Talk:Nuclear energy policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Cleanup tag

This article was created with parts of nuclear power phase-out together with a new introduction. The introduction has to be improved. Some parts of the article might be too specific too the phase-out and should be removed. As this text was before at nuclear power phase-out the perspective can seem POV, please help balancing. --Ben T/C 15:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not a good move IMO

See Talk:Nuclear power phase-out#Split. Andrewa 18:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

That was not a move. I was a question of removing contents from the nuclear power phase-out article as was requested and saving it. There is still some redundancy here with the other article and it has to be shortened and focus sharpened. Please see Talk:Nuclear energy policy#Cleanup tag. See also my reply at Talk:Nuclear power phase-out#Split. --Ben T/C 03:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken Little is not encyclopedic - Text Move

The Hubbert peak of global oil production predicts widespread disruptions to conventional energy supplies of oil and natural gas. Some academic and business research into hydrocarbon deposits has concluded that the continued usage of this form of energy source will inevitably create widespread reductions in its supply during the 2010s, resulting in a sudden need to switch to alternative energy sources such as nuclear energy and "green" sources such as solar and wind power. However, similar predictions about the "end of the age of oil" have been made almost since oil first became a major commodity, and so far no such predictions have borne out.

This sentence doesn't even make sense - except in that Sci-fi credit-card day-trader geekspeek in which "Peak" means "Some guys falsified theory about oil futures, who might as far as we now be trading against his own advice." Whether or not Hubbert is right, the extinction of oil reserves is a natural phenomena based on first principles - and should not be converted into a proper adjective. Benjamin Gatti
I think the paragraph conveys important information:
  1. Oil supply will reduce in the future (when is not the primary question. The Hubbert peak article is the place where the "when" is discussed),
  2. (therefore) energy policy has to rely less on oil.

Please state how you would like to change the paragraph. Ben T/C 07:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The reasons for finding alternatives to oil in order of political importance are 1. To defund a radicalized mideast, 2. To harden the economy against foriegn market manipulation, 3. To reduce direct pollution which causes 300,000 deaths a year. 4. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions which may lead to climate change. 5. to reduce the effect of the rising costs of oil extraction. This paragraph wants to blowhard about how the sky is falling and move reason 5 to the top of the list by combining known facts with guesses and predictions of doom. The paragraph should read:
Another minor concern is that the cost of extracting oil will rise as the reserves of easily accessible oil are depleted, the timetable for which is unknown and subject to the development of new extraction technologies.
Benjamin Gatti 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
To which part of Nuclear energy policy does this apply? Or is there something called "Nuclear oil"? (SEWilco 18:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC))
Yeah i cringe when i see "Peak oil" in a "nuclear energy article" - I proposed removing it completely, Ben asked how i would rewrite it. (very samll is the answer. (and I would tack it onto other concerns as a last thought, not as Yet another chance to noun a verb'. Benjamin Gatti
Very funny, SEWilco. I'am trying to improve the article and you redicule it. Could you please state where you found that citation or motto of yours? I couldn't find it.
And Gatti, you cringe when you see peak oil? Well, man, I am sorry for you... What did you say, what kind of answer was that?
The article should give a background to the development of nuclear energy. The question is "what is the motivation for developing nuclear energy?" The focus of the article is of course not oil, but there is a link between depleting oil resources/greenhouse effect and policies to develop nuclear energy, that's why the paragraph has to stay one way or another. I am sure, there are ways to state that better than the paragraph does that you cited. If you find another way to phrase it then please change it, don't make fun of it.
The article needs a lot of work as does nuclear power phase-out, (I call them sister projects). I even nominated the nuclear power phase-out for AID, but it will be kicked out tomorrow if there will be no votes from you guys. Thanks for your concerns, guys.

Ben T/C 05:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

There also is a link between not developing nuclear energy and burning coal for 30 years. (SEWilco 06:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC))
So it wasn't your quote, SEWilco.
Possibly there is a link between burning coal and phasing-out as you seemed to indicate. It certainly needs more discussion in this article. Nuclear power phase-out has some speculations about it. BTW, I think it's time to update this article from nuclear power phase-out-content and then afterwards shorten and summarize it there. Ben T/C 08:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Now, Gatti's comment suddenly makes sense, thanks SEWilco for moving the signiture. I like the text, but I have to see it in context of the section: I think we could omit "minor" and there should be a link to Hubbert peak, because that's the only article where depleting oil reserves are discussed (I searched some time ago and there was no other article). I also want natural oil mentioned and something like (what is now): [depletion] ...resulting in a sudden need to switch to energy sources such as nuclear energy and "green" sources such as solar and wind power. However, similar predictions about the "end of the age of oil" have been made almost since oil first became a major commodity, and so far no such predictions have borne out.
(I skipped alternative before energy, because it doesn't fit)
I suggest this:
Another concern is that the cost of extracting oil will rise as the reserves of easily accessible oil are depleted, the timetable for which is unknown and subject to the development of new extraction technologies (see Hubbert peak). Reductions in supply predicted during the 2010s, could result in a sudden need to switch to energy sources other than oil and natural gas such as nuclear energy and green energy (e.g. solar and wind power).
Ben T/C 09:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Well it's ok. But again it has the tint of chicken little. Hubbert was WRONG about the time, and he is wrong about the two apples problem. Oil will be produced beyond the point of positive energy gain because oil is a transportation fuel (10x more valuable than a fixed prime energy). The idea that Hubbert being correct is going to be the thing that effects the market ought to be contained to the theory page alone, and not spread like a cancer to every other article. There are 4 things which I named which are more likely to drive energy convversion to green sources. and I forgot to mention competition with china - well before any reduction in oil production has an effect. Moreover Hubberts peak is not a general description of the point of diminishing returns, it is a precise prediction that the declining rate of oil production will neatly match the rise in production, and a theory that oil extraction must yield net energy gains - neither of which are proven, and both of which have been falsified. Benjamin Gatti
I think we should avoid having a Hubbert peaking debate here. i don't not want to see both sides of THAT argument here - because they should be fenced in to the Hubbert article (and the key tossed). My proposed sentence expresses accurately that oil will experience a point of diminishing return on a timetable with is the subject of much dispute (see bias, hype, and chicken little here) that and the other much better reason DO belong here SEWilco notwithstanding, but let's keep it tight and respect the editwars that other fine editors are having on other subjects by not taking sides, or rehashing the argument here - let the fire rage on another page - just an idea. Benjamin Gatti
Another version:
Concern over limited reserves of coal and petroleum have resulted in increased interest in alternatives such as nuclear energy and green energy (e.g. solar and wind power).
I'm sure there is a Hubbert peak link in Petroleum. (SEWilco 17:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC))


Perhaps this section could be changed like so - its simple
A Nuclear power phase-out was introduced in Sweden (1980), in Italy (1987), in Belgium (1999), and in Germany (2000) and has been discussed in several other European countries. Austria, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain have enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations.

Some motivating factors driving nuclear phase-out are the environmental concerns with electricity generation, social and/or political hazards of nuclear energy and the potential depletion of fossil fuels. It is hoped that both fossil fuels and nuclear energy can be economically replaced by alternatives such as nuclear energy and green energy (e.g. solar and wind power).

Benjamin Gatti

Some motivating factors driving nuclear phase-out are the ... the potential depletion of fossil fuels. No. You have combined several slogans here in a way that just makes no sense at all. The actual depletion of fossil fuels is a factor inhibiting nuclear phase-out. The depletion of the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb fossil-fuel waste is an even more significant factor. Andrewa 02:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Italy

The following is not backed up by the references (as far as I could find) and the text is misleading (not to mention ungrammatical). To keep it, pls change it a little.

Italy also actively invests in French nuclear industry, most notably planed nuclear power plant Flamanville where they have purchased 25% of future capability. In addition they are majority holder in Slovenske elektrane, largest Slovakian nuclear power plant operator.

What is missleading about this text if I can ask. I will give you references shortly. As for grammar, please help me with that mate. --Trigor 16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. As promised here are references that Italy's large power company ENEL invests in France. [1],[2], [3] . Regarding investment and ownership of Slovenske Elektrane here are 3 links. One is from News Site and other two from Slovenske Elektrane webpage [4],[5], [6]. I hope this solves our misunderstanding. Feel free to re frame some bits and fix the grammar and then post it again. Thanks for help. Sorry if I appeared to be misleading. If you need more references don't hesitate to ask. --Trigor 17:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As Ben is I'm sure aware, this is a hugely significant development, and IMO the last nail in the coffin of any meaningful European nuclear phase-out. France has made an enormous profit from the nuclear paranoia of its neighbours, but there's a problem in expanding this program, both in France and spreading it to other countries who are willing to construct nukes.
The problem is ensuring the market for the 60-year life of the plant. The nuke costs about twice what a fossil plant costs to install, and is only economic because its operating costs are about half that of the fossil plant from then on (in very round figures). If there's no market for its electricity, it becomes a huge white elephant. The risk is that, if nuclear policy changes in countries such as Germany and Italy, they may then build or threaten to build their own nukes, and this will force down the price of electricity towards that of the operating costs of any then existing nukes relying on electricity exports, at huge losses to their owners. The lead time for construction of a new nuke is anything from three (Japan) to ten years from final decision to full power output, depending a little on the technology and a lot on the local politics.
If the importing utilities can cover part of this capital cost, and therefore these risks, then this eliminates the biggest problem otherwise inhibiting the expansion of nuclear electricity in Europe. It's a win-win, both for the generating countries who do very well economically, and for the importing countries who can enjoy both the benefits of nuclear energy and whatever the benefit is that they currently see of remaining officially opposed to nuclear power while importing it. The main loss is that it's not good either environmentally or economically to have these unnecessary transmission losses.
I freely admit this is a very POV post, but it contains some important information on nuclear energy policy that I hope someone may add to the article, and which I find it very difficult to express in NPOV terms myself. Andrewa 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I just read the start of the article, skimmed the rest. The first two paragraphs are terrible. A policy by who? Who says "all aspects"? It's spent nuclear fuel, not burned rods. Should reference nuclear power up front, not nuclear reactors. "National energy policy means ..."??? Governments can ..."??? And "An issue that has become prominent ..." I give up, I can't even rewrite it - just what is this article about? And why isn't it in the articles it belongs in? Simesa 22:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge with nuclear power phase-out

I propose the page on Nuclear power phase-out is merged with this one. A phase-out is just one possible energy policy so belongs here. There is not enough valuable, distinct information to warrant a seperate page. Arguments for against different policies could then all be contained in one place here, with seperate sections on policies in countries around the world. In this merging process I also suggest we rid the pages of the systematic US-centric bias. Please comment on this proposal below, otherwise I will go ahead and complete it in the next few days. Thanks Andeggs 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. In fact, the title Nuclear power phase-out implies that nuclear is actually being phased out in general when in fact it is growing. Paul Studier 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Fully agree. The title Nuclear energy policy covers also phase-out. Beagel 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Work underway at Nuclear_energy_policy/workspace. Andeggs 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked in the workspace, and this seems to be a very good article coming. Simesa 17:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Have completed the merge now so hope you like it. A lot of the material was repeated on these two pages. The large (and ramblling) pro's and con's sections of the phase-out page also repeated a lot of material on nuclear power and was heavily culled. Andeggs 08:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate but not

The topic nuclear power phase-out is almost its own topic. If there's a way to remove excess duplication, keeping only to keep clarification, that would be the best option, but the topic in my opinion should remain separate. Who the H**L wants to scroll a very long article?

Just two cents from a user. 66.53.18.169 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Richard Boettner

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/u/c/Talk%7ENuclear_energy_policy_1502.html"