Talk:Nuclear energy policy/Archive 3

Cleanup tag
This article was created with parts of nuclear power phase-out together with a new introduction. The introduction has to be improved. Some parts of the article might be too specific too the phase-out and should be removed. As this text was before at nuclear power phase-out the perspective can seem POV, please help balancing. --Ben T/C 15:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not a good move IMO
See Talk:Nuclear power phase-out. Andrewa 18:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

That was not a move. I was a question of removing contents from the nuclear power phase-out article as was requested and saving it. There is still some redundancy here with the other article and it has to be shortened and focus sharpened. Please see Talk:Nuclear energy policy. See also my reply at Talk:Nuclear power phase-out. --Ben T/C 03:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Chicken Little is not encyclopedic - Text Move
The Hubbert peak of global oil production predicts widespread disruptions to conventional energy supplies of oil and natural gas. Some academic and business research into hydrocarbon deposits has concluded that the continued usage of this form of energy source will inevitably create widespread reductions in its supply during the 2010s, resulting in a sudden need to switch to alternative energy sources such as nuclear energy and "green" sources such as solar and wind power. However, similar predictions about the "end of the age of oil" have been made almost since oil first became a major commodity, and so far no such predictions have borne out.


 * This sentence doesn't even make sense - except in that Sci-fi credit-card day-trader geekspeek in which "Peak" means "Some guys falsified theory about oil futures, who might as far as we now be trading against his own advice." Whether or not Hubbert is right, the extinction of oil reserves is a natural phenomena based on first principles - and should not be converted into a proper adjective. Benjamin Gatti


 * I think the paragraph conveys important information:

Please state how you would like to change the paragraph. Ben T/C 07:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oil supply will reduce in the future (when is not the primary question. The Hubbert peak article is the place where the "when" is discussed),
 * 2) (therefore) energy policy has to rely less on oil.


 * The reasons for finding alternatives to oil in order of political importance are 1. To defund a radicalized mideast, 2. To harden the economy against foriegn market manipulation, 3. To reduce direct pollution which causes 300,000 deaths a year. 4. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions which may lead to climate change. 5. to reduce the effect of the rising costs of oil extraction. This paragraph wants to blowhard about how the sky is falling and move reason 5 to the top of the list by combining known facts with guesses and predictions of doom. The paragraph should read:


 * Benjamin Gatti 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To which part of Nuclear energy policy does this apply? Or is there something called "Nuclear oil"?  (SEWilco 18:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC))


 * Yeah i cringe when i see "Peak oil" in a "nuclear energy article" - I proposed removing it completely, Ben asked how i would rewrite it. (very samll is the answer. (and I would tack it onto other concerns as a last thought, not as Yet another chance to noun a verb'. Benjamin Gatti


 * Very funny, SEWilco. I'am trying to improve the article and you redicule it. Could you please state where you found that citation or motto of yours? I couldn't find it.
 * And Gatti, you cringe when you see peak oil? Well, man, I am sorry for you... What did you say, what kind of answer was that?
 * The article should give a background to the development of nuclear energy. The question is "what is the motivation for developing nuclear energy?" The focus of the article is of course not oil, but there is a link between depleting oil resources/greenhouse effect and policies to develop nuclear energy, that's why the paragraph has to stay one way or another. I am sure, there are ways to state that better than the paragraph does that you cited. If you find another way to phrase it then please change it, don't make fun of it.
 * The article needs a lot of work as does nuclear power phase-out, (I call them sister projects). I even nominated the nuclear power phase-out for AID, but it will be kicked out tomorrow if there will be no votes from you guys. Thanks for your concerns, guys.

Ben T/C 05:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * There also is a link between not developing nuclear energy and burning coal for 30 years. (SEWilco 06:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC))


 * So it wasn't your quote, SEWilco.
 * Possibly there is a link between burning coal and phasing-out as you seemed to indicate. It certainly needs more discussion in this article. Nuclear power phase-out has some speculations about it. BTW, I think it's time to update this article from nuclear power phase-out-content and then afterwards shorten and summarize it there. Ben T/C 08:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, Gatti's comment suddenly makes sense, thanks SEWilco for moving the signiture. I like the text, but I have to see it in context of the section: I think we could omit "minor" and there should be a link to Hubbert peak, because that's the only article where depleting oil reserves are discussed (I searched some time ago and there was no other article). I also want natural oil mentioned and something like (what is now): [depletion] ...resulting in a sudden need to switch to energy sources such as nuclear energy and "green" sources such as solar and wind power. However, similar predictions about the "end of the age of oil" have been made almost since oil first became a major commodity, and so far no such predictions have borne out.


 * (I skipped alternative before energy, because it doesn't fit)
 * I suggest this:


 * Ben T/C 09:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it's ok. But again it has the tint of chicken little. Hubbert was WRONG about the time, and he is wrong about the two apples problem. Oil will be produced beyond the point of positive energy gain because oil is a transportation fuel (10x more valuable than a fixed prime energy). The idea that Hubbert being correct is going to be the thing that effects the market ought to be contained to the theory page alone, and not spread like a cancer to every other article. There are 4 things which I named which are more likely to drive energy convversion to green sources. and I forgot to mention competition with china - well before any reduction in oil production has an effect. Moreover Hubberts peak is not a general description of the point of diminishing returns, it is a precise prediction that the declining rate of oil production will neatly match the rise in production, and a theory that oil extraction must yield net energy gains - neither of which are proven, and both of which have been falsified. Benjamin Gatti


 * I think we should avoid having a Hubbert peaking debate here. i don't not want to see both sides of THAT argument here - because they should be fenced in to the Hubbert article (and the key tossed). My proposed sentence expresses accurately that oil will experience a point of diminishing return on a timetable with is the subject of much dispute (see bias, hype, and chicken little here) that and the other much better reason DO belong here SEWilco notwithstanding, but let's keep it tight and respect the editwars that other fine editors are having on other subjects by not taking sides, or rehashing the argument here - let the fire rage on another page - just an idea. Benjamin Gatti


 * Another version:


 * I'm sure there is a Hubbert peak link in Petroleum. (SEWilco 17:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC))


 * Perhaps this section could be changed like so - its simple

Benjamin Gatti


 * Some motivating factors driving nuclear phase-out are the ... the potential depletion of fossil fuels. No. You have combined several slogans here in a way that just makes no sense at all. The actual depletion of fossil fuels is a factor inhibiting nuclear phase-out. The depletion of the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb fossil-fuel waste is an even more significant factor. Andrewa 02:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

About Italy
The following is not backed up by the references (as far as I could find) and the text is misleading (not to mention ungrammatical). To keep it, pls change it a little.
 * Italy also actively invests in French nuclear industry, most notably planed nuclear power plant Flamanville where they have purchased 25% of future capability. In addition they are majority holder in Slovenske elektrane, largest Slovakian nuclear power plant operator.

What is missleading about this text if I can ask. I will give you references shortly. As for grammar, please help me with that mate. --Trigor 16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. As promised here are references that Italy's large power company ENEL invests in France. ,,. Regarding investment and ownership of Slovenske Elektrane here are 3 links. One is from News Site and other two from Slovenske Elektrane webpage ,,. I hope this solves our misunderstanding. Feel free to re frame some bits and fix the grammar and then post it again. Thanks for help. Sorry if I appeared to be misleading. If you need more references don't hesitate to ask. --Trigor 17:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As Ben is I'm sure aware, this is a hugely significant development, and IMO the last nail in the coffin of any meaningful European nuclear phase-out. France has made an enormous profit from the nuclear paranoia of its neighbours, but there's a problem in expanding this program, both in France and spreading it to other countries who are willing to construct nukes.


 * The problem is ensuring the market for the 60-year life of the plant. The nuke costs about twice what a fossil plant costs to install, and is only economic because its operating costs are about half that of the fossil plant from then on (in very round figures). If there's no market for its electricity, it becomes a huge white elephant. The risk is that, if nuclear policy changes in countries such as Germany and Italy, they may then build or threaten to build their own nukes, and this will force down the price of electricity towards that of the operating costs of any then existing nukes relying on electricity exports, at huge losses to their owners. The lead time for construction of a new nuke is anything from three (Japan) to ten years from final decision to full power output, depending a little on the technology and a lot on the local politics.


 * If the importing utilities can cover part of this capital cost, and therefore these risks, then this eliminates the biggest problem otherwise inhibiting the expansion of nuclear electricity in Europe. It's a win-win, both for the generating countries who do very well economically, and for the importing countries who can enjoy both the benefits of nuclear energy and whatever the benefit is that they currently see of remaining officially opposed to nuclear power while importing it. The main loss is that it's not good either environmentally or economically to have these unnecessary transmission losses.


 * I freely admit this is a very POV post, but it contains some important information on nuclear energy policy that I hope someone may add to the article, and which I find it very difficult to express in NPOV terms myself. Andrewa 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I just read the start of the article, skimmed the rest. The first two paragraphs are terrible. A policy by who? Who says "all aspects"? It's spent nuclear fuel, not burned rods. Should reference nuclear power up front, not nuclear reactors. "National energy policy means ..."??? Governments can ..."??? And "An issue that has become prominent ..."  I give up, I can't even rewrite it - just what is this article about?  And why isn't it in the articles it belongs in? Simesa 22:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with nuclear power phase-out
I propose the page on Nuclear power phase-out is merged with this one. A phase-out is just one possible energy policy so belongs here. There is not enough valuable, distinct information to warrant a seperate page. Arguments for against different policies could then all be contained in one place here, with seperate sections on policies in countries around the world. In this merging process I also suggest we rid the pages of the systematic US-centric bias. Please comment on this proposal below, otherwise I will go ahead and complete it in the next few days. Thanks Andeggs 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. In fact, the title Nuclear power phase-out implies that nuclear is actually being phased out in general when in fact it is growing. Paul Studier 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fully agree. The title Nuclear energy policy covers also phase-out. Beagel 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Work underway at Nuclear_energy_policy/workspace. Andeggs 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked in the workspace, and this seems to be a very good article coming. Simesa 17:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have completed the merge now so hope you like it. A lot of the material was repeated on these two pages. The large (and ramblling) pro's and con's sections of the phase-out page also repeated a lot of material on nuclear power and was heavily culled. Andeggs 08:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed out of place comment
"In August 2006 three of Sweden's ten nuclear reactors were shut down due to safety concerns following an incident at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, in which two out of four emergency power generators failed causing power shortage."

This is not really relevant as the article is about nuclear energy policy, and the incident did not really affect that ( nor public opinion ). Furthermore, the reactors have since been started again after safety inspections. At the very least that comment needs a rewrite to clarify how it relates to the energy policy. 137.205.236.51 12:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Swedish referendum
I seem to remember that the page previously mentioned that the Swedish referendum has been considered flawed by many observers as it did not offer any opportunity for people to vote in favor of Nuclear power. This statement seems to have been removed, along with the reference, from both this article and the more general section on Sweden. The referendum is still mentioned, however, so I am guessing this is just an act of vandalism. 137.205.236.47 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate but not
The topic nuclear power phase-out is almost its own topic. If there's a way to remove excess duplication, keeping only to keep clarification, that would be the best option, but the topic in my opinion should remain separate. Who the H**L wants to scroll a very long article?

Just two cents from a user. 66.53.18.169 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Richard Boettner


 * I agree that it deserves its own article. It doesn't seem to be a particularly successful policy, but it has from time to time been a very popular one in parts of Europe and to a lesser extent in the USA. See Talk:Nuclear power phase-out. Andrewa 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why was it deleted? I show that it was created on 11 August 2005. To me each article is long enough to stand alone. 199.125.109.81 22:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted, it was merged with the nuclear energy policy. All relevant information from the nuclear power phase-out was incorporated into this article. As the nuclear power phase-out policy is a one segment of overall nuclear policy, I don't see any reason (excluding only the reason that the article is very long) why this information can't be included in this article. Beagel 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see that at all. The current article does not stand a chance of covering the issue properly, and the previous article should be restored. 199.125.109.127 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you see that some important information is missing, please add it. It's not a reason to create a new article. And talking about restoring old article, it was actually quite messy. So I propose to start develop current article and try to cover all policy aspects properly.Beagel 05:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Once more I went through the old article and there is no way to restore old article as it heavily overlaps with existing articles. All phase-out policies by countries are described shortly in the Nuclear energy policy and if necessary in country specific articles. Pros and cons of the nuclear phase-out are actually Cons and pros of nuclear energy as such and are listed in the Nuclear power. It leaves only the subject of nuclear phase-out as popular/political movement, but actually it not described very well in the old phase-out article. It definitely deserves to be described more precisely (most significant politicians; organisations etc supporting nuclear phase-out), so I propose to start adding this information into the Nuclear energy policy article. If this section growth too long, the separate article could be considered. Beagel 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I still support the creation of a separate article, see Talk:Nuclear power phase-out/Archive 2. But it's not a task for the faint-hearted. The article as originally written appeared to be an attempt to promote the phase-out policy. Although IMO a genuine attempt had been made to do this within Wikipedia's policies, this original article listed the successes and arguments in favour of the phase out while giving little coverage to setbacks and opposing arguments. It never really rose above those beginnings, and at times even contained blatant propaganda inserted by editors who contributed nothing to Wikipedia apart from material opposing nuclear power.

And that's a shame IMO. This continues to be a particularly hot topic, and I know of nowhere on the web that gives a detailed NPOV account of the movement's history and current status. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the tag
The North American section is tagged with "Globalize tag", but there is no explanation on the talk page. Without proper explanation added, I would propose to remove this tag.Beagel 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ireland
The most recent situation in Ireland is probably best summed up in. Simesa 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Country notes
As this article is too long and not very well structured, I propose to remove country information from this article into the spin-off article Nuclear energy policy by country. We should also work out what to do with the overlapping information in the articles Nuclear power and Nuclear power by country.Beagel (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of citation from the Nation Magazine
The following sentence was removed from the United States section: However, as of May 2008, no new nuclear power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground, and two newly proposed projects have been shelved.
 * The fact that no nuclear power stations have been been fully licensed yet is simply becuase the new regulatory approval process has just started but approval is expected when the process completes in 2009. The basic design has already been approved by the NRC.  As for breaking ground... well, of course, you can't do that without the regulatory approval first.  The issue with this citation is that it gives the mistaken impression that approval was sought and rejected, which is entirely not the case.
 * "Two newly proposed projects have been shelved." The two examples cited in the article are Payette County, Idaho - this was a consideration for brand new 'greenfield' site for which no application was ever even filed.  The other example cited was SCE&G's Summer plant for which an application was indeed filed and an agreement with Westinghouse has since been reached for construction of the plant.  Wikiliki (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is thorium really safer?
Nuclear energy policy currently reads Scatec would like to build a thorium-fueled power plant, which is safer than uranium-fueled plant (my emphasis). I'd love to see a citation for that sweeping statement! Thorium fuel cycles simply breed U-233 from Th-232; There's no inherent safety advantage, in fact there's even a sense in which the thorium cycle uses uranium as the fuel. Probably, this is another bit of folklore bred from the need of some (pseudo-)environmentalists to reconcile the traditional opposition of "green" parties to nuclear power with the unpleasant truth that nuclear power is and always has been extremely desirable from an environmental point of view, and that the public are becoming increasingly harder to fool on this particular point.

The problem is, practical thorium cycles, like fusion reactors, are still in the future, so it's hard to prove or disprove anything that's said about them. Thorium is likely to arrive long before fusion, and India is the likely developer... having about 40% of the world's thorium reserves but no uranium deposits that a viable for civilian use, they have a big incentive to develop the technology. But even India is only now constructing a pilot thorium cycle power station. Andrewa (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A reference is given at the end of this sentence. Of course, you could argue if this true or not, but at least it is appropriately referenced.Beagel (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... thank you, and quite right, this article is the problem. It's full of inaccuracies:


 * thorium is incapable of producing the runaway chain reaction which in a uranium-fuelled reactor can cause a catastrophic meltdown - that's true in a way, thorium can't go critical at all. But the U-233 that is actually the thorium cycle fuel can, much the same as pure U-235 can.
 * Thorium reactors also produce only a tiny fraction of the hazardous waste created by uranium-fuelled reactors - rubbish, every fission produces two fission product nuclei, and any critical assembly produces excess neutrons that are lost into the surrounding material or produce transuranics. Most of the activity in the waste is fission products and transuranics. It's true that thorium cycles tend to produce fewer transuranics, but hardly a tiny fraction.
 * thorium-fuelled reactors don't suffer from the same proliferation risks as uranium reactors. This is because the thorium by-products cannot be re-processed into weapons-grade material. Um, thorium fuel can be deliberately spiked with uranium to prevent proliferation, or for other reasons. But if that isn't done, the irradiated fuel will contain uranium which is mainly U-233, which can be separated chemically and is an excellent bomb material, much easier to detonate than any grade of plute.


 * Maybe enough for now. Of course I need to source these claims of mine before updating the article, which will take a little time. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just take this part saying 'which is safer than uranium-fueled plant' away from this sentence. If thorium power plant is safer than uranium power plant or not, is actually not the point of discussion of this article. The important part is that there are some discussion about building power plant using thorium. Probably you could add your arguments to the Thorium article, which even has separate section about thorium as a nuclear fuel.Beagel (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm.... Thanks, I'll think about it. The problem also is, I don't want to be promoting my own (strongly pro-nuke) POV here either. I'll have a look at the Thorium article. Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Had a look at our Thorium article, and it's pretty good already IMO. It makes no claims about safety, and accurately describes the proliferation risk which the Cosmo article says doesn't exist. Cosmo doesn't seem like a very reliable source on environmental matters. Sad. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Those claims are somewhat better than you're giving them credit for.
 * Thorium reactors also produce only a tiny fraction of the hazardous waste created by uranium-fuelled reactors — Thorium reactors are breeders, which convert all the thorium to fissionable U-233, and thence to fission products. Conventional reactors fission only about 1% of the uranium, so the waste contains not only the fission products but also all that unfissed uranium. Reprocessing helps somewhat, by increasing the percentage of uranium consumed. Burning the uranium in fast breeders would help a lot more.
 * thorium-fuelled reactors don't suffer from the same proliferation risks as uranium reactors. This is because the thorium by-products cannot be re-processed into weapons-grade material. — Th reactors are only marginal breeders, so while you can extract clean U-233 from them if you have physical control over them, you'd either have to siphon off small amounts over a long period or simply shut down the reactor and take its fuel. Either way, there's a considerable risk of being caught.
 * See http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ for extensive discriptions and discussions of liquid fluoride thorium reactors.
 * —WWoods (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that reprocessing, which is an integral part of the thorium fuel cycle, reduces the waste problem. But recycle the fuel from an LWR and you get much the same benefits. Or conversely, if you managed to design a thorium reactor for once-through operation with natural thorium input after the initial fuel load (nobody proposes to do it AFAIK but by using the assemblies first in the outer core and then migrating them to the inner core as their fissile inventory builds up it's theoretically possible) you'd have much the same spent fuel hazard as with the current LWR once-through technology, only with unused thorium as well as unused uranium. So it's the comparison I'm objecting to.


 * The one advantage of the thorium cycle so far as waste is concerned is that you don't generate DU. I'll concede that as an advantage. As you say, roll on the FBR, and we'll burn it all.


 * As for proliferation, agree that the risk from a thorium fueled thermal breeder is slight. But the point is, it's far, far greater than that posed by an LWR. So while I regard the LWR proliferation threat as negligible too, for much the same reasons as you state, again it's the comparison I'm objecting to here. The claim is that the thorium fuel cycle is somehow more resistant to proliferation than the uranium-fed LWR fuel cycle. In fact it's the other way around.


 * you are wrong. It all depends on type of Thorium reactor used. In fact, the LFTR, noted above, produced U232 in very small amounts but is enough to...ruin your day if you want to try to make bombs out of it. The LFTR is essentially proliferation proof. Besides, historically, few civilian nuclear power plants were EVER used to make bombs. that's what research reactors were and are for. If you want a nuclear industry that is simply proliferation resistant, go with the LFTR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.111.9 (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Molten salt reactors are great in concept. The USA spent a lot of hopes and dollars on them. And they may work really well, some day. Andrewa (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I take strong exception to the use of the term "proliferation proof" above.  Proliferation resistance is a relative concept - some systems are more proliferation than others; some are less so.  It is fair to say that the gamma radiation from U-232 that is mixed with U-233 in a thorium fuel cycle makes the resulting uranium less attractive than even reactor grade plutonium, so the fuel cycle may be somewhat more proliferation resistant than a closed fuel cycle using low-enriched uranium fuel.  However, a recent study have concluded that radiation and heat load are less significant factors than the ability to sustain a fast neutron chain reaction. In comparison to spent fuel, the separated uranium in a thorium fuel cycle is far more attractive for use in a nuclear explosive, so a closed thorium fuel cycle is less proliferation resistant than a once-through uranium fuel cycle. NPguy (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

rem text
Ok, with some reservations I've removed the statement , which is safer than uranium-fueled plant. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Common name
Which is the common name for nuclear and fossil fuel energy? (nuclear-fossil?, traditional energy?).--Nukeless 13:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is one. They are very different sources of energy with different and separate histories.  Are you looking for a blanket term to bracket them together?  You could describe them as non-renewable, since fossil fuels and uranium will eventually be depleted, but that's possibly just confusing (nuclear is rarely described this way; and it may be inaccurate for nuclear fusion).  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  13:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge nuclear power debate into Nuclear Power
I've referred the Nuclear Policy Arguments section to Nuclear power since this discussion was miniscule and it also doesn't make sense to debate nuclear power in multiple articles. The relevant sections in Energy development and Anti-nuclear movement have Merge tags in them and in about a week, pending discussion, I intend to consolidate their Pros/Cons into Nuclear Power as well. It looks like we already have a consensus in one of those two articles to do so. Simesa (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Go ahead. Beagel (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Map of the nuclear power stations
The map of nuclear power has some incorrect or missing data. You could discuss it here Beagel (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag: Nuclear energy renaissance
I really am very sorry that the "nuclear renaissance" is not going as some would have hoped. There are many media articles now which are critical of the idea of a renaissance. The present treatment being given to the nuclear renaissance in this article, after several recent edits by NPguy, is not neutral and I will explain some problems with the coverage with specific reference to some edits: Repeated removal of material which is well sourced amounts to censorship. And so this section is not neutral. Johnfos (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * -- This edit involves the use of the term "spent fuel" instead of "radioactive waste". This is euphemistic "Nukespeak" and is not neutral. It is also not the term used in the source.
 * -- Like any source, a blog may be appropriate to use as an article reference as long as certain conditions are met, as WP:BLOG explains.  Removal of the New York Times Green Inc. Blog in particular is a mistake as it is an article Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling? written by a reputable NYT journalist, James Kanter, and presented under the NYT banner.
 * -- This is another example of legitimate material, which is well sourced, not being allowed on the page.
 * After reading the sources again, I think you have a point on two of these, and have reverted two of my edits. The NYT blog seems solid, but not the other one.  However, the term "spent fuel" is not a euphemism.  It is simply a more precise and specific term, and it is not necessarily waste. NPguy (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine
Why Ukraine is missing?--MathFacts (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested split. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the split request was: Split. Beagel (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose to split the Policies by territory section and create a separate article. In addition to this section, also Member states section from the Nuclear power in the European Union should be merged into the new article. I will give a summary about all countries who have any kind of nuclear energy policy in force or planned. The "Nuclear power in country X" series will remain as a main articles for all relevant countries. At the same time, the new article differs from the Nuclear power by country as the latter list only existing nuclear power capacities, the new article will deal with the policy issues.

One problem with the current Nuclear energy policy article is also that its size is too large. Beagel (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Sounds good to me. Johnfos (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested split. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 15:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, Civilan Nuclear reactors are in fact the single most successful non-proliferation agent in the world
As per my recent edits to the proliferation section, which was severely biased and skewed, and prior to my edit didn't even mention the Megatons to Megawatts program. So I've injected some reality into the article.

Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)