User talk:AzureAnt

April 2011
Please see my comments on the Talk:List of civilian nuclear accidents article page. You seem to be somewhat confused over what fissile means. There are 4 billion tons of Uranium in the earth's oceans naturally; this does not mean that the oceans are fissile. Fissile requires concentrations and enrichment such that a chain reaction can start and continue.

Regardless of whether the Tricastin spill was fissile or not - and someone needs to go dig up the specifics - edit warring is also what you're doing to it by not discussing it on the talk page. Please stop fighting on the article, and discuss on talk.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have explained why your reasoning and understanding of this issue is confused in the talk page for the article. AzureAnt (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Bryony Worthington and Patrick Moore edits
Hey, just wanted to leave a note; you made an edit to the Bryony Worthington, Baroness Worthington article that was the opposite of what the ref said, so I did a RV on it. Do you have an alternate ref to support your edit summary that "Kirk Sorensen is not a nuclear engineer"? I also note an edit to the Patrick Moore article in which you removed a bunch of referenced text. WP:BLP states "We must get the article right." I am a bit concerned that you changed the article to say that he "opposes renewable energy" rather than what he said in the Washington Post article ("Wind and solar power have their place" where he talked about baseload power). I will probably try to incorporate the ref you added, but restore at least part of the deleted referenced text. -- Limulus (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Please see Talk:Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29 -- Limulus (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear power debate
Your reference / link that you added to Nuclear power debate returned an error [an error occurred while processing this directive] The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request. Would you please fix it? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 04:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources
As I noticed you on the talk page, please check this out and let me know what you think.

2012 Yale University systematic review and Harmonization

A Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2 life cycle assessment emissions from nuclear power determined that. ""The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."" It went on to note that for the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor: ""Harmonization decreased the median estimate for all LWR technology categories so that the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh"" The study noted that differences between emissions scenarios were: ""The electric system was dominated by nuclear (or renewables) and a system dominated by coal can result in a fairly large ranging (from 4 to 22 g CO2-eq/kWh) compared to (30 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh), respectively."" The study predicted that depending on a number of variables, including how carbon intensive the electricity supply was in the future, and the quality of Uranium ore: ""median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050.""

Mycle Schneider
Hi There,

I noticed you reverted my recent edit to the Mycle Schneider article, I've created a section in the talk page to discuss this change and would appreciate your input.

Thanks in advance.

JeffUK (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)