Talk:European Pressurized Reactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] revert of Critisism (sic)

The following phrases were removed for the following reasons:

For some environmental groups like the Regional Collective of Normandy and West of France "EPR, no thanks, neither somewhere else, nor here! " and the french Network Sortir du nucléaire, EPR is a wrong decision from those aspects :

• Energy : France doesn’t need a big centralized electrical production capacity for the next decades. Nuclear energy represents only 15% of French final energy consumption and 3% of the world’s. It is not a solution to reverse climate change either.
• Economy : this extremely expensive project (billions of euros) will delay the necessary redeployment of the French industry without addressing its difficulties.
• Social aspects : the increasing demand for renewable energy will help create many more jobs (up to 5 times more) and will be more adapted to the future than nuclear energy. For the same investment, a wind power program would lead to twice the amount of electricity production, for instance.
• Environment : EPR is not providing any response to the safety, security and waste management problems which will burden future generations.

Those groups have lauched an International Call to NGOs, groups, personalities, trade unions and political parties against the 'new' generation of nuclear European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville  : No to nuclear reactor EPR , Yes to energy alternatives.

1. The first line is heavily POV.
2. No cite, let alone a reliable one, is given stating what France does or doesn't need.
3. No authoritative cite is given stating that nuclear is not a solution to climate change - since it doesn't emit Greenhouse Gases, it very well may be a viable solution.
4. "extremely" and "necessary" are extremely POV. Who says French industry needs to be redeployed? Provide a cite.
5. As to rising demand for renewable energy, state who determined that.
6. EPR is a reactor, not a waste site, so I don't see how this comment fits. According to a major Time Magazine article, France has a successful and popular waste disposal policy.
7. The last paragraph is extremely POV. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.
8. The nuclear power controversy is discussed in the Nuclear Power article, so the above belongs there.

Simesa 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Another spoil-sport ruining perfectly good rhetoric with the truth 70.49.63.162 01:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Simesa, as a former nuclear engineer now retraining into accounting, your are also not neutral when you say that nuclear may be a viable solution to climate change. I think nuclear is not a solution to climate change, because electrical power supply emit just 20% of geenhouse gases in the world! the rest, 80% are emitted by cars, trucks, planes... which cannot all be runned by nuclear reactors --Enr-v 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Our opinions are not included in Wikipedia. Nuclear reactors may produce hydrogen for vehicle fuel - the IFR to be built in the Idaho National Laboratory is to do just that - so you may well be wrong that nuclear is not a viable solution. Please try to back assertions with quality cites. Simesa 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert of EPR building plans

The following phrases were removed for the following reasons:

A first EPR reactor in France should be built in Flamanville in the Manche département and be operational in 2012. There is a bidding in process to build four new EPR reactors to China, and an intent to market EPRs in the US with Constellation Energy.

1. The first line is heavily POV.
2. The paragraph is extremely POV.
3. French population is opposited to EPR project : see [1]

--Enr-v 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write those sentences, but I restored them with cites. I can see how the first paragraph was misphrased, but the second is a simple statement of two facts - and your own cite confirms one of them. As to whether the majority of the French population is opposed to nuclear, we certainly can't tell that from your cite. Simesa 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is outdated, 2006 is over and what are the results ?Hektor 07:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)