Talk:Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high importance within energy.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 History 2 Revert of 24 April 2007 3 Little Interest? 4 POV Malarkey 5 Copyright Violation

[edit] History

Actually, these have been the principles of the nuclear safeguards arrangements, including the NNPT and the bilateral safeguards treaties that preceded it, since the 1950s or so. Nice to see them getting some press, though. Andrewa 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of 24 April 2007

I reverted for several reasons. First, the text was taken directly from the reference that was added, without quotations. Second, the reference is really borderline on being a reputable source. Third, saying that the 1972 West Valley shutdown had anything to do with President Carter's 1977 decision seems like patent nonsense - if it's not, there should be better sources. Fourth, the obvious intent of GNEP is to do the reprocessing overseas - there's never been a ban on that that I'm aware of, only on reprocessing of civilian spent nuclear fuel inside the U.S. There may be valid points here: get a better source to back up the allegations made in this one. Simesa 23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. There was, however, a decision made to not reprocess in the 60s or 70s and I would like to see information about that appear in a number of these articles. I've never heard that it was a ban though, I thought it was just a decision to not actively research it. Right now, the government is directly funding research into reprocessing, and I think it's pretty clear that it wouldn't happen in the near future just by initiative in the industry. But you probably know more about it than I do though so I'll be quiet until I find something useful to add about it. theanphibian 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

After India's nuclear test of 1974, using plutonium reprocessed from a civil reactor, the United States rethought its support of reprocessing, both domestically and internationally. Specifically, the Carter Administration decided formally (after the the Ford Administration took initial steps in this direction) not to reprocess civil spent fuel and oppose civil reprocessing worldwide. to go with direct geological disposal. President Reagan revised the policy internationally, deciding not to oppose established civil reprocessing programs in France, Japan and the United Kingdom.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership represents a reversal of the policy on civil reprocessing domestically. The focus of the program is to demonstrate new reprocessing methods that do not separate plutonium by itself, but leave it mixed with other materials that make it less attractive for military uses. These would be demonstrated domestically - in the United States - at a commercial scale. See the GNEP Strategic Plan. NPguy 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little Interest?

This article is way out of date. GNEP is an evolving program and this has essentially nothing since the program was introduced. It seems no onehas the time (my problem) or interest to keep it up-to-date. Some of the things that ought to be covered (if someone has time):

• The GNEP Strategic Plan from January 2007 [1].
• The U.S.-Russia Civil Nuclear Energy Working Group and Action Plan [2].
• The U.S.-Japan Nuclear Energy Action Plan [3].
• The latest on the budget, including the funding level for 2007 ($168M) and requested for 2008 ($405M).
• The Ministerial meeting and the resulting Joint Statement [4].

There also ought to be some description of the criticisms that have been raised, including from sources like Matthew Bunn, Frank von Hippel and Richard Garwin. NPguy 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Malarkey

I deleted the following from the criticism section:

GNEP grew out of a DOE special committee (NERAC) whose singular purpose was to save the Nuclear Industry for Military and National Security reasons. The center piece of GNEP (fuel reprocessing) is based on unproven and fundamentally flawed tecnology. More disturbing, it will make America the dumping ground for most of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Lastly, the primary purpose of GNEP is to justify leaving spent fuel where it sits (at aging American reactors) for periods in excess of 100 years by reclassifying the nuclear waste streams as potential future resources, just as DOE did with Depleted Uranium almost two decades ago.

This is almost entirely wrong. GNEP grew out of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, stimulated by Congress (then Appropriations Subocmmittee Chair Hobson) and put together by senior Energy Department staffers. Fuel reprocessing is long proven technology, though GNEP proposes to do it in novel and unproven ways. The "dumping ground" criticism has some basis in the proposal to least fuel internationally and take back spent fuel. But the purpose is precisely the opposite of what is stated: not to leave spent fuel at reactors but to move it away from reactors.

But more importantly, this is entirely unsubstantiated and unreferenced. If you want to cite legitimate criticism of GNEP, do a web search on Frank von Hippel, Richard Garwin, or Matthew Bunn and GNEP. Then summarize and reference. NPguy 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation

The text below may be the case of copyright violation. Please examine this.

Another criticism is that GNEP embraces dangerous proliferation-prone reprocessing technology for commercial reasons, and to bypass the continued delays with the Yucca Mountain waste repository project, whilst claiming to make the world a safer place.(in "Criticism" section)

The opposition depicts it as a flagrant example of US arrogance, embracing dangerous proliferation-prone technologies whilst claiming to make the world a safer place. (in Evolving international pacts for tomorrow

I think this is not quotation but piracy. --UniontourJP (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I should stand up here to say that I added this paragraph in this edit, which also converted the article's citations to ref-style. I found this new NEI article while converting other NEI citations and tried para-phrasing (perhaps poorly) something new to the article - giving the source. I'll delete the para from the article while it is debated if copying these words from a sourced article amounts to a copyvio. There is no need to delete the whole article. Rwendland (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a user of Japanese version wikipedia and don't know well about English version rules. If other wikipedians think this action has no probrem, I will not claim full erasion. Thanks. --UniontourJP (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have looked back on my additions, and reflecting on it I do agree what I have done is debatable. I took the view this was de-minimus phrases, with the source cited, so OK. I'd be interested in the views of other editors - I'm beginning to think maybe I'm in the gray area. Rwendland (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue is not piracy or copyright infringement but plagiarism. Doesn't the "fair use" doctrine allow the use of limited direct quotes from other sources? As long as they are in quotation marks and the source acknowledged, what is the problem? Does Wikipedia have a more restrictive policy? I think the paragraph in question added some value to the article. NPguy (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use quotation marks. I was trying to take/convey the idea, but without using enough flair or imagination or effort! I'll do better in future. But my current thinking this was de-minimus copying (short phrases), so not a copyvio, but perhaps to far into the gray area. I've looked at Wikipedia policy, but it not too clear: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_text says "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts" is unacceptable. Rwendland (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply think that Mr. Rwendland can write more better phrases without such a controversial style. Please re-write it in the future. Thank you. --UniontourJP (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)