Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 17

"operational reactors"
The sources Boundarlayer cited for the number of "operational" reactors are wrong. They list Japan as having 50, where as in fact almost all of those are currently in long term shut down with no date for restarting. We need better stats. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The source is the IAEA. I'll believe them over some random wikipedia user calling themselves Mojo-chan who, might I add, consistently charges in their edit summaries that the IAEA are industry shills. 437 reactors are operational as of January 18th 2013.
 * http://www.iaea.org/pris/
 * http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm.


 * Both references are up to date. Furthermore your recent edit falsely claims that many reactors are not operational. Do you have a reference stronger than the IAEA's for that controversial claim? The reactors in Japan that you bring up are in down time for inspection and maintenance, they are still classified as operational, much like any reactor in downtime due to scheduled maintenance is still classified as operational. Furthermore almost all of Japans reactors are slated for restarting, two already have, and the next are likely to begin in the summer of 2013, when they meet safety checks. http://japandailypress.com/government-advisory-says-restarting-half-of-japans-nuclear-reactors-could-save-20-billion-2522176


 * Following your rationale, if someone asked- how many operational wind turbines are there in the world? if the wind were not blowing, or some were undergoing maintenance, would the correct answer be 0 operational wind turbines? of course not. So there are 437 operational reactors in the world. Not all are producing power, but that does not mean many are not operational as you claimed. If every wikipedia article had to adhere to the guidelines you seem to be making up, then each and every time a wind turbine went down for maintenance someone would have to update the article stating as much, this is not reasonable. Furthermore as you demonstrate an inabilty to grasp this, I will explain this to you with the following analogy- the list of operational gas fired power plants producing power is constantly changing as many are operated in Peaking power plant mode. They're however all classified as operational power plants, but operational does not mean every single one is producing power 100% of the time.


 * So in sum, remove your POV edit grounded in what appears to be a total lack of knowledge about power plant classifications, and also reinsert the fact that China is building 29 reactors as of 2013. Why did you even remove this construction information? Are you intentionally trying to censor this article page?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Astrlia has the most nucler ractor.


 * The problem here is the definition of "operational". You are correct that in the technical sense the Japanese reactors are functional and capable of operating, but most people would interpret "operational" to mean "in operation". At the moment they are only four reactors operating: http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/oi-nuclear-plant-s-no-4-reactor-begins-generating-power_788863.html


 * So how about a compromise? Say that there are 437 functional reactors in the world, some of which are operating and some of which are shut down due to safety concerns or for regular maintenance. I can't find accurate figures for the total number that are non-operational at the moment, except for the ones in Japan. Obviously there are others around the world that are not running for one reason or another, but it changes often so putting an exact figure on it might be hard.


 * Note also I accept the IAEA as a reliable source, it was your other citation I pointed out was an industry shill body set up to promote nuclear. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a pointless argument. If the IAEA - the most authoritative source we have on this point of fact - says X number of reactors are operational, then we have to go with that number. We have to go with the information our sources give us. If you or anyone else thinks the number is wrong, then by all means, go find a source that is more authoritative on the subject of nuclear power than the International Atomic Energy Agency. Find that source, please, we're waiting. Besides, trying to come up with our own number is WP:OR. Nailedtooth (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the number is wrong, merely that what most people understand by the word "operational" is not what the IAEA means. That is why I proposed adding both the IAEA source and an additional source (the article on Nuclear Power in Japan has plenty to pick from) stating that at least 50 odd in that country are shut down. I suppose I will have to go around gathering stats on all the non-operating reactors now. Mojo-chan (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So you believe you have an intuitive knowledge of how "most people" define "operational" in relation to nuclear power. I'd hazard to guess you feel your definition has quite a bit of truthiness to it. That's nice, but hardly sufficient to support the edits you propose.Nailedtooth (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Finally someone else apart from myself has come in here and noticed Mojo-chan's constant nonsensical edits and bizarre reasoning. The world looks a little brighter today, thank you for taking the time, and do please stick around.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're at it again Mojo chan, you've utterly mangled the lede with your parenthesis and weasel words such as many are not. Why have you taken it upon yourself to put in your interpretation of the word operational when two other editors have shown you, you are not understanding the word operational correctly. Furthermore why have you taken it upon yourself to edit the lede in this way when two editors have asked you not to? and moreover why have you completely ignored what we have painstakingly tried to make you understand? Shall I edit the wind power page every day when there is no wind blowing across Europe that there are 0 wind turbines producing power, and that when it gets dark 0 solar power stations in europe are producing power?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, yeah, anyway, so editor Alex3yoyo got confused by this issue. Clearly it is misleading. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes it appears to have confused both a yoyo and a mojo, what an odd coincidence. Something similarly odd is how no one, including you, appears to have any issue with understanding the similar case with the ~150 naval nuclear power reactors, and how they obviously don't produce propulsive power all the time either. It may interest you to note, that they also cease providing propulsive power too from time to time also, when a nuclear powered icebreaker, for example, reaches its destination at port, it obviously stops and the reactor can even be powered down, especially during winter months and Polar ice is just too thick, even for this formidable scientific vessel.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Section on post Fukushima polls might be worth having?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/britain-nuclear-poll-idAFL6E8I2E4H20120702 UK popular support[in 2012] for nuclear power rises: 63 pct Britons support nuclear as part of energy mix.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2903/Nuclear-Energy-Update-Poll.aspx post Fukushima support in Britain increases.

Similarly: The Yougov survey, published on Sunday 10 February 2013, shows 26 per cent of (British)people support nuclear energy, while 18 per cent support wind power, a further 18 per cent support wave/tidal power, and 16 per cent back solar.

http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases.cfm/2013-02-10-yougov-poll-proves-renewables-still-the-popular-choice-after-epic-week-for-wind

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zo540gm94e/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-08-10213.pdf

American Polls are needed too. As are Indian and Chinese polls(if they exist).

This is the study provided by Mojo Chan, as discussed below(thank you), page 10 Europeans and Nuclear Safety Eurobarometer: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_271_en.pdf The better the level of education, the higher is the level of agreement[with increasing the share of nuclear power in the grid]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/support-nuclear-energy-inches-new-high.aspx upper-income Americans have consistently favored nuclear energy at much higher levels than lower-income respondents.

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And Japanese, Korean and the rest of Europe. Mojo-chan (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely, if they exist. Preferably polls not conducted or funded by pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear agencies. As they don't really tell us anything.


 * Something that I've wondered about is, considering the sheer amount of misinformation out there(especially on wikipedia), and the amount of things people falsely believe in regards nuclear power. It would be fascinating to investigate whether support for nuclear power was related to the familiarity that person had with the intricacies of nuclear technology. With likewise, people who have faulty, mislead and non substantiated beliefs about nuclear power being likely to be against it.


 * In everything in democracy, you should really have to pass a competency test first to know what you're voting on, otherwise it's just ignorant mob rule. For example, I don't have a clue about synchronized swimming, so why would my opinion matter if you polled me on it? As I'm completely ignorant of it. What's worse is people who think they know a lot about something complex, such as nuclear power, and are very opinionated on it, but when you ask them, they'd tell you that something achieving criticality means it's about to explode, proving they are completely ignorant, nor would they know any of the simple basics of nuclear physics or the safety record.


 * You know, come to think of it, I think I read about a poll on this once, conducted in universities, it showed those with a higher education were more likely to be pro-nuclear than anti-nuclear. I'll drop it in here over the coming weeks.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's true, everyone except you is too mentally retarded to know the truth. Luckily you are here to set us right.


 * By the way, I know the survey of which you speak. It also mentions that women are less likely to favour nuclear power. We should never have given them the vote. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not what I'm saying at all, you can be the most intelligent person in the world but have less than the faintest idea about a whole load of subjects, simply by never taking the time to read up on it. The problem with nuclear power is most people already have their minds made up, as everyone is told constantly on the TV that Nuclear power is 'evil', so people don't get a chance to investigate the topic all on their own, nor do they get to make up their own minds, without having all those years of watching the tube influencing them emotionally, making them feel it's 'bad' or 'scary', 'Atomic Obsession' and 'irrational fears' are two good books on the subject, as I used to be anti-nuclear too, as seemingly everyone is, by default. Often times people aren't honest with themselves when it comes to many things, I wasn't, and won't simply say I don't know, which are the 3 most important words in science.


 * Of course it is nigh impossible to read everything, but a degree of random sampling of what is available would suffice and be better than nothing. Furthermore, how many people are even interested in how their electricity is generated? Not too many, Understandably, Very few, people are just too busy to take the time to read up on it.


 * If you know the survey of which I speak, why don't you be a cool constructive dude and throw it in here?
 * I'd even write 'thank you' :)
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the study: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_271_en.pdf No need to thank me.


 * I find that TV programmes tend to be supportive of nuclear power. The BBC did am hour long documentary on the potential dangers of nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster and it concluded that actually the health effects are not particularly bad and on the whole plants are safe. Of course that ignores the cost and damage to society, people's lives and the loss of large amounts of land and entire towns, but what they say is not untrue.


 * I think a lot of people have an irrational fear of straw men, mythical hoards who are terrified of anything "nuclear" and too dumb to understand it. They fail to understand that the problem isn't nuclear safety per-se, it is the people in charge of it who are motivated by profit, keeping their jobs, covering up mistakes and spending as little money as possible doing it. Essentially they are missing the point. That's just my humble opinion though. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you fellow contributor for the link. Are we looking at page 10? Europeans and Nuclear Safety Eurobarometer. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_271_en.pdf The better the level of education, the higher is the level of agreement
 * Although this does appear a bit elitist, it is true, the more familiar you are with something, the less you are to have an irrational fear of it. For example, I'll tell you that I was once totally incapable of even thinking about flying, for many years I resigned myself to taking boats everywhere. However once I forced myself to look at the numbers, I quickly saw how irrational I was being. Sure flying is still pretty scary, but if you look at it rationally, and once you learn that it's the safest means of travel*, it begins to change your mind.
 * * http://anxieties.com/flying-howsafe.php#.UUDc2FcqKls
 * * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4163280.stm
 * As we're getting a bit beside the point of poll statistics, I have decided to continue our discussion about 'corruption' etc. on your talk page instead of here. Hope that's cool?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that it also says females are more likely to be against nuclear power. Try not to be too selective when quoting, you do that a lot.


 * Anyway, I dispute the the fear is irrational because death/severe illness is not the only danger. Also the mere fact that males with more education tended to supported nuclear power in that study is not very useful without analysis that it unfortunately does not provide. Perhaps well educated men are just arrogant and think people like them can handle nuclear power safely. I'm not saying I know that to be the case, merely that it doesn't necessarily support what you are implying.
 * Please keep the discussion here and try to actually answer what people ask you. Not all of us have as much time as you to write pages and pages of stuff and most of it is irrelevant and could have been avoided if you had just tried to address what was being said.Mojo-chan (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwyneth Cravens is a female and supports nuclear power. She details why she used to campaign against it and why she then changed her mind. Check her out! Here is a video of her giving a talk - http://fora.tv/2007/09/14/Could_Nuclear_Power_Save_the_Planet
 * I don't think the gender difference in support, that the EU study brings up, has anything more sinister behind it than a lack of interest in finding out the details/nuclear education in general. Generally very few women(until very recently) show an interest in Science and Maths as much as men. Hopefully that will be something that continues to change.


 * I have loads of time as chemists generally just sit round and wait for things to finish. Kind of like baking a cake.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How sexist. Anyway, you made your customary mistake of finding a single example that proves nothing. It's like in chemistry where a single result doesn't mean much, it needs to be repeated to prove it wasn't a fluke or error. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm just another arrogant man, but I fail to see what exactly I wrote was sexist? I assure you, Gwyneth Cravens is not the only woman I know who supports nuclear power, she is merely one of the most outspoken, and therefore famous, pro-nuclear supporters that I'm aware of. She really is no fluke. I wasn't arguing that the basic statistic that men favor nuclear power more than women on average, was wrong, I was just trying to understand it, by providing a likely reason based on the data, which does support the conclusion that educational level is linked with higher nuclear power support, and women are still sadly under represented in the fields of Maths, Engineering and Science etc. The data for that statement is available too if you find it hard to believe. What we don't have is any data to support your idea that educated men support nuclear power more because educated men are more arrogant than educated women. As Marie Curie often said - "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."


 * Getting back to surveys, and less of our own discussion and attempts to understand the statistics, http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/support-nuclear-energy-inches-new-high.aspx upper-income Americans have consistently favored nuclear energy at much higher levels than lower-income respondents. I suppose being in the upper-income bracket is also a fair yardstick of being in the upper-education bracket, regardless of gender.
 * By the way, reading back on your comments in this section, I have the urge to make you aware, in case you think otherwise, I personally don't think I could handle nuclear power safely, as I'm not a physicist, and have no nuclear engineering training to my name, for that reason I would not, at all, trust people like me to handle nuclear power safely. I'd only trust those who are trained to do so, coupled with a fair dollop of inherent reactor safety in the event they have a bad day and make a mistake.


 * I am also curious what other dangers you were talking about here - I dispute the the fear is irrational because death/severe illness is not the only danger are you referring to evacuations? because if there isn't an accident there isn't a need to evacuate. Moreover, not trying to whitewash evacuations from nuclear accidents or anything, but how much of your Britain is expected to be slowly evacuated via the intentional use of fossil fuels, which will induce rising sea levels? Furthermore, even though I like wind turbines when they're sited properly, we must keep in mind an international assessment on wind turbines determined that a household exclusion zone of 0.5 to 1 km must be enforced around each turbine, depending on the size of the turbine, again that's not an exclusion zone due to an accident, but a zone that is a matter of normal operating procedure.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

UK department of Climate change call for expansion of nuclear power
Supporters include Richard Branson. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/12/report-expansion-experimental-nuclear-plants

So contrary to the present article, that leads one to assume nuclear waste would cost Britain, they have instead decided to use that spent nuclear fuel in breeder reactors, such as the highly successful Phénix and BN-600 and expand their use of nuclear power.

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the first sentence? It clearly says that this is a projection for what would be necessary if the UK went for the most nuclear intensive option for replacing fossil fuel. So it's an option based on a projection by three advisers, at a time when the UK is committed to increasing renewable power as well as nuclear, at a time when no company is planning to build new nuclear and when Scotland is aiming for 100% renewable energy by 2020 (and may or may not be part of the UK by that time). In what way does that constitute "decided"?


 * You do this again and again. You have a point of view and try to find sources to support it, fail and this pick some that you hope no-one will notice don't say what you claim they say. Either that or you just skim them without reading or understanding the very first sentence, but I find that hard to believe.


 * I'm not out to get you. Really. It's just that I can read. Mojo-chan (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's all a good bit of filibustering Mojo-chan, coming from the person who demonstrated they didn't even know what the word 'operational' means.
 * Here are some more more references supporting that Britain will make money from its nuclear 'waste'- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fast-reactors-to-consume-plutonium-and-nuclear-waste
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/nuclear-waste-burning-reactor
 * So either they'll go for the PRISM reactor or build a conventional CANDU to burn up the waste/make money. It'll be cheaper than disposing of it(which will cost tens of billions apparently), when something is cheaper and safer, it means people generally do it Mojo-chan.


 * Words fail me. One article says that such technology is a possibility being considered, the other that a feasibility study was undertaken. Neither supports your specific claim that the UK is building new reactors to burn up nuclear waste. I'm not sure how I can put it any more clearly. Just because something sounds like a good idea to you doesn't make it happen. Besides which your claim that it is cheaper is highly dubious anyway:


 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9863994/EDF-eyes-UK-government-help-for-nuclear-reactor.html


 * Fuel isn't really the issue with the cost of nuclear, it is the subsidies, the building costs, regulation costs and the clean-up of the site after the plant is decommissioned. Back in the 80s when the UK tried to sell off its existing government owned and operated nuclear plants no-one wanted to buy them. In the end we paid companies to take them off our hands and guaranteed to foot the bill for clean-up. Now they are asking us to contribute to the cost again.


 * Here are a few other contrary links:


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/04/centrica-withdraw-new-nuclear-projects
 * http://www.rtcc.org/shale-gas-finds-could-kill-nuclear-in-uk/


 * Thing is, none of this is good material for the article. It is all debate and speculation, discussion of possible future options. Wikipedia is not about speculation or your personal views on what are good ideas. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * However the article at present has a sentence that claims 78 or 73 billion in costs for the clean up of the UK(the guardian article supports a lower figure in the 60 billion range). Nevertheless, what that sentence in the article suggests(because of the context) is that this is the cost from civil nuclear power when it really primarily is the price for cleaning up Britain's nuclear weapons program. However even if 1 Fast reactor was made in the UK they could use that accumulated 'waste'/Spent Nuclear Fuel to generate electricity/make money. Is that clear now why I brought it up? You see why your edit was misleading now? Being devoid of all balance?


 * Do you have a reference for your claim that the cost "primarily is the price for cleaning up Britain's nuclear weapons program"? Note also that there is not a clear distinction between civilian and military use of some of our reactors, and the vast majority were build in the 60s and 70s for purely civilian use because we switched to buying US made weapons. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I do, 65% of the UK bill(48-80 billion) required to clean up its legacy waste(liabilities) is due to Sellafield and 25% for the UK's magnox reactors, ergo, largely costs not from the operation of properly designed nuclear power plants, but from production reactors and a reprocessing plant(that purified and produced the plutonium sold to the USA, no electricity there). Figure 1 shows the estimated cost of dealing with these liabilities as at 31 March 2002. Sellafield accounts for over 65% of the total and the eleven Magnox stations for nearly 25%. Dounreay accounts for most of the rest page 18 http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/white_paper_managing_the_nuclear_legacy_a_strategy_for_action.pdf
 * All the power reactors(designed expressly as electricity plants) have decommissioning costs ~0.2 to 0.8 billion in the document e.g Winfrith and the uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst is similarly below 1 billion.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, and bear in mind, the following is not intended for the article but just to respond to the points you made. As I already mentioned, the majority of the cost in clean up is from the UK's nuclear weapons program. The UK built magnox reactors to produce weapons, and as a side produce electricity. So it is misleading to readers to suggest modern nuclear power plants(designed to produce electricity only) will incur these high waste costs. As the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in the USA shows, the electricity side of nuclear have a big pot of billions saved up to pay for the small(but dangerous) amount of waste they have generated in a responsible polluters-pay scheme.


 * That's the US. In the UK we, the taxpayers, foot the bill. In fact even in the US these "big pots" are just customer's money they had added to their bills, and the government is still the one having to pay to set up long term storage facilities. A few companies have mumbled about building reactors capable of consuming fuel but none have done so, mainly because of the cost. Think about it - if they were as good as you claim and going to make all this money why are people not building them everywhere? Instead they pay to keep 40 year old plants going through expensive maintenance. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Guardian article explains that the climate change report is a look at how to get away from CO2 intensive sources while at the same time also dealing with is weapons production waste by building fast reactors(Win-Win), nuclear power in the scenario presented would provide 66% of the nations electricity supply in this plan (and hopefully) The rest would probably be from renewables. So the plan would still require a massive construction effort for more wind turbines to make up the ~33% shortfall. As for Scotland, yes the government there 'project'/hope for 100% renewable electricity, in their most intensive option to replace fossil fuels, by 2020. Furthermore, where do you think Scotland will be getting their electricity when the wind stops blowing all over the continent for weeks on end? It'll have two economical options- Coal Gas, or Nuclear. Just like Ireland we'll probably be getting power from cables connected to Nuclear power plants in the UK if a cold snap hit ( if we shut down our coal plant-which I wish we would). The other option is we'll get it from more coal and gas. With no one who is aware of the amount of death and suffering directly attributable to  coal and gas use wanting that, and that's before we even get into the very real climate change reasons to get off Coal and gas.


 * Scotland is on target for 100% renewables by 2020. Of course you didn't read up on the subject, just jumped to a conclusion. In fact what they intend to do is get to 200% capacity, half of it renewable. The 50% they don't use will be sold to other countries. They will still have some coal and gas plants for base load, although Scotland could actually meet demand 24/7/356 with wind and tidal if needed because there is always enough energy available over that wide an area. The wind never stops blowing for 5 minutes, let along weeks on end. They are really lucky in that respect, they have excellent natural resources.Mojo-chan (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How's Germany's plans for renewable energy coming? Lets see, they just built a massive fleet of new Coal burning plants and are losing jobs^ due to renewable energy pushing up electricity prices^. So best of luck Scotland!
 * ^ http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice try at a straw man there. Their stated goal is to get rid of nuclear. Renewable will cost more in the short term, but it is a long term investment. The flip side is their economy gets a boost from the development and building of new power generation, and they have become world leaders in renewable technology that they now sell to other countries.


 * You need to stop looking for one single source that supports your existing point of view and try to understand the situation fully before going off on one.Mojo-chan (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Remind me again, why is their stated goal to get rid of nuclear? Shouldn't the stated goal be to get rid of coal, oil AND gas? As they kill more people, cost the environment more, and might even(with global warming) turn earth into an inhospitable scorched wasteland? vis-a-vis runaway global warming, with our nearest neighbor planet Venus serving as a stark warning to us? The rational environmentalists in Germany are outraged at their country building more coal plants.


 * Okay, look, you have strong opinions but Wikipedia is not the place for them. Germany's stated reason for getting rid of nuclear power is well documented. It isn't primarily about pollution per-se. You are setting up another straw man.


 * You can disagree with them as much as you like, rant about it all day, just not on Wikipedia. Set up a blog or something. This is not a forum for your views. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As for renewables, I am aware that both your country Scotland and my own: Ireland have great wind potential. We should(if the numbers back it up) exploit this as far as economically possible, without driving endangered bird species into extinction, however renewables do not offer a solution for the world at large. Nor does wind offer a solution to Scotland's energy(not electricity) needs for home heating oil and transportation fuel. You seem to think using gas is acceptable, it really is not in the long term as it pollutes a considerable amount of CO2. Yes it can be argued that a switch from coal to gas is a step in the right direction, but really it is only a stop-gap measure, as it's about half as bad as coal in terms of CO2 pollution. Furthermore your country sells a considerable amount of north sea sourced fossil fuels. So although your countries plan is possible on the back of the lucrative sale of fossil fuels, I do not understand how you do not think it is a tad hypocritical to be all talk about renewables when you're selling fossil fuels to peter paul and mary? It would be like listening to an Arab oil sheik talk about making Saudi Arabia carbon neutral i.e - it would be a bit rich coming from them, as you can understand!


 * And in case I am not mistaken, upon Scotland's exit from the UK, won't you stand to profit a considerable amount if other countries continue to buy your most lucrative export-natural gas? Do you not understand this is a clear conflict of interest here for you to be editing a nuclear power article/a power source that is a potential competitive source to your fossil fuel wealth? So are you not therefore prohibited from editing this page due to your conflict of interest? As obviously if everyone switched away from fossil fuels you, and your family, would end up poorer. You stand to gain a considerable amount of money if nuclear power were not adopted more, wouldn't you! To use one of your often flung insult, you are nothing but a typical fossil fuel industry shill.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not Scottish. I don't work in electricity generation or anything related to it. I have no conflict of interest.


 * I never said gas was a good solution. You are imaging me saying what you want to hear so you can rail against it. I'm not really interested in a debate with you, my point is that you need to make your edits more balanced and with proper references. 22:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are intentionally forgetting that you did, You Mojo-Chan wrote - They will still have some coal and gas plants for base load... at 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You also questioned the truth of my claim that the majority of the cost of the UK nuclear clean up bill was due to your countries military use of nuclear technology. '''Your edits falsely conflate, and therefore mislead readers of the article about the UK clean up bill as being somehow directly related to nuclear power use(seen as you put it on the nuclear power page), when it is actually a bill mostly due to your military, and their desire for weapons. See'''

Here - 65% of the UK bill(48-80 billion) required to clean up its legacy waste(liabilities) is due to Sellafield and 25% for the UK's magnox reactors, ergo, largely costs NOT from the operation of properly designed nuclear power plants, but from reactors designed asproduction reactors first and power was only a happy co-product, and a reprocessing and experimental reactor plant complex known as Sellafield(that purified and produced the plutonium sold to the USA between 1960 to ~1980 ).

''Figure 1 shows the estimated cost of dealing with these liabilities as at 31 March 2002. Sellafield accounts for over 65% of the total and the eleven Magnox stations for nearly 25%. Dounreay accounts for most of the rest'' page 18 http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/white_paper_managing_the_nuclear_legacy_a_strategy_for_action.pdf All the power reactors(designed expressly as electricity plants) have decommissioning costs ~0.2 to 0.8 billion in the document e.g Winfrith and the uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst is similarly below 1 billion.

These decommissioning costs for actual nuclear power plants are in line with those decommissioned in the USA. Around 0.5-1 billion. Therefore the decommissioning cost of dedicated nuclear power plants in the UK are comparable to those in the USA. Boundarylayer (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see the word "good" in what you quoted. Anyway...


 * If you read the article on Sellafield you will notice that although Windscale was for military use most of what is there is for civilian use. Prototype civilian reactors, waste reprocessing and so forth. In fact the site has been used to process waste from overseas in what was supposed to be a profit generating enterprise, but which ultimately failed and was abandoned. The most problematic stuff with regards to clean-up is the early research material produced when civilian reactors were being built, when the miners strike happened, and yes, from early military piles. So your source is accurate, 65% is due to Sellafield, but your assumption that it is all/mostly military waste is incorrect. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Predictably, you once again have gone off on one of your personal opinion pieces claiming insider knowledge of the cost break down of cleaning up the various buildings that make up the 'Sellafield' complex. You assume that the clean up cost is what- equally spread out amongst all military and civilian buildings? I think you know fine well that is not the case.

Especially considering most of the UK's reprocessing waste that sits at sellafield likely comes from magnox reactors, and reprocessing the waste that came from them, to make weapons, rather than reprocessing solely civilian reactor spent fuel, which in the latter case, have much higher burn ups of fuel and therefore don't produce anywhere near the same amount of transuranic(plutonium Americium etc.) waste.

You have also attempted to side step the fundamental fact that Sellafield as a whole, is NOT a completely peaceful nuclear power endeavor, but had considerable amounts of military interests with their finger in the pie. So once again, the point is, UK military+Civilian clean up costs are dominated by cleaning up facilities and reactor designs that, in whole or in part, supported the UK military and not the civilian sector. As the nda.gov.uk source points out, the clean up of civilian power plants is not all that much, around about the same as that encountered in the USA - About 0.2 to 1 billion per power plant- i.e entirely expected and included in the price of electricity sold to American customers. The UK, unlike the wiser USA, decided against mandating a policy that was akin to the US Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but the UK got cheaper electricity in return, so the point you were trying to make is, again, pretty mute. As if you don't pay for it directly as the Americans do, then you pay for it indirectly later, with the money you've saved in not paying for it while it was being made. It's not all that costly, just ~0.5 cents per unit of electricity over the entire life of the power plant in the USA.

As for the UK's failure with making reprocessing economical, I don't think I need to tell you that just because your country has displayed an inability to make reprocessing economical, it's more a reflection of the UK's lack of industrial capabilities and declining technological position, than a reflection of the inherent cost of nuclear power itself.

France and Russia are reprocessing economically for example, and because they can do it cheaper, faster and better than the UK, Sellafield's reprocessing plant was never economical, most reactor operators get France and Russia to do the job instead. So once again, your edits have more to say about military matters, and also sadly(from your point of view I suppose), a reflection of how the UK are no longer producing the most brilliant engineers and scientists in the world. Having instead, been left behind. Boundarylayer (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Now you are assuming I am a man. Even you ad hominem attacks lack proper citations. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't call you male, please stay on topic.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

1.8 million prevented deaths thanks to nuclear
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power by Pushker A. Kharecha and James Hansen, published in Environmental Science & Technology. Should not go unmentioned.--88.76.60.130 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, that's why I included this paper under the improving the article heading here on the talk page. Though I appreciate your contribution, stick around and help make this article informative and worth reading.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Careful, while this seems seductive at first you have to keep in mind that most of the objections to nuclear are not due to loss of life. Also I personally feel that the conclusions are bunk, based on an assumption that nuclear would be replaced only by dirty coal... In fact they are assuming it would be replaced at all. Look at Japan. Every reactor went offline at the same time, they lived it with, hundreds of thousands of people didn't die. If you want to use it say so and I'll do more research to verify it. Mojo-chan (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Careful...? What? Since when is this article about dealing with peoples objections with nuclear power? Its not an article titled dealing with peoples objections to nuclear power. Moving on to your personal objections, you should actually read up on the situation in Japan some more rather than spreading misinformation, Japan have increased the burning of both coal and gas(like Germany) since they powered down some of their reactors, and Japan had to create a system of voluntary power outages - which naturally has adversely affected its industrial sector, and since the reactors have been turned off, they've become more dependent on fossil fuel burning, this has naturally resulted in Japan's air pollution levels to sky rocket, particulate matter pollution kills about 1 million people each year according to the WHO.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know very litte about what's happening in Japan, but tell us, Boundarylayer - what is Japan doing with respect to deployment of renewables other than nuclear?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you and I didn't go way back, I wouldn't respond this way but seen as we do - I'm sure your favorite search engine Duckduckgo could answer your questions. Electricity sector in Japan Secondly, I'm beginning to notice that it may be a strategy of you two to continue to try to lure me into discussions, which I think you know has the effect of preventing me from actually getting to work improving this article. The source is WP:RS, therefore pretty much, end of story compatriots.
 * To answer one of the valid questions you seem to be posing - renewable energy is dominated by two technologies - Hydro power and biomass, and both these technologies have a historically higher death rate per unit of energy generated than fission power - just compare the Banqiao dam death toll with the Chernobyl accident death toll, and the particulate matter death toll due to the burning of biomass aka usually dead plants, biomass actually releases a comparable amount of particulate matter as coal does per unit of energy generated -[| see the table below the graph here] - and although generally invisible to the naked eye particulate matter can cause serious lung and heart problems, one very visible effect of which is the continuation of the likes of the 2006 Southeast Asian haze. So it becomes eminently obvious that the ratio of people saved by picking the conventional 'renewable energy' sources over coal or gas is just not going to be as high as the ratio of people saved from fission power per unit of energy generated. So although hydro is obviously safer to people and the environment than Coal, its not as safe as fission power.


 * By the way, Japan aren't building any more hydro power plants as all the economical sites to build dams have been exploited already, they're messing around with gigantic wind turbines that each produce only ~1 MW of energy on average due to winds low reliability capacity factor, whereas a nuclear power produces ~900+ MW on average. By 2020 they plan to build a wind farm that has a power output that would eliminate the need for 1 small coal plant. Just 1. As Electricity sector in Japan details Japan has passed legislation to subsidize wind power, which means customers will have higher electricity prices, and therefore the poorest in the society in Japan will be made even poorer, which naturally will increase energy poverty related deaths and delay the adoption of non polluting electric cars, as electricity prices will be higher, serving as a barrier against the average Japanese person trading in their petroleum fuelled car for an electric car. So 'new renewables' are just sadly going to exacerbate the number of preventable deaths. I honestly don't understand why people think they're a good thing? Yes keep them in the lab and spend more R&D, especially on the large potential one could achieve from solar, but until they're on parity with the cost of electricity from Coal, adopting them will just reduce peoples standard of living by increasing energy poverty and cause more loss of life.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Development section
I just reverted a massive addition to the development section that was not about the history and development of the nuclear power industry/technology, but instead is telling us in detail why we shouldn't let silly little things like Chernobyl affect policy elsewhere.....  All these detailed distinctions between their tech and our tech and how that should play on policy are about engineering differences in technology-to-technology, and is appropriate for a sub-article. We already have a brief summary that the Chernobyl tech was different. That's how top level articles are supposed to work.... summarize, then point to the details in sub articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If this material goes in this article, it makes sense to me to elaborate on different tech in the section on "nuclear power plant"; and in a later section about policy develope the idea that policy in different places is sensitive to the type of tech used in those places.  Most of this material could fit nicely in the article tree, just should be better organized. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You reverted material that I wrote which was to answer Nigel's queries expressed above in the 'RS' heading. You complained about the WNA reference so I supplied lots of WP:RS sources along with it. Including documents by the IAEA. Secondly where in the world did you get - [its] instead telling us in detail why we shouldn't let silly little things like Chernobyl affect policy elsewhere.....  All these detailed distinctions between their tech and our tech and how that should play on policy
 * You are quite clearly displaying more paranoid conspiratorial nonsense, detailing the differences and the improvements made in the RBMK is not anything to do with policy but about engineering and design differences and developments - that's all. What's that got to do with not worrying and playing on policy? You are reading into things on a whole new paranoid level.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But of course, my reversion is not due to what you said, or the sources you used, but where you said it.  Instead of beating your breast over how perceive you have been wronged, please say something about my my suggested alternative structure for this same material ?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I did respond to your suggestion to have, or move it to, a policy section. As I said, it has nothing to do with policy but technology and development, not a single one of the references in what I referenced mention 'policy', but discuss technology and RBMK development. Secondly, the power plant section in the article is, as the name suggests, discussing the power plant - which is primarily focused on how electric power from the steam turbine is made, and doesn't fit with a discussion of fission reactor development and differences in technology, so it would be pretty darn out of place to put the material there. Mentioning only 1(as the article does now) of a myriad of differences, between the two technologies(Soviet and US generation II reactors) does not educate readers about the developmental improvements to reactors in general, or the reactor in question - the RBMK, nor on the evolution and development differences between that reactor and western reactors.


 * Attempting to see things from your shoes, I think the reason why you might feel it doesn't fit in the development section is that you feel the word 'development' in the title of the section is more akin to political development rather than how I read the word 'development' to mean, which takes into account the context of the section, that is, coming right after the sections Origins and early years in the article, development means in this context - technology and electric grid penetration development. As the directly preceding Origins section brings readers up to speed on what are known as Generation I reactors, this trend should therefore obviously be continued to bring readers up to speed on the development of Generation II reactors, how they work, where they are, and problems with some of them, and then finally modern Generation III reactors etc. Furthermore it presently doesn't once mention the recognition, even amongst the Soviets, of the massive importance of having a negative Void coefficent in the development of reactor designs. In sum that's why I put it in the development section. Other additions to the development section should be links and mention to the French Messmer plan of the 1970s and what it achieved, and the present nuclear renaissance. Moreover the development section, as it stands now, is way out of date as it falsely leads readers to assume no new reactors have been ordered in the U.S, which is no longer true, with two AP1000s being under construction since 2012 in the US, nor indeed does it mention Germany's declared decade+ long phase out of nuclear power.


 * I also find it odd that a picture of an unbuilt five power plant endeavor, managed by the company - Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), in the US has a picture shoe horned into the development section of the article, and yet no mention to the 104 nuclear power plants successfully built in the U.S during the 60s to 80s is not at all really given much mention or prominence at all in the development section.
 * Not least of which because the power plant that was built - Columbia Generating Station is fine, and what ended the small power companies ambitious goal for 5 reactors was apparently down to mismanagement and incompetence, and not anything to do with nuclear fission power technology or development - the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5482


 * So what exactly is that picture of the power plant doing there? The picture of Pripyat Chernobyl makes sense, as that has a lot to do with nuclear power development, and should therefore be in the development section, but Washington Public Power Supply System...really?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hint, stick to just one topic at a time, if you want to get consensus to add material. Unless it appears in a different thread or others want to go off on a tangent, per WP:TALK I am going to just ignore comments that do not relate to your specific edit and my reason for reverting.


 * In your 2nd paragraph, I reject your characterization of the power plant section of this article, because it doesn't point at Power plant but at nuclear power plant.  Depsite use of "power plant" in its title, the latter article covers a much broader range of topics than the technically narrow definition of "power plant" you have described.  Your proposed edit adds detail to compare and contrast nuclear power plant design (where 'power plant' has the broad meaning), and therefore belongs on the article that focuses on the design and operation of nuclear power plants.  Our existing text already does an adequate job of summarizing that particular info and its policy implications, IMO.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here you are again talking about policy and policy implications, please for the second time of asking, point out where in the numerous technical references in my edit is the world 'policy' mentioned? This is just your paaranoid POV. You're reading into design technical information and assuming its somehow linked with 'policy'. What policy exactly? The 'development' section of an encyclopedia on nuclear power should not be focused on 'policy' or even really focused on politics, but about describing nuclear power reactors, as I've said the directly preceding Origins and Early years headings within the article bring readers up to speed on what are known as Generation I reactors, this trend should therefore obviously be continued to bring readers up to speed in the development of Generation II reactors in the 60s, how they work, where they are, how many were built, and problems with some of them, and then finally mention modern Generation III reactors etc. It shouldn't be about policy, as what exactly does policy have to do with technology development and the history of science and technology?  The development section should summarize the outcomes of votes made decades ago to smaller amounts of text, as the development section breaks the mould of the other two preceding sections and spends most of its time talking about the actions and movements of the anti-nuclear and accidents instead of discussing nuclear power technology development first and foremost and having the opposition from the anti-nuclear movement take a back seat, which by the way should include mention to the 'green-party terrorist attack with 5 RPG-7's.
 * The nuclear power plant section of this page should naturally discuss the power plant side of nuclear power, the turbine and other buildings, the containment building, and the combined heat and power use at Gosgen Nuclear Power Plant, and not reactor development. Improvements to the power plant section include discussion of the more efficient Helium Brayton cycle used at some reactors, over the less efficient and more common water Rankine cycle mostly used now- and what all the buildings that make up a nuclear power plant are for,including a description on the control room, and how all the buildings are built. It should not be about reactor development but as the name suggests - the power plant.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (A) All I am talking about is summarizing on top level articles and adding details to sub articles.
 * (B) Policy differences due to design differences is the point of the first sentence
 * (C) Wall-of-text argument usually is unpersuasive
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (A)All I am talking about is presenting encyclopedic hard data about the development of nuclear power, which is the heading of the section under question, with no sub article related to it, are you confused about this fact? Or are you talking about something else?
 * (B) The development history has nothing to do with politics but with technology. The hydro power development section for example does not once discuss politics or protests, neither does the coal use section of that article, nor does the article on genetically modified organism give a single line to protests.
 * (C) The development section of this article, nuclear power, is presently 90% about anti-nuclear movements and very little about Development and indeed has only a tiny amount of information on accidents, when accidents should clearly be given more ink, as they are part of development. As you were referring to sub articles above, then yes I agree the anti-nuclear movement is where to move the majority of the fluff about protests, such as at a nuclear power plant here(Wyhl) a nuclear power plant there etc, which despite the delusions of grandeur of anti-nuclear folks really had but a negligible effect on development worldwide.
 * (D) The development section needs to change substantially, as the anti-nuclear movement didn't affect development in a big way, lack of electricity demand, accidents, and power plant cost over-runs did. Moreover most people that are anti-nuclear, like myself, are against an increase in nuclear weapon stockpiles and fairly ambivalent towards nuclear power. Just like how, just about everyone, is anti-IEDs but not anti-fertilizer.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Too promotional, needs more balance
This article has become quite promotional in recent times. Concerns and problems are often mentioned, but then glossed over, or presented in a one-sided way. A lot of emphasis is placed on describing a rosy future for nuclear power, associated with advanced reactor designs, fusion power, and space applications. I will be doing some edits, based on reliable sources, in an effort to bring back some balance to the article. Johnfos (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Is World-nuclear.org an RS?
In Nuclear power there are ~16 citations to material from the "world nuclear association" whose home page is. It looks to me like this outfit is an industry lobbying and PR firm and their materials on most things other than themselves are not eligible for wikipedia RS status, and should therefore be purged from the article (and any others where such cites appear). Does anyone have a cogent reason to disagree? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you can find a case where they have presented something factually incorrect about nuclear power then I will agree with you with removing that material, until then, you should bear in mind that their site isn't for lobbying but  is intended to provide the best available non-technical source of information on the global nuclear industry. The site presents reference documents, and a wide range of educational and explanatory papers which are constantly updated. - World Nuclear Association they are more reliable than the actual active lobbying group the American Wind Energy Association which is regarded as a RS on the Environmental impact of wind power page and on the Wind power page etc. etc.
 * If you still want to remove them, why don't you go to their 16 citations and find the referenced documents and link that in the article instead? Problem solved then, right? Bear in mind however that, for example, only they have some of the important facts necessary to write this article, like the number of operating naval vessels powered by nuclear reactors.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The World Nuclear Association is the global private-sector organization that seeks to promote the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource for the coming centuries." The way we deal with sources whose mission is to "promote" something is to attribute what they say, and then give attributed counter-statements from significant others who disagree with that viewpoint straight after. "X says A, but Y says B". I don't think anyone is going to argue about how many nuclear submarines there are, but someone may have something relevant to say about how many there should be. Equally, looking through the 16 (my search says 17), I already found world-nuclear.org saying (in Wikipedia's own voice) that changes have been made to RBMK reactors "to reduce the possibility of a duplicate [Chernobyl] accident". I wonder if every authority on earth agrees that those changes are sufficient, that they have been carried out properly in every case, and that the planned reduction in risk is actually sufficient. I don't know, and it's not easy for an industry outsider like me to just Google up that kind of stuff sixteen times in a row. This is the trouble when a highly motivated promotional editor descends on several articles at once and adds all their own stuff in a big rush - it will take a while for the balance to be checked and re-adjusted until we have consensus and NPOV again. --Nigelj (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that contribs from "highly motivated promotional editor(s)" need to be carefully reviewed, I don't agree with your implied statement that most of these cites were added by any single ed.  There were a ton already in the article last summer (2012). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I didn't check the history. --Nigelj (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * News, you're quite right most of those links were indeed there before I arrived. However I'm not a promotional editor thank you very much, no more so than you are a crack pot editor. I also didn't write all that much of this article in its present form either. There has been no rush with this article at all. You know I think I only really linked to WNA once or twice. Anyways, yes I've generally tried not to link to the World Nuclear Association, that is if I can find alternatives, and in respect to their reference to the improvements made to the RBMK, I've since included an old 1996 IAEA reference to improvements being made as of 1996 along with university references. Yes Nigel the Earth Encyclopedia let a WNA author write the article on the RBMK, however that promotional description appears to be the Earth Encyclopedia's opinion. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Light_water_graphite_reactor_(RBMK) I'm also wondering how, if the WNA are a promotional agency representing the OECD why they would write about the improvements in a non-OECD nations reactor. What incentive do they have to promote the 'competition'?


 * As an industry outsider myself Nigelj its not that hard to use my favorite search engine Duckduckgo to gather more info. I've the same improvement and safety questions you do about the hydroelectric Banqiao dam and coal mining accidents. The Dam was rebuilt, lets hope to a higher standard with a higher factor of safety, but who knows? By the way, I don't like the RBMK at all, its probably the worst reactor ever made, not least due to it not really being designed as a power reactor but a weapons production reactor first and foremost, with power being made only as a co-product. It's a sad fact of history that it was ever built. I'm also thinking this should be presented to readers in the article- that the Chernobyl accident wasn't caused by a nuclear power reactor, designed just to make power, but by a power+production reactor.


 * However now, along with the Russians lack of an incentive to make any more weapons grade plutonium - as they already have plenty of nuclear weapons and no need for any more, together with the oversight made by the IAEA, I've more confidence in this problem child of a 1960s reactor being much safer now than before-remember it was operator error - overriding safety alarms that actually caused the Chernobyl accident, and not really the dubious reactor design, although the dubious design naturally wasn't exactly as fool proof as western designs and there was less defense in depth.


 * Having answered your queries, it appears News has removed my edit referencing the IAEA and so on?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously the IAEA is an RS but instead of talking about my reversion here, please note your final line which reads "Having answered your queries, it appears News has removed my edit referencing the IAEA and so on? ". Per WP:TALK discussions are supposed to be organized and kept together in one place. We already have a different section for the BRD cycle to talk about that reversion so let's not change the subject here.  Instead, to make efficient progress on article improvements, lets try to stikc to the SECTION HEADING TOPIC >>> Since you have made no attempt to show how WP:RS applies to world-nuclear.org, am I correct in thinking you agree that source does not satisfy the WP:RS criteria?    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't say they don't satisfy WP:RS, as Nigelj provided, the Encyclopedia of Earth, amongst others, use their material so WP:USEBYOTHERS applies and therefore they are fairly reliable by WP:RS standards. Now my personal opinion is, as it always has been, that it is good practice to make efforts to also link to other sources any time WNA are referenced. This, you will note, is what I have recently tried to do in respect to the number of maritime nuclear propulsion vessels that are in operation, which is mentioned in the introduction of the article. It is also what I have done, but which you reverted, in respect to the improvements made to the Chernobyl style RBMK reactor, supplying references to the IAEA along with the WNA, to corroborate what they have written, yet you oddly removed all that extra material?
 * Again, you have not answered my question - if the World Nuclear Association are a promotional agency and unreliable as you two are suggesting, and are therefore promoting the reactor operators of its members, who remember, are all from the OECD, why would they write about the improvements in a non-OECD nations reactor. What incentive do they have to 'promote' the 'competition'? I can't think of any good reason why they would, if they, as you are suggesting, served as a promotional organization for its OECD members products(reactors), can you?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is on-point, and I can see value in accepting the "hard fact" type of info from them on this basis. I will refrain from commenting on the rest of your last comment since it isn't really on point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with NewsAndEventsGuy. I have some other discussions about WNA in Wikipedia here. I am mad with WNA because we have a debate in Bulgaria about NPP Belene and when I say to someone "There is almost nothing under construction like new NPPs in US and Europe at moment", they say "Look at the map of WNA" and I need 30 min to explain the data over which the map was built and the false impression which it gives to everyone.
 * Please, change that in the article as well: provided about 5.7% of the world's energy and 13% of the world's electricity, in 2012.[2] - source [2] is a report created in 2012 about 2011. It should be changed to "provided about 4.49% of the world's energy and 11% of the world's electricity, in 2012.[3][4]
 * [3] - http://world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/ (I hope you can trust WNA at least about data against them)
 * [4] - http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statistical-review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf - BP report is a very reliable and neutral source, you can see the share of the nuclear power dropped 6.9% in 2012
 * IAEA is actually also a part of the nuclear power lobby, because they are nuclear power specialists, but they don't do things like WNA. All they do is to hide the "start date" of the reactors "under construction" somewhere deep in their web site, so you need to click at every reactor to check the "start date". These are not also "reactors under construction", they are rather "reactors with a license for construction". It is crazy to define a reactor like WATTS BAR-2 started in 1972as one "under construction".
 * --Orehche (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I started discussions about WNA as RS here. Please, join no matter what your point of view is. I can not accept the argument that WNA should be accepted as RS because American Wind Energy Association are worst. We can allow to any misleading information and lies to take place in Wikipedia in such a way. The argument that only WNA have the information about "naval vessels powered by nuclear reactors" can not make them RS either at all. Should we allow them to talk everything and everywhere because they have lots of money? Maybe NewsAndEventsGuy has a problem to argue over each of those 16 citations because he has no time. What about if WNA pay to couple of SEO guys which is peanuts for them to include links everyday and all over Wikipedia? Is that a proper and efficient way to fight with that? We should have at first place an official statement that WNA is not RS. Maybe later we can decide what to do and how to deal with that.  By the way, there is nobody to change the 13% in the first sentence to 11%. I have no rights to edit and someone should do it for me.   --Orehche (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sustainability
Concerning the second paragraph. "Proponents, such as the World Nuclear Association and IAEA, contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions.[8] Opponents, such as Greenpeace International and NIRS, believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment.[9][10][11]" I recommend adding the following sentence on sustainability. "A recent review of the current sustainability of nuclear power found limitations but also provided clear technical and social recommendations for improving the environmental and social sustainability of nuclear power. These recommendations included: improving energy efficiency with combined heat and power and other methods, reducing environmental externalities associated with mining and operation, reduce risks and radioactive waste, and regain public trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewB22 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 August 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Having looked at the article on sustainable energy I'm still not sure what the difference between renewable and sustainable energy is. Given nuclear energy generates less energy than its initial input of raw materials, and the fact that the raw materials aren't readily available, how is it "sustainable"? It certainly is in the short-term, so it is scientifically sound to say an energy source is "sustainable" given that it depends on a finite resource that will soon expire? Vision Insider (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Caption?
A caption for a picture in the Article reads .....

"....Unlike fossil fuel power plants, the only substance leaving the cooling towers of nuclear power plants is water vapour and thus does not pollute the air or cause global warming.....".

Water vapour and condensate leave cooling penis - water vapour is not visible.

Is there a reference to support "....thus does not pollute the air or cause global warming....."? Maybe they do not increase Greenhouse Gas emmissions the way fossil fuel plants do - but does not the heat and electricity generated ultimately add to Global Warming?

Pete318 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Water is a greenhouse gas, so it would make sense to assume that making steam makes the world hotter doesn't contribute to global warming because water is naturally removed from the atmosphere as rain (then made into vapour again and so on). Carbon dioxide is different because the means of removing it from the atmosphere are much slower than water; plants respire using carbon dioxide as a raw ingredient (unlike animals, which use oxygen) but at the moment the levels are rising far quicker than plants can respire.


 * That said, nuclear power obviously has its own environmental concerns but the fact it doesn't cause air pollution is one of the key reasons some areas decide to use it instead of, say, coal. Vision Insider (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ETA I should also point out that nuclear power plants don't produce carbon dioxide as part of their energy generation. However, and this is a big however, there are emissions in the process of mining uranium, building the reactors and transporting the waste.Vision Insider (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. The editors of this TALK page may delete or collapse this section if they think it clutters the page - fine with me. TALK pages are apparently not for discussions of the logic structure of the article content.

Not to split hairs, but water (vapour condensate) is not a Greenhouse gas, although it plays a role with at least cloud formation. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, albeit a milder one than CO2. This is discussed in the Global Warming Article.

The logic of global warming is somewhat ambiguous. This is what I posted on one of the editors own TALK pages, which he(?) chose to delete.

the power plant has a magical wizard in the middle of it when he a elf and Megan Fox have sex the off spring is able to break apart the atoms with his nipples.... also he is slender man

What I was trying to articulate o the Climate Change pages.... Back in the day they used to actually say "...the solution to pollution is dilution..." with an attitude of "....how can a part per million of anything affect anyone...".

A massive amount of energy is absorbed by the Earth every day and a massive amount is dissipated at night (dark side). How can a miniscule amount of waste heat have any effect on this massive heat balance? ...likewise...

A massive amount of Carbon is absorbed everyday on the earth and a massive amount of Carbon is metabolized everyday. How can a miniscule amount of carbon from an industrial society amount to anything?

Analogies rarely hold water, but the term "Greenhouse" is an analogy. A brilliant observation by 19th century science, but maybe ambiguous and over simplified today. So here goes mine.....

A small greenhouse is in a constant climate with predictable solar gain. The greenhouse heats and cools daily. Add a small(1kw) electric heater which operates 24/7 is added. Suppose the equilibrium temperature without the heater is 20C max. With the heater it is 20.1C. If all the extra heat from the heater is not dissipated at night it adds to the heat load the next day - say the temperature reaches 20.11C max. Then the next day 20.12C. Maybe it stabilizes at 20.15C. Very minimal, but it it adds to the temperature. The order of magnitude question for this analogy is how large of a greenhouse with the same 1000w heater?

The earth intuitively appears to have entered a transient as opposed to a steady state phase. The mathematics are much different for the latter. To give the next generation the promise that if CO2 levels stabilize, they can use unlimited amounts of all forms of nuclear power for everything. Naive! -IMHO'

Any source that adds to the heat balance of a planet has to affect the average temperature. It is very likely that the energy and waste heat generated by nuclear power plants do not affect the heat balance of the planet significantly. However the photo implies that water vapour and water (condensate) emitted from plant cooling towers are visual and obvious evidence that such plants do not affect global warming at all - the water cycle of the planet (cloud formation and rainfall) notwithstanding.

There is not any footnote or reference or link which states the basis of this caption.

Pete318 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

High-level radioactive waste
The first sentence in the part about "High-level radioactive waste" must be deletet because it has no source -  the source which is given does not mention the claim "The world's nuclear fleet creates about 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel each year."

Gladius44 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The citation is for p.141 of the book. If you have checked, and the cited statement is not there, then tag the citation like so:  Then I suggest you give other editors a reasonable amount of time to remedy the lack of citation; if it is not fixed after a while, then remove the statement.  Regards, Plazak (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have checked the source, but i can not edit this article. So someone else has to do it. By the way how can i get the permission to edit protected articles?? Gladius44 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear powered submarines
Can anyone tell me how much electrical power (in megawatts)is produced by the reactors in nuclear powered submarines?79.64.157.177 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's probably pretty classified. It's like asking how much fossil fuel did the Navy's of the world use this year?
 * 86.44.238.236 (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

List of nuclear power sources
Shouldn't there be a list of nuclear power sources? I've looked and cant find a list.--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is List of nuclear power stations not sufficient? For general reactors perhaps List of nuclear reactors? -- Mikeflem (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External Link

 * Japan Approves Energy Plan Backing Nuclear Power

Sujoyhnkc (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  15:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional graphs to include
The french picture would be useful with a bit of English translation, by clicking the image you can also be brought to the wikicommons location of this picture and find more similar informative pictures etc.

178.167.185.54 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear vs. Wind/Solar
"The net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants" [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/19%20low%20carbon%20future%20wind%20solar%20power%20frank/net%20benefits%20final.pdf THE NET BENEFITS OF LOW AND NO-CARBON ELECTRICITY TECHNOLOGIES. MAY 2014, Charles Frank PDF]

also Discussed in the economist magazine article- "Sun, wind and drain Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought Jul 26th 2014"

The above brookings pdf is also a good source of reliable info on the decommissioning cost and spent fuel protecting costs of a nuclear plant. 178.167.185.54 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply:




 * I suppose we could go on and on about this economic study or that, or this subsidy or that, but the bottom line reality is that Wind power and Solar power capacities are growing very fast, whereas any new nuclear capacities are being offset by reactor retirements, nuclear accidents, and nuclear phase-outs. Many studies, and some government policies, now talk about aiming towards 100% renewable energy. Johnfos (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A Reply to your reply:
 * No. The "bottom line" is that the rigorous Brookings Institute study, and its findings, should be included in this article? This talk page is not an internet forum friend, the study found that new nuclear builds are a better bang for buck than solar and wind plants. Your assertion is like saying, "the bottom line is we're making mistakes and not getting the best value for money when we're building wind and solar installations", yes that does seem to be a problem that needs correcting, does it not, instead of glossing over it and rejoicing at ignorance and wasting money?
 * And of course wind and solar are "growing very fast", you start with nothing, then build 1 wind turbine and tomorrow you build another - instant tabloid headline, "wind energy capacity has doubled in a day", well sure it has but it started off from nothing so naturally you'll have "doublings" etc fairly often. The real metric to use is established capacity, Fossil fuel use still dominates (see world energy consumption), it may not be "doubling" etc every year but the planet doesn't care about tabloid headlines, fossil fuel use is growing and growing every year and its growth completely dwarfs the midget contributions from wind and solar, See table below.
 * {|class="wikitable" style="display: inline-block;"
 * {|class="wikitable" style="display: inline-block;"


 * width="120pt" rowspan=2| Fuel type
 * colspan=3| Average power in TW
 * 1980
 * 2004
 * 2006
 * Oil || 4.38 || 5.58 || 5.74
 * Gas || 1.80 || 3.45 || 3.61
 * Coal || 2.34 || 3.87 || 4.27
 * Hydroelectric || 0.60 || 0.93 || 1.00
 * Nuclear power || 0.25 || 0.91 || 0.93
 * Geothermal, wind, solar energy, wood || 0.02 || 0.13 || 0.16
 * Total || 9.48 || 15.0 || 15.8
 * align="left" colspan=4 | Source: The USA Energy Information Administration
 * }
 * 178.167.254.168 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nuclear power || 0.25 || 0.91 || 0.93
 * Geothermal, wind, solar energy, wood || 0.02 || 0.13 || 0.16
 * Total || 9.48 || 15.0 || 15.8
 * align="left" colspan=4 | Source: The USA Energy Information Administration
 * }
 * 178.167.254.168 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * align="left" colspan=4 | Source: The USA Energy Information Administration
 * }
 * 178.167.254.168 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 178.167.254.168 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You really seem hung up on the BI and obsolete data from EIA, which focuses on the USA. But this is an international article, so please broaden your perspective and update yourself. Maybe this will help:

See also:
 * Deploying Renewables 2011 (2011) by the International Energy Agency
 * Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (2011) by the IPCC
 * Solar Energy Perspectives (2011) by the International Energy Agency

China is now leading the way with renewable energy commercialization, not the USA... Johnfos (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The above mentioned study "THE NET BENEFITS OF LOW AND NO-CARBON ELECTRICITY TECHNOLOGIES. MAY 2014, Charles Frank" is inappropriate for wikipedia. We need international studies by intergovernmental organizations, such as the International Energy Agency or the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency. Whether the above study is rigorously performed is irrelevant. For the same reason, studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute shouldn't be considered either, including this rebuttal- Rfassbind (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

record for most powerful reactors
Should this not be incorporated into the article? The Phoebus-2 reactor of Project Rover generated 4000 Megawatts of thermal energy in 1968, and was for its time "the most powerful nuclear reactor ever built". http://www.lanl.gov/science/NSS/issue1_2011/story4a.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.174.135 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How Nuclear Power works ?
It seems important to me to allow this article a section and graphics for how Nuclear Power works (about fission and all) Thanks in advance, --82.125.235.207 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just looked at this article for the first time. I object to the"nuclear cheerleader comment and to quoting only Quuuiggin and Lowe. Most of it seems ok but some parts are insanely partisan,Graemem56 (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015
188.180.86.220 (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Lede info removed by me, archived here
I found the following material in the lede awkward and far too detailed for use in the introduction/lede. While yesterday I attempted to make the material easier to digest, as the editor who first added it did a real-poor job of it. Upon reflection, even with my clarification yesterday, so that readers would understand why all the percentages are different, it still results in the material being far-too detailed for the lede.

So I've added it here, for maybe future use, somewhere lower down in this article> > ''In terms of the share of the world's primary energy supply, not just electricity, but including the energy contained in waste heat which refers to the total world fleet, heat production, without the typical thermal power station conversion efficiency of about 33%, the fission contribution was about 5.7%. Boundarylayer (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2013
The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.79.115 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an outdated report and that's not what it says. NPguy (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

High-level radioactive waste

The first sentence in the part about "High-level radioactive waste" must be deletet because it has no source - the source which is given does not mention the claim "The world's nuclear fleet creates about 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel each year."[1]

Gladius44 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

still disputed: I have tagged the reference. Perhaps someone else can get a copy and resolve this. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Gladius44 and Celestra, the claim indeed has a source - it is on p. 141 of a book of mine but also available in this study here http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2013.01.008 (It's behind a paywall but email me and I would be happy to share it). As this study notes, we know that a single nuclear reactor will consume an average 32,000 fuel rods over the course of its lifetime, and it will also produce 20 to 30 tons of spent nuclear fuel per year. This is why an average of about 2,200 metric tons annually is produced for all of the US. You get to the 10,000 tons number by simply multiplying the 20 to 30 tons per reactor by the ~430 reactors in the world, leading to a total somewhere between 8600 and 12900 tons.Bksovacool (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here;s a United States NRC link. "2,000 to 2,400 tons are produced each year"
 * http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html
 * 86.44.238.236 (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That link is only for the U.S., the other source is for worldwide. RudolfRed (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, include both, but remember the amount is dependant of the number of stations, their efficiency( which is improving all the time -their heavy metal burn up in GWd/tHM) and whether or not the stations use recycling like France, none of these things were taken into account in the other source. Moreover ~10,000 metric tons of mostly uranium is a pretty small amount of material in terms of volume, as uranium is ~19 times more dense than water, so it's about 1/5 the size of a Olympic-size swimming pool per year for the whole planet.
 * Lastly, not all the spent nuclear fuel is "high level waste" so why is this under that article heading? A good reference on the volume of waste and how much of the spent fuel is really actually waste is - http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_170.shtml
 * 86.44.238.236 (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A far more straightforward calculation can be based off the cited value of worldwide, 8.3 petawatt hours of civil nuclear fission energy being generated in 2008, see the World energy consumption page. As 8.3 petawatt hours is the same as 8,300,000 gigawatt hours, and 8,300,000 gigawatt hours is 345,833 GWd gigawatt days(simply divided by 24) and the average burn up of a typical generation II reactor is ~40 GWd/tHM, then 345,833 divided by 40 = 8646 tons of Heavy Metal AKA spent nuclear fuel created in that year.
 * 14:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.238.236 (talk)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A better reference than Sovacool's and one that should establish consensus and one that closely corroborates the computed back of the envelop figure above of "8646 tons per year" globally in 2008 is the figure of 9000 tons of spent nuclear fuel being generated every year in 2007. The reference is: S. E. Hasan, "International Practice in High-level Nuclear Waste Management," in Concepts and Applications in Environmental Geochemistry, ed. by D. Sarkar, R. Datta and R. Hannigan (Elsevier, 2007).
 * However as mentioned above it is important to state that this figure is before any fuel recycling/ reprocessing is done, as is performed in La Hague in France and the figure is, again as mentioned above, dependent on the efficiency of "burning" the uranium, i.e the burn up value.
 * 178.167.254.168 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on Nuclear power. 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 https://web.archive.org/20140414191619/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=iaea-head-sees-wide-support to http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=iaea-head-sees-wide-support
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140707125802/http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/downloads/doc/44832.php to http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/downloads/doc/44832.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150416031901/http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf to http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120821162134/http://www.touchoilandgas.com/ebooks/A1ioj0/eandpvol7iss2/resources/134.htm to http://www.touchoilandgas.com/ebooks/A1ioj0/eandpvol7iss2/resources/134.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708162741/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/support-of-the-megatons-to-megawatts-program to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/support-of-the-megatons-to-megawatts-program
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120722213838/http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/NukesSocialAlternativesMD.pdf to http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/NukesSocialAlternativesMD.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150117132532/http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/65D793F9C998D687C1257AEF0035191F/$file/Entwicklungen%20der%20deutschen%20Strom-%20und%20Gaswirtschaft.pdf to http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/65D793F9C998D687C1257AEF0035191F/$file/Entwicklungen%20der%20deutschen%20Strom-%20und%20Gaswirtschaft.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121021062622/http://eetd.lbl.gov:80/ea/ems/reports/wind-energy-costs-2-2012.pdf to http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/wind-energy-costs-2-2012.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131127112542/http://www.ucsusa.org:80/news/media_alerts/nuclear-industry-spent-millions-to-sell-congress-on-new-reactors-0343.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/news/media_alerts/nuclear-industry-spent-millions-to-sell-congress-on-new-reactors-0343.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016
add a comma after decay in this sentence The term includes nuclear fission, nuclear decay and nuclear fusion.

170.177.238.73 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I don't think I want to get involved in an Oxford comma debate here, so someone feeling bold can take care of this --allthefoxes (Talk) 21:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I'm a proponent of the oxford comma myself, but Wikipedia doesn't care either way, as long as there is internal consistency within an article, and just scanning through I see two instances of not using the oxford comma, so I suppose we leave it out here Cannolis (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Nuclear power. 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/20071015031630/http://www.bellona.org:80/english_import_area/international/russia/civilian_nuclear_vessels/icebreakers/30131 to http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/civilian_nuclear_vessels/icebreakers/30131
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110710192250/http://www.energetics.com/nrcdoefeb08/pdfs/Life%20After%2060%20Workshop%20Report.pdf to http://www.energetics.com/nrcdoefeb08/pdfs/Life%20After%2060%20Workshop%20Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nuclear power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205103749/http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html to http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

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 17:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Debate over Hansen paper
Hi NPGuy, thanks for your comment. But the Hansen paper in the section restored is one-sided and has elicited a critical response to Hansen's analysis, from an international group of senior academic energy policy analysts, including Benjamin Sovacool, M.V. Ramana, Mark Z. Jacobson, and Mark Diesendorf. They said that Hansen and Kharecha's estimates of Chernobyl Disaster mortalities is very low, which biases their conclusions. This and other factors are said to make Hansen's article "incomplete and misleading". Hansen and his initial co-author then responded to each of their attempts at rebutting his paper and argued that all the data these scientists use to make their criticism, "lacks credibility". Johnfos (talk)


 * Knowing only that Hansen is the author of one piece and Sovacool the author of the critique, I find it hard to conclude that Sovacool is the more credible. Hansen's basic message, that the risks of nuclear power ned to be balanced against the far greater risks of the likely alternatives, seems methodologically and factually correct. NPguy (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned that the debate extends beyond the two papers mentioned, and includes:


 * Rinaldo Brutoco, "Nuclear power: Totally unqualified to combat climate change", World Business Academy, September 14, 2014.
 * Rinaldo Brutoco, "Nuclear power: Totally unqualified to combat climate change", World Business Academy, September 14, 2014.
 * Rinaldo Brutoco, "Nuclear power: Totally unqualified to combat climate change", World Business Academy, September 14, 2014.
 * Rinaldo Brutoco, "Nuclear power: Totally unqualified to combat climate change", World Business Academy, September 14, 2014.


 * To try to reach a conclusion about this matter would be WP:Original synthesis, which is to be avoided. If the debate is to be presented in this article, we just need to outline the diverse material presented. Johnfos (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to balancing Hansen with a response or two, but don't overdo it. Hansen is credible and represents a significant contingent of technically sophisticated environmentalist voices. NPguy (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * NPguy, please read | Hansen & Kharecha in their published response to this "criticism" paper, in Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (12), pp 6718–6719. They expertly detail how every single major attempted criticism levelled at their paper, is disingenuous. There is no need to "balance" anything, just read their responses dealing with each point.


 * As for Johnfos' claim that "Hansen and Kharecha's estimates of Chernobyl Disaster mortalities" are misleading, this is again wrong, they didn't estimate anything but used UNSCEAR's rigorously authoratitive estimate, not their own. They explain this in their paper above. While on the other hand, Hansen & Kharecha's nuclear energy critics use fission energy CO2 emissions inclusive of "the incineration of megacities due to hypothetical nuclear war; this is purely speculative" yes, this is a total fantasy, not least because you don't even need nuclear reactors of any type to enrich uranium to make bombs, so the argument is a tenuous non-sequitur. In sum there is no need to "balance" the Hansen & Kharecha paper. Moreover, if dogged attempts to insert this misleading "criticism" paper are made, then by right, Hansen & Kharecha's rebuttal to this nonsense is essentially required.
 * 109.125.17.194 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree on the merits, but the fact is that there is a debate among environmentalists. That in itself is important, as environmentalists used to be doggedly opposed to nuclear power, so it's worth reflecting here.  But the text should be clear-eyed about the relative merits of the two positions. NPguy (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What merits are contained in the Sovacool et. al paper? There's nothing of merit in their paper on mortality nor CO2 as far as I can tell, just a bunch of misleading non-sequiturs. About the only scientific or logical statement they make is that fission-electric stations may not be suitable for some failed state countries that are basket cases to begin with. That's it. What do you see that has merit NPguy?
 * 109.125.17.161 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't care whose ideas are represented here, and I'm not impressed with Sovacool. Looking back at the section, the presentation of the pro- and anti-nuclear arguments are presented accurately and, I suppose, adequately. But they don't interact much so it's not much of a debate. There are no critiques of either side's arguments. Maybe that's OK, though as it stands the anti-nuclear arguments look pretty silly (counting numbers of accidents is practically meaningless). NPguy (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Other choices as fuel sources
This section needs cleanup for English before placing in the article.

Other choices as fuel sources

Besides Uranium, Thorium has also been confirmed with the possibilities as nuclear fuel sources, which was reported by the analyser of BBC News, investigated in Southern Norway and partially supported by UK government. Recent years, a great amount of researches in terms of replacing traditional nuclear fuel - Uranium with new isotope Thorium have been developing among various countries including UK, Norway, India, China, Japan, etc., causing Thorium's natural advantages such as 'of more safety' 'more abundant - almost 3 times', 'widely distributing', and 'producing less waste - almost 10 times less' than Uranium. Further researches and discussions have been presenting till the future.

Refs separated and colons added.

Text: The Open University (2016) '4.10 Thorium – nuclear fuel of the future?' IN The Science of Nuclear Energy. Future Learn: The Open University. [Online] Available at: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-science-of-nuclear-energy/2/steps/77813#fl-comments. Accessed: 17th August, 2016 Video: Harrabin, R.@ BBC (2016)'4.10 Thorium – nuclear fuel of the future?' IN The Science of Nuclear Energy. Future Learn: BBC News and Open University. [Online] Available at: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-science-of-nuclear-energy/2/steps/77813#fl-comments. Accessed.: 17th August, 2016

By someone with more knowledge and time than I currently have Britmax (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Most of the above appears to be contained in the existing articles thorium-based nuclear power and thorium fuel cycle. All we need here is a brief paragraph and the wiki links to the main articles.  Plazak (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"Waste heat" & Agriculture productivity
Some of the more unusual, but notable/profitable uses of (nuclear) thermal power station waste heat might be worth adding to the article, at some distant point in the future. The more straightforward desalination obviously takes precedence, along with Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant's industrial export of waste steam to the local cardboard factory, but some the following that I've collected seem interesting.

Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant - The waste heat, an output common to all thermal power plants, which heats the cooling water (at 13 °C) is utilized for small-scale agriculture before being pumped back to the sea. The power plant hosts the northernmost vineyard in the world, a 0.1 ha experimental plot that yields 850 kg Zilga grapes annually. Another use is a pond for growing crabs, whitefish and sturgeon for caviar.

Gravelines Nuclear Power Station - "The cooling water that carries waste heat from the plant is used by a local commune of aquafarmers who raise European seabass and gilt-head breams. The warm water helps them grow faster."

Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station - Turkey Point has been a contributing force to the reclassification of the American Crocodile from endangered to the less serious category of vulnerable.

LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station - Instead of cooling towers, the station has a 2058 acre man-made cooling lake, which has become a popular fishery — LaSalle Lake State Fish and Wildlife Area — managed by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Man and Atom by Glenn Seaborg is also said to contain a number of novel uses of "waste heat".

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016
Hello, Would you kindly delete the section:

"and thus does not pollute the air or cause global warming."

In the picture caption:

"Unlike fossil fuel power plants, the only substance leaving the cooling towers of nuclear power plants is water vapour and thus does not pollute the air or cause global warming."

The reason for the deletion is that the water vapor is a major contributing factor in climate change. Stating the opposite is a false claim.

Here's a wiki article explaining it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor

Here's a plethora of journal articles on the subject: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=water+vapor+climate+change&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=&oq=water+vapor+climat

Matt A. Glynn (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * From the article you link, "human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields." So the release of water vapour from nuclear power plants or other human activity, although technically a greenhouse gas, cannot affect global warming. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Roentgenium111 appears to be right. Although water vapor might account for a majority of the greenhouse effect, according to Greenhouse gas, it is relatively insignificant in the scope of global warming/climate change. Mz7 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Nuclear power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226114158/http://www.energyeducation.tx.gov/energy/section_1/topics/forms_of_energy/nuclear_energy.html to http://www.energyeducation.tx.gov/energy/section_1/topics/forms_of_energy/nuclear_energy.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141215013236/http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf to http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150908235241/http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf to http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725030831/http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/4-nuclear-waste-pools-in-north-carolina/ to http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/4-nuclear-waste-pools-in-north-carolina/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418063024/http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html to http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hO7gbe9a?url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111212195417/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653 to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504190008/http://www.foei.org/en/who-we-are/about to http://www.foei.org/en/who-we-are/about
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019200719/http://www.brucepower.com/6926/news/bruce-power%E2%80%99s-unit-2-sends-electricity-to-ontario-grid-for-first-time-in-17-years/ to http://www.brucepower.com/6926/news/bruce-power%E2%80%99s-unit-2-sends-electricity-to-ontario-grid-for-first-time-in-17-years/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306125100/http://en.21cbh.com/HTML/2010-9-21/yMMDAwMDE5ODcyMA.html to http://en.21cbh.com/HTML/2010-9-21/yMMDAwMDE5ODcyMA.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613104418/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2052302 to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2052302
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stoller-eser.com/Quarterlies/iodine.htm
 * Added tag to https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Thorium%20Resources%20in%20%20Rare%20Earth%20Elements.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007233308/http://www.sv.vt.edu/research/batra-stevens/pent.html to http://www.sv.vt.edu/research/batra-stevens/pent.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EPZQYUB0?url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/07/is-nuclear-power-good-for-you.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/07/is-nuclear-power-good-for-you.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621223711/http://www.usec.com/ to http://www.usec.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920024704/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/65D793F9C998D687C1257AEF0035191F/%24file/Entwicklungen%20der%20deutschen%20Strom-%20und%20Gaswirtschaft.pdf
 * Added tag to http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160108185336/http://www.damsafety.org/media/documents/fema/availabilityofdaminsurance.pdf to http://www.damsafety.org/media/Documents/FEMA/AvailabilityOfDamInsurance.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/18th_Congress/downloads/ds/ds6/ds6_5.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.efda.org/about_efda/downloads/EFDAoverview.ppt

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Geothermal?
From the header: "For commercial quantities of nuclear energy attained from nuclear decay, see Geothermal energy." What? I think somebody made a boo-boo. 50.43.39.82 (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nuclear power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512210155/http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/Nuclear%20Energy%20Futures%20Overview.pdf to http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/Nuclear%20Energy%20Futures%20Overview.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424000745/http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/downloads/doc/44832.php to http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/downloads/doc/44832.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205121250/http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html to http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426130245/http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawatts-eliminates-equivalent-10000-nuclear-warheads to http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawatts-eliminates-equivalent-10000-nuclear-warheads
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf to http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806121526/http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf to http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Are predictions of nuclear energy fulfilled?
I'm moving this discussion verbatim from my talk page here, where it seems to fit better. NPguy (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The original edit falsely states that all these predictions have remained "unfulfilled". When in reality these predictions, apparently made in 1945, have all been fulfilled. They have all been demonstrated, some of which even continue to be in operation today.


 * Onboard the icebreaker 50 Let Pobedy there is and continues to be a swimming pool used by the crew for training and leisure, indeed any swimming pool heated by district heating could be classifed as a "plutonium heated swimming pool". There are a vast number of such swimming pools heated by nuclear reactors connected to the district heating system, around the world.


 * There are some 50 to 100 people walking around with Pu-238 powered pacemakers today. Thus the predictions "nuclear powered artificial hearts" was and continues to be "fulfilled".


 * Even the prediction "nuclear powered earth-to-moon shuttles" was technologically demonstrated with project NERVA. It simply didn't fly for political reasons. Though the technology is most certainly "fulfilled". At the MSFC, work today is ongoing to produce a LEU/civilian rated Nuclear Thermal Rocket engine.With a contract from 2017-2019 being given to BWXT. "Nuclear-powered rocket concepts are not new. The United States conducted studies and significant ground tests from 1955 to 1972 to determine the viability of such systems, but ceased testing when plans for a crewed Mars mission were deferred. Since then, nuclear thermal propulsion has been revisited several times in conceptual mission studies and technology feasibility projects. Thanks to renewed interest in exploring the Red Planet in recent decades, NASA has begun new studies of nuclear thermal propulsion, recognizing its potential value for exploration of Mars and beyond."

So contrary to the source, all these predictions, have been technologically demonstrated to various degrees as of 2017. Some of which are more practical than others and some of which are the only option.


 * The essence of the original was closer to the truth than the revision. The original essentially made the point that people had lots of ideas for using nuclear energy, most of which have not proven practical even if they were to some technically feasible.  The revision appears to claim that all these uses have been proven out.  That's nonsense.  No one uses Pu-238 to heat a swimming pool, and even though you could, no one in their right mind would.  Nuclear rocket engines have been tested, but no nuclear rockets have been flown.  To me, the bottom line is that the article needs to make clear that there was a lot of ridiculous hype about potential uses of nuclear energy.  The original version of the paragraph was not wrong and makes that point.  The revised version - particularly the claim in the last sentence (actually a sentence fragment) - makes the dubious and misleading claim that "All of which have been technologically demonstrated to various degrees as of 2017." If you want to propose a compromise, give it a shot, but I'm inclined to revert.  And let's move this discussion to the article's talk page, where it belongs. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I will give you the lead on moving this discussion, as it is your talk page and I don't consider altering someone elses talk page, to be very courteous. To continue the editorial matter however, the original edit is entirely inaccurate as all these technologies have in fact, been fulfilled. The original edit attempts to make Glenn Seaborg seem like he was talking moon-shine. When he wasn't. Every underlying technology he spoke of, has been developed. Secondly, Seaborg does not say that the swimming pools would be heated by the specific isotope Pu-238. Where exactly did you get that from? Instead he simply said "plutonium heated swimming pools". Which are very common and still in use, district heating is very common as is the use of the swimming pool onboard 50 Let Pobedy. The "ridiculous hype" may indeed have existed, but that is common with every emerging technology? Moreover in this specific case the "hype" was not "ridiculous" in this specific case of Seaborg, as everything he predicted was fulfilled. If you feel that the article needs to detail the other times, that non-scientists made fanciful hyped-up statements about this energy source, then fundamentally, can I ask why? Regardless, Seaborg was on point. To suggest otherwise has nothing to do with the technology but everything to do with politics. i.e the lack of missions to the moon and mars since 1972.


 * To use an analogy, the original edit would essentially be like saying in the personal computer article - "that Bill Gates said there will be houses run by computer and networks of buildings that adjust energy usage on demand...done of which have been fulfilled".


 * Having looked at your revised edit, I'm ok with the Seaborg quote being without qualifiers this way, or that. Just interlinks added. Are you fine with the paragraph as it stands?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not spending a lot of time on this, but the basic point of this paragraph as previously drafted is essentially correct: The potential for nuclear energy was overhyped, and nuclear power is not a good way to do most of the cited things.  The statement that "These optimistic predications remain unfulfilled" is essentially right.  There aren't a lot of nuclear-heated swimming pools out there, and for good reason.  Furthermore, what has replaced the earlier version now seems like original research, since it no longer reflects the cited source.  I don't have access to that source (a book by Benjamin Sovacool) but my impression is that it's a relatively unbalanced anti-nuclear screed.  So maybe it's a decent source for claims that were being made for the potential of nuclear energy, but not for judgments about the validity of those claims.


 * So i'm not entirely happy with the paragraph as edited and suggest two modifications: (1) find new sources to reflect recent edits and (2) include some judgment (citing an authoritative source) that many of the claimed benefits of nuclear energy have not panned out.


 * My mistake on Pu-238-heating. I was reading fast and conflating the pacemaker thermoelectric source and the swimming pool.


 * As for moving this discussion, do you have any objection to cutting and pasting the whole thing to the article's talk page? NPguy (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Understood. The article has a lot more pressing issues. On point (1) I agree, a more balanced reference supporting the quotation should be used. On point (2), I am not aware of any balanced references that discuss the general perception that the claimed benefits of nuclear energy, that were made by eminent scientists, "have not panned out". Though I would like yo to note that the "too cheap to meter" phrase, is already included in the article. Despite that particular statement coming from the politician, Lewis Strass. So the general sentiment you wish to include, seems to be already expressed in the article. Lastly, I have absolutely no objections, it is your talk page.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reliable source that discusses whether or not these early claims have been fulfilled. This entire discussion is based on an editor's personal analysis.–dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Nuclear power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702205635/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html to http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170506114117/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html to http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626182130/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103011953/http://www3.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2004/09environment_nivola/pb138.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2004/09environment_nivola/pb138.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017154500/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996%2C39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc%2Fsdi_cc%2Fsdi_cc_ene%2Fsdi_cc2300 to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996%2C39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc%2Fsdi_cc%2Fsdi_cc_ene%2Fsdi_cc2300
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211100220/http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2010_setplan_brochure.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2010_setplan_brochure.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130092151/http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&st1=9789264047662 to http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&st1=9789264047662
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614042451/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201211090056 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201211090056
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426141852/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-s-breeder-reactor-to-be-commissioned-in-2013/Article1-814183.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-s-breeder-reactor-to-be-commissioned-in-2013/Article1-814183.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Thorium%20Resources%20in%20%20Rare%20Earth%20Elements.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104092151/http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html to http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518164428/http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_3.pdf to http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_3.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018
Change the last sentence of section 4.2.4 from "...R&D on disposal or radioactive waste..." to "...R&D on disposal of radioactive waste..." Brmlyklr (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuclear power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226055625/http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2010/EP2/Materials4Students/Misiaszek/NuclearMarinePropulsion.pdf to http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2010/EP2/Materials4Students/Misiaszek/NuclearMarinePropulsion.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference 154 link is broken
Here is the correct link:

http://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2012/2012-05.html

Bclamore (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 154 was the redbook itself. that link is to a press release but it also supports the content so is fine. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Correction: "laureate" instead of "laurette"
In the "History > First nuclear reactor" section, Glenn Seaborg is a Nobel "laureate", not "lorette".


 * Fixed, thanks. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)