Talk:Nuclear Power/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archived text for Talk:Nuclear power

Contents 1 Issues in Controvery 2 Emissions problems of fossil fuels 3 Nuclear power greenhouse emissions 4 Recent changes 5 Reverting 6 Introduction paragraph 7 Some observations about article 8 Risks of Leukemia from proximity to nuclear power plants 9 Factual accuracy dispute? 10 Price Anderson Act 11 Economy section of this article

Issues in Controvery

Because this entry is under a POV tag - we should make a concerted effort to resolve the differences and list the intractible issues at the top of the discussion.

1. Greenhouse emission - the issue is whether or not "emissions directly related to actual production of electricity should be included.
2. Please expand

Emissions problems of fossil fuels

"emissions problems of fossil fuels" removed because it doesnt belong in a nuclear power article.

I re-added refrence to emissions based pollution as an advantage without refrencing fossil fules. I also removed the word 'directly' in refrence to not contributing to the greenhouse effect since I could not think of anythign less than a 3rd or 4th order effect that would be inherint to any use of electricity. Dalf | Talk 05:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power greenhouse emissions

http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/

http://www.afeas.org/greenhouse_gases.html

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:gVNRnsSRKK8J:www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm%3FNewsID%3D2268+%22Nicholas+Kristof%27s+article+%22Nukes+are+Green%22+is+incorrect%22&hl=en

Various sources associated with info on the following link

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12835747^12332,00.html

nuclear power produces only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.

-In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.

You could use the same argument for solar enenrgy not being green energy: to make those solar panels from plastic and silicone required energy from some possibly coal power plant as well as water, and other resources. But this is going into a gray area. I think if we start counting all indirect relations the list could go on and on infinitely. --Berkut 06:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yea, the argumet that Nuclear power uses fossil power by proxy is a bit weak. If the power stations that powered the mines were Nuclear as well for example. Also the electricity created by the plant could be used to produce greenhouse gasses. However, neither of these thigns are intrensic to Nuclear power. That is they are not necessarry for it to work, and ideal could be eliminated. Dalf | Talk 07:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree - we ought rightly to distinguish between the resources consumed to create the energy versus the use of electricity unless the use is intrisic in the plant - as it was to some extent in Israel intended for desalination. Processing, mining pollution and energy consumption all have a noteworthy effect on energy payback time, and net environmental impact. Benjamin Gatti 07:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

User:Theo Pardilla has made some dubious changes so I put a tag on the article. Mirror Vax 06:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I tried to add what he took out back in in such a way that he could not object and start an edit war. In principal I would support reverting his changes, but perhaps reverting them then tinkering with the wording would be a better option. What does everyone else think?

Eeeeek I did not see the newer edits since I edited. This is nonsense that he is putting into the article. Just about every bit of it is disputable or exagerated or not true. I htink we should revert and invite a discussion here on the proposed changes. Dalf | Talk 07:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

These changes are intended to improve the quality of the article by including greenhouse gas (GHG) contributions across the full lifecycle of a nuclear power plant and not as an ideological, industry or environmentalist viewpoint. This full lifecycle treatment is equally applicable to other electricity generation methods and is quantifiable, it is not however infinitely regressive for the major components by "counting all indirect relations". Its equal applicability to other generation methods, such as solar, supports its inclusion on the basis of a comprehensive treatment of the subject and because net GHG emissions and net energy generation vary significantly between different generation technologies. This is intended to inventory and show actual GHG emissions rather than what some people imagine happens currently or wish was the case in the future. Perhaps a valid arguement could be made that at some time in the future nuclear power could be self sustaining in terms of energy flow and with minimal or no GHG emissions but in the forseeable future nuclear powers contribution to GHG emissions will, barring the development of some unforseen magical new technologies, remain. These articles are intended to reflect reality rather than POVs.

It is your POV that I am afraid is seeping into the articles. For starters by the logic that includes fossil fuel emmissions used to mine Nuclear fuel you coudl also track down every use of electricity that has the effect of green house emissions, say factories that run on power generated in a nuclear power plant and include them as well. Is it the case that every Unranium mine on earth is powered by fossil fuels? Is that a requirment? Is that how the French do it? The Russians? What percentage of them do it? What percentage of ours do it? My problem with the whole logic is that it is not REQUIRED for the process, it is not intrensic to the thing that is Nuclear power. Mentioning that "some fossil fuels may be burned in harvesting nuclear fuel" as a concideration would probbly be acceptable but I think you have gone a bit overboard. Second the CFC stuff is highly debatable, many enviornmental scientists (a majority now days I woudl say) feel that the ozon depletion idea has been thoughtly debunked. The probble is that lower ozone levels stimulates higher rates of ozone creation so it is self balancing. This is why no one has been making a big deal of it since the 1980's, furhter when people were making a big deal they mention thigns like 10% increse in UV radiation etc etc. Which is the same increase that you get moving a few hundred miles closer to the equator. Including CFC stuff as an enviornmental impact is dubious at best. The radioactive gasses produced in Nuclear reactors likewise have a very short half life and are not a serious enviornmental concern, the water released form nuclear power plants in the USA actually have radation loevels lower than natural water in streams in their area. And so on. Dalf | Talk 09:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

I'm going to be bold and revert this back to the May 4th version. All of the recent additions have messed up the introduction quite badly, and belong in the 'Benefits and Disadvantages' section. At the moment it's reading like 'Nuclear power is bad, mmkay?' which isn't what a NPOV encyclopedia should be aiming for. Djbrianuk 00:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph

I just reverted the last edit by 203.51.156.215 to the last version by the same user. I think including those sentances in the introduction give a decent overview of the article. Additionally I think having a single sentence composed of a single clause followed by the TOC looks really bad. If anyone feels strongly that the sentences in the introduction do not belong there then go ahead and move them but perhaps we can replace them with something that you feel is more approprate, instaed of just leaving it mostly blank? Dalf | Talk 00:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I am still not happy with the opening paragraph. Looking around wikipedia (and reference sources in general) this sort of meta comment is not a proper introduction. The only articles that begin with meta comments are disambiguation pages and Lists and such. The opening paragraph should actually have content in it. When I look up a term on wikipedia I will frequently read the first paragraph only, this is usually enough for me to understand what the article says even if I do not get the details. I liked how it was since it did just that. It covered highlights of the article without going into details. Am I wrong in my thinking that the paragraph above the TOC should be an abstract of the article? I wont revert it again in any event unless people agree with me.Dalf | Talk 02:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually strike that, Its probbly fine. Dalf | Talk 04:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Used the meta comment format from Wind Power --Theo 10:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote the intro. "Because nuclear power is a demonstrated technology,"

I suggest demonstrated rather than "proven" for two reasons, the plants which have been built have demonstrated risks which are unacceptable, and the new designs are not proven - they are experimental - a point I propogated through the article. moreover, the lifecycle related issues of securing the waste during the natural decay is untested or prove, as is the decomission plan for plants such as Chernobyl. Let's agree there is a future potential for nuclear energy which desperate conditions may demand. Benjamin Gatti 06:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted, it was not intro appropriate, used unnecessarily flowery language and lessened the presentation of facts. History belongs in the history section. zen master T 06:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As is - it's an uninformative introduction to the controversy primarily and the pertainent facts secondarily. It ought to introduce undisputed facts - one of which is the nuclear energy is a past hopeful era - now in remission - with future potential and lingering controversies - not a "Proponents this, and proponents that." - something has to go in the intro - I think after the tersest dictionary definition, a chronological once over is in order. Benjamin Gatti 06:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think labeling it "proponents this" is exactly the way of phrasing the issue, redundancy is necessary to avoid ambiguity over what is fact and what is disputed. At best nuclear proponents claim it to be true (previously it was being presented subtly as fact). I agree with you above that "proven technology" is a marketing speak misstatement since all new reactor designs have no track record. zen master T 06:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Some observations about article

Some observations about article:

Viewpoints

I quickly counted the occurences of pro and con opinions as prefixed:

11 instances Proponents Argue, Also Claim, Maintain, Argue, They Argue, Also claim, contend, contend, point out, point out, point out 3 instances Critics assert, point out, Opponents claim Yes this is clearly unbalanced but thats not the point. This article should be about facts rather than stakeholders opinion for or against.

Maybe we could create a new article titled 'Nuclear Power Proponents and Opponents Points of View'. This would make it clear to contributors that the focus of that article was about peoples opinions rather than the topic itself and then people could knock themselves out in that virtual space in an opininated ideological edit war free from the constraints of reason and scientific concensus.

This trojan practice of dressing up ones opinions in the guise of 'proponents / opponents argue, claim, assert etc' is doubly damaging to the quality of the article because it changes the focus of the article away from fact to opinion and because it allows the creation of a special class of text that is less subject to challenge; one cannot argue that someones opinion is not theirs. If however their opinion is rephrased as a fact by the removal of 'proponents / opponents argue, claim, assert etc' then it becomes open to challenge. Also both 'sides' could improve the depth and quality of the article by taking a neutral approach and by contributing rather than deleting other peoples work without notification, explanation, debate or concensus.--Theo Pardilla 13:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Due to all these 'proponents argue/claim' instances, have marked the article as disputed. --Sgkay 17:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have eliminated the polorizing terms "critics and opponents" and replaced them with simultudes such as Proponents of nuclear-free alternatives, and provided a basis for some specific concerns. Benjamin Gatti 05:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

But, you also added such things as civilized countries (apparently meaning the west) and characterized India and China as having violent intolerance for popular participation in civil discourse which is I suppose moderately supportable in the case of China but India? You also POVized most of the paragraphs and changed so many instances of Nuclear Power Plant to include the adjective Experimental that one might think that there were only experimental ones. I tried going through and re-wording for NPOVness but found that the article was going to be a mess that way, so I reverted your changes. If you feel strongly about any of them hopefully we can work them out on this talk page. Mostly I am worried about the article drawing rather categorical conclusions about the economics and safety of Nuclear Power out of hand as if it was not something people disagree on. Dalf | Talk 06:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Experimental. It is undisputed that any new nucler plants would be "new" designs. which have never before been built or operated. That fits the definition of experimental far more than it fits the definition of "proven". Where's the POV?

India still operates a caste system, which is hardly consistent with "democracy" - which is far more than the right to vote.

There are many developing countries not building nuclear plants. - so "Developing countries - are building is factually misleading. Some are - specifically those with the least amount of citizen involvement in civil discourse - I think the Dalf - could have balanced the POV, but my edits corrected factually misleading statements, and the economics section needs indexing - its a blur of random ProPOV as is.

I'll try to temper some POV in a new version. Benjamin Gatti 06:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually the pebble bed reactors have something of a history (one was operated in Germany for long enough to be decommissioned). South Africa which in terms of energy economics could be called developing is doing some of the most research and new developments in this area and is hardly authoritarian. As far as I know the Indian government does not operate on a caste system (though I could be wrong), and I have not heard of any references to the caste system in India being used to suppress opposition to nuclear power. Dalf | Talk 07:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

My research suggests the fund for decomissioning is underfunded. There are no plans to restore the Chernobyl site to anything approaching its prior state. Te currently proposed energy bill extends the Price Anderson Act which is an open admission by the "industry" that it cannot compete on a level risk playing field. It amounts to a recognition at the highest levels of the existence of substantial and persistent risks. The storage issue remaing "experimental", as are all new designs. The Industry should not hide the experimental nature of its operations. Offshore wind is experimantal - even more so wave tidal and gyre. Why should "new nukes" be given a pass on its developmental status?

Benjamin Gatti 07:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Risks of Leukemia from proximity to nuclear power plants

My contribution in the 'Risks' section, where I highlighted the confirmed risk of Leukemia by living near to a nuclear power station (see Wikipedia note at Leukemia#Radiation), has been removed by user Ultramarine and replaced with links to World Nuclear Association [1] and an outdated (and since retracted) conclusion from scientist Richard Doll [2]

Faced with growing evidence of the scientific untenability of his virtual dismissal of causes of cancer other than smoking and lifestyle, coupled with damaging revelations of conflicts of interest, Doll has suddenly retracted his long-standing dismissal of environmental causes of cancer. [3]

I'm all for informed debate, but let's not just present a single point of view here, and let's avoid outdated research. --Sgkay 16:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, virus is an environmental cause of cancer. Ultramarine 16:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is a summary of studies [4] Ultramarine 16:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute?

Why this claim? Those opposing nuclear power are free to add their studies and research. An article should not be labeled simply because those opposing the content has no arguments. I will remove the tag unless factual inaccuracy can be shown. Ultramarine 17:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I used the wrong tag, have updated to use the neutrality pov tag instead. --Sgkay 19:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Those opposing nuclear power usually base their views on TOTAL LIES! The only way to meet Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to have the article to be in support of nuclear energy. Anti-nuclear views are non-NPOV. Andros 1337 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? NPOV means presenting all sides not presenting just the pro nuclear industry side. I caveatted the intro a few days ago to try to make it clear the nuclear industry was who is claiming all that (to avoid confusion with some of that stuff being read as being undisputed fact), but now that I think about it the intro and the article are a bit too pro nuclear industry sanitized. This is more a dispute over whether the pro nuclear industry forces can get away with excluding facts (their apparent mission). In my estimation, random joe wikipedia user would not care about nuclear power to the extent some wikipedia users and anon accounts seem to. Whoever you are please be honest about your POV. zen master T 00:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Andros, is this a spoof argument? Only those supporting a topic should be allowed to write about it? By that rationale, perhaps we should all try to find some paedophiles to rewrite the Pedophilia page? --Sgkay 12:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is "one of those articles" that has absolutely no chance on ever converging on text that is acceptable to all partisans. There are some pro-nuclear people (NOTE WELL: I did not say "all pro-nuclear people"!) who can't accept any criticism of their favorite technology (and, prehaps, livelihood). And there are some anti-nuclear people (same note!) who can't accept that there are any situations where nuclear power might ever emerge as the best possible answer from among a set of unpallatable alternatives.

So the article will continue to swing wildly back-and-forth as the partisans on either side alternately impose their POV and are reverted by partisans from the other side.

I suspect the only way this would ever settle is if Wiki, for certain topics, simply supported two articles. For example: Nuclear power (as described by pro-nuclear partisans) and Nuclear power (as described by anti-nuclear partisans); if these both existed, then there might be hope that an article with a neutral point of view could also exist.

(BTW: Is this a practical solution?)

Atlant 13:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

We should start by not deleting items which are clearly factual. The Price Anderson Act is a government act which makes nuclear energy possible. - without which it could not compete in the US - and since most reactors are based on US industry - that is fairly to say the world.

It is therefore - intellectual vandalism to delete the exsitence of entire subjects merely because they are uncomfortable - particularly without discussion.

Benjamin Gatti 15:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that, +/-. If someone is deleting statements about the existence of Price/Anderson, that is not right. On the other hand, if someone is deleting somoene's interpretation of how Price/Anderson has affected the U.S. nuclear industry, then that is probably okay.

Atlant 15:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Price Anderson Act

First: I am a native speaker of English.... and this section—especially the first paragraph—makes almost no sense to me. The parts that do make sense are either so POV that they strike me as wrong or at least not meriting inclusion. I mean it reads like something that came from the postmodern essay generator Ok maybe it is not THAT bad but the wording is ..... Sub-optimal. Then we have such things as: dangerous nuclear experimental power plants again as I have pointed out below, most of these new plants are pebble bed reactors which are not experimental or dangerous or new. All that about wealth transfer is also a bit POV.

Second: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia NOT a PowerPoint presentation. This means that unless it is REALLY necessary adding a heading and subheading for every paragraph degrades the quality of the article. And headings like "Irrationals, Subsides and Externalities" which once again mean almost nothing to me a native speaker of English represent the very worst of PowerPoint. Headings should allow the reader to look at them and have a pretty good idea of the content of the following section. The ones that have been added are vague and ambiguous and seem to be more to confuse the issue than illuminate. Dalf | Talk 07:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I see that you re-did it under the heading "Subsides" which makes sense. I still have some concerns and some questions about the content. Specifically, what exactly is it about this act that makes it a "wealth transfer", and what wording in the act describes who the wealth is being transferred from and to whom? How are these groups defined. I also object to describing Chernobyl as a moderate nuclear accident, it is at prese4nt the worst one that anyone has had anywhere and the after effects are not in anyway moderate. The position that things could have been much worse I think would have to be supported by more than a thought experiment. I imagine that most in the nuclear industry at present would say that the probability of having another equally bad accident in the present environment much less a worse one is vanishingly small. Weather or not we agree with such an idea we would have to support the contention. Dalf | Talk 07:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiki needs a whole article dedicated to Price Anderson. Google covers it pretty well, and it can be read in its original forms and well as in the proposed wording of buses "Energy Bill" which proposes nuclear as safe and clean.

I thought describing Chernobyl as moderate was a touch of restraint - i'll leave it to the "Proponents" to elaborate on the superlative qualities of the chernobyl incident.

In my opinion - since this is the place for same - is that the cause of Chernobyl has as much or more to do with the attitude of reckless indiffernce combined with the volatility of the technology. While some new tech may be more stable - until we change the tendency of all but the most highly developed nations to excersize the persistent caution neccessary to safely engage in the use of fissile materials - nuclear activities are contrary to peaceful purposes.

Price Anderson "limits" the liabiity in the case of a nuclear incident to some predefined and ridiculously inadequate number. In personal terms it would be like the government saying if you speed, while high on crank, and drive a school bus into a train, killing thousands of schoolgirls you can only be liable for the cost of a broken taillight. - and because you have a history of crank and speeding - your cost of insurance to drive a schoolbus is in the millions - but with this provision, it is reduced to the cost of a bus ticket - that is a wealth transfer. You are the payee, and all the other people who are paying full fare for their insurance - including uninsured, health, final expenses, life insurance, and unemployment insurance necessary to cover the costs of such an accident are the payors.

Benjamin Gatti 08:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Then we should include this information in the article instead of all that nonsense about "wealth transfers", ofcorse while including it we should leave out any conclusions as to the adequacy of liability numbers; including the actual numbers would be nice then people can decide for themselves. Again how you describe the degree of a nuclear accident is subjective. What is the measuring rod? Are we to use only past incidents? If so then Chernobyl was the end all be all worst case. Are we to use theoretical possible damages? If so then nothing sort of total destruction of the bio-sphere is even more than minor. I suspect if we were endeavoring to say what is moderate and what is serious and what is minor we would have to find documentation of probability studies and failure scenarios and there would be lots of contentious stiff there. Personally I have read from several sources that in the new types of reactors being built an accident on that scale is impossible in every way, and that it is nearly the case for all the running reactors as well. I will not be surprised if you disagree but then that disagreement is the crux of the problem. Your number on the cost of a Chernobyl sized disaster is I think enough that the readers can look at it and decide for themselves and I don't see why we have to characterize the event as moderate or serious etc. It was what it was and as there is no agreed classification system I think trying to classify it as if there were is POV. Dalf | Talk 08:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The undisputed fact is that the Price Anderson exists. And that without it, investors would not invest, insurance investors would not invest in the risk. Apparantly there are not enough investors who believe nuclear is as safe as you say that it must be. How can you be so sure nuclear is safe, and still not find a gaggle of insurance investors willing to put their money where their mouth is? Investors will not touch nuclear with without absolution by the state. These are undisputed, NPOV facts. How shall we agree to express them?

Benjamin Gatti 09:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Economy section of this article

.....is laughable. It's completely pro-nuclear after Ultramarine's recent edits. The majority of my edits have been purged from the article, such as the point that the UK Department of Trade+Industry consider nuclear too expensive compared to other solutions. [5] I don't want to get into a edit war, so could someone else take a look and consider reinstating some of the earlier economy points, or add new content? --Sgkay 16:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read. That point and link is in the article. The problem with your POV is that you have very little facts but many emotions. Do not complain when claims without any bases are removed. Ultramarine 16:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)