Talk:Nuclear energy policy of the United States

Feedback
Great topic and also a very controversial one at that. I really liked how you moved chronologically with the changes in policy. I also liked how you included public opinion because that usually has a big effect on how the policy is made. Keep up the good work. -Joe from classJjwiki14 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall your article appears to be well researched and balanced. One shortcoming is well documents cost in dollars without documenting benefits in dollars. For example a single modern light water reactor rated at ~1200MWe will produce >21 trillion gross retail dollars ($21,000 billion) of electricity during a projected 40 year life span. This amount assumes $0.07/KW-h of power produced and sold. If the plant has a license extention to 60 years this amount goes to >32 trillion dollars. This puts some of the other dollar amounts into better perspective. Great work. Thank you for your great effort. Whpowell (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone, I try to keep this article more on the policy and regulations and less on the merits or shortcomings of nuclear energy. There are many other nuclear related pages on Wiki where that argument is more valid. I have had to keep a close eye on the others information here to make sure it is at least relevant to issues with nuclear policy and is well documented. - Whpowell, that is interesting, however private industry profit margins are irrelevant to the Government (in the idea word), policy and regulations, though a separate article on Nuclear power - Private Sector, could be interesting with that figure. If something like that could be included here, it would have to be only in the comparison of overall energy output of Nuclear energy vs. lets say coal, as in which energy source should be subsidized more. Also, that figure (although there is no source, it seems like accurate information) is a gross profit vs. net profit. Not included there are everything else that goes into that plant including from labor, maintenance, consumption & storage of fuel rods, line loss, and actually how much they can sell of that power at an 100% output status (etc.) and countless more. All those things that prevents utility companies from making 32 trillion for 60 years of a plants life. If 500 billion was gained net per year (arpox), we have countless more nuclear power plants. I tend to believe the net figure is quite a bit lower. But I could be wrong? if you have that net-figure, I would be interested in learning about it. Those are just some of the things I think about when analyzing information from a non-biased prospective Kayz911 (talk03:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is quite strong on nuclear power policy but a lot more could be said about nuclear weapons policy, see here. Thanks for work done so far! Johnfos (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnfos, that is in a different field and beyond the scope of this article because it is more of military/defense (executive branch) vs. legislative (I'm not even sure of there is nuclear weapons legislation?). There is already a brilliant Wiki page for that Nuclear weapons of the United States. This article is designed more for commercial energy production and the government's role with regulating the private sector, because there really wasn't much on there. The Department of Defense (DoD) control of nuclear weapons, and many things are subjected to national security classification. The only thing I can think of with nuclear weapons relating to this field, is the decommissioning of weapons at such places the Savanna River Site (and regulated under, I think, the DoE's jurisdiction, though there is talk from the Gov to put it under the DoD's control). However, I think I can do a see also for the weapons wiki page, which should helpKayz911 (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've moved the page to "nuclear power policy" to make it clear that is the focus here. Johnfos (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it might not be common knowledge to individuals outside the legislative fields that nuclear weapons are not associated with legislation and policy. Regardless, I personally don't see much problem with the move, because it definitely is more focused on the topic at hand. But I'll throw it out just in case and get some feedback from a few people. They might prefer "energy" vs. "power" but we'll seeKayz911 (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course nuclear weapons are associated with legislation and policy. It is just not your chosen topic here. Johnfos (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well just to be nerdy here, policy I can possibly see, because it is under the president's control. But congress has almost no legislative control over what the president does on active nuclear weapons or military affairs under the constitution. However, as I see though, there is legislation on the dismantling of nuclear weapons under the "Arms Control and Disarmament Act (1961) and Amendments." But even that act included the statement that, "no action could be taken to disarm or to reduce or limit the armed forces or armaments of the United States 'except pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution or unless authorized by further affirmative legislation.'" Just some fun info there from a little bit of a search, here is link Arms Control and Disarmament Act (1961) :-)  Kayz911 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kay for that :) One general impression I get reading through things here is that policy is being viewed too narrowly. A policy is a "course of action" and is far far broader than just legislation. With this in mind, I've tried to bring in more on the politics associated with particular issues touched on in this article, which I think is very relevant. Policy and politics go hand in hand. If you would like more on nuclear weapons politics, please see some of Lawrence S. Wittner's books and articles. Johnfos (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * sure, policy is a living breathing thing when it comes to the implementation, effectiveness, new legislation etc. The history of policy and legislation, is pretty written in stone. However, when you go to far into analyzing that dark abyss it can destroy wiki policy articles (as you will see from critiques many of the nuclear articles, and countless other policy pages). It's that fine line between informing a person on further research and opening the door for every little group throw a quote and link into their own site making it a biased article which loses a bit of it's validity. As for your changes, they are all legit and exactly what I hoped would be included in the current events. I'm glad you did actually, because you saved me a whole lot of work and you kept with usually very reputable sources as well. I've found people on both sides of Nuclear, like to be a "Arm Chair Nuclear Critic," but usually fails to provide accurate sources for valid information. So cheers on your good work! And when I get a bit of free reading time, I'll check that book out for sure Kayz911 (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the new title of the article for two reasons. I don't like the alliteration of "power policy" and I don't think the goal is accomplished, either. A better idea would be to restore the article title to what it was (or at least change it to "nuclear energy") and put an "about..." (disambiguation) template at the top of the page, so it informs and directs people right up front to the nuclear weapons page. It would then read right at the top, "This article is about nuclear energy policy in the U.S. For nuclear weapons, see Nuclear weapons of the United States." Marrante (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Marrante, I like that idea personally, after thinking about it myself, power is not the only policy being discussed and maybe not even energy. If the article was only on nuclear energy generating facilities then alright, but i've included parts on legislation on waste storage and even mining of uranium. But if we restore the original title, and then do the about section as you mention, i think that would accomplish the differentiation between the weapons. I am not as knowledgeable on how to do a restore like that, but if you don't have time, I think I can get my mentor to help me on Tuesday. Kayz911 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I just wrote "nuclear energy" as I suggested earlier, but if you want to add to the template, you can. I would just keep it as simple as possible, like "nuclear energy and storage" or just leave it as is. The main complaint about clarification, that the article is not about nuclear weapons, is now addressed. Marrante (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice job guys, this has a potential for a Good Article if you keep developing it! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Piotrus! mayself and a few others has put a lot of work into it, and I'll be submitting the page for GA soon with my mentor's aid. Hopefully we can get some feedback on it from that point!Kayz911 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article states - "South Korean environmental activists staged an anti-nuclear rally on Monday, marking the 32nd anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in the United States." "On Monday" needs a date. 138.87.147.133 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Outdated information on the "Implementation of the Energy Act of 2005" section
Please cite what you think information is outdated below. I am assuming, it is on the fundings given (which none have been distributed as far as I've heard). NOTE, since I started this article in March, the NRC has not updated any information on new reactor plans. Aside from the updated sources on the page (which includes expected future proposed plans), see: New Reactors & NRC - New Reactors locations, The last updates were in March of 2011. If no one can provide what information is outdated in this section, I will have to remove the tag...Kayz911 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, Kay, please try to be a little more proactive in locating updated material and a little less defensive when someone questions what you have written. The table from the NRC does not give the complete picture and there are other sources. Just this week NRG has decided to abandon already started construction on two new nuclear power plants in Texas, see and . And Michael Grunwald has said that the "American nuclear renaissance is a myth" and that despite "extraordinary bipartisan support and generous cradle-to-grave subsidies for new nukes, private financiers wouldn’t touch them", even before the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, see . This article should not be using the terms "second nuclear renaissance" and "second nuclear age" as they are an incorrect description of what is happening. Johnfos (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * interesting, they are still proposing to pay the licensing costs? Interesting move, I suppose that is why it is not showing up on the federal raider quite yet (nor maybe for a while). I'll go ahead and amend that part and add something on that. As for the term "Nuclear renaissance," (applying in this case a field term for revival) people can believe it might be good or bad progress, which is a good discussion for the Nuclear renaissance page, but regardless I think the "term" still applies to the returned interest in nuclear power in the United States. Now, it might end the second age with the incident in Japan, even with 80% loan guarantees, I agree. That would end the second nuclear age or renaissance in the United States and possibly even warrant the words "Failed Second Nuclear Renaissance" or something of that nature. And if a later interest returns to nuclear power, that would be the third nuclear renaissance and so on and so forth. I think the term is simply applying to a time period, and has no reference to pros and cons of the age. But I'm happy to note it refers to a time frame? and good work on the NYT article, ThxKayz911 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * see the new section John, feel free to do some copy edits if you feel they are necessary. If there are new halts to plants, we can update them as they come... admittedly, the NRC does not update their pages all that quickly. Kayz911 (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
Deactivated request of US nuclear energy policy

Nuclear policy of the United States → US nuclear energy policy — Frankly, the topic is energy policy and it is usually called nuclear energy policy. People think you're talking about bombs and that is very POV and WP should not tolerate POV of that nature. Bard गीता 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose, since the common convention is to list the subject first, not the context. If the proposal is Nuclear energy policy of the United States, that's a different story. Although we already have Nuclear energy in the United States. Are these the same? Sorry, haven't read either article. Night w2 (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also opppose per Night w2's reason. To answer Night w2's question, this article is about government policy, not about nuclear energy itself.  Hence the separate article. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 06:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note further that all other US policy pages (that I know of) follow the naming scheme used by this article. –  VisionHolder « talk » 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Nuclear power in the United States. Oppose "US" or putting the context first.  Powers T 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "oppose' per Night w2's thoughts, Sadads (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Points of clarification
* Power and policy are different. Nuclear power and Nuclear policy are different.
 * Nuclear policy and nuclear energy policy are different.
 * The eyes tend to play tricks on us and we often misread the above.
 * Nuclear power in the United States is not = Nuclear policy in the United States.Bard गीता 23:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The intention of the Move proposal is not to try to POV highlight United States and I have no problem with rewording in that respect.
 * The intent is to disambiguate that the page is about nuclear energy. As-is, it fails to distinguish nuclear energy policy from nuclear weapon policy. This should not be controversial to anyone who is not tring to confuse readers. THe only reason I call it POV is that, in the RealWorld where all is fair in love and war, some folks do try to conflate the two. But WMF is @ geek clarity of logic not POV ...Bard गीता 23:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Answer to question by Night w2

 * we already have Nuclear energy in the United States. Are these the same


 * That's a fair question. As pointed out by another user, they are not the same. Bard गीता 23:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Revised requested move
{Requested move/dated|Nuclear energy policy in the United States} Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy in the United States Note that Nuclear energy policy of the United States is national policy. Nuclear policy in the United States includes state policies. But the NRC does have Federal pre-emption so I lean to eventually having two articles, but that can be dealt with later in a split proposal. Any thoughts??

Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy in the United States

This is what everybody seems to be leaning toward. Any questions? This should not be controversial. Note: I originally tried to suggest two alternative titles but it seems that the template and the bots only showed one suggested title. I don't remember maybe this was one of the two original proposed names. At any rate, it seems the important thing is to disambiguate the page name. Bard गीता 00:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Inline reply by ProposalInitiator (for ease of reading)
Nuclear policy of the United States → US nuclear energy policy AGREED: WITHDRAWN IN FAVOR OF Nuclear energy policy in the United States — Alternatively Nuclear energy policy of the United States Frankly, the topic is energy policy and it is usually called nuclear energy policy. People think you're talking about bombs and that is very POV and WP should not tolerate POV of that nature.

Bard गीता 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose, since the common convention is to list the subject first, not the context. If the proposal is Nuclear energy policy of the United States, that's a different story. Although we already have Nuclear energy in the United States. Are these the same? Sorry, haven't read either article. Night w2 (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AGREED... POINT ACCEPTED ... NOPE WE DON;T HAVE ENERGY POLICY; POLICY AND PRACTICE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS Bard गीता


 * I also opppose per Night w2's reason. To answer Night w2's question, this article is about government policy, not about nuclear energy itself. Hence the separate article. –  VisionHolder « talk » 06:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ? SO THEN WE AGREE article is about government policy, not about nuclear energy itself Bard गीता


 * I should note further that all other US policy pages (that I know of) follow the naming scheme used by this article. –  VisionHolder « talk » 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AGREED FINE OF COURSE. THE POINT IS NOT TO REORDER THE SEQUENCE THE POINT IS TO DISTINGUISH POLICY FROM PRACTICE Bard गीता

 Support Nuclear power in the United States. Oppose "US" or putting the context first. Powers T 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC) "oppose' per Night w2's thoughts, Sadads (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Bard गीता 00:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Folks, this is very hard to read, so please use colons to separate your thoughts and sign your own name. I can't tell who to respond to, and who is using someone else words! This reminds me of reading a bad minutes transcript from a senate or house public hearing. And I'm opposing any change, because there is nothing new here that has not been talked to death about before and then remedied, (see my response below). As you will note by reading EACH section of this article (especially leading up to the nuclear renaissance) you will see that it is not JUST about energy, but many other things as well (cont. below) Kayz911 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent: Withdraw as written/ Re-propose per the above suggestions/objections
The remarks seem to pretty much concur that the word Nuclear should go first and there seems to be either support for or ambiguity/neutrality regarding the point of distinguishing nuclear energy policy from nuclear weapons policy, and that a"nuclear policy" is ambig. Hence, I will close this confusing discussion and re-open, if that is cool with all concerned. Bard गीता 00:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As as the original author of this article, I'm also going to oppose the move or name change above including "energy". The majority (of those who edit this article and have knowledge on nuclear policy) feels this move and name change would be a bad idea, lets let it be. Also, it is very clear that weapons are NOT part of policy they are constitutionally under the executive branch and not subjected to any act of Congress (unless being decommissioned). Anyone who stumbles upon this page and is looking for Nuclear Weapons can see the link right at the top. I've beaten this to death honestly, and even included notes that explain that. Those in the past that have had issue, feel it is clear now. Also in regards to energy, this is a really limiting title, because as I've explained before nuclear policy is not only relating to energy but also to things like storage of waste, transportation of various nuclear materials, who regulates such activities (like the establishment of the NRC), mining regulations etc. In the nuclear field, when you say "Nuclear Energy Policy" you are only referring to things about nuclear power facilities and technology that creates power vs. anything else. It's a subtle difference I know, but it will alienate half of the policies on this page if you read them carefully (especially in the first nuclear age). Kayz911 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Given the garbled evolution of this conversation, I suggest dropping it for now and bringing it up in a month. I agree the word "energy" should definitely be added to the title to remove any confusion (and it is confusing, so it violates all kinds of Wiki title policies). But adding the word "energy" is the only change that I think should be made. It's too bad you didn't realize that when you made your proposal. But if you retry it down the line with only the addition of that one word, I think you will get a more coherent discussion. You can contact me on my Talk page when you do that. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on any of the proposed moves (not a poll section)
I find this conversation very hard to follow. Perhaps this should just be restarted fresh? 65.94.44.141 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Full Citation Needed from the Fukushima plant section onwards
Geffery I appreciate your interest and contributions here, but there seems to be some problems with your citation of your information you put on the article. Excluding the youtube link (which are hard to cite as a source for potential readers), you are not archiving your sources (try | WebCitation.org), not providing author names, dates etc (see the other sources as a template and copy paste your information in there). Also "ibid" is NOT a source, do a Ref tag (like the other sources), simply cut and past an earlier one of mine and put use a tag for each additional usage in the body of the article. There is a "how to" pasted by VisionHolder in my ref section as well, I'll be happy to work with you if you need help on that, hit up my talk page. I know were running an advanced citation style here, but i find it's helpful for users to quickly learn more about a topic. Also at the end of every paragraph and after every quote, you need to cite your source. There are at least 6+ places where citations are needed, I will mark them with a cite need note. I have to hold this article at a far higher standard than normal, because this article is very important to the public policy page and is soon being featured at a Wikipedia sponsored conference in Boston in a few months. Therefore, your going to need to update these changes in the next week or so, because uncited sources will kill any chance at a passing the Good Article application which I will be submit this article for in a week or so after I finish a longer lead (which I am working now). I would hate to have to remove the uncited information because it is interesting and relevant to policy (it shouldn't take too long, just needs a little leg work). CheersKayz911 (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my second warning, if the information is not updated on the main page, I will go in there and remove the parts that are not cited or clarified. I do not want to do this, but this is designed to be a wikipedia reference page, not a blog. I will only give it a little more time on this before either revising it or removing the improperly materials completely. I have also contacted the author of the materials and he has still not acknowledged the need for improvements of the information. Thanks you Kayz911 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been long enough, go ahead and Be bold especially if the content is not verifiable via reputable sources. If the author isn't responsive, then you have every right in the world, to simply do what ought to be done, Sadads (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Section Removed, more than ample time was given Kayz911 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

New thread for Rename/Move discussion

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Page moved. Well-reasoned proposal. -- Hadal (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy of the United States

Alternative options: move to Federal nuclear energy policy in the United States This discussion shall not discuss nor prejudice to new article proposal: Federal nuclear energy policy in the United States

Nuclear energy policy is quite complex.

Nuclear energy policy is a different topic from nuclear weapons policy.

Nuclear energy policy of the United States means the policy of the United States government.

Nuclear energy policy of the United States means the policy of the United States government and also the policies of the various states such as state utility commissions, state energy commissions, etc.

Wikipedia article titles are generally expected to reflect the content of the article.

The complained-of title is over-broad (overly general) in that its content is a subcategory of the named topic.

Nuclear energy policy of the United States also includes policies for mining, transportation, waste storage, establishment of oversight agencies, funding etc. which relate directly or indirectly to nuclear energy (*addition*) Kayz911 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In the foregoing discussion, it seems that the trend of consensus was to support the Rename ("Move") but some persons continued to discuss an earlier rename proposal which was not any longer in issue. Other users complained thereafter of the confusion and one user requested starting from scratch which does seem to be consistent with consensus. Thus, this new section.

Restate your position below
Comment: Fine, you make a fair argument, just add single word "energy" to the title and let's move on to important things such as expanding the article's contents. As long as no sections in the article will be removed because someone believes the policy does not fall under "Nuclear energy policy" then I have no issues. I'll add a bullet above to cover this idea. But just to be clear, I am only supporting the single word "Energy" to be added, nothing else. Kayz911 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Disambig
I created a cubdivided disambiguation page at Nuclear policy of the United States. Please add other links as appropriate. Note that nuclear policy includes a large number of Federal agencies which need to be added and that policy is under constant revision. Thus the links may need updating. Bard गीता 23:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DABCONCEPT. This is not properly a disambiguation page; it is a compilation of links concerning a (single) general topic that is divided into subtopics.  The problem may be solved by removing the Disambiguation template from the page, and adding appropriate references and categories.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second that, it's really looks more like a see also page instead of a disambiguation page. As i see it, a disambiguation page is only if there words like "Bat" ie. a baseball bat, a animal bat, etc, batting away flies...etc. There is no other meaning to nuclear energy policy of the united states. Lets not make this page so complicated to find, that it's confusing people. If your going to do this, do it correctly and add those to a see also (which I've already made) at the bottom of this article. besides if you feel it is so needed, a simple disambiguation internal link could be alright. Kayz911 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cosmetics
The page will look better with one See also in addition to the link to the disambiguation page. whoever wants to please choose I really prefer collaboration and consensus. I left two on the page take your pick whatever looks good to you : Just take out the < and the ! etcetera.

CHOOSE AS YOU WISH: see also | Nuclear power in the United States}}---> OR WHATEVER: about|nuclear energy|nuclear weapons|Nuclear weapons of the United States}}--->

Bard गीता 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, as mentioned above by another user, your disambiguation page honestly look like a see also page so you might want to fix taht. It does not really matter, if you feel there are see also's needed which are not covered in the article, add them to the see also tab at the bottom of the article and leave it at that.Kayz911 (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Article being featured at a Wikipedia Conference at Simmons College Boston
This article is being featured as a model of students success Wikipedia's pilot program started at their conference in Boston from 07-11 of July. I am making important changes and removing missing information in this article to get it ready for tomorrow's presentation. So be mindful to any thing you might want to add that you do not feel 100% confident about the coming few days. I just want to say, GREAT WORK FOLKS! You know who you are, and keep up the good work. Feel free to check any copy changes I make in the coming hours! Cheers everyone!Kayz911 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See this article featured in the news! Good job Everyone, GA rating to be up submitted soon! Wikipedia Aims Higher Kayz911 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Great article, Casey. We really enjoyed this.Floraindiana (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for viewing the page and the comment Lynn! good luck with your future classes! Kc Kayz911 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Submission
This article is now being submitted to GA article standards under suggestions from Wikipedia staff at a campus ambassador training session. Please hold off of edits until the article's feedback is provided. Kayz911 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Second nuclear age?
A large heading in the middle of the article is "Second nuclear age". What actual evidence is there for a second nuclear age? Which sources are using this term? Or is it just WP:OR and wishful thinking? I appreciate there was the Energy Policy Act in 2005 and some industry talk of a nuclear renaissance, but very little has actually materialized in terms of new construction and many proposals have been cancelled. Maybe a better heading would be "Stalled nuclear expansion". Johnfos (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * John, as you recall above, this is the same argument that went on earlier, unlike most policy, construction and building takes a decades and NRC regulations, state permits, contract bids, delay presidential funding until recently, etc have a major part of it. However, this time I have found sources where "Nuclear renaissance" is a term in both the industry and in the media. Therefore I will change second nuclear age, back to Nuclear renaissance. I could list more than this, but I think google search is all that is need: Nuclear renaissance link one Forbes Use of Nuclear Renaissance. If you want to debate the merits of the term "Nuclear renaissance" do it on the term's wiki page.Kayz911 (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance


 * It has been changed. If you can find a credible source that states something on the lines "many feel that the nuclear renaissance in America may not come to pass and no expansions will be done at all" or something of that nature, suggest it. We will go from there if there is considerably many that believe that, however, I would need evidence to hear that. Because I never heard the staunch anti-nuclear or pro nuke advocates think that little work will be done on these plants or new ones built? Leaders of the anti-nuke groups seem almost assured that there will huge expansions in nuclear power and are warning everyone, the pro nukes tout the new expansions plans with great zeal as well. Even policy analysts admitted it would not be an instantaneous thing and most applications do not even put the construction until 2016-17 at the earliest. The question everyone seems to disagree in, is if it is a good move or not for this renaissance to happen. Something us historians do no worry too much about here on Wikipedia. I personally know that Belefonte plant in AL is in discussions/talks with Westinghouse at the moment for AP1000 light water reactors for their plant (which although built, was never brought online, which they planning on changing). Lets not belittle this issue here John, many people aare calling it the nuclear renaissance, that should be an indication to the readers that they should WANT TO DO MORE RESEARCH to see what is being planned, what has been scrapped, what is being approved of and links we provide. Kayz911 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Kayz, you have been taken in by promotional talk from the nuclear power industry. Since the Fukushima disaster, virtually no one except industry itself is talking of a nuclear renaissance in the USA, except to criticise the idea. Most recent post-Fukushima analyses about nuclear energy in the USA, simply avoid the term, see.


 * You mentioned the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Unit 1. The plan is for it to begin commercial operation between 2018 and 2020, if at all, which is hardly an auspicious contribution to some sort of renaissance, see.


 * Prospective nuclear units in the United States provides considerable detail about the many cancellations of proposed plants, and this is already summarised on this page.


 * I say again that the heading we should be using is “Stalled nuclear expansion”, not “Nuclear renaissance”. Johnfos (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power uses the term “Stalled nuclear renaissance”, and I thought that would be a useful compromise to be used here, so have made that change. Johnfos (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are going to cite the term used as "Stalled nuclear renaissance" or "stalled" from Contesting the future of Nuclear Power, then at least cite the actual source, not a wiki stub page with does not have the term on it. If you can provide prominent sources that can back that term up, then please do! I included the term (which has no wiki page) in there for you to expand if you can do so as to provide equal say to both sides. I removed the following texts that said it was a revival, so that if you can cite a source, you can say there is controversy around the "Nuclear renaissance term" that way a term is provided, challenged, and left up to a reader to make a decision either way. If it is cited, that is all I care about Kayz911 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ownership is a huge issue here
I have tried to gently bring in suggestions on this Talk page in the usual way, but have not got very far. I have been repeatedly stymied by Kayz who acts as if she is the owner of this article. Recently she has told editors to “hold off of edits until the article's GA feedback is provided” and she has told me to go to the Nuclear renaissance page to discuss things. I have never heard such rubbish. This is not the way we do things on Wikipedia! We need to encourage editors to make suggestions on the Talk page, listen to what they say, and use a collaborative approach.

Per Ownership of articles no one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. Johnfos (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, I'm a "He" not a "she." Ok, now look John, it reflects poorly on you when you say I'm being biased when all I ask is for you to cite your sources? I don't know why this is now a problem, because you are one of the four major contributors to this page, you have information here that is well documented and should hope as well that this article receives a GA status which also includes your work. As well as other people, we all have an equal say in this. With the information you have, it has usually been from quite reputable sources that you have added to this page. And yes, I will stand by my statement that you should discuses if the "Nuclear renaissance" is happening or not on that page, THAT IS UNLESS you can cite a source that indicates that people believe that a group thinks it was "a stalled nuclear renascence." I even wrote it into the text and with a citation needed tag, so saying that I kill your ideas is total non-since. On top of that, I removed many things including revival to help accommodate your position. My self and others ripped apart another editor who added tons of un-cited biased information, that "don't make edit" was a general statement that editors should discuss it on the talk page or on the GA status before adding it (i.e. for the people who do not do that). Granted, it could have been worded better, my apologies.


 * The point here is, if you think you have information with verifiable-legitimate sources, add it and cite it! No one will remove it, including myself, and I even will stick up for you and that information because all applicable information with sources need to be added. No editor here, including myself has removed any information that was correcly documented, INCLUDING YOURS. Instead of changing headers with no source to back it, up and saying "Kazy owns the page" and trying to pull a punch below the belt, when I say I don't think it is widely held general consensus (where I show multiple sources for my evidence), I challenge you this: Go out and gather information from reputable sources and write a section that talks about the nuclear renaissance losing momentum! I know you said you had a source from an author, so go run with that! If it is accurate, unbiased and relevant, then, like all of your other information, it will stay. Good luck and be well, Kayz911 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuclear energy policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120917000651/http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN2428794720110525?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 to http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN2428794720110525?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fukushima-1.JPG

Expansions and minor edits/improvements
I am returning to fix a critique from a GA article status about two periods (that I originally wrote) to be not considered dubious and more focused towards the content vs a personal subjective timeframe in the introduction as no one has fix this over the years. I also fixed a few small grammatical things throughout the article. I've also updated the 2017 law to note the final version signed into law on 2018 by Trump as this bill died in congress and is no longer applicable for a summary article. Expansions to this section are encouraged! Kayz911 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Article needs updates post Fukushima 2011 (10 years ago)
Looks like the most recent information, including the last section, were written around 2012, shortly after the Fukushima disaster. At that time there was great uncertainty because the lessons of Fukushima were still being evaluated and the long term effect on public opinion was unknown. The article needs to be updated for what happened in the last 10 years. Ttulinsky (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Winona State University and Western Carolina University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)