Talk:Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage] |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Intended as a place-holder for a longer article on this topic. Article is in preparation. Davidb0229 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the statement about "never completed" (an understatement -- it was canceled by Congress with great fanfare, what had been built was dismantled, and the big hole that was dug for it was filled in) and the "fact" tag that went with it, then added an "unreferenced" tag to entire article. My thinking: The entire article is appropriately written in "was" and "would have been" terms because this project is entirely in the past tense. Furthermore, the fact that it was canceled falls in the category of "general knowledge" in this region and among nuclear technologists. Other details of the article (design concepts and other technical aspects) are far more in need of reference support than that particular item. --orlady 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It isn't clear to those of use who aren't in that region and aren't nuclear technologists. It was a project... it would have been built.. makes me want to say where was it built? I was going to add a copyedit tag when I realized my sentence had been deleted. It appears as if there is an entire section missing that is 'general knowledge' but not covered. ~ BigrTex 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should say "those who aren't in that region, aren't nuclear technologists, and don't remember the U.S. national political controversies of the 1970s." This was an expensive and controversial project. There was particular worry about its potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation. I added details to this article that I found in another (linked) Wikipedia article. The problem with saying "The project was never completed and plans for it have been canceled" is that it had the effect of introducing erroneous information into the article. Previously the article was merely incomplete, but this sentence made it wrong. --orlady 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Granted. I took a shortcut that I shouldn't have. Thank you for taking the effort to address my concerns in a more constructive manner. ~ BigrTex 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have finally added a discussion about the controversial history of the project.--orlady 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed false statement
"United States electric utility companies, which did not receive the types of large government subsidies provided to utilities in some other countries, were reluctant to invest in such an expensive technology."
The project was canceled for political reasons. It was killed in the war against nuclear energy. It was clear from the start that this technology would eventually be cost effective. The Reagan administration was more then eager to fund this project to completion. Unfortunately the democratically controlled congress had to kill it to protect their interest. It was very sad that this project got canceled and that we still don't have breeder reactors. There is still a battle today about Republicans wanting nuclear power and Democrats opposing it. This project could of been completely funded by the US, the technology would of been developed and then utility companies could then use it or be forced to use it. There are many in the industry that would be more then willing to spend the extra money. So I removed the completely false statementMantion (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed someone re-inserted the false statement. Let me repeat this program was going to be funded almost entirely by government money. How could it be cut because of a lack of subsidies. The program was kill by anti-nuclear groups. I read through the entire article and although it is just a PDF from Los Alamos Science it said nothing about this program or any program being cut for a lack of subsidies. I am sorry but this was killed for political reasons. Nixon and Reagan fought hard to keep the program alive. Carter and Nader had fought hard to shut it down. I am not saying that it was Republican v Democrats. Only that it was pro nuclear vs anti nuclear. That simple. Again how can a program that had already begun and 1 billion dollars of us money was already be spent be shut down because the US doesn't subsidies. Though there was talk later on about private industry chipping in, when the program was started by Nixon and was "nation’s highest priority research and development effort" there was no mention of private industry chipping in. So again how can a government program that was started and funded almost entirely by the government be cut because of a lack of government subsidies. A decade after this program was killed the "Superconducting Super Collider" was canceled as well. It cut to "balance the budget" not for a lack of government subsidies. If you find a credible historical source that you can quote that states this project was cut due to a lack of government subsidies I will gladly include it. Please do not re-insert the statement with discussionMantion (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing your analysis of the history. For better or worse, wikipedia insists on external sources. If you have documentation that commercial utilities were willing to pay the costs of this technology (presumably using ratepayer dollars?) and were thwarted, please supply your sources. In the meantime, I will re-add my sourced content. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
