Talk:Environmental impact of nuclear power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Energy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Windscale shouldn't be on this page[edit]

This is a page about the environmental effects of nuclear power. Windscale was a military research reactor and thus shouldn't be on this page. (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Have removed Windscale. Johnfos (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Serious POV issues. This article reinforces Nuclear Industry talking points. No mention of sustainable energy whatsoever.[edit]

There is strikingly (and tellingly) no comparison of the environmental impacts of nuclear power compared to any sustainable energy sources whatsoever. This article is currently being sourced by nuclear industry lobbyists across the internet and basically turning Wikipedia in a disinformation "think tank" via this article.

The nuclear industry lobby incessantly propagandizes to the public that the only alternative to nuclear energy is dirty coal, etc. This false dichotomy is reflected within this article and is not encyclopedic. For example, we have a fairly comprehensive comparison of environmental impacts to coal/fossil fuels in these two sections, but no mention of solar, geothermal, wind, etc. at all:

1) Comparison to coal-fired generation 2) Contrast of radioactive accident emissions with industrial emissions

The only mention of sustainable energy is this brief, carefully worded blurb of newspeak: "Other commentators have argued that there are better ways of dealing with climate change than investing in nuclear power, including the improved energy efficiency and greater reliance on decentralized and renewable energy sources." The trouble with solar origin renewable sources of energy is that they are as fickle as the weather, The most reliable solar origin energy is the snow and rain deposited on high mountains. Oddly enough, most environmentalists other than myself do not seem to imagine that the impact on flying life forms from collectors of wind energy, might be as severe per kWh of energy usefully delivered as that of hydroelectric dams upon migratory fish. However, perhaps Wikipedia should explicitly have an article in which some industrious person tabulates the actual rate of elimination of coal burning consequent, without the addition of gas turbines and the fracturing of shale, upon wind and solar farm installations. The reason that nuclear advocates hold that it is the only alternative to carbon burning is that it is true. Coal is dependable for base load response, peak loads can be well enough supplied on demand by hydro and gas turbines. Nuclear can supply these reliabilities, soalr based "renewables" cannot. And by the way, there are two classes of reactor that can breed their own fuel in a manner that eliminates "long term waste" == ,which is actually wasted potential energy, and reduce the amount of waste to less than a ton per gigawatt-year of energy produced.DaveyHume (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I fully expect to see sustainable energy attacked at this point by nuclear industry lackeys and/or people lacking critical thinking skills to see past the nuclear industry FUD. But, we need to decide if this is going to be an encyclopedic article based upon facts and informative comparisons or will it continue to be a public relations piece for the nuclear industry? Cowicide (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I am nobody's lackey, and a serious student of actual science and engineering. The idea that energy from the sun can sustainably provide the level of energy comfort that even frugal people, the sort who bicycle to work and rake their leaves rather than blowing them with a machine, ignores the fact that the Industrial Revolution turned to filthy coal because the sun and the wind and the forests were insufficient even then. Every person's fair share of solar energy, for clean water, food, and other essentials and comforts, has been cut in half in the last fifty years.DaveyHume (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cowicide, if you feel that this article is lacking in its comparisons to renewable energy production, please be bold and edit. Please note there are comparisons to renewables (further than what you noted), such as the GHG emissions comparison. Generally, comparisons were made where they made sense (e.g. radioactive emissions for coal vs. nuclear, GHG emissions compared to renewables, no comparisons in the rad. waste section). On a personal note, please watch your tone in your comments. Your insults and failure to assume good faith is impolite, and disheartening to those who have spent considerable time on this article. SCStrikwerda (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What is a "boron letdown"[edit]

Hi. Even though I know a lot, I've never heard of a "boron letdown". So unless somebody provides more facts (on reactors, sites, etc., where this is practised; on radionuclides released; on their impact; etc.) I recommend deleting this. gsc — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Boron letdown is removal of borated coolant water, practised at all PWR and BWRs. --SCStrikwerda (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Necessary additions[edit]

This article needs the ExternE-Pol final tech report cited and discussed as it is on the Nuclear power page.

Some mention of the red forest, and the fact that Chernobyl is now a nature reserve, being designated so by Ukraine.

& reference to Nuclear powers favorable CO2 emissions Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions, being beaten by Wind & Hydro but only just. Boundarylayer (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the article uses the incorrect notion that the electricity used to enrich the uranium should be counted as the national or local average carbon cost of the energy so consummed. That energy should instead be subtracted from the energy produced per ton of fuel. Otherwise you find that the carbon cost of nuclear is worst in the places most infested by coal. But also, There is a widely ignored carbon cost for a running wind turbine. The usual spinning reserve, that which is kept running so that a drop in the wind power production can be caught and replaced in the few seconds it takes to save the grid frequency, is a gas turbine burning enough gas just to keep it spinning on idle. The big California electric power scandal was the prices that could be demanded, like a ransom, for such protection against sudden peak demand. I believe that the IFR and the LFTR are both able to do tthis, but let's replace the base load with them right now, instead of waiting until our grandchildren buy them as we do solar pamels, from China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveyHume (talkcontribs) 04:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

uranium mining[edit]

New to editing so I thought I would ask what the general procedure was. Under the Uranium Mining section, citation 20 appears to have no relevance to the foregoing statement, and the statement itself seems highly prejudicial. Should this be removed? Moved somewhere else with a correct citation? Am I just confused? Slo186 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned mines[edit]

This section mentions a risk lasting 250,000 years, which is, IMHO, correctly flagged as "dubious". To my mind, any length of time longer than Archbishop Ussher's 6000 years, or even the antiquity of the Pyramids, is self-indulgent, or temporally parochial.
That's not a miss-spelling of "temporarily"
Nevertheless, I presume that the original intent was to say that a dangerous level of radioactivity will persist for 250 millennia, which may be true enough. To the extent that uranium is removed, and its accumulated decay products left behind, I'd say the assertion, that the site will remain dangerous for longer than we can intuitively imagine, is quite plausible.DaveyHume (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)