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/mepower01/relyon/relyon.html, where are YOU getting your numbers from. EVERY time you quote a number, it is blatantly wrong. It's NOT even CLOSE!, not even within 3 orders of MAGNITUDE! What are you doing? You are the absolutely classic anti-nuke. If you ever cite another that is within even 10x of the real value, I think I may die of shock. I don't have time to take on all of your other stats right now, but perhaps I'll get to them. Vertigre

Yeah - this issue of numbers has caused confusion - and in my opinion still causes confusion. I'm working on narrowing the estimates, but currently they are very wide from 5000x to about 50% of current demand, with the most significant variant being whether one is referring to actual energy, energy striking land, or "Practically Harvestable" energy. I think World Production is around 1.8TW of electricity - which as you say is not all energy, but is certainly the part that nuclear energy is a factor. The highest estimate strains credibility even in my book, but it is often referenced - the sentence typically is that 0.1% of ocean energy would satisfy global production 5 times - that 5000x by my calculation. BTW it refers to all ocean energy, not just waves, but most ocean energy is waves. - I'll add cites tonight. Benjamin Gatti
Encyclopedias are not the place for debates. How nuclear power works obviously belongs in Nuclear Power - that's where anyone would look for it. The American industry is transparent - not only must incidents be filed with the NRC, there are two NRC inspectors at each nuclear power plant. I was an informant, and never got threatened or beat up - I know of only two possible cases of that in a big industry, and I was in the industry. Wind power is subsidized, wave energy may be subsidized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, oil is subsidized by the depletion allowances, and coal doesn't have to pay for illnesses due to pollution (which nuclear would). Everyone has some government program they don't like - so send a letter to your congressmen. Nuclear may prove to be part of way out of Global Warming - it's not an option to lose, considering that one good hurricane could take out at once all the wave energy facilities on the East Coast (and there are few waves near Chicago). Congress and the Supreme Court are hardly communistic. All in all, I think Wijiwang made better points. Simesa 00:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that any Encyclopedia was written without a good many debates. As an informant you did loose your career, and that's more of a price than most are willing to pay. - We don't need to jump out of the reenhouse and into the nuclear option. We have more than enough energy in the ocean (10 TW - or about 5 times current consumption). The problem is that instead of subsidizing RESEARCH - we're still subsidizing the OPERATION of nuclear energy - which for the money can only be credited with the single largest manmade disaster. If deciding winners and losers by force of a government subsidy is your definition of capitalism, i suggest that writing encyclopedias might not be your forte. Benjamin Gatti
With your insistence on inserting pov statements, encyclopedias certainly aren't yours. For example, "can only be credited with" - when the article itself says it supplies 17% of the world's electricity.
We've discussed the need for subsidies several times. The next generation of plants (both private and DOE) will require insurance coverage, and Congress has voted in favor of ensuring that. As for whether or not the U.S. is a capitalist economy, see the debate in Capitalism.
Your fixation on your field of wave energy appears to be part of our problem. Wave energy on coastlines only yields 2 to 3 TW [7], and that would be from capturing 100% of the wave's power (which is wildly optimistic). Even Hawaii, with its high power costs (it uses oil to generate its electricity), doesn't think wave energy will be competitive without large subsidies [8]: "In spite of the fact that Hawaii has one of the better, and more consistent, wave regimes in the world, WECS systems are not cost-competitive in Hawaii today on an avoided energy cost basis." I wouldn't bet the rent on wave energy. Simesa 07:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Hawaii certainly does have a great Wave regime - average 100KW per Meter or so. I would suggest the eere page is one of the poorer sources - as the US.doe has never had a wave energy program per se, but generally thows it into some other category such as tides. According to this more in depth piece [http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/investment/S_New_Engl_Wave_Energy_Resource_Potential.pdf
There are 1-10 Terawatts - with the higher number being better supported by empirical observation - ie 1 TW would yield an average of 3Kw Per Meter, 10TW would yield an average 30KW/M and according to OCEANOR, and the WEC, the actual numbers range from 9 to 100 KW/M with an average close to the 30KW/M. World Energy Council estimates that 2TW of energy could be harvested from the world's oceans, the equivalent of twice the world's electricity production. [9] And that includes their estimates of practical yield. I would conclude that the only reason nuclear is more viable is that it has recieved some 96% of research subsidies. How can you not win with that kind of imbalance? Command economies (in which choice of good production is dictated by a single central body) have notoriously failed to provide the best good for the most people - and have caused food shortages. Primarily command economies hijack the markets otherwise extremely intelligent sence of what will work best. Nuclear energy is a government-created frankenstien which the free market - under any scenario - (libertarian, laizze faire, flat subsidies, carbon tax) would never embrace. Benjamin Gatti


Gatti, the subsidies recieved by nuclear, are those for actual power, or for weapons? Do you have any source backing that up, or is 96% just another made up number? Also, let us imagine that 2 TW of energy can be extracted from the oceans, you say nothing about what that will cost, and yet you complain directly about the cost of the competitor (nuclear). Also, even if this is true, the total energy use of the world is already approaching or even exceeding that number, as electricity is NOT the only form of energy use. Furthermore, what about the billion people in China, and another billion in India. There are only around a billion people in the first world now, if we don't want to leave these people in poverty forever, then we'll need to be able to support up to 5 or even 10 billion people in the first world. Are you willing to reduce your energy consumption by 90%? Should we just say, "sorry guys, you get to stay poor because we aren't allowed to get the energy it would take to give you a decent life.."? Is that what you want? You talk a good game about capitalism and such, and then you advocate a system that would require that 90% of the world's population exist in an impoverished underclass so that you don't have to live in a world that tolerates a piece of technology you don't like. What is that? Vertigre

For want of a better place to break

"A new study by the US Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP-CREST) has found that nuclear power harvests the lion's share of government investment in nuclear, solar and wind. According to "Federal Energy Subsidies: Not All Technologies Are Created Equal" the U.S. government has spent approximately $150 billion on energy subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power - 96.3% of which has gone to nuclear power. "What's really surprising is the relative start up costs for these technologies," said Robby Roberts, REPP's executive director. "Nukes received much higher levels of government support per kilowatt-hour when they first started than either wind or solar power." Roberts continued, "and subsidies heaped on nuclear power have not been cheap. Since 1947, cumulative subsidies to nuclear power had an equivalent cost of $1,411 [1998 dollars] per US household, compared to $11 for wind, for example."

[10]

Notice the stat. Compare three technologies, then claim that 96.3 percent of the subsidies goes to one of the technologies. This is much less relevant if you consider that of those three technologies, Nuclear generates well over 90% of the total energy. Why should a technology that generates 1/100th of the energy of another be given the same dollar value in subsidies? You would imagine that subsidies would be proportional to generating capacity, and that's exactly what you see. What's the point? More importantly, when was this spent? How much was spent last year, and for what. It seems fairly irrlevant that in 1970 the US might have spent much more on Nuclear than on wind, what is the case now? Notice that they appear to be using the present tense "harvests" to refer to events in the past "when they first started....since 1947..." Vertigre
Well you quickly devolve into a question of chicken and egg. Even without subsidies, wind has become the fastest growing source of new energy - did I say - even without the subsidies? So - if we imagine equal subsidies at any level, wind would be a clear winner. As for waves - there's a variety of reason why some prominent experts believe the end cost of wave energy will be cheaper even than wind. Nuclear generates like 2% of world energy - 17% of electricity - so don't get too far ahead of the facts in trying to make your point. Benjamin Gatti
"fastest growing source of new energy" is a tenuous category. I can take it over by making energy from burning one rose, next month burning two roses, and next month burning four roses, as I doubt wind power can claim a doubling of energy over every month it has been done. However, this article is about nuclear power. Isn't there an article about United States energy? (SEWilco 16:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC))
I'd like to hear how you run your meter backward by burning roses. - I'd say any technology which can run the meter backwards and has serious sustained growth is important. Your argument that striking a match is a form of power misses the meaning by a wide margin. Rather you should ask are they Wind-Havesting or Subsidy-Harvesting? The challenge with wind may not be the cost, but the availability of sites, and industrial equipment such as cranes to build them.Benjamin Gatti

What do you mean "Even without subsidies"? Wind in the U.S. receives a subsidy of about 1.9 cents/kwh, which is about the same as the operational cost of a nuke. pstudier 22:31, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

I mean even without 1 trillion dollars in research subsidies, wind has go to a point of competition while nuclear in 45 years is still to expensive to stand on its own. Benjamin Gatti
WOW, a trillion dollars in research subsidies? Maybe I should have stayed in Physics with that kind of money flying around. Care to back up that fabrication? Vertigre

Marine energy tangent

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

  • That's nice, but information about wave energy belongs in an article on that topic. Just as information about plungers does not belong in an article about wave energy, and information about knitting does not belong in an article about plungers. (SEWilco 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
    • I agree that wave energy should be covered in its own article (it is). But renewables comes up in this article, and I think it is naive not to recognize that nuclear energy and (renewables) are competing to solve the Global Warming problem. Without global warming - there likely would no discussion of revitalizing nuclear plants. The pole position that nuclear has over clean and safe technologies is artificial - propped up by government subsides - without which simple renewables like wind and waves would be far cheaper. Benjamin Gatti
      • That's your POV. And the presentation still violates original research and consensus as well as NPOV. Stirling Newberry 18:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Controversy over Nuclear Power belongs here, but the wave energy is original research, not germane to the article and POV. Stirling Newberry 03:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power controversy page

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

That's definitely a very good idea. When I'm reading an encyclopedia I'd expect the Nuclear power article to concentrate mainly on technology and science and uses of nuclear power whereas the related political debate and controversies could be more thoroughly discussed in a specialized article. This would be good considering the quality, neutrality and length of the article(s)... and also the reader's ability to get a quick and consice bundle of relevant information when he opens this page. Whenever the nuclear power article covers controversial issues, that could then simply be briefly mentioned and a link be given to the appropriate article where one could read more about that. That way this article could concentrate on its topic without extensively probing into related but far reaching political issues - especially considering that NPOV demands that both sides be covered. I suggest we make this a consensus. Your comments please. --Tungsten 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be more important to make a "comparative energy" page and offload the controversy there. Gatti isn't really claiming much about nuclear, he's making wild claims about other energy sources, and then comparing them to nuclear, and then claiming that they are better than nuclear because of that, and then claiming that we shouldn't use nuclear because it isn't the best. I think we should set up a comparative energy page, and export the controversy there, with the understanding that all facts thrown about must come from the pages for the energy sources themselves. So we establish the cost (for instance) on the energy page itself, and then people can throw around that number on the comparison page, but they get turbo-ultra-immediately banned for using any other number. If they dispute the number, they should have to dispute it on the main page for that technology. That would keep wind tech out of the nuclear page, and hopefully split the controversy into manageable sectors. Vertigre

  • Maybe such an article exists. Look at Renewable energy and see if a "comparative energy" page links to it or shares a Category with it. (SEWilco 14:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

Hidden Agenda - great term

"Expansion of nuclear in many developing nations is often justified by the "hidden agenda" of some countries to fuel the access to military nuclear raw materials. By doing so, global expansion of nuclear energy is highly likely to breach or undermine compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty."

"Nuclear power plants also have significantly higher emissions than renewable biomass cogeneration plants."

[11]

This needs to be included in the article. Benjamin Gatti

The line "Nuclear power plants also have significantly higher emissions than renewable biomass cogeneration plants." makes no sense and is unsupported in the cite. Biomass is a notorious greenhouse gas emitter - see biomass, "Biomass is sometimes burned as fuel for cooking and to produce electricity and heat. This is called Biofuel. Biomass used as fuel often consists of underutilized types, like chaff and animal waste. This is often considered a type of alternative energy, although it is a polluting one." "For most developing countries in Asia, carbon emissions from biomass account for more than 50% of the total carbom emissions" [12]. The reason biomass claims to be low-emissions is that it is assumed that agriculture will increase to provide biomass and thus "close the carbon cycle" - which I submit is specious, since agriculture is declining with deforestation, not increasing. Simesa 04:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A Nuclear Insert

"Furthermore, nuclear is not a renewable energy source, as it needs scarce uranium to fuel its reactors. If we would replace all fossil fuels with nuclear power, the world would run out of uranium in less than four years. Currently, nuclear is a marginal energy source, supplying only two percent of the world energy demand, and there is no realistic scenario in which this could be significantly increased."

[13]

Recognizing the POV, how wrong is this and doen't it belong in the article (Nuclear power) Benjamin Gatti

you're wrong again - "In summary, the actual recoverable uranium supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even using standard reactors." [14] Simesa 04:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Assuming we don't reprocess fuel (which is a huge proliferation risk) and we do as GreenPeace is indicating - that is we add reactors - enough to solve the greenhouse problem entirely. - nuclear goes from 2% to 100% then we run out in 4 years. In fairness - is greenpeace lying, or just having fun with unreasonable numbers? - but it does point to a fact which is that a huge increase in nuclear power isn't possible, and not likely to get us out of the soup either. Benjamin Gatti
Well all these numbers don't jive anyway. 1000 years / a 50 times increase (and that is not 50 times for all energy sources not just electrical which is not realistic) is still 20 years. However no one is really talking about displacing all energy with nuclear. If you just go with electrical power then you have 17% which gives 170 years. That is still discounting that uranium is not the only possible fuel. Somewhere above someone used the word specious I think we can use it here too. Dalf | Talk 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
It's a pure lie, but an interesting type. They assume that recoverable Uranium is simply Uranium that can be had for the current price ($40/kg), or some similar dirt-cheap price, and that once the price goes higher than this, it is no longer worth recovering. Nuclear power can withstand prices of $500-$1000/kg, and at this price, the recoverable Uranium is enormous. Here's a citation [15]. So, they only stretch the truth by a factor of 1000x or more. Vertigre
I believe you mean kg, not ton. pstudier 22:47, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
You're right, I did. I corrected it in the original. This was my stretching of the truth by 1000x, but an honest mistake, and it's not directly relevant to the point being made (talking about comparative costs). Thanks for catching that. Vertigre


I think the economics of nuclear energy are pretty weak to start with - since wind energy costs less Kw for Kw than nuclear - and there seems to be no end to it either. Even if nuclear is less fueld-cost dependant than NG, it is at some level - plus the energy required to mine Uranium might render it nothing more than a way to launder dirty fuel (oh that's right it already is - since the processing is powered by the dirtiest coal plants). Benjamin Gatti
True or not true, the fact remains that the competitiveness isn't significantly changed by fuel costs. If it's competitive now, it will still be competitive. If it's not competitive now, then the cost is a moot point. In either case, it's pretty clear that it is not going to be a significant consideration. Vertigre
USEC now runs just the Paducah plant, and its power (about 3,000 MW at peak usage) comes from TVA which has a mix of 61% coal, 29% nuclear and 9% hydropower. There is a small plant on-site to provide steam and some power. I found no cites to say that TVA's coal plants were any dirtier than the rest of the US's [16], only that a few of them didn't meet the guidelines for "new source" plants. Simesa 14:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Could the reasons for this page's protection please be discussed here? It has been protected for over two weeks -- any movement, any discussion, etc.? I can't even tell what the protection dispute was about. --Fastfission 22:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Just some book burners censoring the web. Benjamin Gatti

It was about .... well ... totally out of hand edit waring over every minor, or major or obvious detail that could possibly included in the page. That and some users instance that the article cannot be NPOV and must advocate one side or the other, and the same users assuming phrases that are worded to be neutral are pro-nuclear and insisting that each such sentence need be numerically balanced by an equal number of anti-nuclear power sentences. Dalf | Talk 02:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

An example of the problem - here one editor openly admits that the information is factually accurate - but objects to including the facts in the intro because the inclusion of unquestioned facts would result in the article promoting a Point of View. - just book-burnings. Benjamin Gatti
I hope you are not implying that I am openly admitting anything that you have posted is factually accurate. Even if I was the point of my comment is that POV is not NPOV and is therefore inappropriate. That is to say things need to be true AND appropriate for a given article; I did not mean to imply that any given detail is true or untrue. This is especially true of including total non sequiturs in the intro (at the same time as your attempts to include patently false statements in the intro, and to redefine words to try and make said inclusions ok. For example you instance on redefining the accepted definition of the word nuclear is reflected in the fact that as the current version stands the first sentences implies that "Nuclear Power is an industry" and not as Encarta, Britannica and other sources say power generated from Nuclear reactions. Gah now I see upon closer reading that you are refering to the quote below not what I just said. Though it looks like my comments still apply to that. NPOV is about presentation, formatting, orginization AND content. Dalf | Talk 23:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The example is quoted below in full - with the author affixed - in which you can read an unambiguous affirmation of the facts - followed by something to the effect that the facts aren't important when they are negative. That my friend, unless you missed several important decades in the last millenia, you will recognize is quinessential book-burning. Under NPOV Rules of engagement, editors do not endulge in the luxury of deciding which facts are important and which facts are uncomfortable and for that reason alone - "inappropriate." Under NPOV - all points of view and all facts are included in their factual form. As to relevence - if a fact is a fact and is considered "uncomfortable" - then by definition it is relevent. - For the record - I have consistently objected to Redneck redefinitions such as the one you describe. Specifically i object to power being redefined as energy. Power is to energy what hourly rate is to income. Benjamin Gatti


(Quoted from the discussion of Price Anderson Nuclear Subsidy and Anticompetitive Act ...) This information is strictly correct, but I don't think it's entirely fair to include it in the intro. This isn't an enormous part of the law, it's one provision among many, and I dont' think it rises to the level of importance as the liability caps or public idemnification the law created (or the general criticism even). In my opinion, to include it in the intro is basically just a subtle way of asserting a POV. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected it, but was faced with immediate protests. I'm inclined to unprotect right now, yesterday, etc., but at the same time, I don't want to hinder Ed's mediation efforts. So, what do you say, Ed? Are we ready for unprotection? El_C 05:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I would point out again, that mediation has resulted in the anti-wiki protestors being admonished for attempting to assert the government's POV as that of the wikipedia (By using the authoritative voice to assert disputed government claims and "intent") - Second that no "reason" was given for the current protection. Third, the page is not properly marked as protected, and ironically the mediator himself has been locked out for deleting VfD. - So on balance I would suggest that an attempt to impose the order of a hierarchy on the chaos of a democracy has yielded little more than tyrannical hypocrisy (what's new?). Benjamin Gatti

Unprotecting

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

Text Move - Assumptions are uncited

According to the EIA and the IEA, nuclear power is projected to have a slightly declining 5-10% share of world energy production until 2025, assuming that fossil fuel production can continue to expand rapidly, which is controversial. See Future energy development.

First I need to see where exactly both institutions base this projection on the assumption of fossil fuel expansion. It might also be based on assumptions of ethanol or wind energy.

Second - do these organization assert that the expansion of fossil fuels is controversial - or does the Wiki assert? Benjamin Gatti

Enjoy: [17][18]. For controversy, see for example ASPO and their published articles. Ultramarine 10:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


Well certainly [19] fails to draw any attention to the caveat of potentially controversial increases in oil production. I'm aware of a best selling book which describes how the sky is falling. I am equally aware that a single scientists hardly can be measured as a scientific consensus - nor hardly a substantial controvesy. We have a lucy goosey peak oil scenario - but to permit this theory to loom larger than life merely on account of it's Atkin's - like meteoric rise in public interest is a disservice to the wiki. It tends to be the kind of pseudo-scientific fact which is better used as a pick up line in a bar than the substance of a peer-reviewed research. - As much as even I would like to believe our endless capacity to destroy the environment may be coming to an abrupt end - the evidence is stronger that improvements in extracting and locating technologies will prevail for the forseable future. Benjamin Gatti

Text Move

Nuclear generation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. However, all power sources, including renewables, contribute to global warming, for example when mining and refining raw materials. However, m...

Because the lifecycle of Nuclear generation certainly does generate everything associated with coal - the first sentence is out. The second is tolerable - but could be better stated in a sentence in which nuclear energy is the subject.

Ie. "Over the life of the plant, Nuclear generation produces levels of greenhouse gases which are equivelent to renewable energies and less than fossil fuels. Benjamin Gatti

You seem to be under the impression that the Mediation rules laid down for Price-Anderson Act apply here - they do not, this article is not under Mediation because no one has requested that. As stated several times previously, the reason this article was protected was to not incite aggressiveness in the Price-Anderson Mediation - which you are now stating should go to the ArbComm. Simesa 10:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear - I stated that if it were not unprotected it should go to ArbComm - as it is now unprotected - the reverse is the case. And yes I do maintain the the agreements made under mediation should be honored by those who made them. If the articles are so cojoined then mediating one is to mediate the other - if they are not cojoined - than protecting one for reasons which relate to another article is specious and tantamount to censorship - shame of the book burners once again. Benjamin Gatti

Text Move - Subsidies

However, today most of this takes places in Japan and France: in most other nations renewable R&D get more money. In the U.S., public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 to 2000 [20].

This phrase is misleading - the US is a partner in the Fussion research conducted internationally. Subsidies refer to money - not to the "Place" in which a thing occurs. The US subsidized AID medication in Africa - is the place relevent?

The second seems to be a sentence but it goes noweher - from what level of funding to what new level of funding? from first place in energy research to what new level of priority ? Still first place? Hardly worth mentioning. The accumulated subsidy is a measure of the market advantage for a technology. Benjamin Gatti

Revert to C-4's

This article is NOT under Mediation, and the "text move" rules which were adopted for Price-Anderson Act mediation are not binding on the editors here. They're just being used as an pretext to move text out of the article.

The United States is NOT anti-nuclear - we were building two nuclear units for the North Koreans after all. The US is anti-proliferation - that would be a correct phrasing. And the House version of the new Energy Policy Act says "consideration of a variety of reactor designs suitable for both developed and developing nations;"

Is the House version the final version? - Yes I think is the answer since the Senate had it first? No? Benjamin Gatti

The current volume of nuclear power is not due primarily to subsidies, which enabled nuclear power but all-in-all are rather small compared to the costs.

C'mon - you know it's due to subsidies - particularly the PAA subsidy.

The new Energy Bill isn't law yet and shouldn't be cited as such. In any event it's section on the [Nuclear Power 2010 Program] will be limited to three plants, hardly a viable industry's subsidy.

Saying "using the military to stimulate involuntary trade" is at best pov.

OK then how would you put it - we roll up the ship every time a foriegn country with oil gets a political system which isn't universally commited to pumping oil as fast as possible? Who owns the oild? the government or the people? If the people want to sell it for their benefit - but we prefer a Suad family who will sell it to benefit only a few grotesquly rich - and may i add obese royal minority - is that volutary trade - or a heist. Say I went to your bank and said hire the people I choose to run this bank or i'll blow up the building - so they do, and those people put in a policy where I get to buy Simesa account for pennies on the dollar. Is that free trade - or banditry? Benjamin Gatti
You should go back and read your history. Nationalization of American assets, OPEC and the Arab Oil Embargo, lately Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his deal with China. And the average Saudi citizen lives well enough that they import Filipino maids. Finally, the new Saudi king is notoriously anti-American. Simesa 07:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding in the correctly-cited thyroid cancer results. I note that you chose not to mention the following sentences, "However, the rapid increase in thyroid cancers detected suggests that some of it at least is an artifact of the screening process...." Simesa 20:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate the integrity. Those thyroid cases results in a throat surgery which leaves a scar called the "Chernobyl necktie". As for the rest of the entiire article - you're right - I felt a link was adequate. I've read the research and I'd say the evidence is pretty strong that Chernobyl is the primary cause of thyroid cancer - it's quite rare in the general population.

Subsidies-military renewables

Removed from Subsidies section, perhaps has material for an energy or military article. Also the first link has no information about military stimulation nor involuntary sales. (SEWilco 03:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC))

Fossil fuels receive large indirect subsidies since they do not have to pay for their pollution and because the cost of using the military to stimulate involuntary oil sales is not calculated in the price of a barrel of oil. [21]. Renewables receive large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations [22].

Text Move - Renewable discussion

They believe that nuclear power or coal are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached (see peak oil). Coal currently contributes significantly to problems like global warming, acid rain, various diseases due to airborne pollution, and the storage of large amounts of ash. Renewables have not solved problems like intermittent output, high costs, and diffuse output which requires the use of large surface areas and much construction material and which increases distribution losses. For example, studies in Britain has shown that increasing windpower production contribution to 20% of all energy production would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup. Increasing the contribution of intermittent energy sources above that is not possible with current technology [23].

  1. Peak oil is a theory - subject to its own criticisms - it ought not be sanctified by casual referencing.
  2. The cause of global warming has not been established to the degree necessary for an encyclopedia - whether or not human activity is responsible continues to be debated. - and this seems hardly the appropriate place for that debate.
  3. As for Renewables, there is a plan published today that combines a wind farm with offshore NG - generating steady power with a substantial amount of renewable energy - so the critcism of RES is out of date and out of place.
  4. Studies have also shown that doubling nuclear power would decrease greenhouse emission by only a few percent as well - so rather than have an irrelevent statistics diversion - let's leave renewables for their proper place. I suggest as a rule that the discussion of unrelated topic be confined to a Wikilink only and that if an external link is necessary to make a point - that link ought to be placed on the subject matter page first and then wikilinked. Benjamin Gatti
  1. Oil is a finite resource just like everything else. Despite extensive exploration, little more is being found. The question isn't if a peak will be reached but rather when. Hubbert peak
  2. The Wikipdia article on Global warming disagrees. Certainly the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere has some impact - the only debate is how much.
  3. Your plan is uncited, as usual. And "NG" backup generation is still a greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuel.
  4. More uncited and counter-intuitive "studies". Nuclear displaces coal-fired generation, and that means reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Comparison of subsidies under the Subsidies section is a valid topic. You simply don't want people to realize that renewables are heavily subsidzed.
Finally, using a "text move", a technique the editors of nuclear power haven't agreed to, as a device to eliminate facts you don't like is bogus. Simesa 07:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


  1. Its a question of desperation, cost, political expediancy, and environmental restriction. I believe its too complex an issue to be casually thrown about on an unrelated page - and would prefer if possible, that we find a way to make the relevent point without oversimplyfing an issue deserving in its own right of heated debate.
  2. I would prefer the evidence on Global warming was strong enough to justify immediate change - unfortunately the Hummer store is still open - the evidence is tenuous at best. I have to accept that.
  3. Sorry about the lacking citation - its an interesting move - one which I had included in my own feasability workup. Try at [24] Yes - when the NG is burning it will emit emissions, but less than 100% ng and consistent with the goal of kyoto. - Such a scheme can become fully renewable over time (by over generation, storage of Hydro, and burning the hydro in the turbine (modified a bit) - or by sweetening the NG with hydrogen )unmodified).
  4. I think the point was that fixed energy ie electricity (and CHP) accounts for a minority of total emissions, at their current level of 20% - doubling the number over time would increase their contribution to - say 30% nuclear, and the effect of the differnce on the total is slight. Benjamin Gatti
  5. Well its a fair attempt to respect the original comments. Benjamin Gatti

Distinction between "storage" and "disposal"

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

Union of concerned scientists

Where do they state that they are opposed to nuclear power? I can only find "We have also, for more than two decades, been working to reduce the risks from nuclear power." Ultramarine 16:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The UCS successfully sued the Nuclear Industry to shut down a plant. I don't know how you would translate that - but I think opponent is fair.
"1991

UCS petitions the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over lax enforcement of critical safety standards at the Yankee Rowe nuclear plant in Massachusetts, forcing the shutdown of the country's oldest nuclear plant. This sets back the nuclear industry's efforts to allow nuclear power plants to operate beyond their 40-year licenses." [25] Benjamin Gatti

Fissile

I thought that this word was fixed already. Fissile means requiring impact by neutron radiation to split and emit more neutrons. Radioactive means emitting alpha, beta, gamma and/or neutron radiation. Simesa 13:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel is radioactive, is it not? The article already mentions fission anyway. zen master T 13:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
So is cesium, but no matter how much cesium you put in a pile you won't get a nuclear reaction! The material has to be fissile, even if only slightly radioactive such as Thorium.
I'll re-read the article to see what can be done about noting the radioactivity. Simesa 15:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Noting radioactivity is also important because of the issue of nuclear safety, isn't it? The intro does mention nuclear waste but I think it should be explicitly clear that the fuel itself is radioactive as well (presumably more radioactive than cesium). zen master T 15:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I will re-read the article and see if I can put that in the intro. Simesa 16:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry - I put it in but it got edited out. Simesa 20:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

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

Intro sentence

"Despite the claims of Proponents, including some national governments, that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology, taxpayer subsidized insurance continues to be a requirement in the US." What has the first part of the sentence got to do with the last? Break into two sentences. Simesa 20:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Decided to break long intro into multiple paragraphs.

Decline in nuclear power in the US occurred just before and after TMI. The actual numbers are: Plants cancelled by year 1974 - 5 1975 - 6 1976 - 1 1977 - 7 1978 - 8 1979 - 4 1980 - 15 1981 - 10 1982 - 14 1983 - 6 1984 - 6 1985 - 2 1986 - 2 1987 - 0 1988 - 1 1989 - 0 1990 - 1 1991 - 0 1992 - 0 1993 - 0 1994 - 1 1995 - 2

List specifying opposing organizations belongs in body of text. Simesa 20:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No explicit requirement stated anywhere - neither a government nor a physical law. Simesa 21:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see any advertising. Mentioning insurance, a minor issue, twice in the intro is hardly appropriate. Key reasons for extending Price-Anderson is to allow the construction of a gas centrifuge enrichment plant in Ohio as well as a new DOE reprocessing plant for Pu-238. And as anxious as you are to get the word subsidy in there, "backed" is the more accurate word - Wikipedia says the FDIC "guarantees" deposit accounts up to a certain amount, not subsidizes the bank's insurance. Simesa 04:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


If "list" belongs in the body - then I suggest "Governments" does as well. If one side can qualify their support and the other cannot - that is endorsing a POV.

"Advertising" is a word i choose to reflect the fact that they are saying one thing here, and quite another there. They say (advertise) that nuclear is safe - while at the same time, they just spend a good deal of monet to get congress to pay for their insurance (eh) I thought it was safe. doesn't safe imply low insurance? In a market driven insurance market, high risk results in high insurance costs - this means the experts have rated nuclear unsafe - that is newsworthy.

the DOE calls price a "subsidy for nuclear investor's" calling it anything else just confuses the reader. Benjamin Gatti

Opponents who are not documented as such

The following groups were removed as mention of opponents of nuclear power because their Wikipedia articles do not mention the issue: Sierra Club[26] and Friends Of The Earth. (SEWilco 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

Intro needs clean up

The intro has morphed from high quality a few weeks ago to a sub standard intro. Can user Dalf please explain his exact problems with my changes? Most of my changes were reverting back to wording that had been agreed upon previously with consensus, which is why I think a "clean up" is an accurate description. zen master T 01:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my problems with you changes were several fold:
  • The re-definition of the term Nuclear to mean nuclear fission is both scientifically/linguistically inaccurate as well as rendering the intro (or disambiguation in this case) inaccurate in terms of describing the page. The article clearly addresses the fact that research into (and a desire to develop) fusion technology exists and exists scientifically and politically under the term Nuclear Power.
  • The other edits seems to simply be POV pushing in removing the detail that a driving factor behind the push for Nuclear development is the greenhouse effect, and also rewording to put a stronger emphasis on dangers.
  • The above content and factual changes were done under a edit summary of "cleaning up" which I think defeats the point of even using edit summaries.
Dalf | Talk 01:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
It was decided on this talk page previously that the "nuclear power" article would refer to fission specifically because the phrase does not historically mean fusion since fusion was always allegedly highly speculative, which is also why I specifically added back the disambig notice mention of fusion. Perhaps someone should create a Fusion power article so there is a clear adistinction and so any potential future fusion industry has an article of its own so it can be disassociated with the present nuclear power industry? (Update: oh wait Fusion power alrady exists so there already is a clear distinction that nuclear power does not include fusion...) How were the other edits POV pushing downplaying greenhouse effect? the wording and sentence construction in the current into is very poor, the organization has no flow. Why did you put back the seemingly very out of place intro paragraph on insurance? The changes that seemingly were made relatively recently seemingly added unclarity and poor word choices, returning to the more clear version of the past plus other changes is certainly a "clean up". zen master T 02:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you will find if you look back at the talk pages that there was no consensus on tis issue only the people who disagreed got frustrated and gave up. Even so, wikipedia is not in the business of including factually false statements just because a few people agree that including them is a good idea. The article you are wanting this to be SHOULD be titled Nuclear power industry, which you are welcome to create and then argue to have this page re-directed there (which I would oppose). I suspect before even nuclear fusion was a reality in terms of commercial power an encyclopedia of the day would have used a scientifically accurate term. If you look at encarta and Britannica they both use the scientifically accurate description of the term. In fact even if you limit the scope of the article to commercial implementations of nuclear power the mention of the fact that the industry is exploring fusions still belongs. If you define the term to exclude fusion then the article in internally contradictory.
As to the wording, I agree that it is sloppy and needs some work how it is. However, you can fix a sentence or a paragraph without changing what it says. I am unopposed to moving the insurance out of the intro, but I think the pollution bit is one of the most significant sentences in the whole introduction. Simply by nature of the fact that if it were not for the perceived benefit—even if its an illusion which I don't think—there would be no push significant enough to ever build another nuclear power plant except in countries seeking weapons. Even if you disagree with it the pollution numbers as none or virtually none, this perception is politically significant and a driving factor in the public/international debate on the issue and belongs in the introduction. Dalf | Talk 02:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Nuclear power plants are built using machines that require fossil fuels so the ammount of greenhouse gases can not be "virtually" none (especially true if the goal is to expand nuclear power ten fold to head off oil depletion). The common defintion of "nuclear power" means fission as that is the technology that has been made to work so far. I am not trying to make this article about the nuclear power industry exclusively, I just think the phrase refers to it additionally. The disambig header notice for fusion should be added back. The seemingly pro industry sentences that describe a "renewed interest" in nuclear power seem to dampen the "The use of nuclear power is controversial because" sentences later on, which is why I reordered those, also seemed better flow wise. I am surprised Ultramarine or Benjami Gatti or others aren't editing the article this evening adding random inconsistent POV... Since you reverted my changes why don't you go ahead and clean up the changes we agree on, if I still have concerns I will voice them here on the talk page afterward, ok? zen master T 02:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
As I said debating the accuracy of "virtually none" (which I think is realistic anyway) is not my point, its the involvmen of this part of the debate in newing intrest in the technology. Infact it would not be as contraversial as it is if there was no real possibility of new plants being built. Its not about weakning the statment that its contraversial, which I think is pretty selfevident, the information shoudl be included because it is a central part of any discussion on nuclear power (as much as the dangers are). I disagre about the disambig AND that the common definition means fission. The common USAGE of the term nuclear power means nuclear power plant or nuclear power generation (which are at pressent all fission), however that is a colqual distinction and not a definition. There are a lot of terms which carry a very strong connotation to speakers, where definning those terms as BEING that connotation woudl be factually incorrect (and exactly the sort of thign an encliopedia is ment to correct). The correct thign to do is put a main article Nuclear fusion at the approprate place in the article, it does not not need to be in the disambuation at the top since that would imply that fusion is not mentioned anywehre in teh article (which is also not true). I will give the intro a stab but, I am not especially skilled at elegant wording so well se how it goes. I will leave the mention of the insurance for now since I am not sure exactly wehre it shoudl go but as I said I agree it is probbly a good idea to move it. Dalf | Talk 07:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Gah! ok here is what I did. I tried re-writing the intro so that it provided a basic nutshell summary of the whole article. The problem is (and the reason we all keep fighting over the inro) is that we don't all agree with the content or the presentation of the content in teh rest of the article. So I decided that it would be easier to move ALL of the extra details down out of the intro (so we dont have to fight about which details are most important and belong more prominent in the intro). I Left only the stright up definition of nuclear power and a clarification that in reality we are talking about fission power plants and fusion only being research at this point. The wording in my description of a fission reactor is a bit off. I would like to see it re-written to include that you have a critical mass of fissiel stuff moderated by somethign that absorbs nutrons or you have a sub-critical mass of fissile materal which is made to go critical by a neutron reflector. Below here is the part of the intro that I had started to re-write as well as all the stuff that I had not got to yet but removed form the intro. If everyone wants to go back to a longer more robust intro that is fine revert these changes and we can duke it out some more. Dalf | Talk 07:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

(I started to tweak the top part of this when I decided that going for very simple facts might be the best idea for the intro)

Most of the worlds nuclear power plants were built in the first few decades after its first commercial use in the 1950's, after which the technology saw a long period of decline. A number of highprofile accidents such as the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, and the 1986 Chernobyl accident greatly increased public awarness of the risks involved with the technology. As a result very few nuclear power plants have been constructed in recent decades. However there is recently a renewed political interest in nuclear energy ([27] and see Nuclear Power 2010 Program) as a solution to dwindling oil reserves and global warming because electricity demand is increasing and nuclear power generates virtually no greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear power is controversial because of the contentious problem of storing radioactive waste for indefinite periods, the potential for radioactive contamination (possibly severe) by accident or sabotage and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents, including some national governments, aver that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology. Many environmental groups claim nuclear power is an uneconomic and potentially dangerous energy source and dispute whether the costs and the risks can be reduced through new technology.

Government backed insurance continues to be necessary in the US for the construction of new nuclear power plants and uranium enrichment facilities by private and government organizations (see Price-Anderson Act).

I added back the intro controversy synopsis paragraph, why was it deleted? Also, I think we should add back the fusion diambig header just to avoid confusion if someone actually is looking for fusion inside this article, we should provide this info to the reader as soon as possible, to just rely further down link to Fusion is a mistake. zen master T 14:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I created the "renewed interest" paragraph. accusing me of being pro-industry is almost flattering in context. Despite my notorious disaproval, I think it is clear there exists a renewed vigor in energy circles to consider the nuclear option - for reasons which include decreased emissions - and quite likely include energy independance and technical competition. (Allowing the Chinese to lap us on energy tech might appear to be losing ground globally.) I prefer the technical information which has creeped into the intro in place of irrelevent and inaccurate or redundant statements (Power is Power, Power is Energy, etc ...) As for Zero-Emissions, I suggest we wait until a plant is fully decomissioned before we determine a winner. The environmental impact of Nuclear power is unproven on a full-lifecycle basis. Benjamin Gatti

It's their placement before the historical explanation of controversy that seems out of place and downplays the controversy a bit, there isn't anything wrong with the "renewed interest" sentences POV wise themselves except for poor prose. I remember we had a similiar renewed interest mention in the intro a month or more ago, that might be better. zen master T 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No containment building in USSR

My understanding is that the absence of a containment building in USSR reactors was a technical (not economic) strategy... to enable Pu breeding; the fuel rods have to be removed and then processed quickly, and a containment structure would hinder this. In an all-uranium setup, containment makes more sense. If I'm right, should this not be somehow reflected in the initial mention of the Chernobl disaster? Myron 03:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This was true of the RBMKs, but the majority of the Soviet Union's reactors were standard pressurized water reactors (the VVER series, sometimes notated as WWER). The Russians did finally build two plants with containment buildings as demonstration units - because no non-Soviet country would buy a reactor that didn't have a containment.
US weapons production reactors (all now shut down) allegedly had a "confinement structure" as opposed to a containment. Simesa 05:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Given the supreme effort necessary to bring down the Chernobyl reactor (operators had to override several safety warnings, and violate a number of rules) - it strikes me as misleading to blame the problem on design - or containment buildings. Disrespecting the soviets - who have consistently managed to innovate lesser cost alternatives to space and here - to nuclear power seems to a popular piling on. Rather we should be grateful that our plants have the fortune of not being operated by a few rougue actors - perhaps our day will come. But the blame for Chernobyl probably lies mostly on a few operators rather than any design defeciency. I'm not convinced that US plants are any more hardened to malicious or overtly negligent mis-operation. Benjamin Gatti
The Soviets built a power plant that couldn't be built in any Western nation, Japan or Taiwan, and also ignored the basic safety principle of having a containment. Then they let a non-nuclear-qualified engineer take over, something the NRC would never stand for here. The Soviet system was directly responsible for this catastrophe. Simesa 02:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement about Atoms For peace precluding renewables

I moved this to Criticisms as it is about the history of renewables, not nuclear power. I also trimmed it to match what the reference actually says. Simesa 02:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see that SEWilco had already rremoved it. Simesa 02:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I only removed the second copy added to the article intro. (SEWilco 03:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC))

And the reference doesn't say that WEC claims it, only that unspecified others do. Simesa 03:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Hope you had fun camping, we just got back from the Beach. Can we not agree that the effect of nuclear power on the world is relevent. While I maintain that drawing comparisons to renewables simply because both may have similar measures (% of world energy supplied, $ of subsidies, $ of energy, reliability, cap cost) is excessive (there ought to be a common table somewhere which does this - that'd be really great - but inserting into one article - where it could be different from the same information in another article is risky at best and probably misguided. - all of which is to say - that this tidbit is an intersecting fact rather than an independant fact. It belongs in the article, and I'm not sure it deserves to be labelled criticism. negative facts are just fact. Do we have a "criticism" section of the third riche? Our job as an encyclopedia is not to characterize points of view, but merely to state them as facts. Benjamin Gatti

Interesting report

[28] Ultramarine 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Proliferation Horizon

This section was added. It seems pretty important - and I'd like to be sure its accurate to the best of our knowledge. Benjamin Gatti

One major obstacle for expanded Nuclear energy is the limitation of available Uranium, without which it becomes necessary to build and operate breeder reactors to produce suitable fuel rods from alternative sources including spent fuel. Breeder reactors however, have been banned in the US since President Carter - the only Nuclear engineer to serve as President - prohibited reprocessing because of the unacceptable risk of proliferation of weapon grade materials. Thus, there is but a limited supply of safe nuclear fuel before it becomes necessary to re-introduce the breeder reactor, which will increase the liklyhood to an unacceptable degree that weapons grade materials will be available to terrorists and rogue leaders.