Talk:Nuclear power

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:(Please note that the archive page currently contains material relevant to ongoing content discussions, so you may find relevant material there)

Renewable or not?

Hello. Just want to know, is nuclear energy a renewable source of energy, or not? Just wanted to know , to create an article. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In the broadest sense solar activity, from which all "renewables" derive, is a form of nuclear energy. However, insofar as nuclear power is most often associated with fission, uranium itself is not "renewable", i.e. the Earth doesn't make new uranium as we use it up. "Sustainable" however means something different than renewable and I believe an argument could be made for that label, although I'm sure some would debate the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubbaloo (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See also peak uranium - we are using it up. What is also unsustainable is the growing quantity of nuclear waste, including weapons-grade nuclear materials, and the continued risk of more Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters. --Nigelj (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

@NigelJ - Peak uranium is not a generally recognized concept, it's a pet article of an anti-nuclear peak oil doomer. Nuclear waste is a very minor problem compared to other types of waste, because its quantities are very small. It's actually the least harmful of all kinds of industrial waste, owing to the very strict regulations regarding its storage and containment. We have the technology to make the already minor waste problem 100x smaller (see fast neutron reactor), but no political will to do it at the moment.

The Three Mile Island accident is actually an argument for nuclear power, because nobody was harmed. The only real consequences were financial, and it demonstrated the validity of the defense in depth principle. Chernobyl was inconsequential compared to e.g. the Banqiao dam failure; most of the harm associated with Chernobyl was actually done by anti-nuclear activists and the media that listened to them. They spread the paralyzing and completely irrational fear of radiation, which caused a wide range of psychogenic illnesses.

Uranium in seawater is renewable - there is a constant influx of it from rivers. --Tweenk (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, those may be your opinions, but don't forget that Wikipedia is based on verifiability using reliable sources, so none of that can go in the article unless it is backed up in that way. Clearly partisan or biassed publications such as 'World Nuclear News' can only be used as sources for their own opinions, not for statements of fact as well. --Nigelj (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Say what? World Nuclear News doesn't publish opinions. All they do is news.

—WWoods (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kool Aid

This paragraph:

Spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be handled with great care and forethought. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over the course of thousands of years of time. After about 5 percent of the rod has reacted the rod is no longer able to be used. Today, scientists are experimenting on how to recycle these rods to reduce waste. In the meantime, after 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed, although still dangerously radioactive.

not only shows bias; it makes no sense.

Compare "thousands of years" with "40 years"

Tyrerj (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Although clumsily written, it is more or less correct and makes perfect sense. Obviously the contributor was attempting to put the radioactivity of spent fuel in some sort of context. If on Day 1 you walked up to a freshly discharged spent fuel assembly and gave it a big hug you might recieve a potentially lethal radiation dose in, say, 1 second. But if you waited 40 years, you might have to fondle it for 1,000 seconds, about 17 minutes, to get the same dose (I just say this for illustrative purposes, I don't know how long it really takes to recieve an LD50 dose from spent fuel), so the spent fuel would still be considered dangerously radioactive. It would take thousands of years more before the radioactivity dropped to levels comparable to the ore the Uranium was originally mined from to be considered "safe". Whether the paragraph is biased is subjective. The sentence, "After about 5 percent of the rod has reacted the rod is no longer able to be used." appears to be a crude attempt to convey that only a small fraction of the original fuel is responsible for the bulk of the radioactivity but I think it just confuses the issue and is addressed in the reprocessing section later on. I would be OK with dropping that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubbaloo (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request (footnote 46)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Dead link @ footnote 46. New link structure ("new-reactors" vs "new-licensing"), root filename @ link unchanged. Please replace --

<:ref> [http:://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf "Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications"] (PDF). U.S. [:[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]. 2008-07-24. Retrieved 2008-07-25. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)</ref>

with --

<:ref> [http:://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf "Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications"] (PDF). U.S. [:[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]. 2009-09-28. Retrieved 2010-01-08. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)</ref>

--Sparks1911 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under origins, there is a for parallel uranium enrichment. The statement before that mentions that Hiroshima and Hagasaki were the first cities bombed by nuclear weapons. The phrasing of that sentence implies that both cities were bombed with plutonium weapons, which is incorrect (Nagasaki was bombed with Uranium based Little Boy, Hiroshima with plutonium based Fat Man). That needs to be clarified, and the citation needed for the uranium enrichment can easily be done with a point the to the Wiki article about Oak Ridge, Tennessee (one of the major sites for enrichment, with K-25, S-50, and Y-12 working on U-235 and X-10 plutonium production feasibility plant.) Both Hanford, WA and Oak Ridge, TN were important enrichment sites, so it seems the previous authors knew about Hanford, but not Oak Ridge.

I'm not sure how one would describe this on the "Nuclear_Power" page, so I was going to put this on a talk page anyway, before finding out about the semi-protection. I do know the paragraph is clumsy, and the information requested by the is well laid out in sister pages about the Manhattan Project.

-- Tir-Gwaith (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. When using the {{editsemiprotected}} template, the request needs to be specific to a 'Please change X to Y' level of detail. If you'd like to provide that level of detail, someone will insert the change for you unless there is a good reason not to do so. Alternatively, you can leave the suggestion here and an editor who is interested in this subject may choose to work it into the article. We do not allow other article to be used as references, but you could look at the sources in the other article and see if one or more of them covers this. Enjoy, Celestra (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nagasaki was bombed with Uranium based Little Boy, Hiroshima with plutonium based Fat Man"

Nitpick: It's the other way 'round: Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima.

—WWoods (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reprocessing + fast breeder reactor

Both in this article + the nuclear reprocessing article, it isn't well described how the reprocessing is done. For example, is the reprocessing a seperate step, or is it simply immediate consumption by other reactors (such as the Integral Fast Reactor) ? Please clarify and add required modifications to article.

In addition; nowhere in the article is a link to fast breeder reactors, nor are they described here. 87.66.48.19 (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 19% not substantiated

For reference #6 of percentage of electrical energy created by nuke reactors the referenced link does not prove that... in fact by calculation you only get something like 11.2%. The place that references the 19% is the US EPA here: http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html

Maybe someone can make that change?

98.168.148.62 (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ref redirected to correct and updated USEIA page. Plazak (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Debate on Nuclear Power

I've left out my additions about specific incidents in my latest edit, but I have arranged the arguments more in line with order of importance. For example, the health risks of mining uranium is possibly the least important argument against nuclear power and should not be listed first. I've also modified some of the positive connotations that were added to the pro-nuclear claims such as, "Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small," and "Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution" and "Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course" These are claims and opinions that should receive unbiased wording. Rndm85 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the Talk page. As you know we have a whole article on the Nuclear power debate, and per WP:Summary Style we are using the lead section of that article here, which is usual WP practice. So please make any changes and additions to the Nuclear power debate article first. Detailed changes should be made to the body of that article, then general points incorporated into the lead of Nuclear power debate. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have the right to edit this page also. I have explained my edits above. If you want to change something, we can talk about it here, but do not revert my edits. See ownership behavior of Wikipedia articles. You do not have the right to simply revert my edits without some kind of discussion here about my specific changes. The content of my edits is mostly about content order and phrasing, not about specific facts. Rndm85 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also edited the sentence, "Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology." because it is not accurate. Risks can be reduced from say, 1% risk of Chernobyl to 0.5% risk of Chernobyl, but the risk is still unacceptable. (0.5% risk is still 1 Chernobyl-scale disaster out of every 200 nuclear power plants.) I changed the line to, "Critics do not believe that the risks of using nuclear fission as a power source can be offset through the development of new technology." because it is about whether the use of the power is worth the risk, not about whether a statistical percentage of disaster can be reduced. It's not just about technology, it's about human error and negligence which is currently rampant in the nuclear power industry (which I have cited in the footnotes of the article). Rndm85 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored the word "conventional" to describe air pollution because nuclear plants do sometimes release radioactivity into the air through steam, or even nuclear fallout, as happened during the Chernobyl disaster. Air pollution is defined by Wikipedia as, "...the introduction of chemicals, particulate matter, or biological materials that cause harm or discomfort to humans or other living organisms, or damages the natural environment, into the atmosphere." Nuclear power does sometimes release radiation into the air. This is air pollution. Proponents of nuclear power cannot say that nuclear plants produce "no air pollution," but they can say nuclear power plants produce "no conventional air pollution" (i.e., greenhouse gasses, smog). Rndm85 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits by FellGleaming: what and why I've reverted

Randall Thompson can not be called an "unreliable source." [1]

The word "claims" is frequently used in debates. "Concludes" is not accurate when there is a debate around the meaning of the study.

Nuclear waste is unarguably an "unsolved problem" and it is fair to use those words in the text. [2]

The edit here is innacurate[3]. The report says: "But, says the MIT report, even reducing completion time to just four or five years, and lowering construction costs by a quarter, would still not put the plants in contention with coal, and would just barely match the price performance of a CCGT using high-cost gas." Rndm85 (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You oject to the word "concludes" for an MIT study-- but then substitute in "concludes" for an anti-nuclear study by Brookings? That is rather inconsistent, don't you believe? A study can and does reach a conclusion, whether or not any outside debate exists. The word is correct as used.

Randall Thompson is a conspiracy-theorist who claims shadowy figures from the nuclear power industry have repeatedly tried to kill him, as well as stealing unpublished copies of his manifesto. But I'm not how that is relevant to my own edits. I didn't remove any material from him. As for nuclear waste, to anyone with knowledge in the field, as a technical issue it was solved long ago, and plenty of documentation exists for that fact. What remains is a political issue, seized upon by anti-nuclear advocates who exploit irrational fear for stymie progress in the field. I am restoring the edits you wholesale reverted. If you want to discuss them individually, I would be pleased to discuss them here. FellGleaming (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need in this article for scare phrases like "unsolved problems". Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Randall Thompson - people have the right to to read the information. His background is significant, and the reporting organization has been around for over 30 years. It's okay if you want to add facts to the article, but do not delete sources just because you disagree with their perspective.

Nuclear waste is an unsolved problem. All you have to do is search here. There are problems with leakage, earthquakes, terrorism, as well as a place to store it. (example) It is one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear power and is a point that should be mentioned. It is not exclusively a technical article. Basic points of the debate should be mentioned in their relevant places, and then covered in depth in the main article on the nuclear power debate.Rndm85 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the word "concludes" wasn't mine. I was restoring a deletion and missed it.Rndm85 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on nuclear power. Mentioning the pet theory of every anti-nuclear activist is a violation of WP:UNDUE, as well as an attempt to make this a WP:COATRACK article. As for nuclear waste, it is a solved technical problem, solved many times over in fact. Vitrify the waste and drop in an ocean trench -- what's the problem? In fact, even vitrification isn't strictly necessary. Given the trillions of tons of radioactive uranium, thorium, radium, and other nuclides already in the ocean, we could simply grind up the nuclear waste and disperse in the sea. On technical grounds, that would solve the problem with zero risk to humanity or the environment. The only thing preventing that (or any of the other dozens of possible solutions) is the ignorance of anti-nuclear activists, who sadly understand little to nothing about radioactivity, and how prevalent it already is in the environment. For example, you regularly hear activists shrieking with fear over radiation releases that expose people to less radiation than one would receive from eating a single banana (from the radioactive potassium found naturally in bananas). Granite countertops are radioactive. A cross-country flight gives you a major dose of radiation. Live in a Rocky Mountain or New England state, and your backyard already contains many kilograms of radioactive waste -- waste left over from when mother nature made the planet.

But all this is neither here nor there. WP has articles on nuclear waste, the anti-nuclear movement, and the debate over nuclear power. Your attempts to replicate all that material here (and replicate in a non-neutral tone) is POV pushing, and a violation of WP policy. The article is already pushing the boundaries of proper entry length, and WP is already suggesting that material be split out.

Finally, your continued reverts are going against consensus here. Please stop your wholesale reverts to the article in cases where you do not have consensus. FellGleaming (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think that Rndm85 was doing anything significantly biased here by reverting the recent edits of FellGleaming. One or two of Rndm85's specific changes perhaps were unnecessary, IMHO, but the rest removed some subtle bias. The Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab study (2008) should "conclude", as well as the Brookings Inst. study (2004) regarding cost, and this, the original wording, is a better summary: "Brookings Institution suggests that new nuclear units have not been ordered in the U.S. because the Institution's research concludes they cost 15–30% more over their lifetime than conventional coal and natural gas fired plants." The Brooking reports also says "That no new plants have been ordered despite these significant adjustments only furthers the impression that finances, more than regulations, continue to pose the primary barrier (p 5)". I know Brookings did mention "soft demand" for more capacity since the 1970s, but that doesn't seem to be their main explanation for the paucity of new nukes. Somehow the MIT (2003) study is an issue? Well, if that is what you are discussing, I prefer the word "conclude" there, as I am the one that put that quote and ref into the Economics section, but I think this is an issue with us because the Brookings paper cited the 2003 report, right?

Nuclear waste is an unsolved issue in the mind of much of the general public and the utilities in the U.S. Wikipedia reflects the consensus (or equal viewpoints, at least) on what people think. Therefore, I think it's fine to call high-level nuke waste disposal an "unsolved problem". The use of a word like "unsolvable" would reflect bias, but not this wording, as it gives wiggle room. The very fact that a multibillion dollar nuclear waste R&D project was recently shut down in the home state of the U.S. Senate Majority leader suggests that there "is" a problem. Why were billions being spent in the first place? Why was the debate of the closure of Yucca Mountain project so contentious if waste disposal was a moot issue? Industry and much of the gov't wanted Yucca Mtn. Yet Nevada residents and others were very up in arms. If Yucca Mountain WAS the solution, it is gone, and we now have a problem. The utilities do not like having that waste sitting too long in the ponds next to the plants: they wanted to ship it to Nevada. This does not suggest a settled issue. Jack B108 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguing that government action proves a problem exist is circular logic. Does the invasion of Iraq prove Hossein had WMDs? As for waste storage, many reactors have been storing their waste on site for 30 or even 40 years now. It's generally kept in a very small pile in a single warehouse...they can continue to do so for another century if need be. Yucca Mountain was a government-mandated site -- it's not something the utilities were demanding. They're forced, in fact, to pay several hundred million dollars each year to fund Yucca Mt.

As for public perception, you are certainly correct. However, the fact that the problem is one of public perception, rather than an innate technical issue, needs to be clearly communicated to the reader. FellGleaming (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming: Your perspective above is very highly biased. Grind up high level waste and drop it in the sea? I highly doubt that is realistic or without extremely high risk. Claiming "zero risk to humanity or the environment" is quite an exaggeration.

I think my edits have been fair. I haven't deleted any new sources that you've added, and like Jack B108 mentions, "unsolved problem" is different from "unsolvable problem."

I'm not a zealot. If someone shows me proof that it's safe and feasible, I will say okay to nuclear. But both sides should be heard.

Storing high level radioactive waste on-site at multiple low-security locations around the country (and World) is extremely risky. E.g., storage pool fires.

It's not accurate to put Randall Thompson in the same category with "every anti-nuclear activist." Rndm85 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove sources/info. The statement is a counterpoint to the conclusions of the study. Rndm85 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I spoke very briefly in late February with Stewart Brand after he gave a talk on the subject of clean energy. He told me in answer to my question that he changed from being anti-nuke to 100% for nuclear power gradually, around 2000 or so, when he began looking further into the large-scale numbers that had been accepted as gospel by anti-nuclear people. He said to me of his protester days, "They cherry-picked statistics and didn't tell us the whole story." Brand is now convinced that nuclear power is the way forward, with solar, wind and thermal energy helping to fill a fraction of the full need. Nuclear power must be the main driver. The speech Brand gave delineated his thoughts on exactly that subject for an hour. It was inspiring!

The problem of storage is not trivial but not impossible to solve. There are many great ideas that have been and can be employed. Working examples are legion; we cannot call it an unsolved problem.

At any rate, this article should not be made to bend too far in the direction of anti-nuke. It should not give those voices the last word. Each entry of someone who talks against nuclear power should be countered by accurate numbers and authoritative figures. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article shouldn't have any point of view. It should attempt to present all sides of the issue. Don't delete sources and points of view just because you disagree. That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rndm85 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit: it should not be called an "unsolvable problem" but it should not be called a "solved problem" either. Rndm85 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rndm85, do the math yourself. There are enormous amounts of radioactive isotopes already in seawater. All the nuclear waste in the world wouldn't raise ocean radioactivity by even a measurable amount. So where is the risk? The objections raised to land storage are even more fallacious. Yes, in 1,500 years a drum might start leaking. So? We would have to ignore the situation for several decades in other for that link to eventually migrate to a water supply.

Compared to other forms of power, nuclear is by far the safest. Wind turbine accidents, for instance, has already killed several people, despite generating a tiny fraction of what nuclear does. In 5,000 total reactor-years of operation in the US, no commercial nuclear plant has ever caused a radiologic hazard that has killed or damaged the health of even one person. The best record by far of all forms of power generation. Nations like France and Japan generate the bulk of their electricity with nuclear, and they have cheap, reliable, clean power as a result. Nations like Denmark, on the other hand, attempt to rely on wind power, giving them the highest cost of electricity in Europe...and even still, they can't generate more than 20% of their power from wind, because of the non-dispatchable nature of the source. As for coal, it releases far more radioactivity than does nuclear (coal contains substantial amounts of radioactive elements) and it releases them directly into the environment, with zero monitoring.

As for your edits, you are going against the consensus of several other editors here. I ask you once again to adhere to policy on WP:CON and disruptive edits. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to pull "WP:CON." There are 4 people in this talk thread and the only other person who agrees with you (Binksternet) admits that they're editing it to promote a certain political agenda:

"At any rate, this article should not be made to bend too far in the direction of anti-nuke. It should not give those voices the last word. Each entry of someone who talks against nuclear power should be countered by accurate numbers and authoritative figures."

2 out of 4 is not a consensus. You cannot just delete reliable sources because you don't agree with them. Rndm85 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)