Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 18

Accuracy of discussion of delayed neutrons
Seeing recent edits to this paragraph, I wonder if it needs to be edited more thoroughly to be technically accurate:


 * In commercial nuclear fission reactors, the system is operated in an otherwise self-extinguishing state. The reactor specific physical phenomena, that nonetheless maintains the constant heat output, are the predictably delayed,[29] and therefore easily controlled, transformations or movements of a vital class of fission product, or reaction ember, as they decay.[30][31] Operating in this delayed critical state, with the dependence on the inherently delayed transformation or movement of fission products/embers to maintain the reactions from self-extinguishing, this physically delayed process occurs slow enough to permit human feedback on the temperature control. In a similar manner to fire dampers varying the opening to control the movement of wood embers towards new fuel, control rods are comparatively varied up or down, as the nuclear fuel burns up over time.[32][33][34][35]

Just about every sentence raises questions of accuracy. What is "otherwise self-extinguishing"? I interpret as saying "self-extinguishing taking into account only prompt neutrons." But delayed neutrons cannot be ignored, so this "self-extinguishing" characteristic is counterfactual (i.e. assumes facts known to be untrue). Calling fission products "embers" may be an evocative metaphor, but it not accurate. The reference to "movement" of fission products seems like a red herring, as they usually do not move appreciable distances. What delayed neutrons do is slow down the exponential ramp-up of a super-critical reaction to a time-scale amenable to external control. It does not necessarily mean that the reaction is "easily controlled," considering other factors that affect the stability of the reaction. One such factor is the thermal coefficient of reactivity (or in worse cases the void coefficient or reactivity). As the reaction rate increases and raises the temperature, does this accelerate (positive coefficient) or slow (negative coefficient) the rate of increase? For a thermal neutron reactor, it is usually the latter, since the fission cross section falls with increasing neutron energy. This may all be too much to put into the introductory section, but the explanation here does not seem accurate. NPguy (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the whole section should be removed. Also, a discussion about delayed neutrons other than a mention and a link is too technical for the lead of this article. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * One of the most common questions of the common-person, is what makes a reactor different from a bomb? The lead of the article should explain this and this paragraph under review does somewhat succeed in that, followed by then moving readers into the background of the discovery of fission. Which would be greater expanded with the discovery of delayed neutrons and therefore the spark of the idea that fission could be controlled in a reactor. unfortunately the background section is very much focused on bomb work. To the detriment of an understanding on reactors being expressed.
 * 78.18.52.84 (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It may be useful to make a distinction of the processes involved, but the discussion is very technical and needs to be summarized skillfully if it is to be included in the lead. The section that was removed was not helping in clarifying this point, on the contrary, it was extremely confusing especially for someone not familiar with the topic. I propose we try to find a better way of explaining this point here in the talk page and then in case we add it in the article. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The paragraph was re-inserted without much modifications by in the History section. While I think the position is more appropriate than the lead, the problems with clarity and accuracy listed above remain. Please engage in discussion to see how this paragraph can be improved. Right now it is almost incomprehensible and almost completely inaccurate. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also ping . --Ita140188 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I made one fix, to eliminate the ember analogy, which seems more likely to confuse than to illuminate. Nothing else jumped out to me as wrong or misleading, but I'm open to further discussion.  It seems like a full discussion of reactor controllability would need to include some reference to control rods (which I also deleted as part of the misleading ember analogy) and as well as other factors such as poisoning and reactivity coefficients to explain the stability of the reaction. NPguy (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In attempting to explain to readers what is the difference in operation of a bomb to a power reactor? One of the most common questions about nuclear reactors. It was necessary to convey the "otherwise self-extinguishing" analogy. In continuing this analogy, the image of embers is accurate, as embers being the almost last product of the combustion reaction, before ash formation, are akin to delayed neutrons. Once embers become small enough they frequently become airborne from buoyancy, self lofting reaction propagating "sparks" and with that, can transmit heat to distant locations, to continue the fire. The analogy is helpful if you know about embers and how they move, which I assumed most readers would.
 * Bonfire Embers.jpg in rural Australia, a proportion of the wood fuel, forms embers/"sparks", that frequently become airborne and as seen, move away from the fire. These embers are frequently the ignition source, of additional fires.]]
 * If you can think of a better analogy, so high-school level students can grasp the difference of reaction-propagation, between a bomb and power reactor, then by all means, take a stab at it.


 * Either way, considering the importance of this question, the article definitely need to describe the discovery of delayed neutrons and the developing understanding, by Fermi and others, of how these specific neutrons could be used to build a controllable reactor.


 * Alongside the discovery of delayed neutrons needing to be discussed, to really do it right, an internal reactor animation, progressed by time-slices, that includes the delayed neutron generation, is really the kind of thing we need. Having checking wikicommons I unfortunately do not see anything suitable. NPguy, do you perhaps know of any animations that could be used?


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't see any value in the ember analogy. It doesn't explain anything about the nuclear reaction and conveys an inaccurate image. NPguy (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree the analogy was misleading and essentially incorrect. I still think the paragraph lacks clarity, with excessively long and seemingly broken sentences. For example, what does "otherwise self-extinguishing" mean exactly? The whole paragraph should be rewritten. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this section in Nuclear reactor physics is clearer and more accurate, we could just use a summarized version of this:
 * "Fission reactions and subsequent neutron escape happen very quickly; this is important for nuclear weapons, where the objective is to make a nuclear core release as much energy as possible before it physically explodes. Most neutrons emitted by fission events are prompt: they are emitted effectively instantaneously.  Once emitted, the average neutron lifetime ($\tau$) in a typical core is on the order of a  millisecond, so if the exponential factor $\alpha$ is as small as 0.01, then in one second the reactor power will vary by a factor of (1 + 0.01)1000, or more than ten thousand.  Nuclear weapons are engineered to maximize the power growth rate, with lifetimes well under a millisecond and exponential factors close to 2; but such rapid variation would render it practically impossible to control the reaction rates in a nuclear reactor."


 * "Fortunately, the effective neutron lifetime is much longer than the average lifetime of a single neutron in the core. About 0.65% of the neutrons produced by 235U fission, and about 0.20% of the neutrons produced by 239Pu fission, are not produced immediately, but rather are emitted from an excited nucleus after a further decay step. In this step, further radioactive decay of some of the fission products (almost always negative beta decay), is followed by immediate neutron emission from the excited daughter product, with an average life time of the beta decay (and thus the neutron emission) of about 15 seconds. These so-called delayed neutrons increase the effective average lifetime of neutrons in the core, to nearly 0.1 seconds, so that a core with $\alpha$ of 0.01 would increase in one second by only a factor of (1 + 0.01)10, or about 1.1: a 10% increase. This is a controllable rate of change."


 * "Most nuclear reactors are hence operated in a prompt subcritical, delayed critical condition: the prompt neutrons alone are not sufficient to sustain a chain reaction, but the delayed neutrons make up the small difference required to keep the reaction going. This has effects on how reactors are controlled: when a small amount of control rod is slid into or out of the reactor core, the power level changes at first very rapidly due to prompt subcritical multiplication and then more gradually, following the exponential growth or decay curve of the delayed critical reaction. Furthermore, increases in reactor power can be performed at any desired rate simply by pulling out a sufficient length of control rod. However, without addition of a neutron poison or active neutron-absorber, decreases in fission rate are limited in speed, because even if the reactor is taken deeply subcritical to stop prompt fission neutron production, delayed neutrons are produced after ordinary beta decay of fission products already in place, and this decay-production of neutrons cannot be changed."


 * --Ita140188 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Give it try (though summarizing is usually harder than it seems). NPguy (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that delayed neutrons don't belong to the History section. I moved them to the Nuclear power plants section and added a short description of the chain reaction. --TuomoS (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Shortening the intro
Someone tagged the intro as too long. They had a point, this whole bit about FDNPP sticks out like a sore thumb. So I'm moving it here. I also don't know who wrote this paragraph that I'm removing, but for some reason they thought it should be in the introduction. ''Four years after the Fukushima-Daiichi accident, there have been no fatalities due to exposure to radiation, and no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public and their descendants. The Japan Times estimated 1,600 deaths were the result of evacuation, due to physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the tsunami, and suicides. ''

User Boundarylayer reinstated the following paragraph to the lead section: "Collaboration on research and development towards greater efficiency, safety and recycling of spent fuel in future Generation IV reactors presently includes Euratom and the co-operation of more than 10 permanent countries globally." I had removed the paragraph because the lead section is too long, and this paragraph is in my opinion the least important part of it. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the "lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". This article has six paragraphs in the lead section. In my opinion the text that Boundarylayer inserted does not belong to the lead section. We should discuss the issue here. --TuomoS (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree: that paragraph should go. One problem is that it doesn't make sense,  What are "permanent countries"?  Some mention of advanced reactor R&D probably belongs in the intro section, perhaps as part of a paragraph on reactor designs over time: LWRs, PHWRs, gas-cooled graphite reactors, breeders.  Maybe the ideas of efficiency and reprocessing/recycling could fit there -- or maybe just a reference to open versus closed fuel cycles. NPguy (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2019
Internatonal => International Libby Kane (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

RBMK concept illustration
The scheme of RBMK reactor is completely wrong. There is no vessel that is fulled with water, as other water-coolant reactors have. In RBMK, water is circulating in separate tubes inside reactor. The reactor operates in a helium–nitrogen atmosphere (70–90% He, 10–30% N2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:819C:AE80:EC82:75F5:8BD3:78C4 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am by no means an expert on the RBMK, so do you have a reference for your claim 2001:7D0:819C:AE80:EC82:75F5:8BD3:78C4? I think what you may be confusing with here, is the reactor chamber/that is, the room of the reactor, may operate in an inert atmosphere but the water itself circulates in tubes thru the reactor, so the graphic isn't exactly patently false, it simply overstates the graphite sitting in a pool of water, when it is more akin to multiple perforations. Though good luck depicting that, without a fine-tooth-comb at the scale of the graphics here on wikipedia.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Some things I've removed
I hate editors who blank sections, without good reason. So I'm putting the two paragraphs that I've blanked as not necessary and essentially diversionary here.

I'd welcome other editors making a case for the re-addition of both?


 * Later in 1954, Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (U.S. AEC, forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Department of Energy) spoke of electricity in the future being "too cheap to meter". Strauss was very likely referring to hydrogen fusion —which was secretly being developed as part of Project Sherwood at the time—but Strauss's statement was interpreted as a promise of very cheap energy from nuclear fission. The U.S. AEC itself had issued far more realistic testimony regarding nuclear fission to the U.S. Congress only months before, projecting that "costs can be brought down... [to]... about the same as the cost of electricity from conventional sources..." 


 * In 1959 The first Soviet Hotel-class submarine/K-19 was launched, in 1961 the SOVIET SUBMARINE K-19 reactor accident resulted in 8 deaths and more than 30 other naval personnel were over-exposed to radiation. The liquid metal cooled SOVIET SUBMARINE K-27 reactor accident in 1968 resulted in 9 fatalities and 83 other injuries. As of 2016 the Russian Navy was estimated to have 61 nuclear submarines in service; eight Soviet and Russian nuclear submarines have been lost at sea. Several serious nuclear and radiation accidents have involved Soviet nuclear submarine mishaps. The last of which was the Andreev Bay nuclear accident 1982.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Since commercial nuclear energy began in the mid-1950s, 2008 was the first year that no new nuclear power plant was connected to the grid, although two were connected in 2009. 


 * In October 2016, Watts Bar 2 became the first new United States reactor to enter commercial operation since 1996. 


 * While in Denmark, before being pressured to step down in 2018, former chair of the Danish Council on Climate Change, was directly requested not to publish criticisms of the Danish governments "unambitious" decarbonizing policy, after it became apparent that the 2020 emission reduction target, would similarly, not be met.

Boundarylayer (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Would this page benefit from a 1RR restriction
What would ya'll think about asking for 1RR protection for this page? I don't know how we do that, but if we agree then there must be a way. Over the years, there have been episodes of a barrage of edits that are very challenging to review with one another in a collaborative way, as more edits come pouring in. Since wikipedia is not an emergency we could agree to throttle back the rate of edits, and in that way have more fun and do a better job. What do you think? (PS I have pinged all the eds who seem to have participated on talk page in recent months, but if I inadvertently missed anyone I apologize and I hope you will alert them instead.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is not getting better by this edit warring. Imposing a WP:1RR plus a requirement to discuss each reversion on the talk page might help. On the other hand, discussion on this talk page has not been very constructive in the last few days... According to WP:GS, a 1RR could be issued through the Arbitration Committee or the Administrators' noticeboard. In general, the number of edits has been so huge in the last few weeks that it is difficult to follow what is being changed and why. To me it seems that the article is gradually moving from neutral towards pro-nuclear. But this is happening bit-by-bit, in hundreds of small edits, so it is difficult to intervene. I have been waiting for the editing flood to cease before I review the article as a whole. But the editing flood is just growing. --TuomoS (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There's not a lot of edit "warring." There is one editor (User:Boundarylayer) who is making extensive edits, some of which I consider to be poorly written and on at least one occasion inaccurate.  This often requires copy-editing to improve clarity and syntax.  The only real "warring" I have experienced is over that issue (which that editor has discussed extensively in the preceding section).  Rather than restricting edits, I would recommend that we all exercise some restraint and agree to discuss areas of disagreement here, on the discussion page. NPguy (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I'd beat that drum myself, but in this instance I think that is wonderfully generous but misplaced optimism
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited the reprocessing section, since the edit war began over its contents. In the interim I spent the time trying to remove the persistent ambiguity in this article, an article that was largely framed and written by, [he was reprimanded for copy-editing out of his countries anti-nuclear pamphlets and writing essentially all of the nuclear articles on wiki from them]. In the effort to present readers with facts instead of the persistent anti-nuclear bent, I've spent the time looking into exactly how and why power reactors quadrupled in price. Previously the article had erroneously suggested the common myth that TMI ended the growth and produced the price increase, however it actually appears to have been due to regulatory and legal challenges long before it, with the sharp drop off in activity commencing years before the accident.


 * However, if an article that propogated innuendo and myths and was written by an avowed anti-nuclear activist, was what is considered a neutral article by TuomoS, then naturally the presenting of the historically notable facts, will according to that revealing perspective, be seen as nefarious activity that must be stopped at once. Though can you tell us, how is the adding of material on the previously absent case of the French rocket attacks, the making of a pro-nuclear article? Or the discussion on the predicted cancer increases from Chernobyl, both of which I actually added? Presumedly talk of these must be pro-nuclear? Somehow? Though wouldn't it actually be the pro-nuclear thing not to discuss either? Yet I did both and more. How anti-nuclear of me?


 * To that end, while collaborating on condensing the paragraphs that could do with it, will help readers and certain areas still needing work to prevent misleading readers. May I get back to actually making the article factual, with the notable events properly weighed?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At this time I do not know of any editing restrictions other than the usual policies and guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What the NRC Commission said
In this edit, I removed text added by. The text reads
 * {|style="background:silver; color: black"


 * The NRC would describe its regulatory oversight after the accident, on the long-delayed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant as "a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision making," and "a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape."
 * }
 * }

The first problem is the super awkward sentence structure. Moreover, it misrepresents the source in two ways. Here is the url for this source and I'll quote, ''This case has been widely depicted as a serious failure of governmental process to resolve central issues in a timely and coordinated way- a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision-making on energy matters and of a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape. (note omitted)''" Thus it is not the NRC itself that characterizes the case in this manner. They merely noted that others have done so.  The commission might even agree, but this quote doesn't say that. In addition, BoundaryLayer's text lies this characterization at the feet of reaction to TMI.  The source doesn't say that either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Attempting to summarize the material relating to the US and its notability [some one quarter of all nuclear electricity], I simply picked up the salient sentence and reference from the dedicated article and subsection - Nuclear power in the United States. It reads After the Three Mile Island accident, NRC-issued reactor construction permits, which had averaged more than 12 per year from 1967 through 1978, came to an abrupt halt; no permits were issued between 1979 and 2012 (in 2012, four planned new reactors received construction permits). Many permitted reactors were never built, or the projects were abandoned. Those that were completed after Three Mile island experienced a much longer time lag from construction permit to starting of operations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself described its regulatory oversight of the long-delayed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant as "a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision making," and "a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape."


 * Clearly whomever wrote that article, needs to give it a re-write? You appear to now be involved with that very article, so perhaps you know this already?


 * A lesson, perhaps, not to present what others have written on dedicated articles.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, always check sources to ensure WP:Verification. In addition, whenver you copy from another article.... its better to just say "no" because copying creates a maintenance headache and - as here - replicated errors.   Instead, organize the comprehensive content in sensible main- and sub-articles with a the absolute minimum overlap and almost zero repetition.  I like to imagine moving across the country by Greyhound bus and bringing my paper all-of-Wikipedia printout along.  Viewed this way, you really curse copy paste editors and bless those who tend the tree-structure of a topic's articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, it is really just a matter of re-wording to that of the NRC acknowledged the view held by the appeals board[presumedly representatives of the utility]. With the NRC recognizing this view by stating that we seek to promote a more coordinated and rational approach to the regulatory process.


 * So I'll re-word that now and add the other facts that speak to the myth, that it wasn't some kind of halting after TMI at all, not really. That writing on the wall existed before it and an entire year ticked by, with the NRC granting no new construction permits, before TMI occurred.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The three NRC commissioners were the "appeals board". Treat it as a WP:SECONDARY source for the statement "The case was widely regarded as blah blah blah, without bothering to try to answer "by whom".  That's what the NRC Commissioners wrote in the decision when the parties appealed.  They are a "quasi-juducial panel", which is below the US court system in the pecking order of court proceedings.  Still, they made a "finding of fact" that the case is widely regarded as blah blah blah.  you might craft som acceptable text that way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Certain recent edits
One editor has made extensive changes that are both badly written (ungrammatical and needlessly convoluted) and inaccurate. Please, rather than reverting my needed editorial fixes, discuss on this page first. NPguy (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article now needs a complete re-check. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * To NPguy, I find your edits to be particularly slanted and especially concerning is your removal of peer reviewed scientific articles that you disagree with, moreover, then when the sentence is re-instated you move to editorialize the sentence to fit your preceived bias. It is a matter of fact that reprocessing is done to  increase the sustainability of the nuclear fuel cycle, reduce the attractiveness of spent fuel to theft and lower the volume of high level nuclear waste. It is not a matter of, as you have erroneously now made the article to suggest, that it is simply in France where it is thought to increase the sustainability of the nuclear fuel cycle...etc. As where, can you tell us, in the reference that sits at the end of the sentence, does it include this, your own personal editorializing? Only in France? Only there is it thought? Is that so? Are these edits, what you genuinely consider [your much] needed editorial fixes? These, the insertion of your own unsubstantiated editorializing, that isn't even supported by the reference?


 * Secondly, I also have come back to the article to see this abomination of a sentence facing us. Most thermal reactors run on a once-through fuel cycle, mainly due to the low price of fresh uranium, though many can also fuel made by recycling the fissionable materials in spent nuclear fuel.


 * I don't have the time to find out who re-wrote the intro to the reprocessing section, to include this travesty of a clunker - though many can also fuel made by - but I think it may be time to start labeling some edits as vandalism.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * it is simply a typo, a missing "use": though many can also use fuel made by recycling. (not my sentence, just to be clear) The fact that you didn't even try to understand the intended sentence makes me think of bad faith from your part. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not simply a once-off but for a section that has been intensely re-written by multiple editors over the past few days, it is deplorable to essentially vandalize that work by the injection of these garbled sentences which telegraph to all, that the new editor did not have the decency to even read over what they just wrote for blatantly obvious errors. It is a case of vandalism when what was previously written was perfectly intelligible.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is evidence of your claims just report to ANI. Here, let's focus on content and refrain from WP:Casting aspersions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please, stop hyperventilating. There was no "vandalism." I have repeatedly had to fix a false and misleading claim that PUREX is controversial because of its military legacy or because similar processes can be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. In fact, reprocessing is controversial precisely because it produces separated plutonium, which can be used in weapons. It has nothing to do with history the potential of related processes or facilities. It is the use of PUREX facilities as intended that produces weapons-usable nuclear material.

I have also had to fix multiple awkward, convoluted and ungrammatical constructions. To act as if one missing word results in vandalism is ridiculous. As others have said, focus on content and not accusations. NPguy (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact? You do not have a reference and therefore you need to supply one.
 * The repeated, that is well pass the point of three reverts edit-warring, involving the insertion of your pet-personal uncited sentence, together with what was the, at first disappearing act of a sentence you found disagreeable and then when the sentence was put back in, the moving to maligning this peer-reviewed referenced sentence, to similarly contain now, your own personally considered and labelled "much needed" editorializing. Yet rather than being much needed, your initial and then latter edits simply inserted demonstrably skewed suggestions, that are not even remotely contained in the peer-reviewed citation given at the end of the sentence. All this, is the very definition of WP:vandalism. Then by honestly suggesting here, that you are not engaged in vandalism, is frankly just more fantasy, NPguy.


 * With the actual grand case of hyperventilating, over what is entirely your own personally held view as described above that, you've inserted without citation multiple times being - reprocessing is controversial precisely because it produces separated plutonium, which can be used in weapons. It has nothing to do with history the potential of related processes or facilities.  It is the use of PUREX facilities as intended that produces weapons-usable nuclear material. You do not have a reference explaining why commercial PUREX facilities are controversial, as due to this and this alone, to support your notion that it has nothing to do with absolutely anything else, as you here, so staunchly have suggested.


 * I wrote the caption at right, to convey to readers the legacy of the process and I think it adequate that they can pick up the reason why its controversial from that. I'm more than willing to have other editors chime in if there is any ambiguity with the caption. However you have presistently and rather doggedly removed this caption text and its reference, over three times now. To instead push your repeatedly uncited and entirely personally held, Point of View, for why these facilities are controversial.


 * I suggest you find a reference for your opinion.


 * Moreover this intentionally ambiguous description of weapons-usable nuclear material, we all wish to know if it does also apply to Americium in your smoke alarm? Which likewise can be used in nuclear weapons? Is this why the separation of americium, that likewise uses PUREX, is so controversial? If it is actually in reality not at all controversial, then why not? The nuclear community has long known that weapons could be made from it. In November 1998, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) declassified the information that neptunium 237 and americium can be used for a nuclear explosive device...but then, why does the process of separating americium for the manufacture of smoke alarms, by comparison, go without controversy? Could it be because of the intended end us?


 * I had written the caption for the picture at right, to convey to readers the far more justifiable controversy around large PUREX facilities is due to the fact that, with a simple mission change, the placing of a new sign on the door, it essentially becomes a, we-do-bombs-now factory. Efforts are made to dissuade countries building these efficient commercial facilities due to the potential of what they can be used for. You however have blanked this text, over three times now, despite it being written by both myself and User:Garzfoth, to instead push your specifically dogged POV. Which is your suggestion that it is the fully peaceful and commercial operation of PUREX facilities without a mission change that makes them controversial because of some completely theoretical,can be potential, of reactor grade plutonium and presumedly even MOX-grade plutonium, to be used to make amusingly low yield, hypothetical nuclear explosive devices HNEDs,[In the literature, they're not referred to as weapons, when the device begins to require science-experiment levels of active cooling].


 * In your view, these commercial and peaceful PUREX facilities, are not making plutonium that would otherwise sit in spent fuel, less-and-less attractive to theft and use in weapons[a well regarded and cited fact that you have censored from the article once already] but that the entire controversy surrounding PUREX facilities is due to the fact that this plutonium, regardless of diminishing attractiveness, that the controversy as you write in the edit summary, is [solely] because separated plutonium can be used in weapons. Period.?


 * Exactly why commercial PUREX facilities, are controversial, needs a reference either way. Period. You have not provided one that speaks to your specific position, or elaborated on why the caption at right is inadequate and requires the repeated blanking and then injection of your "much needed" personal views. Another one of which, as brought up already, is you still have yet to revert your other unsubstaniated claim that it is "only in france" were reprocessing is considered to increase the sustainability of the nuclear fuel cycle and reduce the attractiveness of spent fuel to theft. As similarly, despite your most recent reverting/editing of the reprocessing section, the article still has the very grammatical clunker -many can also fuel made by -. That I raised here already. When before what existed was perfectly legible. Do you understand why your edits are quite clearly a case of WP:vandalism?


 * The repeated, that is, pass the point of three reverts edit-warring, involving the insertion of uncited sentences, together with the, at first disappearing act of a sentence you don't like and then when the sentence was put back in, the move to maligning/editorializing of this peer-reviewed referenced sentence, to insert your again, personally considered "much needed edits", that are actually not in the slightest bit contained in the peer-reviewed citation given at the end of the sentence. All of it. It is all blatantly WP:vandalism. So by honestly suggesting here, that there is no vandalism and you are not engaged in it, is frankly sheer fantasy.


 * So look, we are all aware of just how clearly ideologically opposed to reprocessing you are but blanking sentences, then the insertion of your fantastical-views that aren't even remotely contained in the peer-reviewed citation? I honestly hope you rapidly reconsider and self-revert the very labelled -certain recent edits - that you have made to the reprocessing section of the article.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to respond at great length. It is a fair point that I should find a reference for the claim that the basic concern about PUREX.  It's a fairly basic point that is not hard to document, but it may take ms some time before I get to it.


 * I disagree completely that any of my edits constitute vandalism. That's a gross exaggeration. NPguy (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well then, thank you for at least acknowledging why it has the appearance of being vandalism.
 * Though could you elaborate on why the caption at right is inadequate in your view and requires repeated removal?
 * With respect to the other matter you haven't touched on in your reply, relating to your suggestion that as it appears in the article that it is only in france that reprocessing is considered to increase the sustainability of nuclear energy etc. I think this second reference, could be added, that at least has a title that you would agree is neutral and could support the pre-existing peer-reviewed paper? That likewise spells out that is very much actually not only in france but worldwide, were it is acknowledged to increase sustainability.
 * Benefits and concerns of a closed nuclear fuel cycle, Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 2, 062801 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3506839
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge no such thing. My edits do not look anything like vandalism.  No reasonable person would consider them vandalism. NPguy (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking into what happened with the cost spiral
Trying to find reputable sources to patch up what I see as a major mystery presented to readers in the article at present and trying to put some light into just - why was there a cost escalation in the US and the then, massive wave of cancellations?

Finding sources that were reputable and then also carried by secondary sources, was a little trying, though Peter Lang [Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia] seems to have produced an exhaustive examination. With his paper appearing in the journal Energies[never heard of it prior]. He seems at first very anti-reg which was picked up by a lot of well, less than neutral secondary sources in the US, who have anti-reg as their central ideology. So while a little-suspicious of that, due to the lack of material at such level of analysis from anyone else. Though if not the whole story, it does seem part of it.

The average construction duration of the early nuclear power reactors built globally (i.e., all countries) was: 3.5 years for the first three, 4.0 years for the first ten, 4.4 years for the first twenty, 5 years for the first thirty, and 5.4 years for the first eighty https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

the fall of nuclear power in the United States began with a 1971 decision in the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court case of Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. vs. Atomic Energy Commission.

The case, which is considered the first major judicial interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), required the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to comply with a mandate to prepare environmental impact statements for all proposed new nuclear power plants.

''There’s nothing wrong with requiring environmental impact statements. There’s plenty wrong with requiring environmental impact statements that take years to complete and hang up projects with delays, not substantive findings.''

''At any rate, the AEC reacted to the Calvert Cliffs decision by suspending all licensing for nuclear power plants for 18 months while it devised new rules. Carnegie Mellon Historian Andrew Ramey maintains the Calvert Cliffs ruling was “the opinion which had the most far-reaching and detrimental effect on the development of nuclear power.”'' https://www.boulderweekly.com/opinion/cost-killing-nuclear-power/

Some other notable stats, in support of this[that it wasn't TMI, really at all] Of all nuclear power reactors in the United States: The last construction permit for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1978 for Progress Energy Inc.'s Shearon Harris plant, near Raleigh, North Carolina. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=5250

Though according to this reference in the article added by USer:NPguy Every order for a new power reactor in the United States since 1974 has been cancelled. Is one source wrong, or is there a difference between, being given a permit and ordering? Though shouldn't you get the permit and then order one? Truly, following bureaucratic rules, should be at the butt of more jokes, as they're a nightmare to understand. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_09/Fetter-VonHippel#note28

This reference also has a nice graph of the two waves of connections. Along with planned nuclear capacity additions began to slow as early as the late 1970s because of a number of factors, including slowing electric demand growth, high capital and construction costs, and public opposition. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30972

So with all that, it seems good enough for now. Though One other thing I haven't been able to find, was apparently the AEC had actually gamed the system a little with commercial reactors getting built in the early years, selecting demonstation licences for everything. This, [the impression I got at any rate], enabled reactors to be built without paying certain unspecified fees, that for example a coal power station had to, so it was considered anti-competitive and ended, as far as I can tell. However finding references that tell that dimension of this multi-faceted story is difficult. It's mentioned by Rod Adams on the Atomic Insights website. If others perhaps want to take a run at it? It does seem to, if it was a big fee that is, tell another potential story for the contribution to the nuclear slow-down.

Though as this is the global article and I'm now a little lazy about this matter after all that research, it could probably just be good enough to stick to the global major issues in each country rather than get far too US-centric.[That's a good enough rationalization for my laziness, right?]

Though honestly, a sentence on these mystery fees, that nuclear in its early days went without paying due to the label game, if they were substantial fees, could put some light on the initial perhaps anti-competitive ramp up of nuclear developments in the US. So if anyone knows more about them, please by all means, chip in. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

World Nuclear Association as a source
systematically removed all references by World Nuclear Association. I would like to remind that reliability of a source always depends on the context. WNA is clearly a reliable source for basic facts, like the fact that spent fuel is not being reprocessed in the United States, or that a nuclear power plant consists of a reactor, a cooling system, a turbine, and a generator. I understand questioning the reliability of WNA in, for example, comparing nuclear power with other energy sources. But WNA should be accepted as a source of basic, non-controversial information. If a user finds another reference, he can of course replace the WNA reference with that. But systematically removing all the WNA references did not improve the article. --TuomoS (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as you have time to comment when I am only just starting a review of this frequent edit war venue, please help cultivate some teamwork by devoting some of your time to finding true RS replacements for the CN tags. Otherwise, it is likely we (meaning editors in general, not you specifically) will devolve into petty bickering about which statements are "basic" enough to qualify for this exception, and for those which actually are, of course there are better refs to cite, thus avoiding the whole potential drama.  Your time helping with this peace keeping improvement effort would be greatly appreciated!   In addition to the international lobbying group World Nuclear Association, I have also removed Forbes Contributor commentary, and something from KOS, all of which say at the top that they are the opinions of the authors, with no staff editorial oversight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing these and "owning" the assessment as to what is supportable with this ref. They were added long ago most of them.  When you have finsished (however far you get) please let me know, and if there are CN tags left over that you did not reinstate the prior ref, I'll take a crack at that text and sourcing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the most disruptive ones of your edits. I doesn't mean that I agree with the other edits. But I don't want to go anywhere near to the 3RR. If you think that some reference is not reliable, please find a better reference, instead of replacing it with a CN tag. --TuomoS (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Working on a review of references section). There are close to 400 references.  Whether text is anchored by an anti-nuke lobbying group or a pro-nuclear lobbyign group, it seems reasonable to let a CN fill the gap while reviewing the other almost 400 references.  You think otherwise, which is fine, still 3RR isn't the only problem to avoid. Finished with a first pass, I'll start going through text with CN tags. If they are truly noncontroversial as you say the text should be easy to verify with unquestionably reliable sources.   You're welcome to help if you change your mind  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Oh.  Well in light of this edit sum before sun up USA I'll restore the cn tags for world-nuclear dot org to what they were.  It's clear a reference improvement review process is a bigger undertaking than the current climate will allow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing sources and replacing with citation needed. This is a highly disrupting behavior. Most of the sentences are obviously non controversial and can be referenced from WNA. It is definitely better than a citation needed tag. Unfortunately I suspect this is a reaction to the equally disrupting edits from who has an obvious pro-nuclear bias. Please let's all try to be reasonable and focus on making the article better. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

sheesh Can't you all see I'm actively engaged in RS review and improvement? Drama or help or just wait, your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Putting CN tags is not an improvement. I would appreciate you found better citations for each statement. If not, discuss before removing. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am actively investing sweat right now, while you are complaining. Could you please start a comprehensive review of RS quality, starting with note 300?  I'm only up to 25 so far.  Your help would make the job go much quicker! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I am out of time possibly for a day or two. Wikipedia is not an emergency. Note to self, resume review at note 33. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I edited this article quite a lot in the last year, trying to improve it. However, in the last month I am avoiding it since the edit rate is too high and there is too much controversy and nonconstructive edits. I am waiting for calmer times to restart the work. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I am already starting, and I always start with sourcing first. Since I've chosen to start and you to wait, but its a big job and I do need to use the bathroom and make a living and sleep and not get divorced as well.... could you  please click the safety on and hold your fire? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I just saw a new edit summary in the article, so I'd like to let you know I've re-evaluated the possiblity of doing a comprehensive reference section review and decided its' simply not possible right now. I'll put world-nuclear.org refs back the way they were before doing other work. Family duty calls though, so it will have to wait a few hours. This doesn't mean I agree they are good refs, only that Wikipedia isn't an emergency and I'll put them back for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The remaining CN tags are not related to the industry lobbying group's web page, or if any are, I overlooked them by accident.  Just let me know and I'll take a look. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Verification, RS qualification, and citation formatting of about 330 other references. Would love your help NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just seeing this exchange after being away for one day. I have to say I'm mystified by the notion that WNA is not a reliable source. I find it quite reliable. Of course, opinions and analyses have to be understood as such, much like the opinion page of a newspaper. NPguy (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Inherently biased groups like World Nuclear Association and anti nuke Union of Concerned Scientists are to be evaluated in context under WP:PARTISAN. Reasonable minds can differ, but this very thread talks about the toxic editing behavior and editors intentionally steering clear.  I just figured a project to replace WP:PARTISAN and context evaluation arguments with unquestionably NON partisan sources would be helpful.   Folks couldn't even wait half a day for this to bear fruit.  It's little wonder there are few editors participating in these pages regularly. I wonder if DS generally would help?  Certainly that would apply to me as much as anyone else.  Your thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "DS" means, but I'll try to address what I think you're getting at.
 * The guidance on WP:PARTISAN is that biased sources can be reliable. What I don't understand is what various editors are complaining about here.  I tend to focus on quality and content rather than process and Wikipedia's rules of evidence.  Is there specific information from WNA that you consider unreliable?  If there is, let's' discuss that.  But if not, it's hard to see a justification for trying to expunge WNA citations.
 * The thing that bothered me about recent edits was partly bias -- the reluctance to acknowledge certain obvious and well-understood drawbacks of reprocessing and the closed fuel cycle being at the top of my list -- and partly the poor quality of the English prose -- sentence fragments, convoluted constructions, marginally substantive edits that made the article less clear.
 * The section (and the separate article) on nuclear energy as a renewable resource does seem like a bit of advocacy and mostly beside the point. The main issue in comparing nuclear and renewable energy is greenhouse emissions, and there's no doubt that nuclear energy is on a par with renewables.  Whether nuclear power is sustainable for the decades to centuries needed to make a full transition to a near zero net carbon emissions economy or for millennia is both a less crucial point and a harder one to assess. NPguy (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (A) DS means "discretionary sanctions", where anyone who has been told they are in effect can be warned, or get a temporary editing restriction, at any admin's discretion, without any complicated or drama filled formal complaint. In theory at least its supposed to improve editing. Many folks don't like it.  Personally I think the climate pages where I usually hang out are really better with DS in place.
 * (B) Re WNA as a source, by popular demand I put things back already. Move along folks, the tow truck has already swept up the glass and there is nothing to see here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

China - number of reactors is out of date
The figures are a bit out of date.

Please change " In March 2016, China had 30 reactors in operation, 24 under construction and plans to build more.[156]" to " In January 2019, China had 45 reactors in operation, 13 under construction and plans to build 43 more which would make it the worlds largest generator of nuclear electricity."

Also higher up the section there is a request for a citation re China's expansion. The article below gives the above figures but needs registration.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/01/12/can-china-become-a-scientific-superpower


 * ✅, thank you for the updated information! ComplexRational (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Section titled Renewable energy vs nuclear power
The new section on nuclear power vs. renewables seems both biased and disproportionately long. Regarding bias, per my edit summary, this section reads like advocacy for nuclear power and against renewables. The arguments are stacked, and the main advantage of renewables (cost) is overlooked. Regarding length, here is a separate article on that subject, so a brief summary and cross-reference should be sufficient. NPguy (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section has major issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to put this here, for you to keep in mind and to return to at your convenience. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
 * Now with that in mind. Literally everything you've just grandiosely claimed here NPguy is disturbingly false, even the title you chose to name this section, before your buddy-editor there, helped you out in that department, speaks of your bias. As there is 1 no separate article, as you have fantastically claimed. Just what are you on about here? Honestly? Now for 2 really, Let us know more about this second fantasy of yours, that the main advantage of renewables is cost and is being overlooked? Are they? Are they cheaper as you claim NPguy? Is this what you're selling? According to whom are they "cheaper" when a full accounting is done? What specific reliable sources say that? Or how about you send up a brighter flare, to really illuminate what is going on here, is that we actually rightly intentionally "overlooked" your demonstrably biased, utterly unsourced and down-right fantastical claim.  Which in your POV, makes you unhappy? Of course it actually should, to someone who is operating with this, your clearly demarcated fantasy-peddling. That's to be expected.


 * As the section gives readers a summary on the information regarding the major controversy between the two technologies that are generally considered as having the potential for eliminating fossil fuel usage. Something that, on paper at least, many governments are allegedly trying to do. It is therefore pertinent info relating to how energy systems are compared. It's a bitter dispute for some incapable of accepting the world is round. It includes the truly illuminating subversiveness found in this issue have engaged in, in the lawsuits and other legal maneuverings that has punctuated this truly massive controversy. The section is therefore both pertinent, extremely WP:NOTABLE relating to WP:CONTROVERSY and simply summarizes the issues amongst the reputable scientific community. The sustainability, materials, land etc. facets.


 * Within the section we also fairly clearly also include the cost and the subsidy racket, that you presumably and we gather, you especially wish to have bagged and disappeared? Furthermore, contrary to your claim, the section is actually particularly generous to give ink to the claims of one [not considerably notable] researcher in Duke University about an alleged solar cost cross-over point. When no such event has ever physically materialized. Yet be that as it may, we with great fairness, give this view some time in the article, an article on nuclear power. Why would we do this, if we're so called, biased and advocacy?


 * Moreover, both the article up to that point and the very section itself makes plain what the negative with nuclear energy is. As Brook's writes - the principal limitations on nuclear fission are not technical, economic or fuel-related, but are instead linked to complex issues of societal acceptance, fiscal and political inertia, and inadequate critical evaluation of the real-world constraints facing [the other] low-carbon alternatives


 * So claims of bias, issues being overlooked? Surely you are joking?


 * As the very foundation of your tagging is disturbingly what is in reality, that which is based on a demonstrably worryingly-fraudulent and unsubstantiated POV bias, in of itself. I'm therefore removing your tag that simply speaks of your own unfounded bias and fantastical-belief-spreading that is as we all know, identical to industry promotional hearsay. As It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. All that has been given is two fraudulent claims, alongside the awareness that some editors here are engaged in fantasy building, with now the recognition of the two buddies united in this, renewable's are cheaper treehouse-pov club. To generate WP:sham consensus.


 * As to repeat, NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The WP:NPA violations in the preceeding comment make meaningful discussion impossible.  I think you said you just want to write good articles and don't know about process.  Bless you my son!  If you have never seen WP:Don't take the bait its relevance here should be crystal clear. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * TLDR, but when I'm looking for unbiased information on relative costs or energy sources, the first place I turn is EIA, and look what I found: Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2017. NPguy (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The document that you linked gives the cost of "advanced nuclear". Did you find what they mean by the word "advanced"? --TuomoS (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, levelized cost does not account for dispatching cost (or integration costs), which is the main problem with renewables. The more you increase penetration of non-dispatchable sources in the grid, the more these costs increase. When you get close to 100% penetration these costs may be an order of magnitude greater than LCOE of generation. There is of course a big variability depending on the circumstances, especially the amount of seasonal variability of renewable resources. The literature on this is vast, an example is --Ita140188 (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what they mean by "advanced" nuclear and I didn't dig any deeper, but my assumption was that they were looking at market-ready designs, i.e. the latest large Gen III+ LWRs, for which cost estimates are more reliable, not the Gen IV bestiary and not SMRs. NPguy (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Why were the two paragraphs we had in the article specifically detailing this very full costing info, including the subsidy-racket, TuomoS and NPguy, just recently censored out of the article, bagged and disappeared?

I think the section needs to be put back pretty soon. As it seems to have been lost on other editors but the entire section is only really notable due to the environmentalist dispute, the Hansen vs. Jacobson and Caldeira vs. Jacobson disputes in the literature boiling over into the mass media. On writing the section I thought it obvious, if you had followed those disputes[though clearly not many here have], that the section just summarizes the indisputable metrics of energy comparison put forth by Hansen and Caldeira and others of their persuasion, though without citing their work directly per WP:SECONDARY. However on returning, it seems other editors seem to think the entire section is just a place for them to place their own 'vision' and then make me laugh by hurling accusations that it's my POV that is the problem? The section has since devolved into a censoring-swamp alongside a truly random collection of references to country specific integrations. Though, where did you get the idea, this was what the section was about? Some kind of repository of matters unrelated to the dispute?

The section is about the points put forth by Hansen and Caldeira and also, to mirror the renewable energy article, the section might as well be the place to give our readers info on what is the equivalent 100% nuclear energy world while we're at it. It isn't just some random WP:UNDUE weight, collection of current-events that editors happen to find that links nuclear and renewable energy, working in 'epic harmonious symphony'. It's about the big scientific dispute. Isn't that made clear in the very first paragraph of the section?

Does it need to be made clearer?

I mean on the renewable energy article, there is no mention of accomodation with nuclear, so why are some editors here pushing that we should?

Here are the prominent climatologists and the points that they make to the media, if you don't want to go reading everything they have penned themselves. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwGPOTYTDdk

Climate advocate, James Hansen more recently, having stated ''The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.” He follows that up by referring to the notion of an economy powered entirely by renewable energy a “fantasy.”'' Our job, is to summarize their notable work and the metrics they point to, why they call it a fantasy etc by just presenting the facts that they notably bring up. Boundarylayer (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * All I did was flag the section for bias. But if anything I think it should be cut back further.  All that is needed is a brief summary of the article it links to. NPguy (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What article 'does it link to' exactly? You keep saying this and though I asked last week what you're referring to with this I got no response. All I do know is the article Hydropower/Hydroelectricity, which I linked to, has a comparisons section, yet it hasn't even been the subject of an intense academic controversy. It is therefore notable for us to have both a comparison section in this nuclear-power article and while we're at it, also summarize the issues and metrics of comparison used by those in the intense academic/legal dispute.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought it was obvious I was referring to this article: Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy. NPguy (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you two are talking about different things. The issue of considering nuclear power a renewable energy (that is, using resources that are limitless) is different from the issue of comparing nuclear power to solar and wind power as a source of today's electricity. There is no article for that, maybe there should be? I am not sure. But this is largely the issue discussed in that section in this article. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of overlap, see for example Renewable energy, Sustainable energy, Low-carbon power, Fossil fuel phaseout, Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy .... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the closest article to this issue is Low-carbon power. I mean the point of comparing nuclear and renewables is that they are both low carbon sources. Maybe we could move most of the section "Renewable energy and nuclear power" to that article and leaving a summary here? --Ita140188 (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An organizational overhaul of some sort is much needed. I support your approach... I would probably support other options too if any are suggested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the section is even remotely similar to the material found in that separate article NPguy -proposed as renewable-. So what rationale was behind you considering that to be 'main article'? That specific article just focuses on the question of sustainable fuel supply. It also doesn't give any insight into your alarming suggestion, that raises concerns of advocacy, with your writing : and the main advantage of renewables (cost) is overlooked.. As according to whom, are renewables at a cost advantage? ...The fossil fuel industry and renewable advocates?

In writing the section, in writing energy related articles we simply take the established guide of articles on power sources, like the renewable energy article and the Hydroelectricity section and add on the metrics and information about the intense debate amongst climatologists, conservationists and those in the energy field, relating to nuclear energy and 'new renewables' in the literature. We have reliable secondary sources calling this very thing Nuclear vs renewable, so that's why our specific section was given that specific title. It's what they call it. WP:USEBYOTHERS. Lastly, the debate and comparisons go much further than simply saying 'these are two low-carbon methods of generating electricity'. There were serious lawsuits, over the publishing of a scientific critique, on matters spanning a range of metrics of comparison, not just carbon but materials usage and so on, therefore our job is to give readers that info, on the WP:controversy. A controversy which, while not suitable for the article but perhaps you're unaware, has even included Naomi Oreskes making broad-side shots to anyone who isn't on board with the 100% renewable energy world, as the very same as a kind of climate denier. That's right, James Hansen being called the equivalent of a climate change denier.

Also to mirror the renewable energy article and how it gives a big chunk of text to that very 100% renewable energy world, we need to mirror that and give the respective, Barry Brook's, 100% nuclear energy world analysis its due weight, in this article. Boundarylayer (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that this section and that article address different issues. I was wrong about that.  That said, the idea that this article must address "100% nuclear energy" is wrong.  There is no serious proposal for that.  It would be original research.
 * This does not change my view that this section is biased and largely out of place as a section in this article, giving undue weight to criticism of renewable energy. NPguy (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

One reactor per steam turbine?
Hello. I'm working on infobox test cases, and want to double check if a single nuclear reactor always powers a single steam turbine in commercial nuclear power stations. Is this always the case? Are there any examples for power stations that powers more than one generation unit (i.e. steam turbine) using a single reactor? I searched around, but could not find any, and wanted to reconfirm here anyway. Thank you for your help! Reh man  04:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * VVER-440 reactors have two turbines, and two generators, per reactor (https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/vver-type-reactors-of-russian-design/11169900). China is constructing two HTR-PM reactors that share a single turbine. --TuomoS (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TuomoS. Reh  man  04:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again TuomoS, would you, or anyone reading this, know of any examples of a single nuclear power plant with more than one type of reactor? Reh man  01:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rehman, there are many, for example: Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant, Rivne Nuclear Power Plant, Kori Nuclear Power Plant. --TuomoS (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Reh  man  10:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The status of nuclear power globally (click image for legend) - update graph
The UK needs to be changed to darkblue, to reflect the Hinkley C reactor being built in Somerset 51.7.20.152 (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Caption for Chernobyl-LWR-comparison.PNG: RBMKs most common reactor designs?
I have some issues with the caption for the image "Chernobyl-LWR-comparison.PNG", under Nuclear power: "A simplified diagram of the major differences between the most common nuclear reactor design, the Light water reactor and the RBMK (Chernobyl) design"
 * typo/grammar: design -> designs.
 * I don't think those are the most common reactor designs. Even though the RBMK is still in use in eastern europe, it seems quite rare nowadays. Is there a modern source for that claim which is still valid today? One could say "two common nuclear reactor designs", but I am not very fond of this either. What I like is the original description at the image page Nuclear power.

The first should be straightforward to fix. For the second point, maybe someone more experienced at Wikipedia knows what the best approach is. Then, it would be nice if someone could edit that, as I can't due to the page lockdown.--Elimik31 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I clarified the caption. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel it needs more information.
Try going to Thanks! Aviationtune (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Misleading image?
I'm not quite sure I get the point of this image; I need to state at the outset I am most certainly a novice at best when it comes to matters of nuclear things but (or maybe because of that) this seems to be comparing apples with oranges and, I dunno, underpants.

AFAICT it seems to be comparing the size of the core of the RBMK with the entire enclosure of the AGCR (including its steam boilers and what-not; which would seem to be of broadly similar purpose to the RBMK's steam separators, not included, at least inasmuch as any sort of comparison can be made) and with various other reactors in various places in between.

Would it not be better to compare like-with-like rather than what appears to be a feature that fundamentally varies by design? Such as the actual core size, or perhaps the size of the facility needed to actually accomplish something useful. But as I started with, I'm not certain what's the point anyway: does size matter? --Vometia (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, the image should be removed. According to the caption, it tries to explain why PWRs are used in submarines. But submarine reactors are much smaller than the large commercial reactors in the figure. The figure is misleading. --TuomoS (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Cost of generation
User Prototyperspective created a graph of the cost of electricity generation by various technologies. The graph is supposed to present the average of three analyses, but actually Lazard is the only one that provides an estimate of the cost of nuclear power, which is obviously the most important number for this article. However, the Lazard analysis does not provide any details about how the costs were estimated. Today, the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency published a joint report Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020. This seems to be a much more transparent report than the Lazard analysis, as it provides details of the analysis methods. I propose that we use the IEA cost estimates in this article. Or what do other editors think? --TuomoS (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IEA seems like a reliable, authoritative source. NPguy (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree that IEA is a better and more transparent source than Lazard, so we should use IEA. Also meaningless to add sources that do not consider nuclear power, since it's the topic of the article. We have other articles for cost of other technologies. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a paragraph based on the IEA report and removed the old cost graph.--TuomoS (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

please add indian response in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster section
it is given in the section of Fukushima nuclear disaster various countries like china Israel etc reviewed their plans after the accident, India responded to add additional safety measures if required and be more vigilant while continue operating the reactors following  link can be used as citation and for knowing  more depth of the subject  https://www.dw.com/en/indian-reactions-to-japan/a-6473768  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey0927 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to split History section to new page
As of now, the article is very long. The history section is the longest section, at 65kb. This would be long even if it was an article by itself. I propose to split it to History of nuclear power, which now is a redirect to the section. In this way we can shorten this article while avoiding deleting useful information. This is similar to what has been done to coutnless other topics, such as with History of wind power. --Ita140188 (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. A few paragraphs summary of the history should be written for this article, and details should be split to a new article. --TuomoS (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-addition of excessive details
has reintroduced a lot of material that was moved to other more detailed articles. In particular:


 * In 1972 Alvin Weinberg, co-inventor of the light water reactor design (the most common nuclear reactors today) was fired from his job at Oak Ridge National Laboratory by the Nixon administration, "at least in part" over his raising of concerns about the safety and commercializing wisdom of ever larger scaling-up of his design, especially above a power rating of ~500 MWe, requesting instead for a greater share of AEC research funding to evolve his team's demonstrated, Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment.

and


 * Similar to the founding, 1951 BORAX reactor safety experiments, for light water reactors, conducted by Argonne National Laboratory, in 1976 Idaho National Laboratory began a test program focused on LWR reactors under various accident scenarios, with the aim of understanding the event progression and mitigating steps necessary to respond to a failure of one or more of the disparate systems, with much of the redundant back-up safety equipment and nuclear regulations drawing from these series of destructive testing investigations.

These paragraphs report details that, although encyclopedic, cannot be included in an article as broad as this. There is now a main article about the history, History of nuclear power, where all this information is already present. Moreover, the writing in these paragraphs is poor, with long and convoluted sentences that make them very difficult to read. I propose to remove (or significantly summarize) these paragraphs and other similar recent additions by. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sovacool study on Historic effect on carbon emissions
I propose deleting the whole section Historic effect on carbon emissions. It is based on a study by Benjamin Sovacool. He concluded that adoption of renewables tends to be associated with significantly lower carbon emissions while larger-scale national nuclear attachments are not. His results have now been disputed in two publications: Fell et al. and Wagner. Fell et al. analyzed the same data as Sovacool and found that "nuclear power and renewable energy are both associated with lower per capita CO2 emissions with effects of similar magnitude". Wagner's results "are in complete contradiction" to the Sovacool study. Clearly there is no academic consensus about the question. Explaining both sides of the debate belongs to other articles, such as Nuclear power debate. --TuomoS (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree. We cannot have an entire section based on one controversial paper. Also Sovacool is openly anti-nuclear, so personally I am not sure about the objectivity of this study. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems that nobody opposes, so I will remove the section. --TuomoS (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we replace superceded graphic by its suggested replacement
( Annual electricity net generation in the world.svg ) only has data to 2011 and says it is superceded by ( Annual world electricity net generation.svg ) which has data to 2018 and also lists the data it was created with (and invites updates). - Rod57 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Rod57 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Death rates from energy production per TWh.png

Science
What is the atomic energy 175.157.113.67 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove niche applications from Lead
Most readers do not need to know that Voyager 2 used radioisotopes to explore outer space when learning about nuclear power. The article is about large scale nuclear power generation. I propose removing the sentence "Nuclear decay processes are used in niche applications such as radioisotope thermoelectric generators in some space probes such as Voyager 2." from the lead. ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Add fusion example of ITER in the lead
It would be good to link to ITER in the lead's section on fusion research. ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Some comments: 1) I agree with a link to ITER in the lead. 2) The comments you put on my talk page concerning this article are better placed here, so that other editors can be aware of the discussions and have the opportunity to weigh in. Your statement there: "The sentence is confusing because it lists three processes for nuclear power but there are only two ways nuclear energy is released through fusion or fission." is in fact wrong.  Nuclear decay releases energy; the kinetic energy of ejected particles, (as well as high energy photons) which then transfer that kinetic energy through collisions with surrounding matter into heat.  As I said in my edit summary, please stick to what sources say, not what you think you know. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY it would be better to familiarize yourself with the article before attempting to change the lead.  Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Biased edits by ScientistBuilder
ScientistBuilder made several biased edits to the article that made its quality worse, which is why I reverted it back to what the article was before. The editor added several references to nuclear power advocacy groups, changed the wording to be more favourable to nuclear power, and even added a claim to the lede backed up by a Forbes contributor article (not allowed by WP:RSP) and another source which looks like a blog. All of the edits are in the diffs if you want to see what I'm talking about. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. The article was heavily slanted against nuclear prior to these balancing edits. They provided info on environmental benefits of nuclear where previously it was all negative. I've reviewed ScientistBuilder's edits and they improve the quality of the article immensely. I will look at the references and see if they can be improved. DrADScott (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that X-Editor has reverted edits by DrADScott. This is an over-reaction and leaves much of the material in the article outdated and inaccurate.  I do think there is some merit to the complaint that edits by the latter were biased, but it's also fair to say that the article now has some bias in the opposite direction.  I was tempted to undo the latest reversion, but that doesn't seem constructive.  Instead, I encourage both editors to go through the article step-by-step to find a suitably neutral compromise. NPguy (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are some edits that are fine, like the updated description of Fukushima, which should be readded, but make sure the reference is properly formatted and not just a title. There was also one edit adding the environmental benefits of little emissions from nuclear, but this is already mentioned under the environmental impacts section. Some of the edits are good, but some are also bad. X-Editor (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your version has biased value judgements throughout. 'Early Accidents', 'Expansion and Early Opposition', "Chernobyl and Rennaissance", hiding environmental benefits at the end. You are trying to put a negative connotation on each title right at the start where we should be careful to be neutral. I'd rather keep the politics out of the intro altogether.  Putting accidents and political opposition front and center while hiding the environmental benefits in the bottom of the article is deceptive. If we put the environmental success in a subsection, then let's at least move it so that it is next to the opposition for balance. I've moved environmental benefits up in the article to a more prominent location. I've also moved the section on installed capacity upwards, as this is an important fact that people may be looking for.  Following your logic I have moved 'Early Accidents' to the 'Accidents' subsection and not have repeated. DrADScott (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be a newish editor, based on your number of edits, so you may not be that familiar with some of Wikipedia's policies. We have a WP:NPOV policy which isn't what most people think it is, but that doesn't have much relevance here.  What is relevant is that there is nothing in that policy that specifies ordering of info in an article, and generally articles should be written in logical, reasonable order, (history sections are almost always first) with criticisms and benefits throughout each section as stated in RS's.
 * Additionally, per MOS:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarize the article; but with as complex an article as this one, which is an overview of a very vast area of knowledge, that is much harder than other articles...I say that because I think a summary of the politics of nuclear power is a very important part of the lead.
 * Lastly, to both you and X-Editor: saying that an article or someone else's edits are biased is not that helpful, it is better to specify how you think something should be phrased based on what the sources say. You have both made good contributions in my opinion, so please remember one of Wikipedia's tenets: "Assume good faith" WP:AGF.  Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I tried that approach at first, adding environmental benefits alongside the negative political stuff to provide a balanced view, but this was removed by X-Editor. Can we agree that the tone of the page is biased negative the way it is currently laid out with negatives up front and positives hidden away at the bottom? I have attempted two solutions to balance the tone. Both have been removed.  My first attempt I separated 'Early Opposition' from 'Expansion', and renamed that section to 'Expansion and Successes'.  Perhaps a better title would be 'Expansion and Benefits' and bring back a brief introduction of the benefits alongside the negatives as you suggest? DrADScott (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the article or its structure as biased.
 * I don't have a problem with changing the subheadings in the "History" section, but more importantly, I think that the History section should be significantly condensed. This article has prose of 67k characters, and the article length guidelines (WP:SIZERULE) suggest that an article "Probably should be divided" if it is >60k characters. There is an entire article on the History of nuclear power, and we can move some info from this article to that one, ideally leaving this article with around four paragraphs of a concise history - essentially what should be the lead section in the History of nuclear power article. (unfortunately, that article's lead is currently terrible, otherwise we could simply transclude it into this article)
 * With soooo many articles covering this topic in great depth (which is great!), this article should be a small intro and basically a table of contents into all of those; and many sections here do properly serve that purpose. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article looks a lot better now. Thanks Avatar317 and others for fixing it up. X-Editor (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Environnemental impact: Uranium mining
Why isn't uranium mining environnemental impact isn't a part of the environnemental impact of energy production using uranium? The same goes for other radioactive material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The article lists only the most important environmental impacts, as more details are on Environmental impact of nuclear power with a specific section on mining, and as well in Nuclear power debate. One reason for the relatively limited impact is that the energy content of uranium is around a million times higher than in the same mass of coal, and thus only relatively small amounts need to be mined. -- Geek3 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

misleading graphs and low quality tabloid references
Having done a lot of work on this article bringing it up in quality, somewhat dismayed to see an editor, has entered combative prose against a peer-reviewed scientist and injected a bunch of tabloid reference stuffing, for what we can only conclude is for the readers and editors "pleasure", of wading through.

I'll start off one by one. The first thing, this graph and title chosen by the world in data is misleading in the extreme. You simply can't compare rarely produced nuclear reactors to items in which have come off assembly lines. This is not evidence, as is suggested by the "world in data" of some kind of instructive comparison, of their acclaimed "learning by doing did not happen"...when no such effort was really made in nuclears case. Similarly the lines for offshore-wind are likely too, not as steep as onshore, simply because less of that particular thing was made, not inherent to the actual form of energy.

It is data no doubt but unfortunately world in data has put its own unqualified interpretation upon it, that does not fit with the raw data. This graph would be more demystifed by simply looking at how much got added in a given time, of which a rarw confluence of factories and infrastructure tool over to support. Something that is moreso up to public and state support for such things, rather than some kind of lack of learning occurring. What people want got cheaper, got made in factories. Other things, not made in dedicated single purpose factories did not. Is this a "learning" error or an interpretation one, on behalf of World in Data? Apples vs Oranges.

I've since added some explanation on what we're actually seeing here. Things in already established factory manufacturing got cheaper...wow, wow really? [facetious]. These things occurred, For a while...right now material costs make this 2019 cutoff point very circumspect. Then someone calls it a "learning rate" as having been what was at play across the entire decade? For every energy source?...I'm not an economist but I think we can all appreciate, there are other things, factors, that go into the cost of things from factories. That have nothing to do with this acclaimed singlw factor "learning curve" but supply chains being stocked and in order. Raw materials etc. You could get better at doing something and the price could still shoot up, on the cost of the final product, due to factors outside your control. Say like the Russian mafia slowly down the Finnish EPR build, bankruptcies and lawsuits slowing down construction etc.

So I give World in data an F on this graph and their wholly unnuanced amateur-hour interpretation of the data.

I'm going with the more constrained explanation below. For now...but really if a better graph comes along, this should be quickly replaced. As costs are multi-factorial. Not shoe-horned into 1 sized fits all, pet fantasy "learning curves".



Boundarylayer (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Having looked into this dubious graph, turns out the organization recognises the data shenanigans at world in data. Where they played fast and loose with averages not the actually scientific metric of the median and similarly stay quiet about who's doing all this price reducing, slaves in concentration camps that don't get paid. Finally it doesn't even list chinese nuclear pricing. So its a cherry pick polooza. Why even make such a warped graph?


 * https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead too long tag?
You tagged the article saying: "lead goes into too much detail on functioning of nuclear plants"....but there only three sentences that talk about the functioning, and then it talks about nuclear waste. The article is titled "nuclear power", and most discussion of nuclear power doesn't concern RTGs, but power plants, so it would make sense to me that we have some explanation of how they work. The sentence: "Fuel is removed when the percentage of neutron absorbing atoms becomes so large that a chain reaction can no longer be sustained, typically 3 years." is there to explain to readers why fuel is removed when 95% can still be bred into more fuel, as is explained in the reprocessing sentence(s).

What would your suggested wording be? --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest this should not be in the lead. This would fit in the lead of Light-water reactor, maybe. This article is about the concept of nuclear power much more broadly, not in the technicality of how the nuclear reactors produce this energy (at least not in the lead). Also this sentence without context is misleading, since it applies only to certain kinds of reactors. For example, not all reactors are light water, not all light water reactors use enriched uranium or have the same refueling periods. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...should not be in the lead...so you think we should start right in describing nuclear waste (which is a large part of this article) without any description of how this waste is generated and why it exists? Of course there are technical exceptions to what I wrote about NPP's, but in normally teaching any subject, you start with generalizations and simplifications and then progress on to the greater detail and exceptions.  Of course a short text explanation will not encompass all types of reactors.
 * If you can craft a different overview of NPP's that is more technically accurate and about the same length, I would welcome that. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * How about - the majority of operating reactors produce "nuclear waste", however with its greatest proportion seen as still containing 95% of its starting material, it is termed "spent fuel" by countries which recycle. Allowing the re-starting of the neutron economy. You don't have to go way in depth. Just summarize. Even that last sentence is probably too much for the lede.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing earlier edits by a now blocked user (BL)?
I'm just repeating something that I had written here earlier to make anyone watching this page aware: "I noticed that the user User:Boundarylayer who is now blocked had done quite a bit of work on the nuclear power article in the past. I don't have enough knowledge or bandwidth regarding the nuclear power article but I would recommend that anyone who has an interest in that article takes a closer look at those earlier edits just to check if there were any WP:NPV issues there." NewsAndEventsGuy subsequently pointed out that the user in question had said that "PV solar is uneconomical compared to nuclear power [3] and then says choosing allegedly "uneconomical" and "intermittent" alternatives (like solar) over nuclear makes one an "accessory to murder"". - So therefore, it would be worth re-checking over the last few months' edits of this user BL here on nuclear power. Some/many of the edits might well be perfectly fine, I am not able to assess that - just saying to please check someone who knows more about this topic than I do. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Emsmile for notifying. I have just looked through a number of his edits here, and there are indeed quite a few. Apparently, User:Boundarylayer has earned ″The Half Million Award″ for bringing this article to the "Good Article" status, and I can confirm that at least the majority of his edits have decent quality and add valuable information to the article. The samples I checked are well complying with WP:NPV. Other than the "China slave labour" part, the edited texts seem to fit specifically to this article. --Geek3 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was the editor that actually brought this article to GA, not sure why BL also got the award. I had to actually remove or rewrite a lot of the material BL had added. I made sure to remove all POV material. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Much thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Why edits to the lede
I've corrected the lede for accuracy and then undone the reversion twice. Each time my finger has slipped onto the return key while I was writing the explanation, so the reversions look unexplained or incompletely explained. Sorry for that. But among the points that needed correcting: Nuclear (actinide) material usually is not by itself "fuel" but needs to be fabricated into fuel. It is "fissionable," since neutrons of high enough energy will cause it to fission and release energy. It is that energy that reprocessing is meant to make available by recovering that nuclear material/actinides. And reprocessing is not primarily about removing neutron-absorbing materials but about recovering fissionable material by removing highly radioactive fission products. This may incidentally remove some neutron poisons, but that is not its primary purpose. Also, France and Russia are not the only countries that reprocess; Japan, India, and China do as well. NPguy (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I hope that my most recent edits addressed the issues you are talking about here. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Still problematic. Reprocessing is not about removing neutron poisons.  It's about recovering fissionable material.  Also, volume reduction of waste is controversial as a claimed benefit.  As currently practiced, reprocessing has modest waste reduction benefits. NPguy (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason that nuclear fuel is pulled from a reactor is because it can no longer practically sustain a chain reaction. Yes, reprocessing accomplishes multiple things, like removing wastes at the same time that more U-235 is added.  It didn't say that reprocessing is done ONLY to remove the poisons, that part simply connects it to the previous statements.  And it re-cycles about 90% of the volume, so how does that not reduce the waste volume? --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

So we can discuss: What is your proposed sentence to properly summarize and describe the reprocessing activity? --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal. I don't get on with NPguy, we've differing views on what this article should be but we're the most competent, including Ita8088.
 * I propose we lock the article to only those with a certain number of edits. As having to come back every year and deal with tabloid references, special interest groups, from unsurprisingly germany. It all gets a bit repetitive.


 * While NPguy is obviously a special interest group in terms of presenting cautionary tales of nuclear proliferation, over-emphasizing the issue of reactor grade plutonium, which no one into proliferation really bothers with anymore, its all centrifuges, Pakistan, N.Korea and Iran ---> The Centrifuge gang. With the reactor route more trouble than its worth. Leading the hand-wringing over reactor diversions really outmodded in thought and concern. Centrifuge proliferation is the only proliferation that has occurred in over 30 years.


 * Anyway we can edit together, Ita8088 too. There are few else have contributed heavily or stayed around to note their competence and subject matter familiarity.


 * Can we lock this article and get the WP:CONTENTIOUS suggestions out of the lede? With civilian reactor plutonium allegedly prefered bomb fuel? Eh no, it isn't, the US have spent billions trying to study and stabilize their near ivory grade stuff. It's horrendous to deal with voids of helium forming, then especially when getting into fuel and not least Reactor grade plutonium and MOX grade. Which no one does, no one ever has used and the suggestion a primary could be made out of it alone, highly contentious, especially the latter MOX grade. For fizzles are not bombs or nuclear weapons in the minds of most readers.


 * Therefore the lede is utter junk at the moment. Say plutonium has historically had proliferation concerns, which is true, we can write that and leave it there, anything more than that is WP:POV and contentious.


 * Moreover another thing about the lede, not "all reactors produce plutonium" fast burner reactors don't. Of which the BN-800 is reportedly. The US was supposed to do this too but pulled out. There are other reactor designs that burn that is reduce overall plutonium content, they while not operational are they too "all reactors" that the lede suggests, make plutonium?


 * Honestly who has been letting this article slide in quality? It reads like amateur hour from an anti-nuclear pamphlet now, written by people oblivious to being bothered to check what they are even writing. I wouldn't mind a pamphlet that knew what it was talking about, this one though...its slipping into laughable terrority.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To do this without forming a prohibited sort of WP:CABAL you would need to establish grounds for some level of page protection, however claims of expertise to establish WP:OWNERSHIP isn't usually considered a good reason.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I think Wikipedia explicitly does not lock articles other than to prevent vandalism, and has a goal of having editing as open as possible, and I've never seen any articles where only certain editors are allowed.
 * 2) I added the "All reactors breed some Plutonium-239, which is found in the spent fuel,..." statement because I was attempting to summarize this very complex and large area of knowledge for a layperson to come to and be introduced to. (I felt the lead was a poor summary of this subject.) This article is about "nuclear power"...meaning electricity generation, and we currently have (other than research reactors) ONE fast reactor on the planet.  When you teach a subject, you invariably summarize so much that you are not 100% correct in all cases, because you first give generalities, before going into the many exceptions and complexities.
 * How would you word a better explanation of the proliferation concerns? -after all that's why Carter disallowed reprocessing in the US. - if centrifuging is the proliferation risk now, and spent fuel diversion is no longer considered a risk, then let's source that for a "proliferation" section and then change the lead.
 * 3) If the OurWorldinData graph is so poor, why don't we just remove it? WP:RSP doesn't list that site, and an archive search at WP:RSN doesn't show any discussion about OurWorldinData.  It seems to me that your sources point to that not being particularly reliable. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been on for a bit over a week, but I just want to respond to the discussion of reprocessing and plutonium above. It is simply not true that plutonium and reprocessing are merely historical proliferation concerns. I can't believe I have to say that. NPguy (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you know about nuclear Energy
I want to know about nuclear Energy Regarding to the current situation of "loadshedding" 41.113.181.188 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)