Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

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)

Actually, I couldn't find a single source where it does says that tritium, or any other radionuclides are released through steam. I know that under anormal circumstances, i.e. Chernobyl or TMI, radioactives materials can be released but it is minimal. My point is that I feel this is overblown and is misleading. "All the workers at the plant does exhale CO2 and since CO2 is air pollution, nuclear power emit air pollution." How much radiation is sent into air? If theses numbers are not higher than an apple orchard, I would bother to tell...AlexanderHDG (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reactors are (generally) cooled with water. When you bring normal water near a neutron flux, some of it is going to get converted into heavy water and tritium. Usually the levels are very low and I don't believe the NRC has ever recorded a tritium leak that endangered human health or safety. In fact, reactors are allowed to vent small amounts of tritium (actually: tritiated water), as its not dangerous compared to normal background exposure counts. FellGleaming (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New safety features

Would a Safety Expert please go to nuclear safety and expand the section "Improvements in Nuclear Safety"? Simesa (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Debate page as well as Nuclear Power debate page

I found, somewhat to my surprise, that there was a Nuclear debate page with substantial text as well as a Nuclear power debate page. I moved the former to Nuclear weapons debate and Uranium mining debate and trimmed them appropriately, and created a new Nuclear debate page and made it a disambig page. Simesa (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check out the History on Nuclear weapons debate. Simesa (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Environmental effects of nuclear power page

I'm somewhat surprised that Environmental effects of nuclear power wasn't mentioned in this main article? Simesa (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's hidden under "Water" - funny, that, as it covers so much more than just water. Simesa (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The change was made between 14:49 and 14:53 on 11 February 2008 - but Ultramarine didn't make the change. I can't identify who did. Simesa (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the entire 'water' section, as it is better handled in the environmental effects article, and focusing on it alone of environmental effects is WP:UNDUE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an honest mistake - made by me. I moved a block of text into Nuclear debate on 11 Sept 2008, but left the wikilink under Water. Simesa (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear renaissance article

I'm concerned that this article has a number of glaring problems. Simesa (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for Nuclear optimism. Simesa (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of work has been done on Nuclear renaissance, but more nations' plans could be listed. Simesa (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Large section to be edited

There's a large amount of text in the "Nuclear-Reactor Fuel Cycle" section of Cold War Nuclear Legacies that needs to be edited and Main'd. Simesa (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Two orphan articles

The articles Nuclear law and Nuclear fuel bank appear to be useless. Any comments before the afd process? Simesa (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... The Nuclear fuel bank article is mentioned in Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009. I'm going to research this further. Simesa (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Nuclear Law" article looks like cheese to me. The fuel bank article appears to have some worth. FellGleaming (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The fuel bank article is actually an extremely hot topic just now. Simesa (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated Nuclear law for deletion. Simesa (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on what to do with Nuclear law at [1]. Simesa (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl

There is a discussion below at whether the currently labelled page "Chernobyl Disaster", should be moved to "Chernobyl Accident". Anyone wishing to contribute is invited to do so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chernobyl_disaster

FellGleaming (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As of this morning, the choice is between Chernobyl disaster and Chernobyl nuclear accident - there being virtually no support for Chernobyl accident. Citing WP:COMMONNAME the tide is leaning towards keeping the article as "Chernobyl disaster". Simesa (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis: Nuclear Share Declining

The following text

“

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 states that "even if Finland and France each builds a reactor or two, China goes for an additional 20 plants and Japan, Korea or Eastern Europe add a few units, the overall worldwide trend will most likely be downwards over the next two decades". With long lead times of 10 years or more, it will be difficult to maintain or increase the number of operating nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. The one exception to this outcome would be if operating lifetimes could be substantially increased beyond 40 years on average. This seems unlikely since the present average age of the operating nuclear power plant fleet in the world is 25 years.

”

Has a number of problems. First of all, it is an obvious WP:Synth violation. Secondly, the "world nuclear industry status report" is named to appear as an independent industry report, when in reality is authored by an anti-nuclear activist, and published jointly by WorldWatch and Greenpeace, see:

http://www.rightlivelihood.org/schneider.html

The most serious problem, of course, is simple factual accuracy. The share of nuclear power has risen every decade since 1960, and the conclusion that nuclear reactors can't operate beyond 40 years is likewise flawed, as many US reactors are now being relicensed to operate for 60 years. FellGleaming (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FellGleaming in that the Generation II nuclear power plants were originally intended for 40 years of operation, but are now being given 20 year extensions. There is even talk within the industry of the NRC granting a second 20 year extension to existing Generation II nuclear power plants, increasing their total life span to 80 years. I'm a bit skeptical of the second extension, but first extensions are now just a part of the nuclear industry. Generation III+ nuclear plants will be given an original life span of 60 years, which means there's a good chance for that to be extended in the future. Gilawson (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New ERT article

Could an Emergency Response Team expert expand the Nuclear power plant emergency response team article? Simesa (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm part of the ERO for the nuclear power plant I work at. So I will try to work on the article with what I know. Gilawson (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear vs. Wind

There is a spirited debate occurring now at Environmental_effects_of_wind_power. One editor has taken exception to the article's inclusion of a study which found that nuclear power, per MWh generated, required 1/5 the steel and 1/10 the concrete as did wind turbines. The study compared 1975 vintage nuclear reactors to 1995 wind turbines, and he feels this should not be included, as he believes (without sourcing the claim) that wind turbines have improved since then, and nuclear reactors have not.

Anyone interested in joining the debate, please visit the article's talk page. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be better to bring up on the WP:Energy talk page. But anyway, I made a big post on the issue. Yes, there's some debate going on, but I don't know if I see anything very new. I do, however, need to figure out to either fix the POV in favor of wind in that article or use the same style for Environmental effects of nuclear power. I've been told by many debaters that it's off limits to compare nuclear to coal, because that's ignoring other options. Apparently it's perfectly okay to do for wind (according to some people). -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

That's not the problem, every reference with "nuclear" in the url will be automatically regarded as biased/unrealiable by anti-nuclear folks due the bad image the nuclear industry has. Just try to get where www.world-nuclear-news.org takes it's sources and put them instead. The anti-nuclear people don't trust the industry, don't take anything that come from the industry (as much as possible). AlexH555 (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article and the discussion seems bloated with opinons and extremely short of facts. I don't know if this is Wikipedia's policy or not. I wanted to find out how much nuclear waste comes from electricity generation. All I found was 'a large (?) nuclear power station produces 3 tons per year of waste', and 'all the nuclear waste produced in the USA in one year would fit on a football pitch' . . . is there no-one who can do better than that? no percentages, please :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The above question is answered in [2] - see the blockquote on the editor's Talk page. Simesa (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Licensing article

An editor pointed out that Nuclear licensing is in terrible shape. Does anyone want to tackle it? Simesa (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the article sez: “All the spent fuel produced to date by all commercial nuclear power plants in the US would cover a football field to the depth of about one meter.” Yes, and what would happen if we put it on that football field? The comment is offered as a way of diminishing the consequences of producing this waste. [btw, it would cause a great big fire, the damage would be far worse than that produced by Chernobyl--depending on how it burns, at least one and maybe two orders of magnitude worse.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.42.34 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what point this previous poster was trying to make? Gilawson (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The point the guy is trying to make is there is more pro-nuclear statements then anti-nuclear statements (there is not sweets for the anti-nuclear folk, thus WP:UNDUE). AlexH555 (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Building nuclear power plants in America?

Where exactly are we building nuclear plants in America? I'm in the industry and all we know is that we are still in the "planning to build one" stage. Pushing paperwork between utilities and the NRC does not constitute building a nuclear power plant. Gilawson (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Watts Bar 2 is in construction and extensive site preparation & component manufacture is going on for a couple of the new reactor sites which are awaiting license approval. Joffan (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and yes, I agree. Gilawson (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

US Nuclear insurance

I have reverted SummerWithMorons twice now for wrongly claiming that there is no private liability insurance for US NPPs. SummerWithMorons appears to be relying on an old article published by commondreams which makes this false claim. Check American Nuclear Insurers and within Wikipedia Economics of new nuclear power plants. Joffan (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there is partial private and partial government insurance, I don't know if its here but it helps inform the reader. AlexH555 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Bias/WP:UNDUE

I added the tag because I think, despite the accuracy of the statements, there is more weigth toward the pro-nuclear stance. It clearly show the author's opinion about nuclear power. Beside, there is a lot of anti-nuclear people which will come on this page thinking they could find some anti-nuclear arguments. Either we put some reliable anti-nuclear arguments on this page, otherwise the anti-nukes will go check at greenpeace.org or make their own article... I think there is significant opposition to nuclear power to add their point of view in the topic.

Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste

In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, much of which remains hazardous indefinitely.^[1] Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material by volume than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and mildly radioactive material from the coal. A recent report from Oak Ridge National Laboratory concludes that coal power actually results in more radioactivity being released into the environment than nuclear power operation, and that the population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as from ideal operation of nuclear plants.^[2] Indeed, coal ash is much less radioactive than nuclear waste, but ash is released directly into the environment, whereas nuclear plants use shielding to protect the environment from the irradiated reactor vessel, fuel rods, and any radioactive waste on site.^[3]

AlexH555 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Volume of US Waste

From the article:

All the spent fuel produced to date by all commercial nuclear power plants in the US would cover a football field to the depth of about one meter.

According to the article, the US has 50,000 tonnes of waste. Does anyone have access to the referenced source of the sentence (or know enough about nuclear waste density) to check whether the volume in the football field analogy (roughly 5,353 cubic meters) is referring to the actual volume of waste, or the volume of waste if it were all reprocessed?

If it is the latter, I calculate that the waste is actually closer to 7 meters deep on a (US) football field:

American Football field: 109.7 by 48.8 = 5,353.36 square meters
Density: 1 cubic meter = 1.35 tonnes ("approximately 20 cubic meters (about 27 tonnes) of spent nuclear fuel")
Total waste: 50,000 tonnes = 37,037 cubic meters
Depth on American Football Field: 6.92 meters

121.98.249.23 (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your figures for density are a bit low. At 1.35 tonnes per cubic meter the density of fuel would be close to the density of water (~1 tonne per cubic meter). Fuel bundles are mostly comprised of zirconium alloy and Uranium Oxide ceramic pellets. Zirconium has a density of 6.5tonnes per cubic meter and Uranium has a density of 19 tonnes per cubic meter. If we check to see what the density of common fuel types is it comes out far higher than your 1.35 tonnnes/m^3 figure. A uncompressed CANDU fuel bundle is 10cm in diameter, 50cm long and weighs 20kg. This gives an average density of about 5.1 tonnes per cubic meter. If we remove the spaces and compress the fuel bundle to just uranium oxide fuel and zirconium cladding (assuming the fuel pins are 1cm across) we get a density of 9.3 tonnes per cubic meter. This would give a depth on the field of 1.004 meters (1 meter, 4 millimeters) or "about 1 meter". Nailedtooth (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my calculations were poorly explained. The density figure came from a reference in the article. The text in the article says:

A typical 1000-MWe nuclear reactor produces approximately 20 cubic meters (about 27 tonnes) of spent nuclear fuel each year.

Could it be that unprocessed waste has a large amount of other less dense matter in it? 121.98.249.23 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the figures somewhere because the source does state 27tonne/20m^3 for PWR spent fuel, however it contradicts the figure derived from the known weight and size of a CANDU fuel bundle. Fuel bundles are usually made of the same materials simply due to the materials physical properties and we know that in the case of CANDU fuel and PWR fuel they are largely uranium and zirconium. To get to 1.35tonnes/m^3 a very large amount of very light material would have to be added.Nailedtooth (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably air. At least, I don't think current practice is to "remove the spaces and compress the fuel bundle to just uranium oxide fuel and zirconium cladding". :-)

—WWoods (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

With air CANDU fuel comes out to 5.1 tonnes per cubic meter, not 1.35 like the source seems to indicate. Nailedtooth (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I know very little about nuclear power, but when I read through the article I thought the different figures didn't seem to add up too...

Now, I was looking through more of the references and followed citation 58 to the Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheets/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/) and they have the same football field analogy but they say it would be about 7 yards, which is roughly 6.4 metres.

I've since followed up on the source of the football volume analogy (World Energy Resources, Brown, Charles E, 2002), courtesy of Google Book Search, and found the example was itself copied from a US Committee for Energy Awareness report titled "Nuclear Energy Moving Ahead". As far as I can tell this was published in 1988, but without seeing it I have no way to know when that data itself was from (I hope not copied from an earlier report from 1974!)

Update: I've just found that the report was published in 1983 (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6760418). The data must have been at least 19 years old when Brown's book was published. It is now at least 27 years out of date, meaning it covers less than half the time since the US opened its very first nuclear power plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.249.23 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nuclear Energy Institute also have an updated weight on the website for the waste (62,500 metric tonnes, vs. 50,000 from 2007 in the article. A 25% increase over the last 3 years if these sources are accurate).

It looks like these two parts of the article should be updated with these more recent weight and volume amounts for 2010. I assume it would be good practice to indicate that the depth analogy is as of 2010 so as to reduce any chance of confusion in the future.

I appreciate it doesn't address your information on the waste density, but are there any objections to making this change? 121.98.249.23 (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

An alternate comparison I like is the Luxor Las Vegas pyramid (~1 million m³), only visualize it about 1/3 the height and out in the middle of nowhere.
—WWoods (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I must say the volume of waste is not very relevant to the risk. We could increase the volume by 1000× by mixing it with a gigaton (~ 1 cubic km) of water, which might increase or decrease the hazard, depending. Or, we could decrease the volume by a factor of ~10× by chemically separating out the unburned uranium it is mixed with. The activity, decay energy, toxicity, etc, are much more meaningful. Wwheaton (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear power I

IMPORTANT: the entire article should be rewritten to make the distinction between current 'dangerous' and less dangerous thorium fission. Almost nobody knows of the safer nuclear option. I think it is very important to make this knowledge more widely available. Especially to media and decision makers who might turn here for information. Two suggestions below:

Nuclear power II

Article reads Nuclear power is produced by controlled (i.e., non-explosive) nuclear reactions. Commercial and utility plants currently use nuclear fission reactions to heat water to produce steam, which is then used to generate electricity.

Much better would be: ... currently use uranium and plutonium nuclear fission ... ...electricity. Slow work is in progress to start using the much saferThorium

Future of the industry

should include a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

Waste from fusion

Article reads Nuclear fusion reactions are safer and generate less radioactive waste than fission. As ITER is still under construction and its goals include momentarily produce ten times more thermal energy from fusion heating than is supplied by auxiliary heating, note the momentarily and thermal, this claim is pure speculation at best, and is not even sourced to any authority.

But it gets worse. ITER will use the D+T reaction, and again quoting that article, most of energy in the D+T fusion reaction is released in the form of fast neutrons. The damage these neutrons do to the material(s) used for the lining (the Plasma Facing Components) is a key problem. Whatever the material(s) used for these in a plant that (unlike ITER) actually produces electrical power, it's certain that these components:

Will require regular replacement.
Will be highly radioactive after use.

Will these materials be initially more or less radioactive than the corresponding amount of spent nuclear fuel produced by a fission plant? Nobody knows. The proponents of fusion hope it will be less. But even if this turns out to be true, there's another problem.

Nuclear fission burns radioactive fuel. Proposed fusion plants won't. They generate the radioactive tritium they burn from non-radioactive feedstock.

So with a fission plant, the increase in radioactivity is temporary. The spent fuel is intensely radioactive, but in less than three thousand years it will be less radioactve than the ore that was mined to produce it.

There's no such crossover period with the waste from fusion, so the Earth becomes permanently more radioactive as a result of fusion power. Andrewa (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

These arguments are specious. I invite you to examine the table of reactions in the nuclear fusion article. Except for tritium (³H), produced in the deuterium-deuterium reaction, radioactive materials do not result directly as products of the fusion reaction itself. And tritium has three properties that make it a minor hazard: first, it is itself a highly valuable and reactive fusion fuel, which can and should be conserved and re-used. Second, it has a half-life of only 12 years, decaying into ³He, which is completely stable, inert and also highly valuable. Third, its radioactive decay produces only very low-energy electrons with negligible penetrating power, so that unless it is actually ingested it is not a hazard.

I invite you to reread my post. The problem is irradiation of the Plasma Facing Components by neutrons. The hazards or otherwise of tritium and other reaction products form no part of the argument.

The first wall materials pretty much have to be low Z (? graphite, Be, oxygen (in oxides), SiC maybe, ...?) to avoid contaminating the plasma with ions that would produce unacceptable radiative losses, or be structurally neutron damaged. It is essential to distinguish between the problem of neutron damage to the structural properties (ie, chemical/mechanical, at root) of reactor materials and activation by neutrons. The former is a serious issue for the first wall, the latter is not. I think you would be hard put to find any candidate materials that would produce activation lives of much over 100 y. Note also that the activation properties of these materials are easy to determine from small samples in accelerators or reactors, but the structural effects of high fluxes of energetic neutrons, involving damage to crystal structure, etc, are harder to study and much less well-known. Characterizing them is an important issue for ITER and other current projects. Wwheaton (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the two issues of structural damage and activation are distinct and that this is important. But they are related in that the structural considerations limit the material choices severely. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Because no other radioisotopes are created essentially in fusion reactions themselves, designers are free to choose materials for the reactor structure which are less susceptible to neutron activation with the production of dangerous wastes. The shielding for high energy neutrons would be largely light, low-Z (atomic number) materials. These materials by and large have few or no long-lived radioactive isotopes that are created by neutron bombardment. Furthermore, light radioactive isotopes that produce high energy radiations tend to have short lifetimes, roughly inversely related to the decay energy, so such induced radioactivity as is produced is far less hazardous than the actinides and fission products that are created in fission reactors. (Of course no radioactive materials are "permanent"; by definition all decay. Those that have very long life—⁴⁰K is the outstanding example of a common, relatively low-Z radioisotope—are by the same token less intensely radioactive.)

But designers are only free to choose from materials that can be developed, and the suggestion that the best of these materials will meet any specific limit of residual radioactivity on replacement is pure speculation at this stage. It's such popular and important speculation that it does belong in the article, but it needs to be sourced so we can see exactly who is saying it and exactly what they are saying.

All radioactivity is also in a sense permanent, again by the very nature (definition if you like) of radioactive decay. The earth is already (permanently) radioactive, and immediately becomes more radioactive as a result of any sort of nuclear power. The difference is, with fission there's a point in the future after which the earth is (permanently) less radioactive as a result of our activities, but with fusion it will always be more radioactive. I don't think this is in itself a reason to avoid this fusion, but it raises a big problem for those who claim we should prefer fusion to fission because of the waste problem, don't you think?

The time scale for complete (every single active atom decayed!) removal of wastes is <100 times the half life, which is of the order of 1000 years for fission products (eg, Cs137, Sr90, etc) and 25,000y for most actinides (plutonium, notably). For fusion these half lives are ~12 y for tritium and times shorter than fission product lifetimes for reasonable first wall and structural materials, with the possible exception of exotic things like superconducting magnet materials. Compare this with the 4.5 billion year life of U238 (and the 14 Gy life of Th), and you can see that fission does indeed clean up the planet on the million-year time scale, but fusion does not "permanently" contaminate it in any realistic sense. These are engineering issues for sure, but not the serious radiological waste issues which fission does indisputably have. Wwheaton (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This approximation works only for small samples, does it not? Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is correct for <1.4e12 moles, which would correspond, eg to 200 million tons of Cs137, probably the most dangerous product produced by fission. For comparison the total US production of fission waste to date (according to Burton Richter's "Beyond Smoke and Mirrors", Cambridge Univ Press 2010) is <120,000 tons (of which ~90% is simply unused uranium). For each 10X increase in sample size, add 3.3 half-lives to my 100 for my statement to remain valid. Wwheaton (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The high-energy neutrons accompanying fusion are mainly a problem because they can can produce damage to the structural materials of the reactor, degrading their properties. (This is especially an issue in the plasma containment magnets, and in the "first wall", facing the reacting plasma.) The bottom line is that radioactive waste from fusion reactors, while not entirely absent, would be far less problematic than for fission. Wwheaton (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the first two sentences, very well put, but understated. These neutrons not only can produce damage, they do produce damage, and the result of degrading their properties is that the material must eventually be replaced. But so far as the bottom line goes, who says it's not a problem? That's all I'm asking. You may find they are describing their goals and hopes rather than their predictions. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Some materials will surely need to be replaced periodically, no one disputes that, but they will have only low-level activity, with short decay life, nothing like the very dangerous waste from fission reactors. Wwheaton (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence? Citations? Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Article now reads Nuclear fusion reactions have the potential to be safer and generate less radioactive waste than fission, and the dubious tag I added has been removed, but there's still no citation to source these claims. The restatement of these conjectures regarding waste and safety is not quite weasel words, but it's the same sort of problem.

I really think we need a source. If nobody has one, the claims should simply be removed. Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we certainly need references for everything, but these statements have been made by many authoritative sources, so let's wait for editors with the literature at their fingertips to weigh in with good current ones. I have an older textbook on fusion power (Introduction to Fusion Energy, J. Reece Roth, 1986) on my bookshelf which must surely mention it, but may not be very accessible to the average reader. The references for fusion power and ITER would be good places to start looking, for anyone with a little free time. Wwheaton (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's the best source we have at present it should be cited... Please add the citation, it's better than nothing and allows the reader to assess the quality of information we're providing. It seems to be out of print but it's available second-hand [3] and at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory library [4] so it's an excellent reference, both authoritative and verifiable, but perhaps a bit out of date so far as the hopes of researchers are concerned. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I will locate a page reference after a week, when I get back from a trip out of town. Wwheaton (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I finally beefed up the reference by thinking to simply borrow one already used in our Fusion power article, which is certainly more recent and available on-line. This saved me searching for the best page reference in a large textbook, and I hope it is satisfactory to all. Wwheaton (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there are (2) take-home points here.

The statement: "The earth is already (permanently) radioactive, and immediately becomes more radioactive as a result of any sort of nuclear power." should not be used as an argument for anything, since the earth is constantly bombarded from all directions by a wide spectrum of high energy cosmic and solar radiation. In fact when you sit on an airplane you are irradiated by approximately 10-100 times that of sea-level. Would that be a sensible reason to take a boat across the Atlantic? Probably not.
As the name ITER implies it is an experimental fusion reactor, so I cannot see why this discussion is going off into various and yet somewhat hypothetical dangers based on this technology, when in fact we have not yet built a fusion energy device meant for continuous energy production. So let's be a bit more diplomatic here and say that there are currently some unsolved problems with fusion waste products.

Jahibadkaret (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete Sentence

In the Future of Nuclear section it reads

Many countries remain active in developing nuclear power, including China, India, Japan and Pakistan. all actively developing both fast and thermal technology, South Korea and the United States, developing thermal technology only, and South Africa and China, developing versions of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR).

I'm not exactly sure what this is trying to say, but it currently doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.166.163 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not quite sure what was intended either, but it is now closer to grammatical English. I hope others with knowledge of the national programs mentioned will check and correct any errors of fact. It obviously needs more explicit referencing. Wwheaton (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

world map legend

The world map doesn't have a legend. It says you can see the legend when you click the image, but that is not true. -- 130.89.173.183 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Vermont nuclear plant is in Vernon, not Montpelier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjgould1 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubbaloo (talk • contribs) 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 163.231.6.68, 10 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

This paragraph makes no sense. It starts off talking about a TV show, then switches to an article. Then it introduces someone named Mandil, but does not identify who this is. Also, it seems very biased.

According to a 2007 story broadcast on 60 Minutes, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe.[66] France reprocesses its nuclear waste to reduce its mass and make more energy.[67] However, the article continues, "Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will... Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry... If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then 'I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program.'"[67] Further, reprocessing itself has its critics, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists.[68]

Thermal power also produces waste in huge quantities which are dumped into the atmosphere. If Mr Mandil disklikes nuclear power stations (an easy position to adopt) he should explain the alternatives (this requires a little effort).

163.231.6.69 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: What do you want to change? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

The evacuation of 300,000 people from Kiev is untrue, scoopy and contradicts to the Chernobyl disaster. Kiev is the city 50 km away from the disaster site, which was not officially declared as effected territory; no resettlement from the city followed the disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.58.193 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.51.94.43, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The first American Nuclear plant meltdown. It was the Boeing Rocketdyne plant in Santa Susana, overlooking Chatsworth, California in the 1950's. It was the first nuclear plant to actually power a city. That city was Moorpark, California. Here is the article support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory 173.51.94.43 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem serious enough to really be listed along with the other big things that have occured. The table on this page only talks about accidents that caused more than 300 million dollars in property damage. Even Nuclear and radiation accidents#List of accidents at nuclear power plants only lists accidents that caused fatalities or that caused more than 100 million dollars in property damage. I'm not saying that it's a clean place, but contamination apparently occurred over a period of time from multiple incidents, "During its years of operation widespread use occurred of highly toxic chemical additives to power over 30,000 rocket engine tests and to clean the rocket test-stands afterwards, as well as considerable nuclear research and at least four nuclear accidents..." That first "meltdown" just doesn't seem serious enough to really be mentioned anywhere. Did you have a specific place in mind that you wanted to put a mention in? What exactly did you want it to say? Banaticus (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of protest movement history

This item states: "Protest movements against nuclear power first emerged in the USA in the late 1970s..." But the first U.S. opposition to a commercial nuclear (then called 'atomic') facility started in 1961, when Pacific Gas & Electric wanted to build a plant in Bodega Head, on the coast near San Francisco and close to the San Andreas fault. After enormous opposition, the Public Utilities Commission rejected the plant in 1963. ^[4] Lcushing (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, some local opposition to nuclear power emerged in the early 1960s, and in the late 1960s some members of the scientific community began to express their concerns. I've made some improvements to the text, but specific mention of the Bodega Head saga is probably best placed in the Nuclear power in the United States article. Johnfos (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Metsamor, Armenia NPP Issue following the Japan Quake

In light of what has happened at Fukushima recently and considering that the NPP at Metsamor, Armenia is located within a seismically active region that has experienced devastating earthquakes in the recent past, the safety of this plant really needs to be evaluated closely. The operating standards at Metsamor are far inferior to those of the Fukushima plant and there are no plans at this point to close it down. Following the experience of Japan though, this will probably change, taking note of the fact that the continued operation of this plant is unjustified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.1.66 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tigerdragon, 18 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The quake size needs to be changed from 8.9 to 9.

Tigerdragon (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Under the High-level radioactive waste section

It reads:
After 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed from operation. Still, this 0,1% is dangerously radioactive.
0,1% should read as 0.1%.
J1raymond (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)j1raymond

Edit request from Zenonian, 22 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} A minor edit for style: I suggest the nuclear accidents be listed in chronological order; Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, then Fukushima I. Zenonian (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Accidents and safetly is inacurrately stating dangerous levels of radiation.

Explosions and a fire have resulted in dangerous levels of radiation, sparking a stock market collapse and panic-buying in supermarkets.

The radiation that has increased at the plant is relatively low and was never dangerous for most people at the site, let alone outside the plant boundary. The reference that is used for the incorrect statement even says:

The radiation levels peaked at a relatively low 6.4 millisieverts, officials said, but some three hours later there was no news on whether the crews had been allowed back into the plant 250km northeast of Tokyo.

This is about the same as the annual dose each person in the US receives from natural sources such minerals in the ground, and from man-made sources such as medical x-rays: EPA-Radiation Doses in Perspective

For another source on the low levels of radiation: NEI website

Radiation Monitoring Continues

Air samples collected at on-site monitors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant March 19-23 show that only iodine-131 was found to be in excess of Japanese government limits. Radiation dose rates measured on site March 21-23 have decreased from 193 millirem to 21 millirem per hour. Radiation dose rates at the plant's site boundary ranged from 1 millirem to 3 millirem per hour on Thursday.

Since 1 mSv = 100 millrems, we can see the highest dose on site was 1.93 millisieverts. There are areas in the primary contamination that can always be found higher than this and they are dangerous, but they are kept off limits except for emergencies. So far, only 2 people have been hospitalized for going in those areas and it was a precautionary measure. They were each exposed with much less radiation than the lethal limit.

Please update the page to accurately reflect the actual radiation levels that existed in the Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami disaster. --Jumprun4112 (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of closed down reactors in the world?

How many closed down reactors in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.47.178 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The IAEA database says 125 shutdown reactors (37.794 GWe).[5]

—WWoods (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Flexibility of output

It is not easy to find sources that are technically reliable, independent and nonpartisan, for now I found this publication http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/research/u9600.html and this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7268832.stm. So if nothing better turns up I would base the paragraph on these two sources. Richiez (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The notion that nuclear can be used to any extent to handle peak loads is a dramatic development. I feel it should be addressed as more than an aside, to the extent that it is true.

Reference 1: The first article cited http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/research/u9600.html alludes to wind having a lower variable cost than nuclear (no fuel cost), so that it also makes sense to run wind generation at 100%. When this results, the question is asked: should nuclear be ramped down? This is far from giving the answer "yes". Only posing a problem of excess generation in search of a solution. ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
Reference 2: The second article cited http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7268832.stm talks about flexibility and does not mention nuclear in that capacity. Hardly a reference. In addition, common wisdom is that nuclear plants are run at 100%, since they have the lowest variable costs; ie, you save the least by cutting them back. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
Flamanville. Someplace the links get to Flamville 3 as the load following nuclear. But I don't see any significant statement or claim about this, really, amazing new feature. Or is the capability there for all nukes, but now the economics have changed, with wind?? ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Opening Sentence is inaccurate and awkward.

delete

keep

change:

Nuclear power is produced by controlled (i.e., non-explosive) nuclear reactions. Commercial and utility plants currently use nuclear fission reactions to heat water to produce steam, which is then used to generate electricity.

to read:

Nuclear power is the use of sustained Nuclear fission to produce heat and do useful work. Nuclear Electric Plants capture nuclear energy by heating water to produce steam, while in space, nuclear energy is used to heat a gas, which expands in a Stirling engine.

The opening sentence isn't a definition of the title any more than "Red is the color than comes out of a red pen" is the definition of red.
"Nuclear Power" is not produced; rather energy is converted to heat, with the final product being electrical power (with waste heat utilization in some cases).
I suggest that less important redirects do not deserve top billing over the article synopsis.
This an encyclopedia, not the book of revelations: what in the future may be, is not the proper domain of an Encyclopedia. Thus fusion is a topic for a different article future, experimental, and speculative energy sources unless someone can point to fusion plant producing more power than it consumes...
sustained reaction is the best term: Controlled & Moderated come close but in space, reactions are not controlled or moderated, instead they are merely sustained at the natural half-life.

Benjamin Gatti (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider renaming / splitting

Given that Nuclear power plant doesn't have its own article and instead is renting a bedroom inside an article with 3 disambiguation prefixes...
Given that nuclear Stirling engines used in space are so different from terrestrial power plants...

Might it not improve the ontology to have Nuclear power plant, List of Nuclear powers, and Atomic energy with links to both?

Atomic energy is more original and arguably more descriptive, but sufficiently unique as not to require 3 disambs (Nuclear Power describes any country with an Atomic bomb, though not counties with merely nuclear power. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Observations and comments

I read the article and I learned several things but I didn't feel it was well-written. I found there is a lot of wording and not as much substance as I expected. I want to list a few things I observed.

1. The article starts by saying "Nuclear power provides about 6% of the world's energy and 13-14% of the world's electricity,[1] with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for about 50% of nuclear generated electricity."

It then continues by saying that "As of 2005, nuclear power provided 6.3% of the world's energy and 15% of the world's electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for 56.5% of nuclear generated electricity."

The two sentences above are repetitive and provide inconsistent figures at the same time.

2. "However, the dream of harnessing "atomic energy" was quite strong, even it was dismissed by such fathers of nuclear physics like Ernest Rutherford as "moonshine."

This sentence does not sound right. I think it should be reworked.

3. "Reprocessing of civilian fuel from power reactors is currently done on large scale in Britain, France and (formerly) Russia".

I don't understand how "currently" and "former" come together.

4. The article says "China has 20 new reactors under construction" and then it says "China has 25 reactors under construction, with plans to build more".

I think one of the two sources should be eliminated to avoid inconsistency.

5. "However, according to a government research unit, China must not build "too many nuclear power reactors too quickly"".

Saying "government research unit" sounds a little too generic. It should be specified which country said that.

6. Four references do not point to anything and need to be fixed.

ICE77 (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Accidents and Safety section has inaccurate information on costs.

I checked the first source listed, "The Accidental Century," and the numbers here agree with those listed there, but they are nonetheless wrong. The cost of the Chernobyl Disaster is listed as being less than $6,700 million, a figure that defies reason, and I can only guess is a misprint. Various sources give differing figures, but they seem to agree that the cost to Belarus will be between $200,000 and $300,000 million US dollars, possibly with the differences relating to the value of the dollar in the year of calculation. The cost to the Ukraine may be similar, or slightly less. Perhaps what is meant is a figure of $670,000 million, but we can only guess what was intended in the source. --ghh 15:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

The property damage costs quoted are quite comprehensive and include destruction of property, emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, lost product, fines, and court claims. There is no misprint as costs are confirmed in several refereed publications by Sovacool.^[5] Johnfos (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I sent an email to Benjamin Sovacool. He replied thus:

Hi George,

Thanks for your note—the $6.7 billion price tag for the Chernobyl accident is no typo. As explained in the original study I did, attached, whenever there was a discrepancy among cost estimates, we went with the most conservative (so your $670 billion number may indeed be right, but to be safe we only quoted the lowest range of estimates).

Best,

Benjamin

Clearly, for the purpose of this article, the best attempt at an accurate evaluation, rather than the most conservative available estimate, should be used. The idea that the Chernobyl Disaster cost less than seven times as much as repairs for equipment failures at the Pilgrim plant in Plymouth Massachusetts seems a bit far fetched, and I think is not useful information.--ghh 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

Chernobyl deaths

The statement Steam explosion and meltdown with 4,057 deaths is falce. You cannot just add 57 direct death to "estimated additional 4000 cases of cancer" - this is plain stupid. I request to rewrite this sentence as: with 57 direct death and up to 4000 additional cases of cancer estimated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.56.160 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with this argument. It is not accurate to assume deaths to make it sound worse. --Jumprun4112 (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it should read "31 direct deaths and up to 4000 indirect deaths" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.62.226 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

""Nuclear energy" redirects here"

Not true: Nuclear energy.--Qgil (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone has a better argument, I will remove tomorrow (or so) the "Redirect|Nuclear energy" and I will add the links to Nuclear binding energy and Nuclear Energy (sculpture) as a See also in the Nuclear energy article.--Qgil (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Qgil (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Echo876, 15 April 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The brief Life Cycle section of the nuclear energy page ends its discussion of the life cycle of nuclear fuel (uranium) at five years, after the used ["spent"] fuel is either moved from cooling pools to dry storage casks, or the spent fuel is reprocessed.

However, the fuel still has a "life" after it's put in a cask or reprocessed. Only five percent of the uranium's power is used in the first processing. So, the spent fuel in casks still has 95 percent of its potential, and the life cycle of the spent fuel continues for 250,000 years, ceasing to be dangerous to humans after 10,000 years.

On the other hand, if the spent fuel is reprocessed, the remaining uranium is used up as fuel, but plutonium is leftover, with a dangerous long life of its own. In short, because the article is about "The Nuclear Fuel Cycle," it is misleading to assert that the fuel process ends five years after the fuel is placed in a cooling pool. It's life is not over; on the contrary, it's just begun.

For the moment, I make the following suggestions, though I think a bit more should be added:

Spent fuel can be safely housed in dry casks for 90 years, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The source of this information was a quote by NRC spokesman David McIntyre to Scientific American magazine for Part 3 a nuclear series published in 2009. Here's the link (p. 2, last paragraph).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source&page=2

Echo876 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: actually this article is about nuclear power, and the life cycle section isn't meant to be comprehensive (hence the link to the main article). The Nuclear fuel cycle article is not protected and would be a good place to go into greater detail. — Bility (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Nuclear Power Plant" redirects here -- Why??

This is weird, especially since the head is actually linking to NPP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.80.93 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request Brightbird8 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, new to Wikipedia editing. Just been reading this page and would like to suggest a change to the section on environmental effects. Currently reads:

"Comparisons of life cycle analysis (LCA) of carbon dioxide emissions show nuclear power as comparable to renewable energy sources.[119][120] Other studies dispute this conclusion.[121]"

I think this should be amended to:

"Comparisons of life cycle analysis (LCA) of carbon dioxide emissions by the nuclear industry show nuclear power as comparable to renewable energy sources.[119][120] Other studies dispute this conclusion.[121]"

This makes clear that the sources are not neutral (I had wondered, so looked at the references. Unwary readers may not do this.)

Brightbird8 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That second sentence should really be deleted. Even anti-nuclear studies like Sovacool conclude that nuclear and renewables are in the same range (tens of grams of CO
₂ per kW·h) compared to fossil fuels (hundreds of grams):

*                    Wind             * = 10 g_CO2 / kWe·h
*                    Biogas
*                    Hydro
*                    Solar thermal
**                   Biomass
***                  Solar PV
****                 Geothermal
*******              Nuclear
*********.*********.*Nat*gas*.*********.****
*********.*********.*Diesel**.*********.*********.*********.*********.*******
*********.*********.*Coal****.*********.*********.*********.*********.*********.*********.******

—WWoods (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Add scale to "Accidents and safety" section?

As we now learn about the International Nuclear Event Scale, with Fukushima I nuclear accidents rated 6 and the Chernobyl disaster rated 7, maybe in this section we could get the INES ratings (if available) of the other accidents, as part of the chart. --Magmagirl (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New Scientist produced a graph which shows 'deaths per 10 billion KwHr' of different energy types http://milliethegeographer.blogspot.com/2011/03/nuclear-energy-and-plate-tectonics.html has a copy of it. A CC version of this graphic would help put the section on accidents into context.

Zeonglow (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Accidents and safety" and politics

What's actually weird and out of place at the article is a list of nuclear reactor accidents. The accidents have nothing to do with the safety of the technology itself. Perhaps that a section can be kept that tells a bit more on the failsafes of the technology (or lack thereof); ie text of the nuclear safety article can be used herefor.

Another issue are the many sections on the politics of nuclear power; it's good to have a single section ie on how many power plants have been built, and where they have been built since the technology was invented (= actual use); however it isn't a good thing to include so much info to explain the views of the general population on the issue; ie the man in the street has nothing to say on this anyhow, only civil government politicians do, and info on this is best reflected by the number/types, ... of actual power plants in a country.

91.182.235.189 (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of new plants in China

In one section it is stated that the number of new plants under construction is 20 but later the number is 25. Both have citations -- perhaps someone in the know could reconcile this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.5 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Because of the frequency that plants are completed (I believe one this year and at least one more is expected by the end of year) and the frequency that they are beginning construction (around one a month) keeping an accurate tally might be challenging. Reference 148 (World Nuclear Association) is updated frequently and is a good source. I think that actual number at the moment is 27. It might be easier to simply say it is "more than 25" the way WNA summarizes it to minimize the number of editsBlubbaloo (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

China currently has 27 reactors (~27 GW of capacity) under construction at 12 plants. 'Under construction' meaning that the 'first concrete' has been poured for the foundation; the equivalent of laying the keel for a ship. I think List of nuclear reactors#China is up to date.

Preparatory work for several other reactors is also under way, at those and other plants. Their post-Fukushima safety review has delayed the start of construction of at least one by a few months.

—WWoods (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Colors in world map of nuclear power

We should really consider to change the world maps to a map with different colors like this one: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Nuclear_power_worldwide-2009.svg&filetimestamp=20110322012350 The colors should give the visitor an intuitive idea of how big the nuclear power influence is in the different countries. Most people in the world agree that nuclear power is dangerous and such the red color is justified. In the current map, countries which will get rid of nuclear power look worse (red) than countries which don't plan to do that (blue). Thats really confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.134.72.120 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Climate change effect not included

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13971005 talks about how warming seas leads to more jellyfish so plants must be shut down. THIS is important when looking at reliability for other power generation e.g. birds stopping blades of turbines or sun not shining for solar. Can it be added in that section - due to protection I cannot add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.66.93.45 (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

nuclear power stations

I would like to know the cost and timescale to build a nuclear power station in the uk alan stannard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.25.96 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A rough schedule is here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html

"The first of some 19 GWe of new-generation plants are expected to be on line about 2018."

—WWoods (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

POV

If this article were any more POV, it would be an opinion piece. Heavy editing is needed! 69.226.34.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

Here are some examples:

A fundamental goal for American and global security is to minimize the nuclear proliferation risks associated with the expansion of nuclear power. If this development is "poorly managed or efforts to contain risks are unsuccessful, the nuclear future will be dangerous".[112] <-- Quote or not, that's POV like whoa.
It is often claimed that nuclear stations are inflexible in their output, implying that other forms of energy would be required to meet peak demand. <-- "It is often claimed" = "I believe"
The entire section "Economics" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.34.25 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is close to needing a 'neutrality disputed' tag. Even the introduction is a bit one sided, thousands of coal miners die each year yet the page on fossil fuel power stations (redirected from coal fired...) does not mention accidents at all, which gives the impression coal is safer than nuclear, when it demonstrably is not. Zeonglow (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this article is highly biased, specially at the beginning. --Alcarinque (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the first images a reader sees on this page should not be of a nuclear accident and in the first couple of paragraphs a discussion of nuclear accidents Gibby is gibby (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made some edits to try and address this. I moved the Fukushima picture to the Nuclear power plant where it can balance the flowery lead picture. The statement about nuclear being safer than wind cited a self-published source. If the statement is restored, we need a better source and it probably doesn't belong in the lead of this article. I moved the paragraph enumerating accidents to the accidents section. I believe the remaining paragraph on controversy gives readers an appropriate taste of these issues. --Kvng (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the lead, the sentence "Japan's recent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has now prompted a rethink of the nuclear energy policy worldwide." is very poor and needs to be rewritten. It fails to mention who is doing said "rethink", or what a "rethink" consists of in the first place. Nailedtooth (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead to provide the clarification requested. Johnfos (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just strike the last paragraph in the lead. I think the third paragraph covers misgivings it in as much detail as needs to be done in the lead. The lead is already too long.
The information in the last paragraph is appropriate for the body. If there is any of it that is not already in the body, please edit to add it before this problematic paragraph gets deleted. --Kvng (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is undue weight on Fukushima. However, the current very last paragraph gives some needed opposing views and should not be removed.Miradre (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history, I guess I already did move the last paragraph as part of my POV edits. It was promptly restored. The lead still has the same POV problem and is too long. If we do some work on the third paragraph, can we delete the last? --Kvng (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There would still be two critical paragraphs about accidents in the lead. Some opposing views are needed.Miradre (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Either I misread or someone recently split the last paragraph in two. What do we need to add to the third paragraph to be able to remove the last two (paragraphs 5 and 6). --Kvng (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Leaving only anti-nuclear views regarding Fukushima? Preferably I would remove all detailed material regarding nuclear accidents. It is just one argument among many regarding nuclear and do not need a separate paragraph. No reason to mention it in extensive details and exclude from the lead issues such as nuclear waste, base power ability, and so on. So my proposal would be to simply remove the 3 last paragraphs.Miradre (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If we include something we could also briefly mentions the other issues regarding nuclear.Miradre (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Economics section graph

This really does not look at all scientifically robust to me.. it looks as if the author of the image has just taken the shape of the "Number of NPP's" area graph, copied and flipped it, and labelled it "Amount of CO2 in tons (coal)", and then copied that AGAIN, stretched it down a bit, and labelled that "natural gas". How on earth did this rubbish get on Wikipedia? -Vertigo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.226.30 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And the data are incorrect or lack unit (amount of CO2 per what unit of time): USA doesn't have 104 NPPs but 104 reactors in 65 NPPs. If Nuclear release 900g less C02 per kWh than coal and with 806.2 TWh of electricity produced annualy in USA: 806.2 TWh = 806.2 * 10^9 kWh => 900g * 806.2 * 10^9 = 725.58 * 10^12 g = ~725 * 10^6 tons => So the impact for nuclear replacement by coal will be of ~725 * 10^6 tons of C02 per year.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html http://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity 85.2.79.125 (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

A previous version has what I consider to be a neutral lead: [6], which provided a reasonable summary of the article, per WP:Lead. But mention of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and discussion of the future of the industry in the lead are now gone, and some rather trivial information remains. The whole lead attempts to provide a pretty picture of nuclear power, and notable information that might be less favourable to the industry's image has been removed. Have added a POV tag. Johnfos (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Any mention of Chernobyl and Fukushima in the lead would be an improvement, as there is currently no reference to them there. In terms of images, an image of Chernobyl in the body of the article (as well as the existing Fukushima image) would help to balance many of the pretty pictures we have here, and cover INES 7 accidents. Johnfos (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added a links to Nuclear power debate and Nuclear and radiation accidents in the lead. I'm not outright opposed to mentioning specific events in the lead but I personally couldn't work those in without feeling a POV tingle. --Kvng (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To my eyes there is an WP:UNDUE problem in the last two paragraphs in the version you like ([7]). I agree that the authors have tried to address WP:POV by balancing out opposing views but I think, by far the more eloquent solution is to remove some of the detail. --Kvng (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would remove some of the detail from the first paragraph (eg., fusion doesn't need to be mentioned in the first para) and include more detail further down in the lead. In general the lead needs to be expanded to provide a better summary of the article, per WP:Lead. We need a lead of four solid paragraphs for an article of this length, per WP:Lead. Johnfos (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion/ Use in space

There is an undue emphasis in the first paragraph of the lead, and the first section of the article on Nuclear fusion and Use in space. These are issues which you would not expect to be discussed at the front end of a nuclear power article. I would suggest shifting them to the end of the article, under a heading like "Emerging technologies". Johnfos (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The radioisotope thermoelectric generator is arguably an insignificant source of nuclear power. It is a very different application and method so deserves weight here. We're trying to enumerate nuclear power sources and applications. Fusion is given prominence for the same reason. --Kvng (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

The significance of the Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant image eludes me; I can't think why it is there except that it is a pretty picture. Johnfos (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting a picture of Chernobyl in the introduction is equivalent to putting a picture of the Titanic at the top of Ocean liner, or of the Banqiao Dam at the top of Hydroelectricity. Chernobyl and Fukushima should be included — and are — further down in the article.

—WWoods (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My question remains: what is the significance of the Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant image, which has endured for so long in lead position? Johnfos (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The picture is not illustrative it is iconic. What does the typical nuclear power plant look like - steaming cooling towers or exploded reactor? I submit that the current picture works for this purpose. The fact that it has been up here for so long is also encouraging. The picture is of an industrial facility, not exactly a pretty picture. Here's what I would consider to be a pretty picture. --Kvng (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Susquehanna steam electric station.jpg

The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, a boiling water reactor. The reactors are located inside the rectangular containment buildings towards the front of the cooling towers.

I would consider the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station image (presently used further down) to be a better picture for the lead. It is another quite pretty picture in my view, but one with an informative caption, that helps to orientate the reader to the topic. The "Three nuclear powered ships" image could also be used in the lead. Several pictures are appropriate I believe and they would help to build up a more substantial and informative lead. The lead as it stands is too short and doesn't adequately summarise the article. Johnfos (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Both of these are better pictures than the current lead. Can we put them side-by-side at the top of the article. Do we repeat them where they currently exist? Remove them from where they currently exist? Find replacements for where they currently exist? --Kvng (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Have shifted some images, per this discussion. See what you think. Johnfos (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Thanks. --Kvng (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Repositioning of comments

I think this discussion has got quite fragmented and confusing because a lot of the comments in the sections above have been refactored or repositioned. Most recently the "Nuclear fusion/ Use in space" discussion has been removed from the POV tag section; I don't know why as it clearly relates to POV and undue weight. Please do not change comments made by other editors. Johnfos (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Recent edits have moved this article towards more overlap with Nuclear power plant. We either need to revert those changes (and then some) or merge these two articles. It appears to me that the easiest thing to do would be to edit this this article cover nuclear power in general (fission, fusion, naval uses, radioisotope thermoelectric generator, etc) and refer any details of electric generation stations to Nuclear power plant. Nevertheless, I've put up merge banners to make editors aware of the overlap and stimulate some discussion. Perhaps there's a better way to organize this topic. --Kvng (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is limited overlap with Nuclear power plant. And, at 112kb, this article is too long to be merged with another. See Wikipedia:Article size. Johnfos (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I am not in favor of a merge neither. Let's not confuse a whole energy system (nuclear power) and a part (nuclear power plant). Now, I see a lot of redundancy between sections of the following articles: nuclear power, nuclear power plant and nuclear safety. I think that some work could be done in cleaning a little bit the sections without loosing information. Ledjazz (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We're in agreement. I'm therefore inclined to revert these edits to arrest overlap. Hopefully future edits will reduce overlap further. --Kvng (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are wanting to revert some recent edits you should have just said so, instead of trying to couch the discussion in terms of merging or article overlap. As far as agreement goes, I am disagreeing with you. There is no need to revert recent edits, no need for an article merge, and little overlap. If anything needs to be shortened in this article it is the 11 paragraphs which discuss Solid waste. Johnfos (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I did say so in the first two sentences of this section. We all agree that there should be no merge. I've taken down the banners. I think a lot of this article can be slimmed down and details moved to appropriate {{main}} articles. I will do some editing as per recommendations at WP:SUMMARY. --Kvng (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As I say, the Life cycle section, and especially the Solid waste sub-section, could be cut down using WP:Summary style, but otherwise the article looks fine to me. Johnfos (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thorium Nuclear Power

It has come to my attention that research is being done into a new type of nuclear power plant that uses radioactive thorium as fuel: it's smaller, safer, and produces less radioactive waste then conventional plants, it uses much more plentiful and cheaper fuel, and it produces nearly as much power. I read about it in a Popular Science magazine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.84.162 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See thorium fuel cycle. —WWoods (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Propose removing Sovacol tables on nuclear property damage in accidents section

The table is currently somewhat misleading and out of date. Many of the accidents mentioned did not have offsite consequences, the property damage refers to plant damage and therefore associated costs would be borne by the operator/owner. This is hardly important as an indicator to the severity of an accident. It is also not at all clear how these costs have been worked out, for example have they been adjusted for inflation, what kinds of property damage have been included, what level of remediation etc. It raises more questions than it answers. The table also provides a disputable (upwards and downwards) estimate on the number of Chernobyl deaths without sourcing this figure. It looks like the Chernobyl Forum estimate to me – not really the place for this discussion. Lastly and now most obviously, there is no Fukushima damage figure. I would suggest getting rid of the table entirely, or at least the last column of it. Let the text in the main body of the section do the work, or the inidivdual wiki-entry for each accident where it exists. 92.21.119.9 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Surveys show that the public is quite concerned about nuclear accidents and so the issue deserves adequate coverage here. The table provides general info on several accidents without taking up too much space. Links are provided for those readers who want more detailed info. The property damage info is important as nuclear power plants rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for some 40 percent of all property damage associated with energy accidents. Footnote 110 provides some info on what is included as property damage. Overall, I think the accident coverage provided here is reasonable, and without the table much more space would be taken up describing accidents in the main text. Johnfos (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the table. This article is written in WP:SUMMARY style. A super set of the table already appears in Nuclear and radiation accidents. We don't need this level of detail in the summary. --Kvng (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnfos has added sections provided detail on our three largest disasters. We don't need all that prose either. The major accidents are linked through the referenced lists and explicitly in the existing section body. If your intent is to make more people more aware of these disasters, I suggest you rethink that strategy. Making the section longer is not going to compel more people to read it. --Kvng (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have restored basic descriptions of the three major accidents in order to help provide balanced coverage. This text uses WP:SUMMARY in that the main articles are linked and a short summary follows. Surveys show that the public is quite concerned about nuclear accidents and so the issue deserves adequate coverage here. You can't seriously be considering not discussing the basics of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI in this article? Johnfos (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes balanced coverage. In the context of the rest of the article and the numerous links to safety issues, incidences and controversy, I thing there's an WP:UNDUE problem. I've reverted your revert. I'm not up for an edit war so please give others time to have a look, re-read the discussion here and if you think you have a WP:CONSENSUS to include your summaries, go ahead and restore it. --Kvng (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

We need a section on “Accidents and safety” that at the very least provides basic info on the three major accidents – Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI. This info has been removed several times now, leaving the article unbalanced, so I’m adding a POV tag to the section. Johnfos (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is really about neutrality, just the right level and scope of content. My opinion is that there is scope for more description of the three accidents - maybe one or two sentences for each, with links of course. However what is really missing from this section is a description of principles of reactor safety. Where's the mention of defence in depth, multiple barriers, passive versus active systems, etc? Currently this is just a section on reactor accidents - very onesided! Babyturtle (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

current climate change section needs some serious review

The climate change subsection is simply not relevant. Climate change potentially impacts all types of electricity generation, including renewable forms - why single out nuclear? In fact the report referenced clearly indicates precisely this. The topic of plant cooling is a genuine environmental concern, but hardly unique to nuclear, and not particularly related to climate change. Babyturtle (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

possible plagiarism from book: Advances in Nuclear Power by Elvis Rosenthal

I'm a college student doing a bit of light research into nuclear power, and I came across the book mentioned in the subject line through my university's library website and extended resources. It's an ebook, and I'm not sure where it comes from. Its ISBN is 9789381157695, which returned no results on Amazon and only 3 on google. Anyway, the text of this ebook directly mirrors text from the wiki article for Nuclear Power, as well as the article on the Nuclear Power Debate. The ebook cites no sources, and it is not cited as a source for either wiki article. I'm not sure if this is something worth noting or not, but it jumped out at me and it seemed very odd. My gut feeling is that the ebook is not legit, but I thought I'd just make it known in case anyone is curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.209.117 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the e-book was published on 1 May 2011. It might be worth checking the suspect piece of text to see which came first: the addition to the WP articles or the e-book. It could be that the articles here came first. It's not unknown for someone to slip a Wikipedia article into print (or an e-text) and sell it on Amazon; this would be allowed, providing it were attributed properly and people knew what they were getting. The WikiBlame tool is useful for finding when stuff was put into an article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste

I am not sure this section belongs here at and all it reads like part of an argument N>B It seems errroneous to compare fly ash from coal burning to"ideal " level of radiation waste from nuclear one side is factual the other speculative

this comparrison does not include the well documented amount of radiation dispearsed into the environment accidentally and from storage of nuclear waste and materials which surely should be added to the tally ,where verifiable data exists.

once again I must say that this section seems inappropriate ,unbalanced ,pointed ,and missing much info and thus limited ,the text does not live up to the title and it reads to me like some sort of justification,I wont bother editing cos it will just be restored and I leave the issue putting it down to the kind of factual errors I keep hearing people complain off in wikipedia,a project of deep interest to me

This is a time of some debate on these issues and I think that what info appear now has much significance to public opinion Sebastian barnes (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It possibly could be moved to Radioactive waste but much of the discussion is waste produced by nuclear vs. coal power so it has reason to be here. I considered whether it was original research but find the section to be a careful and accurate summary of the references. I considered whether it was neutral and find that at least some opposing arguments are included by virtue of the CSJournal ref. If you feel it is unbalanced or incomplete, the first step would be to identify some new references. --Kvng (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference wna-wmitnfc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Alex Gabbard. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
^ "Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste". CE Journal. 2008-12-31.
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay
^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 379-380.

[wna-wmitnfc-1] Cite error: The named reference wna-wmitnfc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[colmain-2] Alex Gabbard. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-01-31.

[cejournal-3] "Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste". CE Journal. 2008-12-31.

[4] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay

[critev-5] Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 379-380.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]