Talk:Nuclear power in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expansion request

Where exactly is construction of new sites planned? -- Beland 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Nuclear power stations with planned reactors -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No mention is made of Terrapower's design for a traveling wave reactor. This design requires no enriched fuel, it can use spent fuel from traditional plants. Would be initially loaded with a life of fuel so no shutdown for refueling would be required. It would operate passively, requiring no operators and there would therefore be no opertunity for operator error. Proliferation issues are minimal since no enrichment is required. The most of the waste would be radioactive for hundreds not thousands of years. After shutdown the plant is designed to remain in place, 100 m underground, with its spent fuel in place, minimizing waste disposal. This plant creates its own fuel by turning spent fuel, into plutonium ahead of the advancing front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.108.14 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is mostly an article about the current state, but I've added the nuclear technology template at the bottom which lists types of reactors. By the way, the traveling wave reactor does need either enriched uranium or plutonium to start up, and similarly to current reactors the spent fuel would contain plutonium and minor actinides with half-lives of thousands of years. --JWB (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparative historical safety record of nuclear power.

Several referenced edits were removed for being offtopic; these related to the comparative historical safety records of nuclear power and other forms of power generation, such as coal. In my opinion, if historical nuclear safety is brought up, the only way to tell if nuclear power is safe is via means of comparison of its historical record versus other forms of power generation's historical record, such as the safety record of coal - or even wind turbines (quite a few falls from high places, I hear). As such, I restored the material. If the user who deleted the referenced material wishes to discuss the material, I'd like to have their opinion as to why it was offtopic.Katana0182 (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So I suppose that we should start talking about Nuclear power in an article on Coal-fired power stations too? Where will it end? I've already pointed out [1] that the best place for comparisons is Environmental concerns with electricity generation, which deals with a range of energy sources. Johnfos (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the suggestion that we discuss the safety record of nuclear power compared to coal's safety record on the coal power page, but I also consider that it's relevant here, since nuclear's safety record has been brought up and as we live in a world where most things are shades of gray, and sometimes all we have to go on are quantitative factors to compare relative merits, as qualitative evaluations can be influenced rather heavily by irrelevant concerns, such as aesthetics, romantic notions about man and nature, or just plain fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I'd consider documented comparisons of the actual safety records of various technologies and ones competing with them (ie. the actual body counts) important parts of their history, rather than the record of hypothetical concerns that various individuals have registered against various technologies. For example, which was worse: the Buffalo Creek Disaster or Three Mile Island? One actually killed 125 people. The other validated defense in depth, and superbly so. Even when you compare the horrendous, worst-case consequences of Chernobyl (let's go on the high side, say 200-300 immediate deaths, 1000-4000 cancer deaths, land area sealed for 100 years), the lessons of which are indeed inapplicable to reactors designed by semi-competent individuals, and say, the somewhat routine Great Smog of 1952, caused by extensive coal and fossil fuel use combined with a thermal inversion, which killed 12,000 Londoners (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2545747.stm), the relative merits of the two technologies become clearer. At least, that's how I see it, and that's why I think it's in scope for the article. Katana0182 07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think a comparison is merited, but perhaps deserves a forked article of its own. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I too am happy for comparisons to be made, but in a more appropriate article such as Environmental concerns with electricity generation, or by creating a new article if necessary. So am removing the coal power text again. Johnfos (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And I too am happy to revert this edit until we've reached a consensus - deleting referenced materials isn't appropriate until then. It's impossible to form an informed opinion about something unless there's context to form it in, specifically comparative context. Quantitative comparative context. I'm starting to have concerns about this article in general as well. For example, it mentions accidents at Davis-Besse NPP and TMI; now I don't dispute that Davis-Besse (a Babcock & Wilcox) was run in an incompetent fashion, and TMI 2 (another Babcock & Wilcox) was a great loss of equipment, but I mean, certainly there have to be provable death tolls for these accidents cited in reliable sources. 1 cancer death was what the most conservative radiation damage model, linear no-threshold, predicted for TMI 2, if I'm correct, based on the outgassing. Another example might be that the article mentions economic failures of nuclear power - but it doesn't mention economic successes. And there have been quite a few as of late, with 40 year old nuclear plants being considered multi-billion dollar investments that are traded amongst utilties like blue chips.

In essence, I'm starting to think that this article is not neutral and gives undue weight to one side of a debate that is critical to the future of this planet, civilization, and the human race, a future that won't occur if, due to global warming, the icecaps melt and flood 70-80% of the arable land.

It's very unfortunate that this article's become this way. I think some bold editing is in order. Don't you? Katana0182 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to re-invent the wheel. And fit everything into this one article! As I've said this material is off-topic and not at all the type of material that is usually included in reports on Nuclear power in the USA.

I had a quick look around and there are several other WP articles which cover the issues you are trying to raise here. I've already mentioned Environmental concerns with electricity generation. Then there is List of accidents and disasters by death toll which provides comparative fatality figures, and Radioactive waste which says in the lead:

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste. A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel." In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year. A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident. In addition, fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which is projected to cause increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other direct and indirect effects of climate change. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.

Why are you trying to reinvent the wheel and put everything in this article, when the material is already covered in other articles, and links to them would suffice?

I am reaching the stage where I think you are just trying to include material which makes nuclear look good. And there is certainly a lot of material about the safety record of US nuclear power which you are neglecting to mention. eg., [2] [3] As such, this approach is POV. Johnfos (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not putting in statistics from your publications? They aren't reliable sources.

The radiation figures may be accurate. 1000 mrem on the top of TMI's stack. 120 mrem max at the boundary of TMI. According to this, (http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2372.html) "The typical CXR effective dose is about 0.06 mSv (6 mrem); a conventional chest CT scan with slice thickness of about 5 mm would give about 2 mSv (200 mrem) and a helical CT of the chest results in about 8 mSv (800 mrem)". Not perfect for TMI, but not bad at all for the worst incident in US history. Between a chest X-ray, and a chest CT scan.

Nowhere in "Killing Our Own" do they venture a death toll figure for TMI, except for repeating Teller's claim of possibly one cancer death. (Now, Teller wasn't a good spokesman...I mean, Dr. Strangelove? Srsly, pplz.) All they point out is increases in certain statistics for which there isn't a baseline provided. They darkly hint at a conspiracy to cover up miscarriage statistics. I especially like the anecdotes from farmers about white ash, bad chicken eggs, and cow's milk going bad, as well as women with child miscarrying, for reasons I'll point out later. Now if you had a few thousand farmers saying this over years of time, along with counting the bad eggs, the sour milk, and the white ash...and it was published in a peer-reviewed journal...then you might have a reliable source. The problem with the anecdotes about farmers and animal birth defects along with anecdotes of miscarriages, is that correlation is not causation, and any time there's any kind of exposure to radiation, people blame everything on it, obviously, because it's mysterious - it can't be seen, tasted, or smelled - and it's not good for you (yeah, if you have a dose of > 10000 mrem, not 100 mrem).

This is not scientific evidence. This might, however, be another form of evidence, another form of evidence, indeed.

A form of evidence that a certain most learned member of the King's Most Loyal Court of Assizes off Mafsachufsetts Bay was quite familiar with back in yonder Salem Village in said Colony of Massacufetts Bay in the year of our Lord 1692. He had a most peculiar scientifick theory as to certain most intriguing happenings there. For example, take the idolater infidel Tituba, the bondswoman who was obviously involved in an accursed pact with the Devil, and the first witch in the Salem coven. (She was from the Caribbean, and she believed in voodoo, or something like that, and she was black, so obviously she was not part of the whole Puritan thing, and a heathen devil worshipper.) Now this Tituba, she had quite a coven, quite a coven - many of the women in town - especially the weird ones - were obviously involved in it, casting spells, holding black masses, fomenting deviltries. Apparently they were causing cows to give sour milk, hens to lay infertile eggs, crops to fail, women with child to abort, all sorts of bad and inauspicious things they were doing. And those poor, poor little girls possessed by them! "Spectral evidence", Judge Hawthorne called it. "Spectral evidence", indeed. And those witches were hung. The trials didn't stop, though, until they realized what they had done, and then they became a cautionary tale throughout American history.

It's human nature to blame unknown, mysterious forces, when it's really just the luck of the draw. People often have delusions of reference, especially when bad things happen to them during unconnected abnormal occurrences. They blame anything but pure chance when it almost certainly was pure chance. I'm sorry. But your book isn't a reliable source. It's a fringe theory.

And let me tell you why I want those other statistics in there, because they ARE verifiable, published in reliable sources, and based on science. Either they died or they didn't die while they were working. They show both sides of the story. I am reaching the stage where I think that you want those statistics out of there just because you want to make nuclear power to look bad. You want it to look like a failure, when it might be something else entirely. There is more than one side to the nuclear story. It's our duty to cover both sides. The approach that I'm seeing from you is rather POV. Katana0182 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes this information novel to the USA? If someone says that coal power deaths are off-topic, then they need to get more specific. World deaths due to coal power for some time frame is absolutely not relevant to this topic. Deaths from coal power versus deaths from nuclear power exclusively in the United States for a comparable time frame would be 100% relevant to this subject matter of this article. I've looked for those kinds of statistics before and I really don't have them. Possibly because there have been no deaths due to nuclear accidents in the US, but I can't back this up entirely. There have been people who got electrocuted in the switch yards for nuclear power plants, but you can chalk that one up for electricity and not nuclear. But giving worldwide figures for deaths by power source is irrelevant, confusing, and distracting in this article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, only the 24,000 per year was for coal in the US alone. Over the period of 1970 to 1992, the 1200 due to natural gas power plants, and 4000 due to hydroelectric dams are worldwide, along with the 39 deaths worldwide in nuclear power plants.Katana0182 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and good faith intention recognized.

You are right in saying that the 24,000 number is relevant in that it is indirect deaths due to coal per year in the USA. IMO, an appropriate figure to compliment that would be the indirect deaths due to nuclear per year in the USA. That would necessarily include the 'one' added cancer due to the TMI accident as you were discussing with Johnfos above. That would also include all increased cancer risk due to increased dose to residents of the US from nuclear power.

I tried to exemplify the type of direction I like with the section Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#Worker_safety. Industry accident rates specific to the US, and specific to certain years is high value information. One may compare congruent statistics for coal in the US. I'll reiterate that hydro and nat gas numbers would give value added to the article if specified to the US, and furthermore, it's important to distinguish between direct and indirect deaths, and compare congruent statistics for different industries. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I appreciate your pointing it out. I'm going to try and replace the world figures with some localized figures ASAP. Katana0182 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove diagram of poll results

A poll without the information of who funded it, what the purpose of the poll was leaves to many questions. And I guess I don't believe that there is overwhelming support for nuclear power as the poll claims. How about a well recognized polling organization taking a poll in specific context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Vermont senate vote

Has no immediate effect, has to be a approved by governor and house, correct? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Has no immediate effect, but per the cited NYT article, both houses of the legislature must approve the licence renewal for operations to continue beyond 2012. Plazak (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a highly notable event, especially when viewed against the talk of a nuclear renaissance and talk of increased popularity of nuclear power. Significant media coverage here.

The last time a reactor in the United States was closed by a vote of the public or its representatives was in June 1989, when the voters of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District decided to shut the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, see New York Times. -- Johnfos (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vermont is 0.2% percent of the nation by population (621,760/308,772,000). This is a national article. I don't believe it has enough significance to be in the intro. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So we can talk about the planned two Georgia reactors in the lead but not Vermont Yankee. Why is that? Both have received national media coverage in recent times and are having a nation-wide impact. There is plenty of room in the lead to mention both of these plants. Mention of one plant where positive things are happening, and the other where there are problems, would provide balance. This is the reality of nuclear power in the United States. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Johnfos (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Following on from what I've said in the previous section, I am adding a POV tag to this article because the lead section has lost its balance. This is for two reasons. Firstly, there is the addition of puffery:

The reactors are "just the first of what we hope will be many new nuclear projects," said Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

Second is the removal (twice) of this notable statement, which helps to balance things:

However, the Vermont Senate's vote in February 2010 to block a license renewal for a nuclear power plant shows that any nuclear renaissance in the United States still has obstacles to overcome.

-- Johnfos (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding a comment that effects 0.2% of the nation is unbalanced. The puffery you speak of has a nation wide impact and effects 100.0% of the nation. Does the puffery effect the nation? Does the vermont text only effect 0.2% of the nation? Which is more balanced for a nationwide article? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP does not judge notability on percentage of the nation that might be directly affected. It judges notability on coverage in reliable sources. And when you have the premier national media outlet, the NYT, running multiple articles about what is happening with Vermont Yankee (see [4]), and when the issues (such as tritium leaks) extend to what is happening nationally, then it becomes a national issue which is highly notable. Mentioning VY in conjunction with the Georgia reactors, and removing the puffery, is where the balance comes in. That is what is missing right now. Johnfos (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Would be good to get a third opinion on this. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel.Cardenas on this. While certainly notable enough to be discussed in the body of the article (which it is), much of the controversy surrounding the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is too specific to that plant and its management (per the cited source) to merit inclusion in the article's lead. The policy of the Obama administration, on the other hand, is of nationwide importance to the nuclear energy in the US. What might fairly be cited to balance the pro-nuclear quote would be some polling data indicating some public opposition to nuclear on a national level. Plazak (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The sort of problems that are happening at Vermont Yankee have become a national issue and are even being covered by media in the UK, see this Guardian article: [5], where it is suggested that "Obama's nuclear vision suffers setback as Vermont plant faces shutdown". But if the editors on this article want to discuss the nuclear vision without the inevitable setbacks, then I guess I will live with that, even though that is not neutral.

If something is to be included in the lead to balance the pro-nuclear quote, surely it should be a quote from a reputable source that is critical of nuclear in the US. Will add one in. Johnfos (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good add. Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome... Johnfos (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

intro

I readded the new nuclear reactor text to the intro. This is what wp:lead says:

"...explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies..."

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Gore as a source regarding nuclear power construction projects.

Though Al Gore definitely has standing to provide expert advice about a variety of things (such as climate change, public administration, or constitutional affairs) I seriously doubt Gore is a credible source for scholarly research in nuclear engineering, power plant engineering, or utility matters - this is as he no background (advanced degrees, work experience, etc.) in these fields of study, records of peer-reviewed scholarly research, or advanced degrees. (He's probably citing an underlying source.)

As such, I am tagging Gore's comment as coming from a source whose credibility is not established in the field in which he is commenting. Since Lovins, et al. are duplicative of Gore's quote, and do have standing, I propose retaining Lovins, et al. and purging Gore, as both say the same thing.

If you don't believe the tag is warranted, please discuss.Katana0182 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith, I have removed the Gore quote... Johnfos (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gore is presumably well informed, but he isn't reliable on this subject. In chapter 12 on Our Choice, he reprints the McKinsey chart of options for reducing CO2 emissions. The widest box (i.e. the one with the largest potential) — which ranks lower in cost than wind, solar, or biomass — goes unlabeled. Guess what it is.

I don't have a copy of AIT handy to check this, but

"It was not surprising, then, that the Socolow/ Pacala stabilization wedges appear in former vice president Al Gore’s book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth. In fact, the Socolow/Pacala scheme is the only policy framework Gore includes. In both the book and the movie, however, only six of Socolow and Pacala’s seven wedges show up for duty. One wedge is missing: nuclear power. Gore passes over this omission without comment, so few if any viewers of Gore’s film know of this telling omission." http://www.aei.org/outlook/25033

Also, that quote you want to use, "Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, ... Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable." is seriously misleading. As Gore himself explains, "During the 1960s and early '70s ... electricity use was expanding at the rate of 7 percent per year. ... When the smoke cleared [after the 1973 oil shock] electricity demand settled into a slower growth rate of 1 to 2 percent per year,..." Plants were canceled because utilities saw that there would be no need for their power for the forseeable future.

And only "relatively reliable"? Nuclear plants in the US routinely clock in with capacity factors of over 90%. And the bulk of that downtime is for refueling, scheduled months or years in advance for periods when demand for power is slack.

—WWoods (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I don't find that text particularly noteworthy. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There were many reasons for the cancellation and closure of nuclear power plants in the USA during the 1970s and 1980s, as these books explain:

• Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958-1978
• Licensed to Kill? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Shoreham Power Plant
• Nuclear Implosions: The Rise and Fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System
• Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective
• TMI 25 Years Later: The Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant Accident and Its Impact
• We Almost Lost Detroit

For the benefit of readers, I have added these links to the See also section. Johnfos (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an anti-nuclear article. Those links don't belong here. They don't present balance. How about listing links to the pollution that coal would have produced if the plants didn't exist and real estimated of people killed because of that pollution? Rather than listing hysteria articles. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't anti-nuclear links, they merely help to cover some of the history of nuclear power in the USA. I would encourage anyone to add more relevant links to this article, as there is plenty of space available. I would particularly like to see more links to WP articles on people who have been associated with nuclear power in the USA over the years. Johnfos (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would add that two of the above books were written by historians at the NRC no less. Books by Helen Caldicott and Harvey Wasserman (see Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America’s Experience with Atomic Radiation) are what I would call anti-nuclear, and I agree they don't have a place here. But please let us achieve some balance and let this article grow past a promotional brochure for nuclear power in the USA. Johnfos (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

They are very anti-nuclear links. This article is mostly about the technology with a summary of the pros and cons, the detailed political pros-cons belong elsewhere, per prior agreement with editors. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to be about the technology, I would gently suggest that the title be changed to Nuclear power technology in the United States. As it stands the scope of the article very much includes non-technical issues such as history. Johnfos (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel, for trimming your comment. Appreciate that. I think you would realise that I'm not trying to upset anyone. I'm just trying to work with others to get a better article. Johnfos (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you read the bottom section? What do you think of that? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Long paragraph duplicated elsewhere

I have removed this paragraph from the article, for discussion:

To compare the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with the historical record of other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institut found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 - 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants. In particular, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year in the United States. According to Scientific American, the average coal power plant emits more than 100 times as much radiation per year than a comparatively sized nuclear power plant does, in the form of toxic coal waste known as fly ash.

The paragraph already appears at Nuclear and radiation accidents and says little about the US situation. Johnfos (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur that statistics regarding mortalities specific to the US civil nuclear power industry are appropriate for an article on the US. I'll find some from reliable sources.

BTW, I read the article by Sovacool, et al. that's cited on the Nuclear and radiation accidents page - I do find it slightly ironic that his work regarding the nuclear industry appears in Exploration and Production: Oil and Gas, but well, that's just me; still, I did note that his classification of such a wide variety of events as "accidents" is apparently is not in agreement with IAEA standards, which define events of INES 4 and greater as "accidents"; INES 1, 2, and 3 are classified as "incidents"; while INES 0 is classified as "deviations". I think that normalization of that list to the objective IAEA criteria of "accidents" is called for, along with porting the contents of the list that are not INES 4 and greater to the appropriate pages for incidents and deviations. What do you think? Katana0182 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fine. If you could focus on the US here that would be good... Regarding your longer comment, I will copy it to the Nuclear and radiation accidents page and we can take it up there. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Towards a better balance - pro nuc

Might be good to incorporate some of this into the article: http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/07/21/nuclear-power-is-green-power-floor-remarks-of-u-s-senator-lamar-alexander-r-tenn-07212.aspx

Recently there has been published estimates of the number of deaths due to coal pollution. Might be good to list the number of lives saved by having nuclear plants in the U.S.

If you live in Pittsburgh you have the worst Air_pollution#Most_polluted_cities thanks to coal. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the link provided, blogs are not usually regards as reliable sources and I have to admit that I don't pay a lot of attention to them. But if you find some good sources we could perhaps start a nuclear power debate section, focused on the USA. Johnfos (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Economist

After being in the article for some time, this statement was recently removed: "America's much-predicted nuclear renaissance has yet to occur" see [6]

So I reworded the statement as... "According to The Economist, America's much-predicted nuclear renaissance has yet to occur" but this also was removed, see [7].

The Economist is a well-respected magazine and a reliable source and there is no reason why material from it should not be included in the article. Johnfos (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Its an editorial comment with low encyclopedic value. Its drama, not science. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Economist is a well-respected magazine and a reliable source and there is no reason why material from it should be excluded from this article. This article is not a scientific or technical report and WP:NPOV requires us to describe views which are presented in reliable sources. That is being encyclopedic. Johnfos (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, views about Nuclear Power in the U.S., not views about unspecified predictions that haven't happened yet. No value to the article and doubly true for the lead. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Saftey Record

I find this section and chart odd: "Nuclear power plant accidents in the U.S. with more than US$140 million in property damage" How can a dollar amount be used as a requirement for inclusion in a chart like this? So a reactor could release massive amounts of radiation, and affect thousands of people, but if there isn't $140 million in property damage, it doesn't matter? A comprehensive list of all mishaps would be thousands in the US. I grew up 20 miles from the Fort Saint Vrain plant, and toured it before it went online. I was impressed by it's technology. But each year there were setbacks and minor releases of radiation. It would go online for a few months and be shut down for a year or two, time after time. It was a total joke. I was so happy when they finally shut it down. I vowed never to live in a state with a nuclear reactor. Radiation is the nastiest stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.58.73 (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming

There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What did the television reports show?

And why would anyone want to change such a well known (now at least) fact? FX ☎ 23:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming

There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What did the television reports show?

And why would anyone want to change such a well known (now at least) fact? FX ☎ 23:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Total power generation number is wrong.

It currently says nuke plants generate .806 terrawatt hours. It should be 806 terrawatt hours - no decimal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.24.10 (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "Accident"

In the table of nuclear accidents, there are two incidents that do not seem to be accidents: the 2002 incident at Davis-Besse, and the 2013 incident at San Onofre. Both cases, at least as they are described here, involve deteriorating equipment which required repairs, but not accidents. If I discover a bald tire on my car and replace it, it costs me money, but it is in no way an automobile "accident." Is there any reason to keep these two in the "Accident" table? Plazak (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plazak, in this case I believe the table includes what are commonly called "accidents" as well as major "incidents." We're not talking about "bald tires" on a car here, but instead major malfunctions that induce either fatalities or millions of dollars of damage. The equivalent would be your car exploding, which would indeed be an "accident." Bksovacool (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

An "incident" that causes a fatality would certainly qualify as an accident, but these two incidents do not appear to have caused fatalities or any other human harm. The analogy of a car exploding would be the equivalent to the complete destruction of the reactor, which does not seem to be the case for the two cases in question. If, as you concede, the table includes both accidents and major incidents, then it should at least be renamed to "Accidents and major incidents" or something similar. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool Runner Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#Signs_of_a_revival

"Proposed in his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama's 'Cool Runner' is a radical form of nuclear power where nuclear matter is absorbed in lead plates and placed in on a torrent thus allowing to spin generators rather than the heating of water found in other nuclear reaactors. "

Aside from the Typo in Reactor, this appears to be vandalism. Can someone look at this and confirm my suspicion? --Patbahn (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of reactors is (probably) wrong.

in the 1st paragraph it says there are 100 reactors in the USA. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=207&t=21 the EIA says there are 99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.58.13 (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear power in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101227220943/http://www.areva-np.com/us/liblocal/docs/epr/epr_genIII_performanceFactSheet090607.pdf to http://www.areva-np.com/us/liblocal/docs/epr/epr_genIII_performanceFactSheet090607.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Over-commitment and cancellations

As a person with expertise (retired electronic engineer) I would like to formally question the objectivity of this section.

I do not think that it should be the purpose of Wikipedia to be a source of anti-nuclear propaganda. So, first, you should not quote the sophistry of Al Gore or Amory Lovins. If you feel that what they said is important, then an editor should report it in objective terms.

However, the most important thing to report is the reasons for the cost overruns that occurred on nuclear power plants that were built in the 1970s and 1980s. It is important that this be properly and objectively reported so that people understand what happened and can learn from history. Most engineers believe that this chapter in a text book that is available on the web fairly and objectively describes what went wrong. And there is no question that things went badly wrong.

COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS — WHAT WENT WRONG?

--Tyrerj (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nuclear power in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927101054/http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly to http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003054919/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2004/04-117.html to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2004/04-117.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015231129/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/6/greenpeace-energy-r-evolution.pdf to http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/6/greenpeace-energy-r-evolution.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerplants/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nuclear power in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429065742/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/minutes-to-meltdown-three-mile-island-1092/Overviewixzz1H5xu6iP2 to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/minutes-to-meltdown-three-mile-island-1092/Overviewixzz1H5xu6iP2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120821162134/http://www.touchoilandgas.com/ebooks/A1ioj0/eandpvol7iss2/resources/134.htm to http://www.touchoilandgas.com/ebooks/A1ioj0/eandpvol7iss2/resources/134.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecprogress.com/index.php?tier=1&article_id=19985
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://216.30.191.148/071713%20VLS%20Cooper%20at%20risk%20reactor%20report%20FINAL1.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2062971

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nuclear power in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nuclearpower.einnews.com/pr-news/382838-fukushima-fallout-45-groups-and-individuals-petition-nrc-to-suspend-all-nuclear-reactor-licensing-and-conduct-a-credible-three-mile-island-style-review
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928110526/http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?ewcd=583b0a060f9c3f71%2F to http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?ewcd=583b0a060f9c3f71%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190841/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2030325 to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2030325

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Prof Servernini and birth weight

In this edit, I removed text added by Boundarylayer (talk · contribs) that has an obvious pro-nuclear POV. The offending text reads

The shutdown of two nuclear power plants in the Tennessee Valley, US, in the 1980s when they couldn’t meet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) newly tightened standards, shifted electricity generation to coal-fired power plants, which substantially increased air pollution in the region, particularly total suspended particulate matter. In counties that experienced the greatest increases in air pollution, average birth weight deleteriously decreased by about 5% through the decade, a key marker of later poor health.

There are multiple problems with this.
A. First, BoundaryLayer is topic-banned from all things related to birth, abortion, pregnancy etc. (See Initial Tban and Notice and May 2018 Enforcement and Indef discussion during which he attacked the admin)
B. Whereas the source describes "increased pollution", BoundaryLayer engages in editorializing by injecting the word "substantially". The source merely says "increased" without characterizing the increase.
C. Whereas the source merely describes lower birth weights, BoundaryLayer engages in editorializing by injecting the word "deletriously". The source does mention a generalized correlation between low birth weight and later health problems, but its SYNTH to apply the correlation to these births when the source itself does not.
D. Edits from this user usually need careful review and the abundance of innocent mistakes is exhausting. In this case, BoundaryLaywer's text makes claims about how much birth weight decreased and for how long, but this source does not say any of that. Was another RS with these numbers left out?
E. By cherrypicking this text implies nukes are best for babies however, this editor left out the professor's admission at the end of the article "Still, he admits that the tradeoffs seen in the 1980s aren’t the same as the tradeoffs most energy markets experience today. Natural gas plants are cleaner-burning, and renewable energy like wind and solar are more easily integrated into the grid. In the case of the planned shutdown of Indian Point in New York, for example, the governor’s office expects renewable energy to replace all or most of the 2GW plant’s capacity by 2021."
Any editor interested in fixing these problems and re-adding appropriate text, go for it! Provided your not topic-banned from the content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This truly is farcical. The word deleterious was added merely to prevent readers thinking that as a well known obesity epidemic has gripped the US, that some readers might've unintentionally picked up the wrong impression, that this was a good thing. That's it. To prevent ambiguity. You go to truly odd lengths of mental gymnastics. This penchant for reading motivations into things. Moreover the opinion of the author about WP:CRYSTAL events to grids now, have no bearing on the results of their findings, which was after TMI. So that's why it was added there. To engage with what I presume you think would be more balanced and add your laughable pro-renewable shoe-horning would not in any way serve readers. In fact, it would be, that word again, farcical, on an article about nuclear power in the US. Their scientific paper here, doesn't mention renewables once? Neither does this secondary source below. So...what is this other than thinly disguised drum-beating because you view actual historical facts and science as somehow, pro-nuclear?

The analysis received widespread reporting, including here, where no mention to your coveted incidental renewables are made and this analysis should be in the article after TMI. As that's what it actually about. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/03/switch-from-nuclear-to-coal-fired-power-linked-to-low-birth-weight-in-us-region-tennessee-valley

https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201751

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please provide an example diff showing my "Laughable pro-renewable shoe-horning" so everyone will know what I'm accused of. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

refs for this section

References

Public Opinion

Who is Advom irl I wonder? This new edit sounds suspiciously like lobbying to me. I'm only an ordinary consumer of Wiki and joined up today for the first time (moments ago) after years of informative reading and am normally appreciative of the generally decent work of you guys but the tone (and what felt like intent) behind this edit gave me chills. Hope it is tidied up.

"Without widespread public support, the country finds itself in its current state, where twenty percent of the country’s nuclear power plants are at risk of premature decommissioning [179].  Between the abundance and low cost of natural gas in America, and the excitement around renewable energy such as solar and wind power, nuclear power is no longer at the forefront of the energy conversation.  Educating the public about nuclear power could be a critical factor in helping to increase public opinion and awareness.  A study shows that those who feel more educated about nuclear power also have a more positive opinion towards it; in addition, people who live near nuclear power plants also tend to be largely more in support of nuclear power than the general public [180].  This shows that information and familiarity can go a long way towards garnering public support, which then allows for easier passage of bills and policies to support the nuclear industry." Fizzypat (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Yucca Mountain - Nuclear Waste Repository.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Split History

This article is too long for our audience. I propose splitting the History section into a separate article and supplying a brief summary here. Lfstevens (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Support split to History of nuclear power in the United States --Ita140188 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Numerous inaccuracies

The text suggests In 2018, nuclear comprised nearly 50 percent of U.S. emission-free energy generation -- the supposition that nuclear power plants are "clean energy" and "emission free" is not supported by references or citations, and indeed academic scholarly articles says otherwise. The emissions are performed at the manufacturing cycle but also the emissions from nuclear plants not only do exist, they are as hazardous as coal-fired plants in the medium to long term, its why dilution towers are used to disperse short, medium, and long-term radioactive products in to the local and regional atmosphere to spread it across large areas so that the effects of the plant's emissions are distributed among a wider land area and wider flora and fauna populace.

To suggest that nuclear plants are "clean energy" is not correct, to suggest that they are "emission free" is not correct.

If no other editor corrects these errors shortly, I will do so. Thanks! SoftwareThing (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

so we will revert. nuclear is clean energy. coal plants makes more radioactive waste than nuclear. one source among all and in Energy.gov--Dwalin (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

and what you say about diluition towers is false. starting from diluiton towers do not exist. --Dwalin (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@SoftwareThing: Lifecycle GHG emissions of nuclear power are some of the lowest among energy sources (see Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources). They are comparable and often lower than renewable sources such as wind and solar power (including the whole lifecycle, for example uranium mining, operation, and decommissioning). Nuclear is indeed generally considered "clean energy" in the literature. I am not sure what you mean with dilution towers. The amount of radioactivity released by nuclear plants in normal operation is extremely low, and as Dwalin pointed out, orders of magnitude lower than for coal plants. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is inaccuracy of the article, the supposition that nuclear is "clean" and has no emissions is not accurate. The dilution towers are specifically designed to spread radioactive materials over a wide area to reduce localized adverse effects. If you think that nuclear power plants to not produce emissions, you'll need to explain why dispersion towers exist and, for that matter, explain how the nuclear fuels magically disappear after their production life cycles end.

The extant article could suggest that nuclear power plants produce less emissions and is some how cleaner than other schemes -- like coal-powered plants -- however suitable references and citations would be needed to support those suppositions.

Yet the point here is that the article is mistaken, inaccurate. Nuclear power has emissions and it is not "clean." That's just wrong, and the article lacks suitable references and citations from legitimate science-based peer-reviewed journals to support such notes in the extant article. SoftwareThing (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC) SoftwareThing (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@SoftwareThing: there are no diluition towers in nuclear power plants. emissions of nuclear by IPCC. concerning the definition, even burning wood is not clean, because it will procude tons of PM10. but, using the definition of wind and solar power, nuclear power is clean. and it is also cleaner, because it requires less raw matherials for production, and no raw matherials for storage. --Dwalin (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@SoftwareThing: Not sure where you are getting your information from, but as others have pointed out, there's no such thing as "dilution towers" at nuclear power plants. The only towers at nuclear plants are the cooling towers, and those are used to aid in cooling the heat exchangers (and more specifically, the liquid within those heat exchangers through the cooling of the exchangers, which allows more heat from the internal cooling liquid to transfer through the metal of the exchangers). The term "dilution tower" is occasionally used in place of the more common "distillation column", a tool used to aid in the distillation of alcohols (for beverages as well as for commercial and industrial product usage). It is never used in relation to nuclear power plants.

As for the radiation claims you make, as others have pointed out, the emissions from coal-fired power plants are significantly more radioactive than anything that comes out of a cooling tower at a nuclear power plant. Any radioactive content you might find in cooling tower emissions at a nuclear plant are indisinguishable from the background radiation that naturally exists anywhere in the environment. You'd get more measurable radiation just walking down the street in the sunlight. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Bias much?

Does this article say much of anything positive about nuclear power generation? The substance and tone on this is repeatedly negative. And some of it is rather dated and or misleading. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Figure Legend Display Incomplete

The figure "Global Status of Nuclear Power as of 2017" includes a Legend for the various colours. The full legend however is not displayed in the article, and can only be accessed from the image details. SquashEngineer (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

no data later than 2011?

Wonder why ...

• Article seems to be updated up to 2019 references in the first few paragraphs, but needs more - including plans/projections for future nuclear plants. To reach carbon-neutral goals, it seems to me that WP articles on nuclear power (US and worldwide) needs to be engaged further and updated more regularly. --2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Latest NRC Map

There's a 2019 map of nuke plants in the USA: https://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/doc-collections/maps/power-reactors-operating.png SOURCE: NRC

• Map has four color codes for each plant, but no reference on what the colors mean within the image. I know at least one plant in MI on the coast of Lk. MI is in the process of decommissioning. I'd like to see a map also indicating those "under construction". 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No new plants in the US built since 1978.

Just asking for someone to verify and update this. 1978-2022 is a LONG time since any new nuclear power sources have been developed into the US. Yes I lived thru 3-mile Island as did everyone. Chernobyl was MUCH worse. Ukraine still operates many nuclear plants, despite the current war (2022) with Russia. Despite long-standing news on "climate change", why hasn't the US. done something positive along this line? 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)