Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Error?

"Coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel," Excuse me?!

GeoAtreides 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes it is. Not per ton, but per kWH. Man with two legs 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Where, when, and according to what source. theanphibian 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[1] has a nice table with comparative life-cycle costs by country. Note that the table is too high for new nuclear: lifetimes are 60 years or more and load factors are exceeding 90%. Simesa 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of water needed

Does the quality of water needed be of importance? Meaning acidic levels needed/restricted or even amount of debris allowed, etc

-G

Remember, cooling water only goes through the condenser: reactor water is treated first. At least one plant uses seawater for cooling. Debris in the water can be important in limited cases - for example, the Salem units sometimes derate due to a large amount of grass in the Delaware River after a major rainstorm. Plants with cooling towers have no such problems (although excessive heat can be a problem if not designed for). Simesa 04:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

At least one plant uses seawater for cooling? In UK 16 out of the 19 nuclear power stations effectively use(d) sea water for cooling (two used cooling towers and one used water from an inland lake). Like all thermal power plants or indstrial plants that use seawater or river water for cooling, the water has to be cleaned a bit by passing through screens, to remove debris such as seaweed, fish, and various flotsam and jetsam (bits of wood, plastic bags, used condoms etc etc) to avoid blocking the condenser tubes (typically ~1cm diameter). Some power plants, if permitted by the environmental regulator, add a little chlorine to the inlet water, either directly or by electrolysis, to discourage growth of shellfish in and around the condensers. One issue is what to do with all the stuff that has been extracted from the water by the screens. Depending on the environment regulator, this may be to put it back directly into the sea/river, or chop it up and then put it back, or dispose of it to land fill. The metal used for the condenser tubes will be chosen based on the nature of the water (salinity, solids content, flow rate etc) to ensure it does not corrode excessively. Overall this is not a big issue if you design it right. --DMWard 08:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fission is the same as decay?

According to the article

Nuclear energy is produced when a fissile material, such as uranium-235 (235U), is concentrated such that the natural rate of radioactive decay is accelerated in a controlled chain reaction and creates heat - which is used to boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine

I don't even know if it is true but at least it seems misleading to equate fission with acceleration of natural decay and to talk about changes in the rate of decay. To me it seems decay refers to the natural processses which are of course not accelerated.

Wow, Fission and natural rate of radio active decay are not the same thing at all. The only relation to the two is in source neutrons, which are required to start a chain reaction. Natural decay is the process by which all non-stable element change into stable elements by radiating particles. Fission is the process of atoms accepting a neutron, making them unstable, and then breaking into two completlly different elements. What kind of dumbass doesn't know that?

[edit] Unanswered Facts or Questions

There has been no mention in the Nuclear Power wiki article on how much remote energy (from fossil fuel run power sources) is needed to run a typical nuclear power station/reactor on a day to day basis.

Surely a nuclear power station is capable of producing all the power it needs to operate itself... Roberdin 21:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is. In most life cycle studies, the major uses of fossil fuel in operating nuclear plants is in the construction and ultimate decomissioning of the plants, and enrichment of the uranium (assuming that the electricity from enrichment is generated by fossil fuels, which is not necessarily the case). Day to day operations are a miniscule fraction of the power generated by the plants. --Robert Merkel 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Presumably the reason fossil fuels are used is due to the location of the processing plant. Benjamin Gatti
For those who are curious, the reason Nuclear Power generates more energy than the buring of fossil fuels is because of the level of energy stored within any given material. Fossil fuels and other burnable substances get their power by breaking their chemical bonds. The eneregy associated with holding each element together is much higher. This Binding energy is released through fission.
Curve of binding energy

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.200.220 (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually, nuclear power plants prefer to run on offsite power. This is so that, in the event of a sudden shutdown of the unit, it may not be necessary to start the emergency diesel generators - one less challenge to the safety systems. (The EDGs are routinely tested and the start times carefully monitored.) However, that offsite power may essentially come from another nuclear plant. I have no knowledge what the typical "house loads" are. Simesa 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The above statement is completely false for Naval Reactors that are operated on land. Reactors that are running (critical) prefer to use on site power. Reactors that are shut down (sub-critical), and do not require much power will run on off site power. I can not speak for any of the Civilian plants, but the Naval Reactor plants do not want to run on offsite power when critical. If you run on off site power, you are at the mercy of the power generation (quantity AND quality). Power plants would rather be run on their own power, as it is a lot easier to control power distribution.
Naval reactors are not considered power plants (a sub was once sent to power a Hawaiian island after a natural disaster, but it proved to be impractical). The very few naval reactors run on land are run for the purpose of training naval crews - of course they would want to simulate actual operational conditions. A website discussing naval reactors on land would be appreciated {[2] is a start). Simesa 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Naval Reactors are 100% considered power plants. They might not be commercial power plants, but they are indeed power plants. Discussing land based Naval Nuclear power plants would a good idea.Nly8nchz 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As of right now, there are only 2 Naval Nuclear power plants that are 100% land based. They are in New York. There are 2 plants that are in South Carolina that are submarines, but for all tense and purposes, they are land based reactors.Nly8nchz 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Nly8nchz 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If something occurs where electrical power is lost, and can not be regained instantly, power will be directed from the emergency diesel generators, not outside sources. Most of the time, the outside sources are less reliable than the sources that are available internally. Nly8nchz 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
In most places the grid is normally pretty stable and not strongly affected by the sudden loss of one unit, and multiple transmission lines rarely simultaneously fail, so offsite power is much less likely to fail than main generator power - so offsite power is relied on. However, the three EDGs per unit are still there. Station blackout is supposedly a limiting event for PWRs in transient/safety analysis. Simesa 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to any Nuclear Power plant in particular? "Pretty Stable" is not stable enough for emergencies in Nuclear Power. Like I have said in the other replies, Nuclear Power plants do NOT rely on outside power for emergencies. Once the emergency has been fixed, there is a great possibility that all of the loads will be powered by outside sources, but only if the reactors are shut down completely.Nly8nchz 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But we would be safe in assuming that the house load is a small fraction of the plant power output, wouldn't we? --Robert Merkel 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
When shut down, house loads are very minimal. When critical, house loads are huge. I am not sure
You are correct, loads are very small when shut down, but when the reactor is running, the loads are HUGE.Nly8nchz 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That an energy source, such as solar or nuclear, is dependent on another, perhaps less desirable one or that it produces less energy than it consumes is a usually false claim used by opponents of the energy source. It is true for hydrogen, but that is because some people mistook it for an energy source when, at least on Earth, it is really an energy storage medium, though a potentially useful one. Also, some people either do not understand or do not realize that a power plant can produce more energy than it took to build it, operate it and to deliver and prepare the fuel. Anyway, Robert Merkel is correct. The energy used for processing is small compared to the nuclear power plant output. -- Kjkolb 13:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear plants power their safety-related electrical loads (pumps, vavles, fans, etc. that function during an emergency) from off-site power. This way, if there is an emergency, these components will start right away and the diesel generators don't have to load (but they will start). Off-site power is from the national grid so it could come from any generation source. The daily operational (house/hotel) loads are generally fed back to the plant either from separate transformers after the main transformer but before the main switchyard or from the main switchyard but before the interconnects with the grid. The latter is used mainly as a finiancial ploy (they "charge" the plant a higher rate for power then write it off as an operating cost) to reduce taxes. The hotel loads are about 5% of the plant's net output depending on plant design (e.g. motor-driven main feed pumps vs steam turbine driven). Most of the energy used for making fuel is in the enrichment process; not the actual fabrication of fuel pellets or fuel rods. In a reprocessing cycle, fuel costs are reduced by about a factor of 20 since you are 'reusing' the fuel without any further enrichment. Waste is reduced by about a factor of 6. However, reprocessing invovles dissolving all the fuel rods in acid then using pH control and chemicals creating another disposal problem.

The above paragraph is VERY incorrect. Land Based Nuclear Power plants do NOT rely on outside sources for emergencies. For emergencies, they rely 100% on the back up power ie: Emergency Diesel Generators. After emergencies occur, if the power plants can safely switch to commercial power, after the emergency is fixed, switching to commercial power is not out of the question, and in fact occurs often. Outside power ie:commercial power grid, is VERY unreliable. Most people would think that the power going to your house is pretty reliable, but that is far from the truth. Any time you do not have full voltage from the generators, and 60Hz, loads start to act funny, and breakers trip, which cause loads to lose power. Nuclear power is not able to rely on these conditions, which occur very often in commercial power girds. The person that wrote the above paragraph did not sign it, but I will gladly sign mine. I was a Nuclear Electrician in the US Navy for 6 years. I do not know everything about Nuclear Power, but I do not quite a bit.Nly8nchz 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I work in a power plant. All power plants use house power, that is, their normal auxillary power for pumps, lights, computers, controls, etc. There is no reason not to this, it makes tons of sense and, because the frequency and voltage comes off the same generator, it is far more stable than having to "rely" on the grid that it is supplying. Having said that, there is a relay (or several) that provides "instantaneous transfer" from the house bank to the grid should a trip occur and the generator breaker for some reason open up. In a nuclear plant, this relay would also start the double-set of massive diesel auxilliaries to provide back should the grid itself go down.

69.181.173.36 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)David Walters

[edit] NPOV Tag

Do we still need a NPOV tag on this article? It seems reasonably NPOV at this time. If someone could point out specifically where the NPOV issues exist, I would appreciate it. Otherwise I would like to remove the NPOV tag. Lucid-dream 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that where this article expresses soapbox opinions about matters other than Nuclear Power it violates NPOV. Do a search for the word "wind". In each case, the sentence is an irresponsible pot shot citing the worst case studies and leaving out the absence of best case research. The article should - as does Nuclear reactor - content itself with the subject matter without being a soapbox for the anti-renewable platform of it's editors. Benjamin Gatti 06:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you the one that keeps inserting comparisons to renewables into the article? at least where you believe they are favourable to renewables? and "irresponsible" is the wrong word - wikipedia is responsible for nothing ;). I think it's time we got rid of the tag too, can you give a list of exact instances you still find issue with? Lets fix them and move on at last.. TastyCakes 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
As the Supreme Court often says - it's all or nothing. If this is going to be a platform to denigrate emerging renewable energy technologies, than it should also be a platform to defend them. Take your pick. NPOV is fine with both sides being told, and NPOV is fine with neither side being told, and I happen to lean towards the notion that the article should stick closely with its advertised subject. The list again is every instance of the word "wind" - there are about three, and in each case its a cherry-picked research paper intended to throw nuclear energy in the best light. I think the article is apologetic for Chernobyl and downright hostile to wind:
  • "While the Chernobyl accident caused great negative health, economic, environmental and psychological effects in a widespread area, the accident at Chernobyl was caused by a combination of the faulty RBMK reactor design, the lack of a containment building, poorly trained operators, and a non-existent safety culture."

Most engaged minds believe that the most probable nexus between nuclear power and an ENO will be intentional - thus the anachronistic argument that no one will make this mistake again is apologetic. Chernobyl represents the least dangerous threat of nuclear power, and no amount of blaming Chernobyl on faulty design will reduce the chances of intentional misappropriation.

I don't know what an ENO is, but I'm fairly sure English National Opera isn't it. —wwoods
(Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence) Benjamin Gatti
Is that a euphemism or a neologism for "nuclear disaster"? :-) 193.129.65.37 11:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. In many studies, wind is calculated as cheaper and continuing to improve. Nuclear, as a mature technology is not experiencing much cost improvement.
Actually, nuclear costs have improved substantially as load factors have increased. And new designs offer the prospect of further improvements. —wwoods
Fine - that belongs in the article - unbalanced assertions about wind do not and their presence justifies the NPOV tag. Benjamin Gatti 19:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For example, studies in Britain have shown that increasing wind power production contribution to 20% of all energy production, without costly pumped hydro or electrolysis/fuel cell storage, would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup in the absence of power storage. This presupposes an irrational market which is blinded to supply/demand. If we operated our roads under this concept, we would fail to account for rush hour. The truth is there are many ways to avoid travelling during peak load, thus this study demonstrates a market failure, not a technology impasse.
People will continue to expect power when they want it, whether or not the wind is blowing, so back-up is not optional. —wwoods 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Nuclear doesn't respond well to demand shifts any more than wind doesn't respond well to supply shifts, in both cases, pumped storage and or expensive NG will be required to arbitrage the difference. Making the false argument justifies then NPOV tag. Benjamin Gatti
That's pure nonsense as nothing is stopping the building of a large enough spinning reserve into a nuclear powerplant to cover the difference. Another one of your half-truths. Do you wonder why you get no respect? --DV8 2XL 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Other than economics of course. What size spinning reserve do you imagine is necessary to shift the winter peak into the spring ? What size do you suppose necessary even to cover the six hour peak loads in a typical summer afternoon? The point is that Nuclear energy has every bit as much the same challenge in meeting 100% demand at 100% utilization as wind has - the recent improvements in utilization are largely due to the rise in cheap to buy, but expensive to use NG peakers. We might hope to have alternatives to fossil fired peakers in the future, but citing an article which disparages the capability of wind to match supply with demand in a nuclear article is naive, misleading, and at this point - willfully so. Benjamin Gatti 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
So you have some numbers to cover your suppositions about scaling? In other words why would it be more expensive to cover peaking with larger (or more) N-plants than it would be for storage to cover for wind? The big difference being that thermonuclear is an known technology and large scale storage is still in the development stages.
It is silly to build nuclear plants to cover peak loads; they are very expensive to build and to secure, which means much of the cost (interest) is incurred whether they are running or not. Economically, they make sense only for base loads. NG plants on the other hand are cheap to build (about a third $700 per KW vs. $2000 per KW) but they have higher running costs (Particular if NG goes up). To build enough nuclear to cover peak loads as well as base loads would cost maybe twice as much as building NG peakers. Also bear in mind that NG peakers can be built where they are needed, sometimes even mobile so they can address infrastructure limitations as well (ie wires), and be more efficient with respect to wire losses. So bottom line - Nuclear is not a load-following solution - as wind is not a load-following solution. To use this article as a forum to denigrate wind for not following load without disclosing that nuclear doesn't follow load is clearly inappropriate and justifies the NPOV tag. Benjamin Gatti 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Like I said below: not while Ben is here.
  • Nuclear power, coal, and wind power are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached (see peak oil). Wave, Tidal, and Gyre sources are abundant and only beginning to be tapped. There is no evidence that oil will peak - there is such a theory and it has many detractors - this is hardly the place to presuppose future events. (WP:Crystal Ball)
NIMBY seems to be at work on those projects too. --DV8 2XL 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
NIMBY issues exist with wind, and impounded tidal projects. Free flow tidal, gyre, and wave projects do not appear to trigger substantial concern. Wave power in particular may have additional benefits such as border containment and the mitigation of coastal erosion. It is arguable that a wave plant in front of New Orleans could have absorbed much of the storm force and prevented some of the devastation. Benjamin Gatti 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The others haven't drawn fire because they haven't been developed to the stage where large projects are seeking aproval. I can forsee a few enviormental issues that will have to be answered for all of them.
First - neither true nor false - second, the NIMBY issue for renewables is I suggest not fully relevant to nuclear. Benjamin Gatti 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So there are some. Benjamin Gatti 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

At least as long as Ben Gatti can still draw a breath. --DV8 2XL 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't place the NPOV tag, and I worked to get rid of it, even removed it myself once - good luck - I'm just answering the question posed. Benjamin Gatti 19:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is still POV to a point. The life cycle section should mention current usage. It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. The current waste may well become valuable fuel in the future, particularly if it is not reprocessed, as in the U.S. could use a source; as could Proponents of nuclear power state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. The cost of some renewables would be increased too if they included necessary back-up due to their intermittent nature. and Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent coal-fuelled or gas-fuelled plant. However, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel, and natural gas significantly more expensive than coal - thus natural gas-generated power is the most expensive. and the Operating Costs section and Nuclear power, coal, and wind power are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached. What is the Rocky Montain Institute and why do I care what they think? kotepho 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nuclear power is the controlled use of nuclear reactions to do useful work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity." The word useful is biased and indicates that the creation of these energies is favored. Certainly we no longer say that slavery is useful, because it causes more problems than it solves. Perhaps a similar light will eventually be cast on these energies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vices (talk • contribs)

It depends on your perspective. An atomic bomb obviously does work (physics) but there is no way to harness that work to do something productive. I think the wording could be better, but it is a far stretch to call it biased. kotepho 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The point was that the word useful is a perspective, point of view, essentially biased adjective. Few adjectives are not biased, and I was simply pointing out the idea that energy production is blindly considered to be a positive thing in our culture. The idea being that there may eventually be a culture in which the 'production' of heat, electrical, or atomic energy is considered bad or inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vices (talk • contribs)
Hmmm, drifting into Crystall Ball territory here. As it stands, surely we should view generation of energy as a positive thing. --OscarTheCattalk 12:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Energy cannot be produced so certainly we cannot view it as a positive thing. If a culture comes to exist that does not value doing anything I'll burn that bridge when I come to it. kotepho 11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Being the contributor of the phrase "to do useful work" I can assure the concerned party that it is not intended as anything more than the driest scientific term. The prior language used the self-referential form "Nuclear energy is energy" which as you can see id helpful only to those who don't need help. Energy is fundamentally the ability to do work. Nuclear energy - as it is meant here, being separate from nuclear bomb for example - requires harnessing the rather volatile energy of a nuclear reaction to do more than mere work, but to do useful work, or work that is fungible and convertible into practical forms. The raw and unbridled release of nuclear energy is more properly the domain of nuclear explosions. In any case, this would make the first time I have been accused of a bias in favor of nuclear energy, something which many, including the Arbcom would take with some irony. Cheers. Benjamin Gatti 01:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in but I was puzzled by some of the wording on the article. Since the phrase starts with "the controlled use of" you don't really need the term "useful". A nuclear bomb is the uncontrolled use of fission. The delivery of the fissile material is controlled but what happens to the nuclear products is uncontrolled. Nuclear reactors are just controlled, contained atomic bombs - the physics is the same. The word "useful" does look like a POV as I've only ever seen it written like that in BNFL leaflets. Also why is the term nuclear reactions used and not nuclear fission which is what is actually taking place. This is a blurring of terms that should not happen. Again I have been annoyed by BNFL likening the workings of a nuclear reactor to how the sun works (Nuclear fusion) - if a nuclear reactor produced helium we'd all have a big party with lots of the balloons filled with the waste as opposed to concrete bunkers and special processing plants. SophiaTalkTCF 14:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There is difference between "Controlled" and "useful". A controlled reaction is one which is able to be regulated (ie turned off or turned on)whereas useful means the energy is able to be used to carry out work piratically (ie spin a generator or heat a home). For instance,there are controlled fission reactors that produce no "useful" energy (ie research reactors and zero power reactors). The use of energy from nuclear reactions for practical purposes is what differentiates Nuclear power from just a plain old nuclear reaction.~User:Revengeofthynerd
The definitions I have seen used of "control" in physical process is that there is some regulation of the process to achieve some desired outcome - hence I feel the word "useful" is redundant. The other types of reactors that you mention do have their "uses". To research physicists they are very "useful" - granted it's not the power produced that is the major use. As a physicist I have never heard nuclear power described that way. I think the problems stem from the way the sentence is worded so I'll have a go a rewording it and post it here to see what anyone else thinks. SophiaTalkTCF 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully Sophia, I suggest that you are singling out the one word "useful", when in fact I have purposely employed the common three word phrase "Do Useful Work". [3]

The point of "Nuclear Power" is the net production of power (or the ability to "do useful work"). This is one of countless pages which explain the utility and distinction of Free Exergonic energy. [4] User:Revengeofthynerd appears to understand exactly the meaning and distinguishing significance of "controlled" reactions and the phrase "do useful work." These serve to explain the subject in language which is both scientifically accurate and accessible to the average reader. Benjamin Gatti 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So why does a google search of "nuclear power' and "do useful work" come up with virtually nothing other than echos of this wiki page? My point is it is not a description commonly used. [5] SophiaTalkTCF 08:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Google [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] need I continue? "Useful work" is indeed a common phrase in the context of science. [11]. If you think those without a basic scientific background will not understand what is meant by it please propose an alternate wording. kotepho 09:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of your opinions of whether producing energy by nuclear reactions is beneficial or harmful, I think all of us agree that the end product (electricity or heat) is useful to society (“Useful” is defined as “being of use or service”). For instance, no one can deny that slave labor is useful (ie cheap production of sugar), it’s just that other factors (Moral and ethical) outweigh the usability. Therefore, I believe that the word useful is not POV. If this does not convince you, then I suggest the following alternative, “Nuclear power is the application of controlled nuclear reactions to produce energy in a useable form, including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity.”Revengeofthynerd 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not raised any NPOV points. I have raised glaring inaccuracies in the terms used. Even the nuclear reactions given in the first sentence is an example of fusion with a minor mention at the end of fission which is what actually takes place in a nuclear power core. I am therefore bound to think that the main editors of this page are in need of input from a trained physicist who can help with the usual terminology associated with this technology. I am obviously wrong. SophiaTalkTCF 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Fission is infact a nuclear reaction and this article deals with nuclear power in general in some places (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing fusion). As such, the use of nuclear reaction is warranted in some cases. Which first sentence are you referring to? If you actually list what you think is inaccurate we can fix it. kotepho 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


  • A windmill uses the force of the wind to do useful work [12]
  • nuclear reactor that could produce enough heat to do useful work. [13]
The phrase "Do Useful Work" is a traditional phrase use in physics to define "energy" and is used here to conflate the popular synonyms "Nuclear Power" and "Nuclear Energy". Since one is a measure of how many light bulbs can be lit, while the other is a measure of how long they were lit. Benjamin Gatti 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the Nucelar Reactiom article, I have dertimend that it does almost exclusviy refer to fusion reaction, but this is issue that is isolated to that article. Nuclear energy is currently limited to fission but could be using in the future (im sure as a phycist u already no this). I agree that we have to make it clear that (currently) NP is isolated to fission reactions,and that the nucler reactions article must be changed. -Revengeofthynerd
If you can find any cases of stable fusion reactors I think JET would love to hear of them. The term "useful work" in physics is used when defining the efficiency of a system - not a process. SophiaTalkTCF 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The ability to be efficient enough to do useful work is critical to the subject, as fusion, in its current state is not able to demonstrate a net gain of free energy. Benjamin Gatti 00:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Not only is effiecny a matter, creating a self-sustaining reaction is also a problem. Also, Sophia I was not saying that there is currently stable fusion reactor, I was saying that in the future it may be possible and would be another form of Nuclear Power.Revengeofthynerd
I removed teh POV tag, because at this time it does not seem that any issues violaes NPOV. The "useful" problem is relitivly moot and i think the majority (Gatti included) agrees with this logical consensus. Revengeofthynerd 04:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
More of a clean-up issue, really, but what is with the "go suck your donkey" noise several paragraphs into the page? 64.57.107.22 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reader

[edit] Thorium?

This article does mention Thorium and there is another article on the thorium cycle but do you think it may deserve a little more of a mention due to its environmental implications? raptor 14:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

Recent edit "Iran allows IAEA oversight" by Kaveh - is there a source that can be cited for this change in Iran's policy? Had a look on some news sites without success. --OscarTheCattalk 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the deletion. In [14] we have:

Still, it declared that – because of lack of sufficient cooperation from the Iranian side – the IAEA remained unable “to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.”

The finding was essentially an admission that the agency cannot establish whether Iran is hiding aspects of its nuclear program that it is obligated to report to the IAEA, the U.N. atomic watchdog, under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Simesa 12:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing

This diff [15] is the censoring of unfavorable facts - simply because they are counter to the professed bias of Wikipedia:

Note the removed text:

Nuclear plants release radioactive byproducts, such as tritium into local rivers and streams which presents a health risk for the local population. The State of Illinois for example is suing Exelon Corporation for repeated leaks of radioactive waste water contaminated with tritium into groundwater around its Braidwood nuclear plant. [16] Benjamin Gatti 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't people like you understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a blog or a news magazine? There are about a dozen of you types (that I've run into here) that think that this place is their own personal bully-pulpit and I am astonished at the utter selfishness of that belief. You're not getting enough traffic on your own website so like a child that is being ignored by the grown-ups or some lonely teenager with a spray can of paint you come here to get the attention that your pathetic little egos crave. Go away. --DV8 2XL 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Really - look at how much of my time I spent worrying about Price-Anderson Act, a subject which didn't even exist on WP last year. What kind of traffic do you imagine is generated by fussing about a subject so obscure no one else had bothered with it? At least you can find a rational criticism surely... Benjamin Gatti 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Can you give any evidence that supports that the leaked tritum poses a health risk? (unsigned)

I put some in your Borsh- we'll soon find out . Benjamin Gatti 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Note this from the article you linked to: "None of the plaintiffs are alleging any health-related effects or environmental impacts on their property. I was at a presentation today about oceanic CO2 sequestration (short version: it might work, but there's a hell of a lot of science to be done first so don't be counting on it...) which pointed out that as well as playing hell with global warming, the rising CO2 levels are decreasing the pH readings of the surface waters of our oceans. If this continues, the oceans may, in the not too distant future, become too acidic for marine life. In that context, one tritium leak that hasn't had any detectable health or environmental effects doesn't even rate molehill status. --Robert Merkel 07:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen and since we are 90% water tritum will dispurse throughout the entire body. However, since it is water it flushes out very quickly so it doesn't remain in your system very long (about 3-5 days). Tritium has a weak beta (about 1 kev) so it doesn't deposit a lot of energy unless you are drinking tens of gallons of it every day for many days. Also, the half-life is short 12.3 days so it decays away very quickly even in ground water. Currently, federal discharge regulations exempt tritium since is bound in water and very hard to separate out from natural hydrogen. I would be more worried about chemicals in the water supply like gasoline or other toxics before tritium.
That is 12.3 years for tritium, not 12.3 days. You are right that the body does not retain it, and it is de-consentrated in any food chain. See [17] for details. pstudier 07:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned that because tritium is chemically indistinguishable from hydrogen it is very rapidly dilluted when in contact with water in the enviornment. A 1 cm cube of tritium containing water in contact with a 1 metre cube of ordinary ground water would be diluted about a million times within seconds. Also, if released into the atmosphere tritium is a very light gas and would very rapidly rise upwards and disperse. 137.205.236.44 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nuclear Technology

I would like some input/help on Template:Nuclear Technology, which I was hoping could help organize some of the nuclear technology articles and improve browsing. This template would eventually grace this page at the bottom. If you could perhaps add catagories/topics or suggest catagories/topics on its discussion page or my talk page I would appreciate it. Lcolson 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air pollution

Among other edits, I removed the result of the UK advisory panel that "This panel also concluded that the possible disadvantages of nuclear power outweighed its advantages. " since this was nothing to do with air pollution. Oscarthecat reinstated this sentence but I still feel that it belongs elsewhere, not in air pollution. Comments? Maybe that whole paragraph should go. Joffan 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water Vapor

The article really needs a source for "Water vapour is the only emission from nuclear power plants." Bayerischermann 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

supplied Joffan 03:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish article

Does anyone here understand Finnish? They have a beautiful article on the subject, and a translation might serve this article well. The Jade Knight 02:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Details

I think the use of the word "aver," in paragraph 4, is clumsy. Why not just use "believe?" Drogue 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is then, no protest, I will change it. Drogue 11:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit prevaricates issue of statistical fallacy in defect detection methods

An edit to text supplied by me earlier produced the statement that "Oldberg and Christensen (1995) averred the existence of a statistical fallacy in the technology that is used in the safety-related inspections of tubes in steam generators in PWRs. Thousands of tubes are in each PWR, and such tubes have burst in the past thus contaminating the secondary loop of cooling water. The current policy is to periodically inspect each steam generator and plug any tube showing a certain degree of through-wall corrosion anywhere along its length [50]. Oldberg and Christensen asserted that false indications of defects would sometimes occur, thus making the statistical calculations more complicated. (The USNRC apparently rejected this claim - Oldberg, 2005.)" This edit prevaricates the issue in the following two ways. First, while it is true that the text "averred" and "asserted" the existence of a statistical fallacy, the edited text fails to reveal that a) the assertion appeared in a peer-reviewed article in the scientific literature and has not been refuted in this literature in the 11 years since it was made b) the demonstration provided in the peer reviewed literature is mathematical and brief, making it unlikely that it is incorrect and c) whether or not the USNRC rejected the claim is irrelevant for, under the scientific method, claimants are required to submit their arguments, using facts and logic, to the peer review process. The USNRC has, actually, submitted claims within this process and its claims have been rejected by this process. None of this is mentioned. The process of science is, actually, to assume that a published result is correct unless and until a mistake is revealed in it by an article published in the peer reviewed literature. Like the USNRC, the person who supplied the Wikipedia edit bypassed the scientific method to assert his or her non-peer reviewed interests and opinions. This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's rules barring "original research." Second, contrary to the edit, the claims of my paper do not limit the scope to inspection methods for steam generator tubes. To the contrary, all methods of inspection that share certain characteristics of steam generator inspection methods share the revealed weakness. They include all of the various methods of inspection that attempt to detect defects in materials. Some of these methods have been and still are used in the inspection of the reactor pressure vessel. Nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand rupture of the reactor pressure vessel, with the result that the rupture of one would produce vast loss of life and property damage. Also, the statement that "Oldberg and Christensen asserted that false indications of defects would sometimes occur, thus making the statistical calculations more complicated" is false and misleading. Complications in statistical calculations is not an issue. The fundamental problem with steam generator inspection methods and all other defect detection methods in current use is that they violate probability theory in relation to statements about their reliability. As statistics assumes probability theory, statistics does not apply to these tests. Terry Oldberg 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uranium enrichment

My first time on discussion in Wikipedia - please delete if this is inappropriate.

I have a question about uranium enrichment. Is it possible to have nuclear power without uranium enrichment? For a competition (a mock session of the Security Council) I'm trying to find ways of solving the Iran crisis. Iran has consistently said that it will not give up uranium enrichment, but only use it for peaceful purposes. Under Article IV of the NPT, Iran should be allowed all the technological advances from research related to nuclear activities that will allow an easier, safer and more efficient nuclear power production. So, is there any technology that could allow Iran to develop nuclear power without the use of uranium enrichment?

Again, I apologise if it's been explained in the article. Unholycow 14:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

CANDU reactors don't need enriched uranium (but they do need enriched water).
—wwoods 18:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
But CANDUs have their own issues with proliferation; notably, because you can refuel them while they are operating it's easier to use them to make weapons-grade plutonium. Chernobyl-style RBMK reactors can run on unenriched uranium (and, like all reactors, can make plutonium - not to mention being insanely risky to run).
In the future, a thorium-based accelerator-driven energy amplifier design is about as proliferation resistant as you can get, and doesn't leave the operator dependent on the goodwill of foriegn uranium enrichment technology. But that's still a paper design at the moment and may not prove to be economically feasible. --Robert Merkel 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
No evidence has ever been brought forward showing that CANDU produced material has ever been used to make a weapon - ever. The Indian program used plutonium from the CIRUS reactor. Other rogue nuclear states used open pool "research" reactors to make cores, or salvaged fuel from light-water reactors. You should get your facts straight even here in talk. See CANDU; CIRUS reactor and Smiling Buddha for details. --DV8 2XL 02:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I never said anybody *had* used a CANDU to make bombs; I just said it was possible, and there were some design features which might theoretically make it easier to get away with. --Robert Merkel 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It is that particular misconception is what I am objecting too. This claim of CANDUs being a proliferation risk is just untrue. Because they use natural uranium, no State operating one must manufacture or have imported enriched fuel which is a PROVEN proliferation risk. This charge against CANDUs is just untrue and unproven. --DV8 2XL 16:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's a misconception that CANDU is a proliferation risk; any reactor that can be refuelled on-load is more easily used for weapons-grade plutonium production, especially when the fuel is so rich in fertile U238. A good Pu producer could be seen as even more of a risk than an enrichment facility (ease of chemical vs isotopic separation, better & smaller Pu warheads if successful). However, if you're trying to produce power, it's extremely uneconomical to eject the fuel at such low burn-ups, and in a safeguarded facility, the risk of undetected ejection of low burn-up fuel is virtually nil. I don't believe this 'charge against CANDUs' is untrue, but as far as anyone knows, it is unproven. Burtonpe 20:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to SL-1 accident

I suggest that the SL-1 was a minature-design military reactor that had little applicability to commercial nuclear power plants (the military reactors not being subject to the NRC, or the then AEC). Nor is 1961 the right period for the decline of nuclear power. Simesa 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is not germaine to this topic. ==DV8 2XL 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some new cost numbers debated

In [18] some cost numbers are bandied about. The capital cost of $1,300/kw for a coal unit was surprising. But I'd like to see life-cycle costs, including carbon-tax equivalents. Simesa 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...all the new Gen III and III+ plants come in at between 1,000 and 2,000 USD/kw. The actual costs of building a Gen III nuke is less than it was 20 years ago for Gen II plants. There is also the modularity of these plants, with expectations that the cost falls as additional modules (units) are added to a location...the cost drops significantly.

69.181.173.36 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)DwaltersMIA

[edit] Payment for Yucca Mountain / Waste Disposal

"To pay for a permanent repository, an interim storage facility, and the transportation of used fuel, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act established the Nuclear Waste Fund. Since 1982, electricity consumers have paid into the fund a fee of one-tenth of a cent for every nuclear-generated kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed. Through 2004, customer commitments plus interest totaled more than $24 billion." [19] Simesa 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I searched for how the British nuclear program would pay for disposal of its waste (but recall that British spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed). I found [20] and that British Energy will pay in [21]. Canada apparently bills its consumers and has a fund as we Americans do. Simesa 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thermal Pollution (?)

Multiple articles (non Wikipedia) that I have come across, mention Nuclear Power as the exclusive source of Thermal Pollution. Because Nuclear Power plants operate at a low temp (~ 600 K) relative to say, a Super Critical Coal Power Plant, they generate a larger amount of waste heat (see Carnot Efficiency) per MW generated. Although this is true, NPPs are by no means the only source of Thermal Pollution. Furthermore, most country have regs requiring all new NPPs to built with cooling towers which eliminate the problem. Do u think this should be mentioned in the article? Input Please. Thanxs Revengeofthynerd 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Heat pollution isn't really a problem for power plants, whether nuclear, gas or coal, except in the immediate surroundings. It can cause problems for organisms, especially in rivers and lakes. How much of a problem is debated. As long as they get and release their water in the open ocean, as opposed to bays and estuaries, and don't raise the temperature too much, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Plants with cooling towers give off heat to the air, which does not affect much, besides raising the air temperature. The downside of using them is that they cut into the efficiency of the plant, use a lot of water and are unsightly. Nuclear plants have comparable efficiencies to coal plants and boiler gas plants, although new combined cycle gas plants are more efficient than the old nuclear plants in the U.S. I have never heard of a thermal pollution argument against nuclear power. Unless it is at least somewhat widespread, I don't think it is necessary to put it in the article. People that read and understand the article are likely to be able to tell that it is incorrect, too. -- Kjkolb 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thermal pollution is a pretty big problem, and has been recognized as such for decades - and if you haven't heard it used as an argument against nuclear power, it's because you don't hang around the right arguers. You write as if nukes on estuaries and rivers are the exception rather than the rule. The intake of cooling water is a related problem, and probably a bigger one - but since they're inseperable, they should be treated as one problem. I heard about this many years ago when I was living in Shoreham. The temperate coastal waters around Long Island are said to be an ecosystem about as rich and significant as a tropical rainforest - they used to produce freight trains full of oysters, which were eaten like potato chips in 19th Century New York City. All the bays, coves and inlets are nurseries for ocean fish. Imagine a giant underwater vacuum cleaner hose sucking up millions of gallons of that living water, with everything alive getting pilloried on the filtration system. And the problem with thermal pollution is that it's not a steady-state, stable alteration of the marine environment - if it were, the ecosystem could adjust to it - with some species thriving, and others staying away, depending on the temperatures they require. But because the heat comes and goes erratically (due to downtime), it just makes life difficult if not impossible. If coastal ecosystems weren't already subject to so many other severe and increasing stresses, this might be an acceptable environmental cost, assuming there aren't a lot of nukes operating in an the area. At one time, LILCO (Long Island Lighting Co) has plans for 18 reactors along L.I. shores. This would have reduced the L.I. Sound to a giant cooling tank. -- Chelydra
I attributed your post to you. In the future, please sign your name by using ~~~~, which is automatically turned into your name and the time after you save the page. -- Kjkolb 10:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Chelydra. I think that you misinterpreted my comment. I said that it wasn't a problem except in the immediate surroundings, which I meant as opposed to the planet overheating, and that how much of a problem it is is debated. Also, nuclear plants give off about the same amount of heat per kilowatt-hour as other power plants do, so they cannot be blamed more than any of thermal power plants.
In the U.S., I think that using rivers for cooling nuclear plants is uncommon. Some plants in France use rivers, though. I think most inland plants in the U.S., which is where most of them are, use cooling towers instead. I'm less sure about how many on the coast use estuaries or the ocean. They usually use them instead of cooling towers because it is less costly and more efficient. Diablo and San Onofre in California use the open ocean, but those are the only ones I'm familiar with.
I'm not in favor of nuclear power, but nuclear plants are better when it comes to intermittency. They almost always run at full power, night and day, except when they have to refuel, which only occurs every 18 to 24 months. Most natural gas and diesel power plants greatly curtail their output at night or shut off completely. Some coal plants curtail output and some operate at full power continuously. Thermal pollution, and the sucking in of organisms, is a legitimate complaint, but it applies to all thermal power plants that use outside water for cooling and nuclear has an advantage over most types because of its stable heat output. A natural gas power plant near my hometown has been almost completely shutdown because of the concern of cooling with ocean water. -- Kjkolb 10:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Chelydra 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone's destroying this page

How does one reverse changes someone does to a Wiki article? I was in the middle of reading this article, and someone came along and deleted the article on nuclear power, to replace it with poo and fart jokes.

This is standard infantile Wikipedia vandalism; see WP:VAND and Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism for instructions on how to help keep things tidy.
Atlant 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel resources

The current article discussion on fuel resources is somewhat confusing. I've included the text here:

"At this cost level, available reserves would last for 50 years at the present rate of use. Doubling the price of uranium, which would have only little effect on the overall cost of nuclear power, would increase reserves to hundreds of years. To put this in perspective; a doubling in the cost of natural uranium would increase the total cost of nuclear power 5 per cent. On the other hand, if the price of natural gas was doubled, the cost of gas-fired power would increase by about 60 per cent. Doubling the price of coal would increase the cost of power production in a large coal-fired power station by about 30 per cent. The Analysis Group Uranium - a sustainable energy source"

First, the link to The Analysis Group Uranium is dead, and I was unable to find the publication itself at their website.

Second, this may or may not be factually true, and I don't really have time to fact-check it, but the wording is confusing. It is unclear if the supply will increase or the demand will decrease due to price increases. I've seen estimates of tens of thousands of years worth of nuclear energy supplies, so I'm guessing this is probably due to making different methods of uranium recovery economically viable. If that is indeed the case, a better approach would be to say something like the following:

"Currently mined resources will provide another 50 years worth of uranium supply at present demand levels. If the price of raw uranium rises by 100% above current levels, would double the economically available resource pool. Such an increase would have a minimal effect on the price of nuclear energy to consumers, icreasing the cost by only about 5%, because raw material cost is only a small fraction of the cost of this type of energy production. " Tomteboda 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think it may be prudent to explain the difference between reserves and resources. Maybe just one sentence. A lot of groups incorrectly use these terms (usually to say that we'll run out of uranium in 50 years, or oil a lot earlier than that). Its been while since I had a geolologist explain the terms, but I think a reserve is whats proven to exist, a resource is what is speculated to be economically available and can change if prices increase or technology changes (like a doubling of price of a comodity increases the resource base by a factor of four). I would suggest just wikilinking these three words (reserve, resource, resource base) with their articles, but I can't find a good definition of them (geologically speaking) on wikipedia. As I've had it expalined to me, there is more than enough uranium resources in the world to continue with a once through cycle for a long time (thousands of years?), but mining that much (or other technologies such as extraction from sea water) could be bad environmentally speaking. Whereas switching to breader reactors could potentially extend the current reserve for thousands of years (or so I've heard). Lcolson

A 2003 speech by a VP for exploration at Cameco, a major uranium mining concern, seems to thoroughly refute the implication that uranium that is readily recoverable at current prices will only last 50 years. 24.118.70.156 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Economy01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The second and third paragraphs of the Economy section are poorly written. Not being able to understand it myself, I am not confident enough to rewrite it. Anyone who wishes to overhaul it, please feel free to do so.

[edit] Defect detection and risk

In April, Simsea edited out content, supplied by me, that speaks to the risks of nuclear power. I am a registered professional nuclear engineer with 20 years of experience in reactor engineering. I've published three, peer reviewed articles on the topic of the content which Simsea removed. I managed a 3 million dollar research program on the topic of the content for a group of 30 nuclear electric utilities in the U.S., Europe and Asia. I gather that Simsea knows little or nothing about the topic. I've given Simsea my email address and phone number so we can discuss the matter at length. Three months later, I've not heard from him. He cites correspondence with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the source of his conclusion that the content I provided is deficient but does not reveal the deficiency or cite a peer reviewed article that supports him. This is an example of the fallacy of Argument from Authority, for the NRC has Tnever published a refutation of my contentions despite ample time to do so. In fact, the position of the NRC has been rejected and my position upheld within the peer review system. My 1995 paper has been posted for the past 7 years on the Web magazine ndt.net and has been available for discussion in this period. There has not been a peep out of the NRC nor any other representative of the nuclear power industry. In fact, the paper has held up to the scutiny of an international audience of 80,000 specialists in nondestructive testing. It seems to me that the shortcomings of the technology of nuclear power should be revealed as well as the benefits. If anyone wishes to discuss the manner, please contact me at 650-941=0533 or terry@oldberg.biz. I'll be pleased to share all I know on the topic and to listen to counter arguments, if there are any. Otherwise, I intend to revert the associated text back to the pre-Simsea version. By the way, my postings are under my real name. My qualifications are revealed in full at http://www.oldberg.biz. Simsea appears to be a pseudonym. --Terry Oldberg 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only edits by Simesa in April that I found were this and this. Which one are you referring to, or are you referring to both? If these are not the edits you are referring to, it would be helpful if you would find them so that everyone can evaluate the edits. Thanks, Kjkolb 10:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For those interested in reading the said article, the link is here. [22]Revengeofthynerd 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've been inattentive for awhile (schoolwork as I retrain). No, I was NOT the last person to remove Oldberg's edits.
I suppose though that I will have to make a second attempt to get the NRC's comments on Oldberg's work (my first letter went astray). As soon as classes end this session I'll do that. Simesa 13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Is a statistical fallacy used in determining the probability of Steam Generator tube failure even worth mentioning in this article? SG tube ruptures have occurred multiple times in the past (i.e. IP-2 Feb 15, 2000) and at no time were the public or the plant(s) in any significant danger. The only real danger is in the mixing of primary loop and secondary loop water. However, operators can isolate the faulty steam generator and therefore minimize the said mixing. Therefore, I can not speculate why this needs to be included in the article. Revengeofthynerd 14:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Steam Generator Tubing ruptures is a tough one to fight. Sure it might have happened, but there are a LOT of safety measures that are taken to ensure that no contamination escapes. No one is going to tell you what those safety measures are, but I can assure you that they are all well thought out and very safe.Nly8nchz 11:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphite moderated reactors merge

I am strongly opposed to graphite moderated reactors being merged into this article. It often makes sense to cover a subject in a single article, but I am against merging articles into other articles unless it would involve a lot of duplication or if it makes no sense to have them separate. Also, the nuclear power article is already very long. If anything, it should be split into separate articles. -- Kjkolb 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, just as Kjkolb has expressed it, above. Moonraker88 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also strongly opposed to the merger of graphite moderated reactors into the Nuclear Power article. As stated above, the nuclear power article is way to long. By merging graphite moderated reactors into nuclear power, we also establish a precedent, which would require many more articles to be merged into this article (i.e. LWR, PWR, BWR, RBMK articles etc.). This is simply not feasible (due to the length of the NP article). Furthermore, I believe that graphite moderated reactors are of sufficient relevance to warrant an article of it’s own. Therefore, I Oppose the merge. Revengeofthynerd 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No increase in cancer mortality?

In the "Health effects on populations near nuclear plants" section, it mentions that "several large studies" have found no increase in cancer mortality in areas surrounding nuclear power plants. Would it be possible to get a citation on some of those studies? (Wow, sorry about the number of edits) Trappleton 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. It is the converse that needs to be answered: there are no 'large studies' showing an increase in cancer...

216.203.27.99 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)David

[edit] New reference

I suggest that a reference on commercial fusion power plant design could be mentionned in the section Experimental technologies. See for example : http://www.efda.org/eu_fusion_programme/downloads/scientific_and_technical_publications/PPCS_overall_report_final-with_annexes.pdf ClaudeSB 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything to write about commercial fusion plants until there is one designed? There have been experimental ones for decades, and plenty of designs which are dependent upon the final details needed to exceed the break-even point. It's hard to know what the size and shape of the magnetic throat can be without knowing the geometry and scale of the ignition mechanisms. (SEWilco 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC))
The title of the section contains Experimental. Such a reference would simply give the readers more information on what is planned after ITER to go to commercial generation of electricity from the experiment. ClaudeSB 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radioisotope thermoelectric generator

At present there is a link to Thermocouple. It's not strict, but this generally refers to a device that measures temperature difference. Energy production by this means is described in Thermoelectric effect. Anyone mind if I change the link? Moonraker88 09:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Moonraker88 18:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power controversy

Why does this article exist?

I was going to add some content to it, but I see the article is not really finished and is cut and pasted from Nuclear power. Why was it created? What is it for? — Omegatron 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] France and nuclear electric generation

You state early in your article that France gets 80% of its ENERGY from nuclear power. This is incorrect. The reference you cite has the correct information. France gets 80% of its ELECTRICITY from nuclear power. Please cporrect this oversight. DL 206.223.231.29

Dave, this is the perfect oppportunity for you to be bold and begin your career as a Wikipedia editor!
Atlant 13:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How it works section

I added more deatial on specific reactor components, and an external link to a more detailed and current discussion--some of the links are dated.
KonaScout 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text copied verbatim

The following text was taken verbatim from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_power_reactors without attribution, so I deleted the text:

There are several components common to most types of reactors:

Fuel: Usually pellets of uranium oxide (UO2) arranged in tubes to form fuel rods. The rods are arranged into fuel assemblies in the reactor core.

Moderator: This is material which slows down the neutrons released from fission so that they cause more fission. It is usually water, but may be heavy water or graphite.

Control rods: These are made with neutron-absorbing material such as cadmium, hafnium or boron, and are inserted or withdrawn from the core to control the rate of reaction, or to halt it. (Secondary shutdown systems involve adding other neutron absorbers, usually as a fluid, to the system.)

Coolant: A liquid or gas circulating through the core so as to transfer the heat from it. In light water reactors the moderator functions also as coolant.

Pressure vessel or pressure tubes: Usually a robust steel vessel containing the reactor core and moderator/coolant, but it may be a series of tubes holding the fuel and conveying the coolant through the moderator.

Steam generator: Part of the cooling system where the heat from the reactor is used to make steam for the turbine.

Containment: The structure around the reactor core which is designed to protect it from outside intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any malfunction inside. It is typically a meter-thick concrete and steel structure.

Simesa 21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECCS

Someone put up a one-line stub on the Emergency core cooling systems. This not only needs a decent writing, it begs articles on nuclear safety grade and on Reactor Protective System. Anyone care to take a stab at them? Simesa 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article be semiprotected?

Should this article be semiprotected, which prevents editing by anonymous users and accounts less than four days old? Nuclear power is a controversial topic, and this article is currently vandalized several times a day. Recent contributions by anonymous users have been almost entirely vandalism. About two days ago, I examined the last 50 edits of this article. I believe that the following figures are accurate, but it was a quick count. Only 5 out of the last 25 edits by anonymous users were not vandalism. 3 out of 13 edits were not vandalism if edits by the same person/source are counted as one edit. If the multiple posters were all the same people, that means that only 3 out of 13 anonymous editors were not vandals. Also, 2 out of the 3 non-vandalism edits were reversions of vandalism by anonymous and new users. Therefore, only a single anonymous user added content. The content added was not great and no sources were provided for the content added. In addition, 3 out of the last 4 "red link" users vandalized the article. This article was the first one edited by all 3 users. The red link user who did not vandalize the article has been editing for a while. He or she would still be able to edit the article if it was semiprotected.

I think that the article should be semiprotected. It is vandalized regularly, the ratio of good to bad edits by anonymous users is very low, it would free up the time of legitimate contributors and it would prevent visitors from encountering a vandalized article on an important and almost certainly highly visited topic (the vandalism has gone unreverted for a while in some cases). Users who would be unable to edit the article would still be able to suggest changes on this talk page. -- Kjkolb 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. The subject is controversial but important in the present world wide discussion surrounding climat change. ClaudeSB 13:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. —wwoods 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Capital Costs" section neutrality

While informative, the "Capital Costs" sections contains some blaring examples of nonNPOV. For instance:

"New thinking has been applied not only to the technology and design of the next generation of nuclear reactors. The same must also be applied to future construction contracts for nuclear plants and the burdensome regulatory environment that our children will suffer because of if not corrected."

I have tagged it, but an expert should revise it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oconnor663 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree that not only Capital Costs but the whole Economy section needs a rewrite. I will attempt to chew my way through it in the next few weeks. --Joffan 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the Capital costs section back to Feb 1st version, which was sourced (unlike the current version), and better in my opinion. (Not that it was perfect - it could still do with improving.) Rwendland 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism risk

There is a lot of undue concern that nuclear power stations would be a tempting target for terrorists, and that therefore they need incredibly strong countermeasures (i.e. infeasable, so we mustn't have nuclear power). This neglects a key point - terrorists aren't trying to "destroy nuclear installations", but "to kill people and promote panic". But society is only as well protected as its weakest link. So, it's pointless to worry about 'armour-plating' for nuclear installations, if a terrorist can simply blow up a shopping mall/poison water supplies/etc. Unfortunately, this concern (though spurious) is a common worry among many opponents of nuclear power, so it is necessary to address it. RichardNeill 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Richard. If we are doing our jobs correctly, the article will not advocate or condemn nuclear power. It will be a neutral examination of the subject. Also, the article should not fuel concerns or allay them. Instead, concerns documented by reliable sources will be included in the article, and counter arguments from reliable sources will be given, if they exist. I would not be strict on listing sources for fundamental information, but anything potentially controversial and/or anything that would not be known by someone who is familiar with the basic concepts should have a reference. -- Kjkolb 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenhouse gases from uranium mining

It's often said that nuclear power does create greenhouse gases, mainly from uranium mining. Like here for example:

While nuclear power stations produce no greenhouse gasses, we need to take a close look at the life cycle greenhouse emissions of nuclear power – not just what a power station emits, but the combined impacts of mining, enrichment, fuel fabrication, decommissioning and waste storage. The mining phase is the most important.

(from http://www.anawa.org.au/greenhouse/index.html )

Then people go on to say that once you factor in the greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining, using coal for power emits less greenhouse gases than does nukular power. (http://www.calitreview.com/Essays/nuclear_5030.htm) Well that made me wonder, when people calculate the greenhouse gas emissions of coal fired power plants, do they also take into account the greenhouse gas emissions from coal mining? Or is this actually a clever trick being pulled, making people think about the greenhouse gas cost of the mining for nuclear power, but not of coal power? --220.253.88.47 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)jim

I am not a big fan of nuclear power (although it does have its advantages). However, I do not think that the greenhouse gases emitted during mining are relevant. This is because the problem does not inherently lie with nuclear power. The problem is that current mining equipment emits greenhouse gases. If we wanted to, we could mine uranium using electrical energy from nuclear plants. Some shovels already use electrical power. Trucks could be run with either batteries or hydrogen produced with nuclear power. They could also be run with methanol produced using replaceable biomass, which causes no net greenhouse emissions (the overall efficiency is currently pretty low, but it does not require more energy than it gives). The enrichment of uranium could also be done with nuclear power.
If we make this concession for nuclear power, we must do it for other energy sources, as well. For example, some people complain about the greenhouse gases emitted when making photovoltaic panels and wind turbines. However, the energy wind turbines produce can be used to make wind turbines. As long as an energy technology does not inherently require significant greenhouse gas emissions, any emissions that are currently produced just because we still use coal and natural gas for electricity and petroleum for transportation should be ignored.
In addition, even if the greenhouse gases emitted during the production of nuclear, solar and wind energy are counted, they will still be far lower per kilowatt-hour than coal and natural gas power plants (petroleum power plants, too, but very little electricity is produced using petroleum compared to other sources). You cannot compare energy technologies to nothing because we are not going to give up electricity and it has to be produced somehow. You have to compare things to what the alternatives are. This goes for other things besides greenhouse gas emissions. For example, if you are going to consider the birds killed by wind turbines, you have to consider how many birds are killed by other energy sources, like coal (acid rain has been hard on them in the Northeast, but they are also killed by the smokestacks and they lose habitat due to coal mining and power plant construction). -- Kjkolb 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


It's complete rubbish. What you're interested in is life-cycle analysis of nuclear power, and there are a number of them out there. The one generally favoured by environmentalists is Storm van Leeuwin and Smith, which is extremely biased against nuclear power but even it doesn't make such a claim (which would be easily refuted as if it were true, the cost of uranium to run a power station would be higher than that for coal, even before any of the other costs of operating a nuclear power plant were taken into account). If you want more realistic calculations, this very large PDF file contains a study conducted by the University of Sydney. Their conclusion - life cycle emissions for nuclear power, including mining, refinement, fuel fabrication, plant construction, deconstruction, and waste disposal, are about 10% of those of gas. Even they were a bit conservative, as they assumed that inefficient legacy enrichment technology will be used into the future, when it's very likely it will be shut down within a couple of years. --Robert Merkel 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well done. :-) Kjkolb 13:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Pro-Nuclear Bias within 'Other Economic Issues' Section

"The media, however, should be held accountable for sensationalism and one-sided reporting concerning the nuclear power industry. Using the Russian-designed Chernobyl reactor in arguments against US-built nuclear power plants is a favorite tactic of the anti-power camp as well. The fact is that even the US nuclear plants built in the 1960s are a safer design than Chernobyl. But using a design inferior to even our own 60-year-old designs in arguments against todays generation of nuclear power plants is an argument doomed to fail. Most people will react as expected when asked if a Chernobyl-like reactor should be in their back yard. If given the choice between a modular pebble bed reactor producing clean and reliable electricity and a smoke-belching and ecologically devastating coal- or gas-fired plant most people should make the intelligent decision. Fear-mongering and doom-and-gloom predictions that have never come true have sold a lot of newspapers and raised ratings on many a nightly news program but what Americans want now and for their children is a clean and reliable source of electricity that will not pass along an ecological disaster to future generations."

The above quote from the 'Other Economic Issues' section contains strong personal bias on the author's part, unfounded claims, no referencing and is written in parts from a US citizen's first-person perspective rather than the third person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.53.148 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wastage

How much waste is produced per tonne? There is a a mention to a yearly average but nothing that I could see per tonne.

This is an interesting question. How much waste per MWhr-electric. There are several possible answers -- with and without reprocessing, just the spent nuclear fuel or everything, and for a typical cycle or for lifecycle. I can tell you this much - the answer has changed in the last 10 years.
"As of December 2005, the United States accumulated about 53,440 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors." [23]
Bernard Cohen is quoted as saying "Fueling a reactor for one year requires about 350,000 lb of raw uranium to produce about 1,000,000 KW of electricity for about 7500 hours." [24] We can figure it out from this. That's an 85.6% capacity factor, which is a little low nowadays but close enough. Natural uranium has 0.711% U-235 and we're going to want maybe 4.2% (I never designed a two-year cycle, but that sounds about right). So 350,000 lbs * ( 0.711 / 4.2 ) = 59,250 lbs of uranium going into the core per year; 59,250 / 2.205 = 26,871 kg = 27 mt (metric tons of uranium). From my own experience, 54 metric tons of uranium per 2-year cycle is probably roughly right. So that's 26,871 kgU / ( 1,000,000 kw * 7500 hours ) = 3.6e-6 kgU of spent fuel per kwhr-electric, or 0.0036 kgU per Mwhr-electric.
So there's your answer: based on Bernard Cohen and an average 4.2% fuel enrichment, roughly 3.6 grams of spent nuclear fuel per megawatt-hour-electric for a typical cycle, assuming no reprocessing and not considering the other kinds of waste (paper waste, discarded equipment, building and dismantling the plant, etc.). Simesa 06:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


"53,440 metric tons" would...the entire 60 year spent fuel (with no reprocessing) supply would fit into medium sized Walmart covering a 100 foot by 360 foot space about 2 meters high. That's it. 60 years worth. This is about the amount of coal ash produced from a 1,000 MW coal plant after about 5 days of operation.DavidMIA 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)davidMIA

[edit] "Common Knowledge"

There are several canards in this article that need to be eliminated. One of them is the statement "Construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. declined following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl." Although the Three Mile Island unquestionably had a large impact on the nuclear power industry, construction of plants actually declined in response to the 1973 oil embargo, which lead to a recession which dramatically reduced the projected future demand for electricity. The oil embargo also resulted in inflation, which made financing such capital intensive projects difficult. A look at the list of cancelled US plants shows that most were ordered before the oil embargo (or before the full effects of the embargo were realized) and a large share of the cancellations occured before the TMI event in 1979. Moreover, most of the plants whose construction was started were completed. Of the plants whose construction had started but later cancelled (there were only a handful), the blame could be placed as much or more on poor project management and governance (think of the famous WPS "whoops" bond defaults). I'll condense this into something suitable for the wiki entry.

That doesn't make sense. If one source of energy is in decline, it makes sense to either save energy or step up the development of alternative sources. Or, better, both. Building fewer alternatives makes no sense at all. The list you give shows that quite a few of the cancelled ones were commissioned around 1973 (but also before that). But that doesn't say how many in total were commissioned when. And the cancellations took place much later. So this looks like rather shaky original research. DirkvdM 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he's substantially correct. But skyrocketing construction costs (due largely to skyrocketing regulation causing unbelieveable construction delays) also played a major role. I somewhere have data from a now-defunct list-of-cancellations webpage that showed that of the "balloon" of cancellations approximately one-third happened before TMI. (CECo complained bitterly when the Quad Cities units cost $300 million each - contrast that with the $5 billion price tag of some later units.) I'll try to dig up the data. Simesa 08:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I now read in the article that it says that the oil crisis caused an economic crisis, and with the high construction cost of nuclear plants, that would indeed be a reason to stop building them, hwoever odd that would seem in the light of the cause of the crisis. Of course accidents are a good reason to stop building plants. But I beleive that already in the seventies there were protests against the unsafety of nuclear plants. The skyrocketing regulations you mention must have something to do with that. DirkvdM 12:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1973 Oil Embargo appears to have had similar effects in different countries like France and Japan. Neither country has coal reserves to speak of and were proportionally more dependent on oil for their electricity generation than the United States. The embargo seems to triggered the construction of nuclear plants in those countries to displace their oil fired power plants. Conversely, in the United States, oil-fired plants only generated about 17% of the electricity at the time. Today nuclear power provides 20% of the electricity in the United States and, other than Hawaii and remote locations in places like Alaska, oil is generally only used in peaking plants now. But it is true that the Oil Embargo had the effect of reducing projected demand, which at least partially explains the number of nuclear plant cancelations in the United States. Blubba78 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for the statement "During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to vastly extended construction times largely due to ... pressure-group litigation)...made nuclear power plants then under construction less attractive"? Was this true of European plants? With the notable exception of Shoreham and maybe one or two others, it seems most plant's excessive costs were due more to actual poor workmanship, QA issues, and project management than by frivolous legal delays. Has there ever been an analysis of the amount of time plants were tied up in court or regulatory hearings vs. schedule delays of the licensee's making?

[edit] New sub-section

I think this is a very good article, and have made a few small contributions.

In relation to "Concerns about nuclear power", I've added a new sub-section dealing with "Serious accidents which have occurred." I'm happy to discuss this further if necessary. Johnfos 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not totally against it, but in fairness do you note that the few RBMKs and roughly dozen B&W PWRs are not typical of the vast majority of nuclear power plants? The damage that occured at TMI from the PORV failure wouldn't happen at any plant with either a direct or a redundant measurement of water level inside the reactor vessel (relying on one indirect measurement is, in my opinion, a design flaw). Simesa 08:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of thing that needs to be brought out. We need to say yes we've had Chernobyl and TMI, but ... here's the good news about reactor design. A nice balance I think that will help to inform readers. -- Johnfos 08:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breeding Plutonium

The last line of 'fuel resources' speaks of "breeding of U-238 into plutonium". Shouldn't that be U-239? I don't quite get this yet, but my limited chemistry knowledge tells me that would require two additional protons (apart from the added neutron) to become Plutonium. Right? DirkvdM 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No. U-238 captures a neutron, becomes U-239 and then emits an electron to become Pu-239. (Obviously, what happens inside a reactor is actually far more complex resulting in various isotopes, but you get the idea.) Simesa 08:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't get the idea. What I remember from school is that which element one has depends on the number of protons. The number of neutrons only affects the mass number (in casu 239 in stead of 238) and makes it a different isotope of the same element. Or do I remember wrongly? DirkvdM 12:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, a neutron is basically a proton and an electron bound together. If the nucleus is unstable (as U-239 and Np-239 are), you get decay. I'll go back to my texts (it's been a couple of decades!) and try to explain this better. (I used to have a fine Chart of the Nuclides with decay paths - use [25] now.) Simesa
Also see Chart of the nuclides, Table of nuclides, and Isotope table (complete). (SEWilco 05:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC))
Thanks, that isotope table has given me more insight into chemistry than years of school (well, maybe an exaggeration, but tables, schematics and graphs and such can say so much more than all the blah blah I've heard from those talking heads called teachers). DirkvdM 10:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found part of the answer in beta decay. It looks like a neutron is indeed a proton and an electron (and an anti-neutron) bound together. Beta decay of U-239 results in Np-239, which (according to the isotope table) has a half life of less than 10 days, so will quickly experience another beta decay and turn into Pu-239. Is that it? DirkvdM 10:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there is also the possibility of double beta decay of U-238, resulting in Pu-238, but I understand that is nowhere near as common. DirkvdM 11:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a beta- is an electron. I should have said two electrons above. Didn't know about the anti-neutron. Simesa 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Predominant waste stream

The 'solid waste section' starts with "The predominant waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25-30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year." But over the 30 odd years that a nuclear plant is used, that amounts to only 300 m3. Surely, the waste from decommisioning is much greater. Does that sentence not take that into account or does it count in the fact that the former is highly radioactive, while the latter isn't? DirkvdM 12:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but other waste can simply be buried, unlike spent nuclear fuel. It also depends on when you decommission. Existing plants are now operating 60 years and more may be possible - if you replace or anneal the reactor vessel, much more. The intent I heard was to let the plant sit for a couple of decades while radioactivity exponentially decayed away (Trojan, OTOH, is being demolished now). Of the waste, clearly the fuel is most highly radioactive and the most trouble to dispose of. Simesa 08:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish the radioactivity were quantified a bit more precisely than 'high' or 'low'. I suppose spent fuel will be more radioactive than parts of the plant (depending on where in the plant they were, of course). But the amount of material from the plant will be much greater. So the article should be a bit clearer on that point. preferably with quantifications, if possible; so much mass at that level of radiation. Also, you refer to the future, which the article doesn't. In the future, more and more spent fuel will be re-used, so that will alter the story again. Of course the 60 years you mention is a projection (it couldn't possibly be experimental :) ) - how certain is that? I thought that how long the vessel would stand up to the onslaught of operation was a great unknown. Or has that changed (wouldn't be surprised, with the amount of experience from hundreds of nuclear plants)? You even talk about replacing the vessel. I had understood that the lifetime of a nulear plant was determined by the lifetime of the vessel because that can not be replaced. Or has that changed too? (Damn, why can't they keep things the same? Bloody progress.) DirkvdM 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The sentence says "waste stream". The plant itself seems to not be considered part of the "stream". (SEWilco 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC))
It's under the main header 'life cycle' and the main article is 'radioactive waste'. Linguistically speaking you may be right (although a waste production once every three years isn't quite a 'stream' either), but the point of the text is to enlighten the reader, not to present him with a puzzle. :) Or, to put it differently, I (being primarily a reader here) am more interrested in the total amount of nuclear waste and how much of each type of radioactive waste there is, with 'type' meaning how radioactive and with what half life. This is a major issue, so the article should deal with it. I have yet to read all the relevant articles, but they don't seems to be too specific. Annoyingly, in one place I've read that the waste from decommissioning is highly radioactive and elsewhere I've read that it isn't. Of couse the vessel will be (which, if replaceable, will be part of the 'stream' - aha! :) ). Like I said, it will depend on where in the plant the waste comes from.
Surely, considering the importance, there must be some overview somewhere that breaks the the waste up in different types and shows how much of each is produced by a nuclear plant. If not, that suggests that those who know want to hush that up, which suggests 'it's worse than we think' (whoohahaaa). Damn, I'm making myself paranoid now. :) DirkvdM 05:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the main article 'radioactive waste' has topics which could include material from decommissioning. I think details should go there. Once you figure out what does happen; you say there is a major issue but don't know whether there is highly radioactive material or not. (SEWilco 06:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Merging Nuclear power controversy

I guess I'm against a merger. Length is an issue, but basically as long as both articles are accurate I'd let sleeping dogs lie. Simesa 08:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said! I too am against the merger. Both articles are sitting there nicely and I think that's the way it should be. -- Johnfos 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you both. --Guinnog 09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose too, mostly because I don't see any reason for a merger. And indeed the article is long enough already. I'd sooner shorten it a bit (moving details elsewhere), although that isn't necessary either. Who suggested the merger (who indeed?) might think that there is too much overlap, but in that case the overlap might be eliminated in one article. But then I don't see any necessity for that either. DirkvdM 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There already is a huge section on public concerns which is essentially the same issue. Adding more would be silly. The machine512 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE. I think the goal should be to make the main article Nuclear power as neutral, as "encyclopedic" as possible and confine the description of the controversy to the new Nuclear power controversy. ClaudeSB 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pros and cons in stead of proponents and opponents

Throughout the article, pros and cons of nuclear power are presented as positions of proponents and opponents. Why? I know that in reality people often first take a stance and then come up with the arguments, but that is no reason for an encyclopedia to present the pros and cons in that way. Why not just call them what they are, pros and cons? DirkvdM 12:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rereversion of simesa

Simesa, you reverted a lot of edits, but then put them back, but with a change. The way you did this makes it hard to see what you did. You said you'd explain here, but seem to have forgotten. So I reverted that reversion, so you can do your edits separately. Hope that's ok. DirkvdM 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of working on it, please wait a couple of hours for a more finished product. I was just writing to the NRC for clarification of a statement, which pending their response I will put in unaltered. Etc., I'm not sure how much more yet. Simesa 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That's it for the night. I did re-order one section a lot, and added whole new words on "vulnerability to attack", but I think it's substantially what you wanted. I suggest we work from this version, as there is a significant amount of new stuff. Simesa 07:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Availability of Uranium

Towards the end of the 'nulear proliferation' section it says:

Proponents also note that nuclear power, like some other power sources, provides steady energy at a consistent price without competing for energy resources from other countries, something that may contribute to wars.

But isn't the opposite true? Uranium (and Thorium) may be everywhere, but in economically feasible concentrations only in a few countries. So isn't the opposite argument closer to reality, namely that it makes most countries dependent on just a few other countries? Pretty much the same way it is with oil now. Of course one difference is that spent fuel can be reprecessed and used in stead. The US doesn't do that yet, officially to prevent the production of arms grade material. But a 'pleasant side-effect' (I'm not saying that's the real reason :) ) is that in the future, the US will be self-sufficient (both for civil and military purposes, btw). But that argument does not go for other countries, until they have used nuclear fuel for a while (and also not yet reprocessed it to exhaustion). If this is true then at least the article should deal with it. DirkvdM 08:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There are major deposits of uranium in Canada and Australia, very stable free-market countries. The US, Russia and China and other places have economic deposits of their own (see Uranium). There's a large supply (for a price, although fuel price doesn't matter much to electricity cost), and more could be found if anyone was bothering to look for it. Oil, OTOH, is in spots like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, etc. (thank God for the Saudis!). Uranium doesn't seem to be in at all short supply, and the comment seems fair for the foreseeable future. Simesa 09:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You thank God for the Saudis, apparently claiming that the other countries are no safe suppliers (although the US gets a lot of oil from Venezuela). But who is to say what will happen politically in the next hundreds of years (because that's what you're planning for when you develop nuclear energy)? Iraq (even Saddam Hussein) used to be an ally of the US, and see what has happened in a mere decade. Russia and China were long seen as the bad guys, now they're allies (sort of). If you want to get an idea of how big the political changes will be in the next few hundred years, just look back a few hundred years. European nations were at each other's throats and the most powerful nation of the present didn't even exist yet. Then add to that that these days things change much faster, also politically. Also add to that climate change, which will have an unpredictable effect on world affairs. Oh, and don't forget that Canada and Australia hve very small populations and if they have the biggest reserves of the most important fuel source then all countries will start looking at them with eager eyes. You fill in the rest. I tried speculating on what might happen, but my best argument is that I can't even do that properly. The point is no-one has a clue what global political changes will come over the next few centuries.
But the issue here is what the article says, namely that the supply of nuclear fuel will be stable, which is a totally unsupportable claim. Like I said, it's more like the other wa around. And if you compare with other energy sources, sunshine and wind are available to anyone, totally and utterly independent from other countries. Stating an advantage for nuclear power means comparing it to other energy sources and in that comparison it's sun and wind that come out best in this respect. Unless you count in spent fuel, like I said. But all that shoud be in the article. So what do you say? DirkvdM 11:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
David, if the price rises enough you can extract uranium from seawater, at a price higher than the current price from mines but low enough to not impact the economics of nuclear power that badly. Or you can run reactors on thorium. Or reprocess. And there's heaps of the stuff out there left to mine. The reason why Australia and Canada have a disproportionate amount of the known reserves is because they've been explored more thoroughly. --Robert Merkel 12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Who's David? DirkvdM 07:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Concurring with Robert, the uranium market isn't so much stable as it is widely diverse. I don't think anyone is planning plants that last hundreds of years each - 60 years is relatively new in the US. Finally, the comparisons between nuclear and other generating methods belong over in Nuclear power controversy. Simesa 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by plants not lasting hundreds of years. What matters here is that if we go for nuclear power as out major power sorce, then that would have to last us at least hundreds of years (until we've found good alternatives). We'd also have to step up usage - nuclear power now covers only a few % of the energy supply. Let me do a quick calculation. We'd need about 10,000 plants, which use about 3 m³ of Uranium per year. Over 300 years, that would be 10 million m³. Which is about 200 billion kg. Or 2 x 1011. Uranium#Occurrence says there is estimated to be 1017 kg. Which is half a million times as much. But of course, that's an estimate and the article says nothing about what it would cost to mine that fraction (this is based on the presence up to 25 km down, but is most of it at the surface or further down?). If we rely on seawater alone, to avoid above issues, which 'may contain' 1013 kg, we'd need to extract about 2%. But again, that's just estimates and no indication of the cost. And of course, that's not counting the reprocessing and Thorium. I'm trying to figure this all out for myself, but of course it should be in the article, based on a good (independent!) source. Do you know any? DirkvdM 07:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at World energy resources and consumption, which says "In 2004, the worldwide energy consumption of the human race was estimated at 446 Quadrillion BTUs, with 86.3% from burning fossil fuels" and "A third of the world's energy is used to produce electricity. In 2005, global electricity consumption equaled 2 TW". 2 TeraWatts is 2,000,000 MWe. If you wanted to generate all the 2005 world's electricity with nuclear, you'd need load-following plants, so that means Advanced Boiling Water Reactors, which generate 1,356 MWe each. Figure in a 90% capacity factor, which is a little low nowadays. Figure in 2/3rds capacity factor for load-following. So you'd need 2,000,000/(1,356*0.90*2/3) = 2,460 ABWRs. BUT you eliminate over one-fourth of greenhouse gas generation (assuming modern gas centrifuge technology is used for enrichment).

2,460 ABWRs are going to consume a lot of fuel. 872 bundles, 183 kg UO2 in each, say a 3.7% enrichment (the 3.2% GE quotes sounds low in my experience), and replace one-third every two-and-a-half years (load-following extends the life of the fuel). Natural uranium is 0.711% U-235. 2460*872*183*(3.7/0.711)*(238/(238+16*2))/(3*1000*2.5)= 240,000 metric tons of mined uranium per year (plus a little spillage, which is company confidential). (See, I told you I was an engineer.) As of January, 1999, there were 2,960,000 metric tons of uranium available at $130/tU [26]. Therefore, as of 1999 there were enough known uranium resources to power the 2005 world's electricity for roughly 12.3 years.

The reality is that (1) it will take several decades to build 2,460 units even on a crash basis and (2) there's more uranium out there if anybody was looking for it. So, should we start building plants that will last 60 years - knowing that we already have enough known uranium resources to power roughly 300 to 500 more of them? Simesa 09:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You look only at the electricity consumption, which still leaves the rest of the energy to be supplied in another way. So you're not talking about total reliance on nuclear power (which is totally valid, but it needs pointing out). Something that really irritates me is that the figures on the electricity consumption vary wildly. One source I heard said 5%, another suggested 50%, you now say 1/3 and if the absolute consumption is 2 TW, then out of 15 TW total energy consumption that's 15%. Which is it?
Anyway, you also end with saying that we can start with a few plants. But can we? If the objective is to reduce oil consumption, but especially if it is to fight global warming, we need to have alternative energy sources for most of that as quickly as possible. It takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant and that is already too slow. But we can't start building too many because of the cost (most of the cost is in construction, so you have to pay the total price for 60 years of energy out front) So to fight global warming, nuclear energy is too little too late. So it makes more sense to put the 1013 euro needed for the construction of the required nuclear plants into further development of other energy sources. A fraction of that would be immensely more that what those alternatives ever received. If at last solar energy (to name but one) would get the research funds that nuclear energy (or oil research, for that matter) has been getting so far, then that might result in much cheaper power than nuclear energy, which would settle the argument once and for all. Or we could of course put that money into the construction of generators with present technology. Less efficient, but we'd have the quick solution we need. Or both, of course - if we'd free the required nuclear budget for other alternatives the possibilities would be immense.
But the question was how long uranium would last us if we were to rely aon that solely, and I think my calculations still hold. Let me add to that that mining all the Uranium in the world would mean turning the entire Earth's crust into one big mine, 25 km down. Where would we live in the meantime? :) I have not yet found a easonable estimate of how much Uranium could be economically won and that is what this whole thing is about. The problem is that this is a controversial subject, which means that people tend to take a stand before they look for arguments. Which means that no-one can be trusted. Is there really no reliable independent source? So not Greenpeace or the World Nuclear Association (of whom the latter is quoted much more than the former in the article, which makes me rather suspicious).
Btw, Uranium#Occurrence says seawater may contain 1013 kg, whereas Uranium mining#Recovery from seawater says that's 4.5 billion tons, which is only half that. Also, I have just made a very rough estimate that the amount of seawater that would need to be processed is about 1018 times as much as the rainwater the Netherlands has to pump out to keep the country dry. Which, I assure you, is no small feat. Multiply that by one billion billion and it's no wonder that most research has been stopped because of low efficiency. This is assuming that the concentration is evenly spread over the oceans, which is probably not the case. DirkvdM 13:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The usage of uranium fuel in the USA is affected by the government policy of not recycling used fuel. That can change at the stroke of a pen. Also, many of the topics mentioned here might belong in Future_energy_development#Nuclear_power. Maybe there should be a link to the article. See also Future_energy_development#Speculative. (SEWilco 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC))
I don't see the relevance of that first bit. This discussion is about how long Uranium will in principle last, so that would include re-used fuel. Of course one could also look at how long it would last without doing that (for safety reasons), but that is only relevant if everyone refrains from reusing it. Just one country makes little difference.
The links are useful, though. Good idea to add them to the article. DirkvdM 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a more limiting factor is how fast we can build the plants. There are only a handful of manufacturers. Building some 2,500 plants just to supply the current level of demand for electricity would take us well past the foreseeable future. Similarly, attempting to convert all electrical production to renewables will have the same problem. Given our present situation (a large and inevitable increase in global average temperature in the next century), I recommend pursuing both paths with all possible speed. Simesa 23:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link(s) to Nuclear power controversy

An editor removed the top-of-page link to Nuclear power controversy. I would be inclined to restore it, except there is a large amount of info in our section "Concerns about nuclear power" which also has a link in it. Should we move the material and restore the link up top? Comments, suggestions? Simesa 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for discussing, I removed it because it conflicts with the styling system of wikipedia. "Top links" are only meant for disambiguation, see Wp:disambiguation#Top_links, and Wp:otheruses, and should only be used where there is confusion over naming conventions. Nuclear power controversy is not another term for Nuclear power but rather a subtopic. Links to "Nuclear power controversy" should stay under "Concerns about nuclear power" and "See also". The machine512 23:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It can, however, be linked to in the intro, so I did just that. The wording might not be ideal, but the content of what I wrote is important enough for the intro, I'd say. DirkvdM 13:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I have the probem that it deflects readers from the current section inside Nuclear power. Also, the writing is somewhat sensationalist and somewhat oversimplified. We need to discuss what to do here. Simesa 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear power controversy is a POV fork and should be merged back into this article. The article will be too large, but it can then be split into more logical, neutral articles, like History of nuclear power. — Omegatron 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

I think that this is a good article, but that a pro-nuclear bias has crept into the article over the past few weeks.

This is a recently revised statement from the "Concerns about nuclear power" section:

"Some other energy sources, such as hydropower plants and LNG carriers, are more vulnerable to accidents and attacks (due to having no guard-patrolled protected zone, missile shield or containment structure), and may be more likely to be near major population centers."

I did use a {{Fact}} tag to try to get an inline citation for this statement, but never did get one. So I did some research and found this: We plant 'bomb' on nuke train

I also understand that many nuclear power plants in the USA are upwind from major cities. [27]

Surely these pertinent facts deserve a mention in a balanced presentation? -- Johnfos 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure many hydroelectric plants in the USA are upstream from major cities. Compare the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl to the number caused by the Banqiao Dam collapses, for example. Dwelling on nuclear disasters without mentioning deaths caused by other types of power plants is very biased. — Omegatron 03:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are "sure many hydroelectric plants in the USA are upstream from major cities" then why not quote a source to back up what you are saying? This is part of the problem that I have with the quote above: there is no attribution. As you know, attribution is a fundamental part of NPOV.

I am no supporter of large-scale hydro. Dam collapses and other problems of hydro are well-known and discussed in the relevant Hydroelectricity article and I don't think there is any mention of nuclear power accidents there. But you are wanting to bring discussion of Hydroelectricity in here? I feel this is quite a defensive stance, and I don't believe that there is a need to be defensive. I feel a defensive presentation is apparent to the reader and actually weakens the case for nuclear power.

"Number of deaths" is not the only way to measure the impact of a disaster such as Chernobyl, and it should not be focussed on to the exclusion of other issues associated with the human suffering involved. Johnfos 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

With reference to continuing human suffering from Chernobyl, here is a recent article: Chernobyl survivors urged to get health tests -- Johnfos 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for other countries, but shipments in the U.S. are conducted with armed guards, as outlined in spent nuclear fuel shipping cask.
Population-criteria for siting U.S. nuclear power plants is covered under federal regulations [28] -- plants in their licensing submittals so far have used extremely-pessimistic fallout inputs from the ancient WASH-1400. The worst possible wind situation is assumed, to get a bounding calculation - typically 5 miles from the nearest major population center, rounded up to 10 miles for the zone as I recall (remember, no graphite in US reactor cores to give you a smoke plume). I have heard that if modern calculations were done, the maximum needed distance to a major population center would need to be half-a-mile, but we'll have to wait for the new NRC study to get that.
However, a very few plants (like Indian Point) are now surrounded by a large population that has moved close to the plant: they want the plant closed, but don't want to have to pay for it even though it was their action that caused the problem - so the plant stays open, for now.
So what should be mentioned? I suggest new articles, by country, on the analysis of risks of nuclear power. For the U.S. article, NUREG-1150 would be cited.
Myself, I would build a house near an ABWR or an ESBWR. Simesa 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: Geologic and seismic siting criteria are under a seperate federal regulation, [29]. Simesa 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Simesa, you obviously have a tremendous amount of detailed information at your fingertips, and it is valuable to have you as an editor on this article.

I'm by no means insisting that the couple of sources I mentioned above be included in the article. I'm conscious of the length of this page and don't see a lot of need to get bogged down in fine detail and comparisons with other energy sources. Mainly what I'm asking for generally is balance and attribution.

But maybe we do need to be careful not to generalize from the US situation to the rest of the world. And, yes, maybe there is scope for other articles which could discuss some of the finer points.

I need to finish this now, but hopefully, may come back later with a few more thoughts, if that is OK. -- Johnfos 04:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For those intent on making comparisons with renewables, here is one for you... Concentrating solar power better option than nuclear See also Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert for latest developments. -- Johnfos 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simplistic presentation of opponents views

I've been reading through the "Concerns about nuclear power" section again. Another indication of a pro-nuclear bias is the way in which opponents views are sometimes presented in very short and simplistic ways, without attribution. For example...

Accidents sub-section: "Opponents argue that a major disadvantage of the use of nuclear reactors is the threat of another nuclear accident or terrorist attack and the possible resulting exposure to radiation and social disruption."
Nuclear proliferation sub-section: "Opponents of nuclear power point out that nuclear technology is often dual-use, and much of the same materials and knowledge used in a civilian nuclear program can be used to develop nuclear weapons. This concern is known as nuclear proliferation and is a major reactor design criterion."

In both these cases these statements are made in a single short paragraph at the beginning of the sub-section and then the remainder of the rather long sub-section will largely be a response to the simplistic concerns.

This is another example of lack of balance in the article. -- Johnfos 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we're trying to put too much into nuclear power that belongs in nuclear power controversy. The Concerns section is very large. We should move as much of it as possible into the controversy article, so that we have a complete article there. Simesa 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Nuclear power controversy is a POV fork and needs to be merged back into this article. Then this article can be split in a more neutral way, like splitting out the parts about different types of reactors, or effects on the environment, or whatever. "Controversy" is too broad, arbitrary, non-neutral, and just results in lots of material being duplicated. Separate articles like History of nuclear power, Nuclear power and the environment, Nuclear power economics, etc. are better ways to split up an article like this. — Omegatron 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. ethnocentricity

I am still concerned about the US focus of this article, particularly in the "Concerns..." section. The US situation is mentioned many times, and sometimes the reader may be left thinking that that perspective is representative of the whole world.

A worldwide perspective is needed in an article such as this. There seems to be considerable public concern about nuclear power in countries such as Germany, but I don't see it mentioned. And I would have thought that more attention could be paid to nuclear power in developing countries. Surely this is where many people's concerns lay?

For these reasons I'm adding a "globalize" tag at the start of the "Concerns..." section. -- Johnfos 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable. Simesa 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inadequate attribution

I am still concerned about the inadequate attribution of sources which occurs in this article. I've mentioned the issue several times above and have given some examples.

It's partly a case of unsubstantiated statements being made, and partly a case of the over-use of nuclear industry sources which may give a one-sided perspective.

So I am adding an "Unreferenced" tag to the Concerns section. -- Johnfos 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfavourable comments about renewables

[edit] Hydropower

There are many unfavourable comments about renewable energy technologies made in this article. For example, in this relatively small section of text in the Concerns section, hydroelectricity comes in for criticism in two places:

"Some other energy sources, such as hydropower plants and LNG carriers, are more vulnerable to accidents and attacks (due to having no guard-patrolled protected zone, missile shield or containment structure), and may be more likely to be near major population centers. Nuclear power plants are normally located a minimum distance from large population centers, although there are locations where the populated area has grown out to the plant and (in Russia) some plants are co-used for district heating.
Nuclear power is not easily scalable - it is best utilized in sizeable plants connected to a grid with sufficient spinning reserve.
Accidents
See also Nuclear safety and Nuclear meltdown
Opponents argue that a major disadvantage of the use of nuclear reactors is the threat of another nuclear accident or terrorist attack and the possible resulting exposure to radiation and social disruption.
Proponents argue that the potential for a meltdown in well-designed reactors is very small due to the care taken in designing adequate safety systems, and that the nuclear industry has much better statistics regarding humans deaths from occupational accidents than coal or hydropower.[35]"

I've already said that I am no supporter of large-scale hydro and I believe it is a technology with some significant challenges. But I am surprised to see it referred to in this way, and for the discussion to receive such prominence in a nuclear power article. Three lines into the "Concerns about nuclear power" section and hydropower is being discussed. I can only think that a point of view is being pushed.

I agree: this all belongs in nuclear power controversy where alternative energuy sources are discussed. Simesa 03:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No. That's a POV fork. — Omegatron 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wind power etc.

There is also this paragraph, from the "Other economic issues" sub-section:

Nuclear proponents often assert that renewable sources of power have not solved problems like intermittent output, high costs, and diffuse output which requires the use of large surface areas and much construction material and which increases distribution losses. For example, studies in Britain have shown that increasing wind power production contribution to 20% of all energy production, without costly pumped hydro or electrolysis/fuel cell storage, would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup in the absence of power storage. Nuclear proponents often claim that increasing the contribution of intermittent energy sources above that is not possible with current technology.[33] Some renewable energy sources, such as solar, overlap well with peak electricial production and reduce the need of spare generating capacity. Future applications that use electricity when it is available (e.g. for pressurizing water systems, desalination, or hydrogen generation) would help to reduce the spare generation capacity required by both nuclear and renewable energy sources.[34]

Views of nuclear proponents dominate here. Yet researchers such as Amory Lovins say this:

"The variability of sun, wind and so on, turns out to be a non-problem if you do several sensible things. One is to diversify your renewables by technology, so that weather conditions bad for one kind are good for another. Second, you diversify by site so they're not all subject to the same weather pattern at the same time because they're in the same place. Third, you use standard weather forecasting techniques to forecast wind, sun and rain, and of course hydro operators do this right now. Fourth, you integrate all your resources — supply side and demand side..." [30]

The reality is that the installed wind generating capacity in Germany in 2006 was 20,621MW (18,000 turbines) (see Wind power in Germany) and Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from the wind (see Wind power in Denmark). Thirteen countries around the world now have over 1000 MW of wind generating capacity and more wind farms are being constructed in most of these countries. Technical difficulties associated with variability and related issues do not appear to be a significant issue in reality.

[edit] Comment

The criticism of renewables seems overdone and there are professionals who say publicly that some renewable energy technologies are a better option than nuclear power: Concentrating solar power better option than nuclear. But I can't see any favourable comments about renewables being included in the article. Clearly Renewable energy commercialization is an active area, so this seems to be another case of one-sided reporting.

It's interesting how an article such as Renewable energy commercialization can be written without any unfavourable comments about nuclear power, and yet the reverse is not true. Again, things seem rather one-sided. -- Johnfos 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Should there be an article which compares all energy technologies? It seems reasonable for all to be compared, and if this were done in one article then there would not be bits and pieces of comparisons scattered across many articles. (SEWilco 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
Found one. Energy development]. (SEWilco 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Can we move forward?

Firstly, I'm sorry to have rambled on so much. And thank you, Simesa, for the couple of comments you just made.

I'd like to try to re-structure the Concerns section a bit. Part of this will involve being very up-front about Chernobyl, and of course including Simesa's excellent analysis of this. (We need to be up-front. I believe there is a lot of fear about Chernobyl that comes from ignorance of what actually happened, so providing good info can help people with this). It will also involve some deletions of text. (For example, I think comparison with renewables should be left to the Nuclear power controversy article.)

I can only give this a good go. See what you think. If there is a strong objection to something I've done, please revert. -- Johnfos 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear safety in the U.S.

Okay, I started it. THIS IS A STUB!! Nuclear safety is a huge topic, and I just scratched the surface in this new article. I will be writing off for help! In the meantime, anyone who knows more should feel free to chip in! Simesa 11:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good! I think the Chernobyl comments are particularly relevant to this Nuclear power article and that we should refer to it here.
I suppose one thing that does concern me is what is happening outside the US, where standards may not be so high. -- Johnfos 12:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
And if Chernobyl technology is not being used in the U.S., in what way is it relevant? (SEWilco 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
I believe that Chernobyl is the event by which all things nuclear are measured. I think that the typical layperson, when told something about nuclear safety, will say "and what about Chernobyl?" It is perfectly valid for them to ask, "Will U.S. safety regulations and practices make my family safe from a Chernobyl?" Simesa 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotect Please

Since Sprotection was removed, this page has had four stupid vandalisms in under 18 hours. While it is heartening to see that so many readers are consulting us, I recommend Sprotect be put back on. Simesa 07:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this page should be semi-protected, all the recent edits have been vandalism. The machine512 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economics and wind power

This is a statement is from the Economics section:

"A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plants in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 (€45.44) per tonne CO2 for coal and gas. Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, the cost of production through coal, nuclear and gas ranged £0.022-0.026/kWh and coal gasification was £0.032/kWh. When carbon tax was added (up to £0.025) coal came close to onshore wind (including back-up power) at £0.054/kWh — offshore wind is £0.072/kWh.
Nuclear power remained at £0.023/kWh either way, as it produces negligible amounts of CO2. Nuclear figures included decommissioning costs.[20][21][22]"
Last year it was .0175/kWh.DavidMIA 19:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)davidMIA

But much has happened since 2004:

"Although the cost varies between different countries, the trend everywhere is the same - wind energy is getting cheaper. The cost is coming down for various reasons. The turbines themselves are getting cheaper as technology improves and the components can be made more economically. The productivity of these newer designs is also better, so more electricity is produced from more cost-effective turbines. There is also a trend towards larger machines. This reduces infrastructure costs, as fewer turbines are needed for the same output.
The cost of financing is also falling as lenders gain confidence in the technology. Wind power should become even more competitive as the cost of using conventional energy technologies rises."[31]

In terms of a worldwide perspective:

The reality is that the installed wind generating capacity in Germany in 2006 was 20,621MW (18,000 turbines) (see Wind power in Germany) and Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from the wind (see Wind power in Denmark). Thirteen countries around the world now have over 1000 MW of wind generating capacity and more wind farms are being constructed in most of these countries. So the technical issues associated with variability, and the costs of wind power, are such that they do not appear to be significant deterents to its widespread use.


Yes but...most of this power is 'grid subsidized' by extremely cheap French nuclear energy and the 70% of German electricity produced from coal. The "20,621 MWs" in Germany is name plate only, they produced only about 25% of that on a yearly basis because of unreliability. Denmark almost unstablized the whole Scandanavian grid when they broached the 20% mark on a particularly windy day. There are all sorts of annicillary costs to wind power that is almost never discussed here (transmission costs, etc, that actually get HIGHER as you add more wind...see the South Dekota Wind Power report). At the end of day, for every % of wind power available, you need the same or more of on-damand power.DavidMIA 19:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA


There are probably two ways to proceed in terms of modifying the article: one is to include more updated information on the declining costs of wind power, and the worldwide experience, and the second is to simply delete the original paragraph quoted. -- Johnfos 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Why is there wind power information here? Is there an article where technologies are compared? (SEWilco 03:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC))
Found comparisons in: Energy development. (SEWilco 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

Both good questions. I think part of answer to the first one is that this article has some pro-nuclear components to it which include reporting unfavourably on renewables. In terms of the second question, I am not aware of any WP article that analyses and compares the economics of different energy technologies. I'm going ahead now to delete the paragraph in question. -- Johnfos 05:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What, you deleted the favorable study for nuclear vs. other sources, but left the unfavorable comparison to gas in the very next paragraqph? I restored most of the paragraph, but left out the wind values - they should have been left in, as comparisons of costs to other sources is encyclopedic and should be somewhere. Simesa 07:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to delete as little as possible and to make sure I justify deletions with information that has been discussed on the Talk page. I simply know nothing about gas and so am in no position to justifiably delete this information.

If the 2004 UK study stays in then other more recent, and more global, material on wind power must be brought in as it is simply more relevant than the isolated 2004 UK study. This was one of the options I mentioned above and I'm happy enough to go with that. -- Johnfos 07:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How about a 2006 study, referenced in wind power, that says " Cost per unit of energy produced was estimated in 2006 to be comparable to the cost of new generating capacity in the United States for coal and natural gas: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10/MWh and natural gas at $52.50.[8]" That's higher than the 2004 nuclear in UK cost of £0.023/kWh ($46.00/MWh at today's exchange rate). Simesa 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Power vs. Nuclear power controversy

These articles have very similar material and much duplication. Preferable they should either be merged, or the "controversy" material here should be drastically shortened to some introductory paragraphs and those interested should go to the other article. Not acceptable is selectively moving arguments against nuclear power to the controversy article, like comparisons with other forms of energy production.Ultramarine 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the second option, due to length considerations. Simesa 05:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
What should be in each article? The overlap is very large, the only sections not discussed at length in both articles seem to be the "Use", "History", and "Reactor Types sections". If there should be a "controvery" article, I think it should be limited what is most often discussed, the risk for accidents of various kinds and the storage of the waste.
However, I think the whole concept of declaring some aspects to be "controversial" to be strange and inherently subjective. For example, economics or resources available will always be controversial for any subject, but Wikipedia does not have an article called "Oil controversy" or "Wind power controvery".
So my prefered option would be to first merge the two article to remove duplications. Then, subarticles can be created in order to reduce size, with better names, like "Economics of Nuclear power", "Nuclear power plant accidents", and so on.Ultramarine 13:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That's going to be a lot of work, and a lot of acrimony as some try to crowd the whole camel into the tent (which is somewhat the problem now), but I agree it's the better approach. Simesa 22:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. I will gradually move material to this article. Regarding new subarticles, how about an article called "Economics of nuclear power"? Ultramarine 15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That does look like an appropriate one to start with. Simesa 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, created Economics of new nuclear power plants. Simesa 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. I will gradually merge the material from the controvery article.Ultramarine 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. This article has very disproptionate space describing in detail some nuclear accidents, comparted to how much space the Renewable Energy or Hydropower article has about, for example, the Banqiao Dam disater. There is an article called Nuclear and radiation accidents, so I propose moving much of the material about the specific accidents there.Ultramarine 08:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, much of the material in the long "Reactor types" section is too detailed for a general article. I propose that the long lists should be moved to Nuclear power plant.Ultramarine 08:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two articles with confusing similar names, Nuclear power plant and Nuclear reactors. They seem to deal with the same subject, a description of technology for the plants. They also duplicate the main article. I think one such article is probably enough. Which is the better name? Ultramarine 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I would keep nuclear reactors and redirect nuclear power plant here. Simesa 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. I will try to move the material from nuclear power plant and the controversy article to other article.Ultramarine 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also a set of nuclear pros/cons in Energy development. We should link them to wherever the pros/cons in nuclear power and nuclear power controversy go. Simesa 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued

The size of Nuclear Power was that it was too big, and about half criticisms. I moved the criticisms back to Nuclear Power Controversy (that's linked twice in this article). Maybe we'll break Accidents out of that. Simesa 07:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waste heat in water systems

This part is partially wrong.

The problem with high summer temperatures are environmental limits on maximum river water temperatures. If the river temperature is already very close to the maximum to begin with during a heat wave, the rejected heat from the nuclear power plant may push water temperatures beyond environmental standards. In countries with a decidedly anti-nuclear policy like Germany, the power plants will have to reduce power, in other countries, like France, these environmental regulations will be temprarily lifted...

In terms of heat rejection ability, the few degrees Celsius difference between Winter and a Summer heat wave are insignificant for the power plant. --Dio1982 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. reprocessing policy

This is in regards to the mention in the article about the policy of the United States on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 1977, Jimmy Carter issued an executive order banning the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. The Washington Post article talks about some ideas being floated within the Bush administration that would require processing to be restarted if they are to get off the ground. That's it. No public announcement has been made about allowing reprocessing. The Washington Post article even says that Bush has not made up his mind on whether to approve the plan. When the Bush administration reverses Carter's executive order (or whatever they do with that type of thing) and allows reprocessing to resume (or even says that he intends to take steps to allow reprocessing again), then I would say that the policy has been reversed. -- Kjkolb 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tritium Leaks

Guess what! I can't find an article on the recent tritium leaks, nor are they in nuclear power nor in List of civilian nuclear accidents! Anyone care to tackle it?

Background: PWRs use a solution of boron in their coolant (water) to control the reactor's power level. As the fuel burns, there is less fuel to keep the plant critical and more neutron-poisonous fission products inside the fuel - these effects reduce reactivity. To keep reactivity (and power level) constant, PWRs reduce the amount of boron in the water - by blending in non-borated water. Well, that means some of the highly-borated water has to go. And it does - very slowly, into a river. This water has some tritium in it - if you hit boron with a neutron, often you get tritium. The tritium decays away, but there's always a little left - it's no problem to put it into a river. But a problem occurred when the pipe to the river developed leaks - then the tritium got into the ground, and into the groundwater. Infinitesmial concentrations - but measurable. And any amount of a radioactive substance is enough to scare people. Exelon, I understand, bought some houses. Simesa 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find additional info here Blubba78 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cooling Methods

Perhaps we need a source on the predominant method of cooling. The U.S. mostly uses cooling towers I believe (the Hope Creek unit is on a bay and uses a tower, Nine Mile Point 2 is on a lake and uses a tower, TMI is on a river and uses towers etc.). The picture we used to have of Cattenom in France shows four cooling towers. I'll look for a source. Simesa 07:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

nearly all nuclear power plants use wet natural draft circulation cooling towers. Most of their heat gets rejected via these towers, but a significant amount of water will not evaporate in the cooling towers and is collected at its bottom. This water is then pumped back into the river. AFAIK most nuclear power plants also have a water resevoir from which they can draw cooling water should the river carry too little water.
Another type of heat rejection is for example direct rejection into the River/Ocean without the use of any cooling towers. Correct me if I am wrong, but this only happens at nuclear power plants situated at a coastline. Example: link Gravelines
There are dry forced convection cooling towers. AFAIK no nuclear power plant uses these due to too high operation costs. And dry draft towers are infeasible due to the necessary size given the enormous amount of necessary heat rejection.
And then there are forced convection wet cooling towers. These are more expensive to operate than wet natural draft towers, but sometimes due to tertiary concerns, these will be built. Chinon would be a nice example. Due to the proximity of this power plant to famous palaces along the Loire, and the Loire valley beeing very scenic, normal draft towers were out of question for this location since they might disturb the scenery. Another nuclear power plant using forced convection would be Neckarwestheim 1.
And lastly there are hybrid towers which use forced dry as well as wet convection cooling. AFAIK only one plant in the world uses this: Neckarwestheim 2. This is due to the location of this power plant in a very narrow valley where it was feared that a conventional tower might cause the valley to fog up. link Neckarwestheim
--Dio1982 11:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power vs. Nuclear reactor

These articles have much duplication of material. I propose that that Nuclear reactor should be renamed to nuclear reactor technology or something similar. The duplicated material, like history and fuel cycle should be moved to this article.Ultramarine 10:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Maybe make subarticles? Simesa 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to rename this article Nuclear reactor and redirect this article to Nuclear power, since the two are synonyms.Yeago 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, nevermind. The wikipedian who will unknot this mess of article-misnaming and content overlap will be a bold editor indeed. I am not it! =)Yeago 02:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, one of us just condensed Nuclear Power Plant into these two articles, and combining the two would make the article too lengthy. We are more likely to break stuff out than to further combine. Simesa 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. As far as I can see, nuclear power is separated into two parts. One discussing more the social/economic importance (nuclear power(, the other being a more technically minded one (nuclear reactor). As such, I would recommend the breaking up of stuff, too. --Dio1982 11:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree they are two separate articles! But because the naming scheme is a little vague there is a lot of duplicate information. Obviously, nuclear reactor is way more technical than this article. Yeago 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

That's a dreadful picture, shows more of the sunflowers than the power station. The last one used wasn't great, but at least it was on-topic. --Oscarthecat 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On the small screen, it shows the turbine buildings and containment buildings better than the Cattenom picture. However, when the original of Cattenom is viewed, the detail is very sharp. May I suggest we crop the Cattenom picture to better show the plant itself? Maybe a vertical slice with one cooling tower? Simesa 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, NEI had great difficulty in getting the sunflower picture. No plant wanted to give any details away, and even this plant didn't want to be identified by name. Simesa 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Cropping sounds good, it's certainly nice and sharp. Or there's a few others such as Chapelcrosss, Grafenrheinfeld or Ignalina. I guess Homer's place of work is a no-no. --Oscarthecat 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the suggestions, I've now put a cropped version of the original pic on the article. --Oscarthecat 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just observing that there seems to be a double standard here, the Renewable energy article has several pictures with even more nature and less power plants.Ultramarine 10:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, will go start on that next. Want to keep the pictures pertinent to the articles. --Oscarthecat 10:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the cropped picture got deleted! See ^demon's note. However, [[Image:Nuclear Power Plant Cattenom.jpg]] is still there. I put the last picture in for the time being. Let's try again. Simesa 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bullet point list in subsection "use"

I'm sorry, but it looks like a dog's breakfast at this point. What the hell was wrong with the way it was before? --Robert Merkel 12:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just moved the list from another article merged into this one. Feel free to improve it.Ultramarine 18:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power vs. Nuclear power controversy - round 2

The articles no longer has duplicated material. But the titles are not good, there will some controversy regarding almost everthing in most subjects, so it is unclear what should be where. For example, waste storage is certainly controversial but is now in the main article, presumable since it is part of the fuel cycle. I propose mergin the articles back again. If this is too long, move some material to better named articles like moving some material to the nuclear fuel cycle article.Ultramarine 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No opposition, so done. I suggest moving some material to for a new article about nuclear power history or for example some of the proliferation material to that article is the current article is too long.Ultramarine 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
How about creating History of nuclear power? The current section is quite long and detailed.Ultramarine 19:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection

I proposed that this article be semiprotected a while back due to constant vandalism by IP addresses and very new users. It was protected for a time, but the protection was removed and the vandalism quickly returned. I think that the article should be semiprotected indefinitely or at least for significant periods of time, such as six months or a year. It is a waste of resources for people to monitor this article for vandalism, revert the vandalism and deal with the vandal (warning or blocking) when that vandalism can be reduced to virtually nothing without significant negative consequences. Here is a link to my previous posting on semiprotection. I doubt that the figures have changed much in the short time that has passed. Here they are:

Only 5 out of the last 25 edits by anonymous users were not vandalism. 3 out of 13 edits were not vandalism if edits by the same person/source are counted as one edit. If the multiple posters were all the same people, that means that only 3 out of 13 anonymous editors were not vandals. Also, 2 out of the 3 non-vandalism edits were reversions of vandalism by anonymous and new users. Therefore, only a single anonymous user added content. The content added was not great and no sources were provided for the content added. In addition, 3 out of the last 4 "red link" users vandalized the article. This article was the first one edited by all 3 users. The red link user who did not vandalize the article has been editing for a while. He or she would still be able to edit the article if it was semiprotected.

The contribution of anonymous users almost always has to be reverted because even when they do not vandalize the article, the poor writing and/or a lack of references force us to revert. Anonymous users will still be able to post to the talk page, so if they would like to contribute, they can with the assistance of a member. I think that a message to these users should be put at the top of the page telling them how to get attention using the "edit protected" template. Also, anonymous users can simply join Wikipedia and edit the article themselves after a few days.

So, the majority of anonymous contributions to this article are vandalism, some are reversions of vandalism by other anonymous users (semiprotection will stop the vandalism from occurring in the first place), almost all of the rest are not vandalism but are poor edits and have to be reverted, which leaves very few truly good edits made by anonymous users.

Besides freeing up good contributors' time to work on articles instead of reverting vandals, there are other benefits to semiprotection. Some of the vandalism is not reverted for a long time, so semiprotection would prevent visitors from seeing inaccurate content, offensive content or no content. Also, sometimes the vandalism is not caught for much longer periods (there might be some in the article at the moment). This usually happens when someone else edits the article after the vandal instead of reverting. It is easy for this to happen because most people do not check for vandalism before editing the article and unless the vandalism is blatant or the article is very short, the vandalism, especially deletion of content and altering facts (such as slightly changing the melting point of a substance or changing the first job that a person got or the month of his birth), has an excellent chance of going undetected for a long time or even indefinitely when the article is subsequently edited, especially when the next edit is not vandalism. Unfortunately, this seems to happen a lot. When I do not edit for a little while, I often find vandalism that has gone unreverted for days on the articles on my watchlist. Frequently, the article was edited after the vandalism. I wish that there was an option on my watchlist to show the last edit by an IP address on every article edited in the last week. Anyway, I think that we will gain much more by semiprotecting this article than we will lose. -- Kjkolb 04:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definite Error

In the beginning paragraph it says 5 and 15% for worlds energy. should be changed to US maybe? read first paragraph, youll know what i mean

[edit] Forward-Looking Statements

There are two assertions in the Opening Paragraphs which make reference to future events. How can these statements be squared with "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball?"

they are:

1. That New Safe Plants will soon be built (in future)

2. Even more Plants may be built. (in future)

1.Well, 2 EPRs are currently beeing built and the contract for 4 AP1000 has been finished and signed for China. Construction will commence RealSoonTM
2.Given the long lead times for licensing this is very true. Currently something like ~40 new reactors are going through the lengthy (and expensive) licensing process. Most of them ought to survive it and will be built...

--Dio1982 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)