Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Contents

Can someone verify this claim?

Can someone verify this claim? Any nuclear fission requires fissile material. U-238 is not fissile, only fertile at best. I just do not buy this statement (from the section Fuel Resources):

"As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants[34], at present levels of usage."

Reference [34] is from notes from a computer science professor which is not a reliable source as an individual's web page.WP:RS I would prefer to see the Journal article quoted with a link to a full text copy. "Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source, American Journal of Physics, vol. 51, (1), Jan. 1983."

Kgrr (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No requriement for a link to a full text copy, most scholarly articles are in pay journals. The text article is however verifiable if using a library.Ultramarine (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Then let's verify the claim against the source journal article and cite it properly. Kgrr (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Already passes WP:V but I will add the article to the source.Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your premise is faulty. U-238 is fissile, just not particularly radioactive (that is to say, fission of U-238 is exothermic but doesn't happen spontaneously). Breeder reactors can use such material--in fact, that's the whole point of breeder reactors.

MarkusQ (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)MarkusQ

The fuel in a breeder reactor is not the Thorium or the U238, but it is the U233 created from Thorium or the Plutonium created from U238 that is the fuel. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The production of Plutonium-239 through capture of a neutron by the nucleus of a Uranium-238 atom is the definitive process of "breeding" fuel. Uranium-238, which makes up 99.3% of natural uranium, is not fissionable by "slow" (<1 MeV energy level) neutrons. U-238 has a small probability for spontaneous fission and also a small probability of fission when bombarded with "fast" neutrons, but to be considered fissile a material must be fissionable by "slow" neutrons. Therefore U-238 is NOT fissile. It's contribution to fuel breeding is its higher cross section for absorption of neutrons to create fissile Plutonium-239 through a process called Beta decay (U-239 becomes Np-239 becomes Pu-239). The Thorium to Uranium-233 process is similar. --Timnkris1 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Uranium-238 is *NOT* fissile. Fissile means any material fissionable by thermal (slow) neutrons. In another words, it can sustain a chain reaction. Uranium-238 cannot. The three primary fissile materials are uranium-233, uranium-235, and plutonium-239. A breeder reactor does not "burn" uranium-238, it burns one or more of the fissile materials. Uranium-238 absorbs neutrons to become plutonium-239. Kgrr (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


NPOV

Nuclear power is very controversial. One side, the pro-nuclear side is very interested in deploying new nuclear power plants. The claim is that nuclear power is clean, renewable and efficient energy. They propose nuclear power as a solution to the global warming issue. The other side is interested in pointing out that there is still no answer to the disposal of highly radioactive spent fuel, that nuclear power is not renewable, that it is not that efficient, requires lots of a limited resource - water, and specifically dispute the safety of nuclear power plants and their greenhouse gas neutrality.

This article is very slanted towards the pro-nuclear side because only the pro-nuclear points are brought out by the article. To achieve a balance in this article requires that the issue is handled in such a way that a fair and balanced article is presented.

These facts should not be suppressed by the Nuclear power article. To do so is pushing the pro-nuclear point of view:

  1. The need for water by all electric generating nuclear plants is a fact, not an environmental issue. Your insistence to suppress or hide these facts in a less visited article is POV.
  2. Nuclear power plants do emit water vapor, a recognized Greenhouse Gas (GHG) The lead to the environmental article should mention this. Removing or hiding this fact is POV.
  3. Chernobyl had a containment vessel - a pressure suppression containment as used in pre-1979 GE and Westinghouse designs.
  4. Your need to hide Steven Wing's peer-reviewed study about the cancers that followed Three Mile Island and the need to discredit the source by coatracking him is also POV.

Please understand WP:NPOV better and strive to balance this article. If you can't do it peacefully, I will have to raise an NPOV dispute that will have to be settled externally.

Kgrr (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. Pleae do not delete the sourced criticism of Wong, remember NPOV. That three scholarly journals refused the paper is significant. Compare it to the dozed other independent studies finding no increase in cancers. Water requirements are not particularly interesting, the same applies to coal plants. The claim that the water should be a significant contribution to greenhouse gases is strange, source please. Compare it to all the water vapor created by sunshine on the oceans.Ultramarine (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, you have written: "The reactor at Chernobyl used a pressure suppression containment similar to half of the US's reactors designed by General Electric and Westinghouse." I cannot find this in the given souce, exact page number please.Ultramarine (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, explain why you deleted this without explanation: "Several studies have found no increase in cancer rates.[1] (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. I have not attacked you personally and won't.
  1. The article you reference is specifically being used to coatrack him for his dissenting opinion. Wing has also been the subject of an ad hominem attack for pointing out that people get sick downwind from pork processing plants. Please see WP:COATRACK
  2. I gave a complete reference to the green peace article. Don't give me any crap about it not verifying. I just looked at the document this morning.

[www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/an-american-chernobyl-nuclear.pdf] Now take a careful look at appendix B, page 47. You will find a US AEC page displayed there. It shows you that GE and Westinghouse nukes use pressure supression containments. It's the exact same kind of containment used in Chernobyl. Even though this may disturb you that some of the containments in the US are the same as Chernobyl, please don't try to confuse or distort the facts. The line "Chernobyl had no containment" is an NEI myth. I can find you more references if you need.

Kgrr (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that an article has been refused several times by different journals is not ad hominem. Again, explain why you deleted this without explanation: "Several studies have found no increase in cancer rates.[2] If you do not respond the water arguments above I will removed this section from the article. I looked at p. 47, nothing there that they are the same sort, Chernobyl not even mentioned. That is your own WP:OR, not allowed. Please give a quote from the paper stating that these containment systems are similar.Ultramarine (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Kgrr is confusing some parts of a nuclear reactor for others. The RBMK reactors at Chernobyl have pressure vessels and steam separators but not containment buildings and pressure suppression. All commercial nuclear reactors in the US have pressure vessels and steam separators too as well as containment buildings and some kind of system to deal with excess pressure. The type of pressure suppression talked about in the greenpeace article he linked to could be confused for steam separators. It seems to me he's confusing a pressure vessel for a containment building and steam separators for pressure suppression.

Also, no one has ever argued that Chernobyl had no containment. The RBMK pressure vessel and upper biological shield are containment (which failed). What is argued, and what is undeniably true, is that Chernobyl had no containment building. Nailedtooth (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nailedtooth, When I first read the article it said that Chernobyl had no containment at all, which is simply not true. So please clear up one thing for me. What is the containment building made of in the General Electric MK 1 and MK 2 reactors and the Westinghouse ICE ? Kgrr (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

kgrr, see Environmental concerns with electricity generation for the water usage issue - which is very heavily covered there. I think it would be appropriate to add the concern about GHG effect of water vapor there. Keep in mind the water vapor thing is called sensationalism and junk science by many out there. Not to keep you from being bold of course, I would be more than likely to find sources for the criticisms and add them in the appropriate place, should you be so kind as to put it in that article.

The Chernobyl containment claim should definitely be brought up in Containment building article. This definitely sounds like a matter of definition, and a negative pressure building is NOT a containment in the sense that we say it here.

But yeah, I've tried to work a lot on the articles that stem from this nuclear power article and address the issues you bring up. There's just too much to cover on nuclear power to give the reader a good resource without detailed branch off discussions. I'm sorry if the repository for the desired information is difficult to find. I think organization needs work as well. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Theanphibian, When I found the article, there was NO mention of water for cooling being an important resource to run nuclear reactors. It's important because there is a shortage of water.
The water vapor as a GHG issue is not junk science. Water vapor is actually THE largest source of global warming, even more than CO2, methane and NO2 combined and, nuclear power plants produce lots of it. Perhaps it seems secondary because the IPCC does not currently recognize it. The problem is that CO2 enables the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. The two gases work hand in hand to produce global warming. To say a nuclear power plant does not produce GHGs during reactor operations and to avoid talking about the whole fuel and construction cycles during it's lifetime is simply untrue and pure propaganda. [3]
The section on GHG treats GHGs as if CO2 was the only cause of Global Warming. But the FENCH studies and even the NEI's reports include quite a few other sources for Global warming.
Many of the articles that stem from the Nuclear power article are simply not referred to. For example, there are no links to to the Containment building article. The only references were about Chernobyl not having a containment and containment being the savior of TMI. I've made an initial pass through the article to sort-out sections with subsections so that it begins to flow. Perhaps we need an outline of what are the core points about nuclear power.
I realize it really does take some effort to write an article that does not seem intentionally biased or misleading. But I feel I can't be an active participant in this project if everything I write gets removed (even though I've properly sourced my contributions) simply because it does fit with the POV of some of the editors there.

Kgrr (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well gee, I tried to put pictures at the very top of the article representing the cooling systems of a nuclear power plant earlier. I mean, I'm not saying this covers it, but I think that's in the right direction (sorry, I haven't spent much time on this article or ever gone over it comprehensively). Water is an important resource to nuclear power, we should say that, but we shouldn't force the implications of it down the readers throat.
And there darn well should be links to Containment building, I'm mad that there wasn't!
Every wet and dry cooling tower, cooling pond, or even once through cooling cycle on earth produces more water vapor. Similar to what you were saying, I'm not aware of any global initiative to decrease this in a similar manner to carbon or methane. Yet still, I'm not saying it shouldn't be included with information on waste heat, but putting it articles like here or in coal or in natural gas or something is just going way too far. People also worry about the thermal energy society produces contributing to global warming, thus favoring energy sources that don't use a thermal cycle which is 30-40% efficient. No kidding, these are valid issues and discussions in climate science, but the burden of proof is heavy, and this isn't the right place for it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(Water) We agree that water is an important resource. Certainly pro-nuke's main objection to wind is that the wind does not blow. This is important enough to pro-nukes that it's in the article about nuclear power. It's certainly mentioned in the wind article. But when the lack of water as a problem with nukes, you feel ifdsgfgdfgdfgdfgfdgt's shoved down the reader's throat? I don't get it.
(Containment) OK
(Water Vapor) I agree. I think we can safely acknowledge that both the fuel cycle and the construction cycles are GHG (Greenhouse gas producing) and point out where the GHG's are coming from and then defer what is a GHG onto an authoritative article on the subject. By the way, water vapor is #1 in the list followed by CO2, methane, NO2, etc.
Kgrr (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As long as the Earth has all these bodies of water laying around exposed to the sun, water evaporated in power generation can't have any effect on global atmospheric levels of water vapor. It's a red herring, at best.
—WWoods (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
70% of the earth's surface is water. Water is not a scarce resource in most climates. Potable drinking water on the other hand is gtaken directly from a large body of water i.e. the ocean. I agree with Wwoods it is a red herring at best. Lwnf360 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wwoods, yes, the earth has a lot of water. 6/7 is covered by water. But by running a 2 GWe plant, you are creating 4 GWth worth of heat. More than half of that goes into the atmosphere as water vapor. The cooling pond is at 50-65 degrees causing a little water vapor, but the water coming from the cooling tower is a lot of steam. Nukes (and coal, oil, gas-fired and even geothermal plants) do add water vapor to the atmosphere. This is all a Greenhouse Gas. In fact, water vapor is the most prevalent.
Lwnf360, I don't know where you get this. Water in large quantities is a scarce resource. It does limit where nukes are built. And, when there is a drought, there is not enough water in some places. Nukes have already been shut down in Alabama and France due to the lack of enough water to cool the nuke. I have offered documentation for this. Perhaps pro-nukes like you guys don't like the facts.Kgrr (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If the above-mentioned Environmental... article doesn't have water vapor information, perhaps it should be added there. You'll need a source, not a calculation based upon energy, as someone will have had to review the characteristics of each site's cooling systems. A cooling system which dumps all or most heat as hot water into a river or ocean will produce different amounts of water vapor than a system fully dependent upon evaporative cooling. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Kggr: Of course, water is the #1 Greenhouse Gas, but what you seem to forget, is that the immense majority of it's presence in the atmosphere is due to natural processes. I cannot imagine for one second how the human race can augment it's prevalence in the atmosphere. Water is part of a cycle, so is CO2 you will tell me; but the main difference is that CO2 cycle implies living things. CO2 doesn't retire itself from the atmosphere by condensing when there's "too much of it" . Water does, we call it rain - or snow in canada. To put things in perspective: In quebec we harvest water in the north whith dams and we make electricity whith it. It's only a microscopic portion of the actual rainfall on earth. But we produce about 40GW with this water. The 40GW comes from a head of say 200m. Before we get this water in the dams, the water was a few thousand meter high, in the clouds, which represents way more potential energy. But you know what? It already released most of it's energy by condensing in the atmosphere. So 4 GW of evaporation for a nuke power plant? Most of it fall back in the ocean as rain whithout us seing it. Water is the number one greenhouse gas YES, but it's propotion will never EVER get alarming. When there's to much it fall's back. I almost feel like a idiot for answering to what appear to me like some kind of advanced trolling -- Saisdur (talk) 1:35, 21 march 2008

reality check

Hi. Came to see what is current and new in nuclear power technology. Found long debate between left and right. Can we move the POV vs. NPOV debate to a new article or blog somewhere else, please? How about an article on Nuclear Power Politics? Then the engineers and scientists can get back to the work of documenting the latest developments in nuclear power. Thanks. JimScott (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It isn't possible to separate the consequences from the actions. You can partition the article, but it is necessary to summarize those partitions here. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's possible to separate the facts from the POV. But some of those who feel called to save the world from nuclear power don't want to. Food for thought? Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This debate is part of the subject. The nature of the debate makes it a difficult subject for Wikipedia to cover well, but no less worthwhile for us to try. It just means that it's a difficult subject on which to attain consensus. We knew that.
As with other controversial subjects, for example quasiturbine, Solar updraft tower, the Kinsey Report or History of Palestine, you need to apply some critical reading to this article. Look at the article history. Look at the contribution histories of the authors. Look at those who have contributed to non-controversial articles, and on what subjects. Yes, it's harder work than for example getting unbiased information on cattle. I think we knew that too.
If, on the other hand, you think you have a clear idea of who is right in the debate, just go to one of the websites that publish information supporting one side or the other. But Wikipedia strives not to be one of these, and it is a struggle. See user:andrewa/creed. Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


LMFAO. Right under the neutrality message, someone wrote 'NUCLEAR POWER IS A DANGEROUS FORM OF POWER THAT HAS KILLED MILLIONS' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.230.157 (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear power is a subject that tends to prefer to sweep parts of the reality under the rug in order to be able to proceed. It is important in this article to examine the truth behind the subject. Only a small fringe believes that nuclear power has killed millions, but there are really no definitive studies on how many have been killed. Gofman believed that it was impossible to clearly delineate but did make estimates that were quite large, almost half a million from Chernobyl. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Gofman is of course the author of many celebrated anti-nuclear publications, and a champion of the linear no-threshold model. According to this article his estimate of the Chernobyl victims was that nearly 1 million people would develop cancer from Chernobyl, far more than any other estimate. Andrewa (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JimScott. This article should focus on scientific facts, not political bullcrap. Some individuals just love to insert politically charged "info" into everything they encounter.--Deathkenli (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Add new information to life cycle section

A recent study found that to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use (to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions) and meet the future energy demands, nuclear energy production would have to increase at such a large growth rate that a cannibalistic effect becomes important (i.e. nuclear energy must be used to supply the energy for future nuclear power plants.) Depending on ones point of view this work either a) calls into question claims on 'emission free nuclear energy' or b) calls on the industry to rapidly increase its efficiency, particularly in the U.S. See: Pearce, J. M. “Thermodynamic Limitations to Nuclear Energy Deployment as a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Technology”, International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology 2(1), pp. 113-130, 2008. http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=17358&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chum2 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Purchase price €30.00 EUR. How about a reference that can be read for free? 199.125.109.36 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The linked-to article says nothing to support what you've said. It says a higher ore grade than generally estimated needed to offset fossil fuel emissions. Without knowing the details, such as the relative scarcity of this grade of ore, the abstract is almost meaningless. The linked article also says that nuclear plants emit heat so they are 'modestly' not emission free. Also, in my experience, I've never heard nuclear power touted as a pancea for climate change. It's always been represented as the best replacement for fossil fueled electrical generation.Nailedtooth (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually solar and wind power have been represented as the best replacement for fossil fueled electrical generation. Since both of them have almost random production cycles they need to be supplemented with storage, and the most practical storage is hydrostorage, although batteries and other means of storage can also be used. I think that one point about uranium ore concentration is that lower grade ores take more energy to obtain than is obtained from them. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You already know that solar and wind power would require gas turbine backup in most places. You already know they would require hugely environmentally-damaging battery backups. You already know they would require giant hydroelectric pumped-storage facilities. Why do you insist wind and solar are somehow an environmentally friendly replacement for fossil fuels? Blackwhite
The point about uranium concentration was that the grade of ore needed in a once-through cycle to provide all the energy needed to make new nuclear plants with nuclear energy would need to be higher than previously estimated.Nailedtooth (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, once through is used in almost all existing nuclear power plants. It is better to focus on what the current state of the technology is, instead of dreaming and scheming. Move reprocessing and breeder reactors to a separate article, they are not a significant function of current technology. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, France and Japan nuclear fuel is reprocessed. Japan alone has 55 electrical generating reactors. France has 41 and the UK 24 for a total of 120. This means 28% of reactors in the world use reprocessed fuel. 72% is nowhere near 'almost all'. Reprocessing is a significant part of the current nuclear fuel cycle and there's no way the article should pretend it isn't. Furthermore, many countries such as the US, Canada and Russia possess reprocessing technology and could build plants within a decade should they so choose to do so. Nailedtooth (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree-- the article is really interesting but you can get a full book on that amount of money! I got my copy through interlibrary loan through the university. To help everyone that cant do that - I wrote a summary of the articles basic premise under Energy Cannibalism but I generalized it for any energy technology. It seems sound and I plugged in the numbers following the article for nuclear and it looks pretty bad...it seems that nuclear just doesnt cut it as practiced in the US. I would guess that the industry in Europe is more efficient - I would really like to see their numbers.

Pearce used World Energy Council projections for energy use in the future. I just read in a blog [How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs? |http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-many-nuclear-plants-does-it-take-to.html] from the Nuclear Energy Institute claiming that his numbers will be 1/3 less. The one thing I am sure of is that everyone will be wrong predicting the future. The thing that is bad is the scale– Pearce ignored any problems with nuclear and that there would be plenty of uranium etc.-- he calculated that “if we assume that construction of plants begins in 2010 and is concluded by 2050, 650 new nuclear power plants must be built and put into operation each year or roughly 1.8 per day for the next 40 years.” Even if the Nuclear Energy Institute blog is correct and we only need a third of that – that is still about 1 nuclear plant per week for 40 years -- this seems like a huge problem for obvious reasons.--Chum2 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed this highly speculative section because the text of the source listed is not available for free. Based on the little information available, the source does not seem to be reliable, but rather it seems to be a biased anti-nuclear study. If we had access to the text of the study, we might be able to determine the reasonableness of their assumptions. There are an enormous amount of assumptions at play in this kind of economic analysis that any one of them could throw the whole thing out of whack. Chum2 if you can find additional sources which are available for free, then we can look at all of the underlying assumptions and see if it is credible. As of now the consensus is that this material is inappropriate for this article. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Programs in the EU

Current version states: "Finland, France and Romania actively pursue nuclear programs (the only 3 countries in the EU to do so)" This is incorrect. Bulgaria has started to construct Belene NPP (actually mentioned later) and Lithuania (together with Poland, Latvia and Estonia) prepers to construct a new NPP to replace old Ignalina NPP. Construction of new NPPs is included in national programmes of Poland, Slovakia, and the Czeck Republic. I will correct this.Beagel (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently also Slovenia is considering building another NPP next to existing one in Krško: http://www.nek.si/uploads/documents/lp_ang_2007.pdf page 9 (89.142.171.7 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)).

Redo Entire Article?

I am concerned that there is too much controversy with this article for it to be cleaned up properly. What do people think about a total rewrite, or even more drastically, a review and reorganization of all topics nuclear? The reason I propose this is because there does not seem to be much progress made on this article, and some are concerned that this article is either too broad or too narrow. While I think the vast majority of this article is factual, I also agree that much of the wording is leading.

Specifically, the discussion about containment still has not been resolved. It is my opinion that any mention of a generic "containment" should correspond to the definition of nuclear containment as described in Wikipedia. If there is not one currently, there needs to be. Franlkly, any structure constructed for the purpose of protecting the pressure vessel from the environment and vice versa is a type of containment. In the United States and most of the nuclear-powered world, a containment building includes some sort of large concrete structure, though I suppose a cardboard building, if built for the expressed purpose of protecting the RPV, would constitute a containment structure. The fix to this would probably be to distinguish the difference between a traditional containment building and any containment structure, and then stick to this standard.

I am also concerned over the degree of inclusion of anti-nuclear sentiments. I think this article should cover the technology and processes of nuclear power, not the policies, pro or con. For instance, the article Freedom (philosophy) does not make mention of anti-freedom sentiments. It only covers the facts about freedom, which is how it should be. Certainly, the negative affects of nuclear power or nuclear accidents should be included, but these need to include reliable sources, just as information about nuclear power technologies needs to include sources. Also, when covering accidents, it would be preferrable that more hard data is used, such as the total radiological release and the average dose.

It is going to be impossible to accurately gauge the exact number of deaths or the people killed by a nuclear accident. The best we can do is use probability statistics to estimate the number of deaths. When compared to the amount of background radiation you are exposed to every day, the addition from nuclear power is miniscule even for people living next to a plant. For comparison, during a recent visit to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Ohio, I noticed that a Geiger Counter located just outside the used control rod pool and about 200 feet from the containment building read about 100 counts per minute (a combination of beta and gamma radiation). During the fall of last year my professor in NE 505 brought in a Geiger counter with the same sized detector which produced an average reading of 160 counts per minute. Even for serious accidents, except for Chernobyl, there is relatively little radiation released relative to the average daily dose. It would be impossible to say which beta particle or gamma ray caused a cancer. The best you can do is monitor the number of cancer deaths above average.

As for accident frequency numbers, those need to be added. Every reactor design in the US is required to do this analysis before the design is certified. I believe the NRC requirement is less than 1 x 10^-5 core damage events per reactor year, but don't quote me on that. Newer designs such as the Westinghouse AP1000 are designed for 1 x 10^-7 core damage events per reactor year, and the GE ESBWR is supposed to be 5 x 10^-8 events per reactor year.

If it is agreed that the article should be rewritten, I would be willing to work with a few others to come up with a good structure to the article and fill in with the details. I think just a few people (maybe a maximum of 10) should get together and privately create a basic article that can then be developed further by the rest of the Wikipedia community. I don't mean to suggest that the article should be secretly developed by some unknown group of pro or anti-nuclear people, but I think the debate over this topic makes it difficult to develop a clear, concise, and unbiased artcle in a large community. I would also suggest that any person participating in this group be open about their affiliations with pro or anti nuclear groups.

Let me know what you think. I think I am very unbiased when it comes to Wikipedia, however an opinion from the opposite side of the table would be very helpful. I hope to help out on this article, as I would like for it to provide the truth about nuclear power and its technologies and not the conjecture that much of the article contains currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polypmaster (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the anti-nuclear sentiment and political considerations do not belong in this article. They rate of mention, but there should be a link to the Anti-nuclear article and have that be the end of it. Any anti-nuclear information that is in this article can be moved there. This is not to say that the article should be a pro-nuclear advocacy piece either.
As far as a complete re-write is concerned what do you propose? As of now the article outline is:
-use
-history
-reactor technology
-life cycle
-debate
What would be moved where, and what would the new outline look like? Lwnf360 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
No way. A neutral presentation would have both in the same article. Don't segregate all of one opinion to one article and another opinion to another. They should be side by side, placed near the undisputable facts, stated neutrally. — Omegatron 23:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This is NOT meant to be a pro-nuclear article. It is meant to be an objective encyclopedia entry of basic facts about the technology. For example, the wind turbine article only discusses facts about the technology--political debates regarding it are segregated into a separate article. cf. a simple formulation of NPOV policy Lwnf360 (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, as long as the "Nuclear power debate" article is neutral. "Anti-nuclear movement" is not neutral. — Omegatron 04:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. A lot of effort has gone into making anti-nuclear movement neutral. There are a couple of editors who are determined to make it as biased as possible, in particular one single purpose editor who has edited only that one article, but with the assistance of a few other editors it isn't too bad now. Of course if you ask someone who is pro-nuclear they will say it is still biased, and if you ask someone who is anti-nuclear they will say the same, so obviously it does still have significant bias. The Wind Trbin article is not the main article about the subject, this one is. Wind turbine is a subarticle, like nuclear accidents or nuclear waste storage. In terms of a re-write, start with the outline and see if it covers all the topics, then fill them out with any available text. It doesn't matter if you end up with almost nothing in the meantime - this article hasn't won any awards, ever. Anything you do will probably be an improvement. Since the article is so long, you might start by creating a History of nuclear power and a Nuclear power debate article. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this is an article about what nuclear power is, not the merits of it. It should contain how it works and what it does. It should not contain people's opinions on the subject, regardless of the facts behind them. I am not trying to push a pro or anti-nuclear agenda, and by removing opinions on both sides will eliminate the controversy.
There seem to be a few people that think writing about how nuclear power works is somehow a pro-nuclear agenda. It is not. The truth is that it does work and this article should describe the processes of that. It does not work perfectly, nothing does, but that is not the point of the article. This is supposed to be about what nuclear power IS, not what it IS NOT. Adding negatives to nuclear power is well within the scope of the article, but only if they are based on fact. Saying Greenpeace is against nuclear power doesn't add any information about nuclear power, it adds information about Greenpeace. I see a lot of inconsistencies in this article and I think it might be easier to rewrite it using most of the same format and sources, but with new prose. It can be difficult to rewrite a sentence without also rewriting the entire article. Polypmaster (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What it is? What it is is a source of radiation and radiation products such as whatever you care to brew up at the moment, pollution, waste products, a source of fissionable material that can be made into nuclear weapons, and along the way an insignificant amount of electricity. That's what this article is about. What it is. You can't separate out the engineering aspects in the main article. Create a Nuclear reactor design article and put the engineering details in there. The top level article inherently has to include all aspects of nuclear power. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact a second paragraph should be added to the lead section:
No other technology in history has been greeted with as much public opposition as nuclear power. Anti-nuclear groups have been formed to oppose the construction of every nuclear power plant. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I find the above comments by 199... biased and not appropriate for this encyclopedic article. Keep the article based on facts and have a second article for "concerns...". Although a concise list of major concerns is o.k. Groups also form to appose coal power plants, dams, walmarts, and a ton of other things. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the comments by the 199... anonymous user are biased and inappropriate. His suggestions about additions to the lead paragraph are both inaccurate and unverifiable. It is unfortunate that this article needs semi-protection against both outright vandals, and those with POV agendas. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

True but there is an order of magnitude (for those not scientifically versed that means ten times) greater opposition to nuclear power than any other new technology, ever. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its not new now. I suppose your comment is limited to the U.S. It was scary way back for a variety of reasons, such as images of Hiroshima. Countries like France have shown it can be relatively safe. Is there much opposition to new generators coming on line such as Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No my comment is not limited to the U.S. I was actually thinking of Germany. You might prefer saying "nearly every" instead of "every" - I have no clue of whether there are organized anti-nuclear groups in China for example, but there certainly are in every other country. I don't know about Russia either, but Russia is moot because of Chernobyl. How exactly do you counter statements like this: "In any discussion involving a redefinition of 'progress', nuclear power is not simply dangerous or dirty—it's pointless. That's a conversation the nuclear industry is unlikely to win." Nuclear power in all forms is opposed by about a third of Americans today. That is pretty huge opposition. The investment community won't touch nuclear power because of the liability. It is estimated that a Chernobyl style accident is likely to happen once every 10,000 reactor years. Sounds pretty good, right? Well maybe if there was only one reactor (except that I wouldn't want to be on the same planet at the time). Multiply (divide) by a couple of thousand reactors and it is likely every five years. Ouch. It is widely held that the gig is up as soon as the next one hits. Not if the next one, but when the next one occurs. Adding the above paragraph would be a good balance to the article and would easily convince whoever put it there to take off the non-neutral tag that is glaringly at the top of the article. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
In answer to your question about Watts Bar, the "TVA received 1229 copies of the following letter, some with minor changes or additions, or that were an abbreviated version of the form letter." The form letter begins with: "I am writing to oppose the Tennessee Valley Authority's proposal to complete Unit 2 at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant..." A cursory look at the addresses of the people opposing Watts Bar show they are from Maine to Hawaii and from Alaska to Texas, in short, everywhere, including Tennessee. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is getting more ignorant by the moment. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The article 'Nuclear Power' should discuss what nuclear power is, what it does, its effects, etc. It is not a source of radiation. Where do you think the uranium came from, thin air? You are standing on some right now. Do you have a basement? Chances are you are getting a higher dose of radiation there then inside the containment structure of a nuclear plant. I know, I have been there. Watch TV? You get higher doses there. I know you use a computer. Again, more radiation. Sure, the radioactive material is condensed into a small area, but that is why there are numerous safety systems. It is estimated that a Chernobyl style accident is likely to happen once every 10,000 reactor years. Untrue. At least when concerning old American reactors, the estimate for some type of core damage, which is far from a Chernobyl accident and even extends to those accidents less severe than TMI, is 1 in 50,000 reactor years. Sure, a core damage accident is not good, but that does not mean ANY radiation release, any environmental consequences, or any harm to the population or plant personnel. What it means is any part of the core is not adequately cooled and overheats, causing irreperable damage to the core.
To say that a Chernobyl type accedent will happen every 5 years is not just wrong, it is part of a massive misinformation campaign run by the people claiming to be against the supposed misinformation campaign run by the industry. Both sides certainly try to sway people to their side, but I have never seen so much incorrect information being thrown around by the anti-nuke side. I will assume that the misinformation is not being deliberately made up, but was misunderstood and then spread from there. I assume this because if lies are being deliberately spread, those spreading them are worse than any "evil empire" type group anti-nukes feel they are fighting. I am not saying everyone should be pro-nuke, but at least have correct information when you argue your side. And correct information has sources. I would avoid a lot of these activist groups that provide "facts" without saying wherre this information came from. Again, they are not all like that, but there is way too much misinformation out there.
No other technology in history has been greeted with as much public opposition as nuclear power. Really? Give me a source. A scientific source that uses transparent scientific principles to produce information. Not some guy who made a website and wrote whatever the hell he wanted to. I can do that. I don't because I do not like spreading more lies. How about nuclear weapons? I bet more people oppose those than nuclear power. And how about we narrow it down to the people who know the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons? Then the disparity would be even greater. How about coal power? Since global warming became common knowledge I am going to guess coal power now has more public opposition. How about the Iraq war? How about Vietnam? How about slavery? How about the Civil War? The country went to war with itself over that. Come on, that is a bull argument and you know it.
What it is is a source of radiation and radiation products such as whatever you care to brew up at the moment, pollution, waste products, a source of fissionable material that can be made into nuclear weapons, and along the way an insignificant amount of electricity. Again, not a source of radiation, we didn't make the uranium from nothing. You are getting a good dose from the ground, the sun, deep space, you name it. You are getting a very minor dose from radioactive products of nuclear bomb testing from decades ago. You are getting no dose from a power plant unless you work in one. Even then it is usually undetectable. Get an X-ray? Ever? You got a higher dose there than you will ever get from a power plant. The idea that radiation is man-made and avoidable is false and we need to understand that it is part of the world. There is just nothing you can do to avoid constant small doses. Radiation products you care to brew up at the moment? What does that mean? Do you mean radioactive decay products like the Americium-241 in your smoke detector, or the numerous decay and fission products used for treating cancer? Or do you mean the fission products that are not used, contained within the fuel, never released to the environment, and buried out of everyone's way until it becomes stable? Pollution? Oh, you must mean from the mining, construction, and enrichment. So it is a nuclear problem because we are so damn dependant on oil and coal? If we used electric vehicles and got our electricity from nuclear, solar, or wind then that small amount of pollution would be reduced. I do not have the link, but there was a recent study done that when comparing full life cycle of wind and nuclear, they both produced similar amounts of pollution. And finally, an insignificant amount of electricity? Nuclear power is MORE EFFICIENT in terms of energy per unit mass than ANY OTHER SOURCE currently in use. Go to Energy density. The plant as a whole is about 33% efficient. Sounds bad, but considering thermodynamic limits, it is quite good. New coal and gas plants are more efficient, but this has to do with old plant design limits.
Hey, I am all for solar if it can be made efficient enough and cheap enough. I hear news every day that if we do not reduce our carbon emmissions NOW, we are doomed to severely change the climate. I want to do something now, but covering a state-sized area with solar panels is not just prohibitively expensive, but will do significant damage of its own. That large an area covered in black panels will undobtedly reduce overall reflectivity and damage the desert ecosystems. As soon as solar becomes cheap and efficient enough to compete with nuclear, I am all for it. Even if it is a little more expensive. But if we want to reduce emissions NOW, we need to use a technology ready for NOW. Polypmaster (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree, as I have said before, that this is an encyclopedia entry about commercial nuclear power. It should be about what it is: viz. the controlled fission reaction of atoms used to produce heat which is converted into electricity. The merits, both good and bad, of nuclear power are not relevant for this article or wikipedia in general. (see NPOV).
Also this discussion is in regard to a rewrite of the entire article. It should be about: yes or no to the rewrite; and if yes: what structure will it have; what content will it have; etc. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Quit trying to make this article a brochure for the nuclear power industry. Stick to the facts. And a 5 to 1 decrease in likelihood of a major accident would stretch it out to what, once in 25 years instead of once in 5 years. Not a significant change. The planet gets less than 20% of its electricity from nuclear. And will run out of fuel in less than 20 years. That makes it an insignificant source of electricity. Nuclear reactions are "chain reactions", that's why they produce power, and chain reactions by definition create more radiation than they start out with. Nuclear power is, according to Helen Caldicott, just "a very expensive, sophisticated, and dangerous way to boil water." If it's expensive, and it is, the article should say that. If it's sophisticated, and it is, the article should say that. If it's dangerous, and it is, the article should say that. Quit trying to hide the truth under the carpet. The merits of nuclear power can be discussed in a separate article, Merits of nuclear power, but the facts of nuclear power must be summarized in this article. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard. First off, I am not trying to make this a brochure for the industry. I am not involved in the industry, I have no ties to the industry, and frankly, I don't give a shit whether the industry survives or not. It is stupid and short-sighted to promote one technology when there are other technologies that are superior.
It appears to me that you read Nuclear Power is Not the Answer and have not bothered to read any counterpoints. Try reading some books by people who are pro-nuclear and see what they have to say. Just because one person says the industry lies does not mean they are correct. You list facts that have little to no value because they are either assumptions, half-truths or outright lies.
And will run out of fuel in less than 20 years I think covers all of those. Firstly, you are talking about natural uranium used once in a standard thermal fission reactor. I am not sure where she gets 20 years from, but I am guessing she is taking the total amount of uranium left in the Earth's crust and assuming we can only economically extract a certain pecentage of that. That seems like a big assumption to me. But none-the-less, lets say this is true. Even so, this fuel can be recycled or reprocessed and used again. Even better, we can build a breeder reactor and create more fuel than we began with. (Before you tell me that defies the laws of thermodynamics, it doesn't actually produce more fuel than it consumes, it turns more fertile uranium into fissile uranium, which is what is used in standard thermal reactors. That 20 years assumes we use the fuel once (only 1-4 percent of all the energy in the fuel), so doing what I said above extends the life of the fuel for thousands of years, even if we ramp up energy production. And guess what else? The reason the fuel is so damn radioactive in the first place is because we only use 1-4% of the total amount of fuel. Using it more completely removes much of the radioactivity form the fuel, meaning the final product, possibly thousands of years later, would only need to be stored for a very short time and then it would be completely harmless.
Nuclear reactions are "chain reactions", that's why they produce power, and chain reactions by definition create more radiation than they start out with. Do you even know the difference between radiation and fisson? A chain reaction involves producing neutrons, not radiation. A reactor running at a stable power produces, on average, 1 neutron for every 1 neutron emitted. If this were not the case, the power levels would continue to rise and the plant would eventually meltdown. Radiation, which is the spontaneous release of either gamma rays, beta particles, or alpha particles, has nothing to do with energy production. It does exist, and in a reactor, some radiation produces different byproducts, some of which are not useful to energy production. Fisson, however, is the splitting of an nucleus into different fragments. These fragments are often radioactive themselves, but are so unstable that they very quickly decay and become harmless. Unlike uranium-238, which has a half-life in the millions of years, they would decay anywhere from a few days to a few milliseconds. Please, understand at least the basics of nuclear physics, because misunderstanding is why the vast majority of the confusion and debate happen.
"a very expensive, sophisticated, and dangerous way to boil water." Again, running costs per kWh are by far the lowest of ANY source of energy. The costs go up when plant construction is added in. Do not tell me that disposal makes the cost skyrocket, because waste disposal costs are added into the price of nuclear power already. It is done by law. Even after factoring the mining, refining, and shipping of fuel, the costs stay even with coal, considered the cheapest source. Costs did skyrocket in the 80s, but for activists to claim that nuclear power is too expensive because the same activists sued the power companies, delaying construction for years, is rediculous. you cannot force a cost runup and then use it as evidence of cost runups. Also, do not bring up subsidies, because the only reason there is as much solar power as there is now is because of massive subsidies. All the energy sources get subsidies, so using that as evidence the nuclear industry is not economical without comparing to the other industries is meaningless.
And dangerous? List the number of deaths related to nuclear power in the US. Do not bring up Chernobyl again, because a stupid government, designing a stupid reactor, run by stupid people, is not a problem in a country obsessed with safety. So go ahead, list the recorded deaths. Unless you use data from completely unsubstantiated sources, you cannot. Check out this site [4]. It covers risk probability very well.
I don't want to discuss the damn merits of nuclear power. That also DOES NOT belong in this article. I want to rewrite the article because it should not discuss whether nuclear power is good or bad for society. It should cover the mechanics of how it works. That is all. And please, do not take everything you hear at face value, whether it is pro or anti nuclear. I hope you do not listen to Kevin Trudeau, that guy peddling his natural cures book, and not bother to question his "facts." Here is a man that has been conviced of fraud and yet people flock to his stupid book because he is saying what they want to hear. I am not calling you stupid, but try to keep an open mind when it comes to this discussion.
And please, do not tell me I am trying to hide the truth when everything I have said is based on actual events and research. Almost every argument you have made has been either false, assumed, or a half-truth. Let me be honest. As soon as solar becomes competitive economically with any nonrenewable, I want to stop the construction of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear plants. It will happen someday, and when it does, I hope that is the path we choose. Until then, I would like to stop the production of CO2 producing sources as much as possible. Nuclear is still the only source that can be scaled up to meet demand in the short term. We only need a few decades before we can rely exclusively on renewables. But unless there is a better alternative, nuclear power is our only option right now. Solar and wind cannot make enough power cheap enough right now to be used as a large-scale alternative. It will be soon, but we need change now. Polypmaster (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Solar and wind can come online a lot quicker than nuclear, because they take a lot less time to build. Since they are intermittent they also require hydrostorage, which can also be built quickly. None have any of the nasty side effects that nuclear does. Remind me again why no one wants Iran and Syria to build nuclear power plants? Oh yeah I remember - they are so handy for making material for nuclear weapons. Once you have mined Uranium and refined it to reactor grade you have done 90% of the work required to refine it into weapons grade. And reactors are great for making plutonium, as well. Reprocessing is just another word for making plutonium. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that if given the choice, solar and wind are better options than nuclear. The problem is
1: solar and wind are too expensive per kW to be widely accepted by the general population at this time
2: Related to 1, both are too inefficient currently to be used as a base source of power
3: related to 2, the energy density of both solar and wind are far too low right now. Even if we assumed an efficiency on par with nuclear, coal, or oil, you are looking at adding 5-10 square kilometers of solar panels per day, forever, to match energy demand. There just is not enough land to sustain this forever. We are already running into the problem of insufficient farmland to feed everyone. In addition, you cannot put all your energy production in one spot. For solar to be useful, it needs direct light for as long as possible. That means putting them in the desert, which solves the competition with farmland, but makes it impossible to get electricity to places far away from a desert like the US midwest or US south, or US northeast. Running electrical cables accross country would result in energy losses of over 80%. We need our power sources distributed, and solar in its current state cannot do that sufficiently. Wind can better, but the energy density for wind is even lower than solar.
I cannot cover your other points right now because I have to run to class. I'll answer the rest later. Thanks.Polypmaster (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Solar and wind are free - they pay for themselves with the power they produce and for a year now investors have been willing to install solar panels for free in return for a power purchase agreement. Solar pays for itself in less than 20 years, wind in less than about 5 years. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so let me continue. Solar and wind can come online faster, but it is a simple matter of economics. Solar and wind are very expensive without subsidies, and with subsidies still cost more. We are at the very beginning of commercial solar and wind, prices will come down. The problem is that industry moves painfully slowly compared to how we think it should. In the next two decades we will begin to see a significant ramp up of renewable energy, but it is going to take time to develop the technologies further and implement them in the real world.
We do not have the ability to store massive amounts of energy for on-demand use currently. Batteries charge and drain to slowly, and super-capacitors are still a new technology. Either way, storing our energy for on-demand use is just not economical. If you add storage to the costs of renewables today, no one would build them. The technology required to do what you are talking about just doesn't exist yet.
Refining to reactor grade (~3.5% U235) is nothing compared to refining to 90-99% U235. The time it takes to refine to a higher grade goes up exponentially as the percent moves linearly. Regardless, that has nothing to do with new US nuclear power. If Iran or North Korea begin making their own weapons-grade uranium, that says nothing about the nuclear power industry. Building or not building nuclear power plants does not affect the production of nuclear weapons.
Also, there is no way nuclear material is getting out of a nuclear power plant in the US. There is far too much security for that material to go missing. And yes, they do make plutonium, but that is still contained in the fuel. There is not enough plutonium in spent fuel to be readily used in a weapon, and again, that fuel is not going anywhere. And yes, reprocessing does produce plutonium, but in an NRC regulated industry, that fuel is far too secure to be stolen. It is not going to happen. Reprocessing is done by machines to protect workers from exposure, so there is not even human contact with the fuel. In the United States, and even in Canada and Europe, fuel is not going anywhere it should not go.
I do understand your concern over reprocessing and nuclear power. I have a huge problem with nuclear rectors in Russia. The floating nuclear reactor idea has to be one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. I have less of a problem with reactors in China, but I do have some concern with their safety record.
In the end, we need a clean source of baseload power for the future. Renewables have great potential, but there is no way for us to power the country on all renewable right now. Clean coal is a possibility, but I just don't see it being cost effective or feasible to bury emissions. Until fusion becomes a reality (if ever) nuclear is the only other greenhouse gas-free baseload power source we have. Ideally, it would be great to have homeowners generating their own power with personal solar panels. This would distribute the grid better, reduce possible blackouts, and keep price fluctuations relatively small. We are not at this point yet, and even if we were, there will still be a need for major baseload power. Nuclear has an excellent safety record, with only a very small number of blemishes. There have been no deaths caused by a nuclear power plant, even including TMI. No other major power source can say that.
Ignoring economics, we can build renewable until we are blue in the face, but in its current form it can only supply a small portion of our electricity. Take a look at "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens. It is from the perspective of a nuclear skeptic who did her own research on nuclear power. The book covers many of the issues you have in far more detail than I can here.Polypmaster (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"[N]o one wants Iran and Syria to build nuclear power plants" because of the fear that a "power plant" will be a cover for a weapons plant. This is obviously not a problem in the US. Actual power plants generally aren't practical for weapons production, because the spent fuel has too much plutonium-240.
For her patients' sake, I hope Helen Caldicott knows more about pediatrics than she does about nuclear power.
—WWoods (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"Obviously not a problem in the US"? What kind of a statement is that? Of course it is an even bigger problem in the United States than in any other country. The United States is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons to deliberately kill civilian populations in a war. The United States is continually using DU weapons to bomb countries, littering the landscape with radiation. In my opinion, the US having nuclear reactors is a far greater problem than any other country having them, including North Korea and Iran. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's well known that the US government already has a lot of nuclear weapons, and the facilities to make more. That, plus the openness of the US, means no one need be concerned that the US will use a power plant as cover for a weapons program.
—WWoods (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you all just shut up and stop arguing? This is supposed to be a discussion about redoing the article to make it more neutral, not an argument about the merits and drawbacks of nuclear power. And if you guys ARE going to continue arguing, at least get your facts straight. A lot of people on both sides of the argument are using flawed logic. Opponents are blowing a lot of things way out of scale, while the proponents are ignoring a lot of drawbacks of nuclear power and are solely concentrating on its merits. -Rycr (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial articles

Seems a lot of people writing in controversial articles like to shunt the negatives off to some nether region. But Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says under "Balance", "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner".

Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial says under "Information suppression" "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV ... Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability".

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ says under "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V" (emphasis mine)

Note that the core of NPOV policy states that balance of opposing sides, and on the same page, is key so long as it is cited material from reputable sources. The only valid reason I can think of to create a separate 'debate about nuclear power' page would be if the criticism section became too long. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. Just my 2c worth. 4.246.201.61 (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that people feel that much of the negatives are not about the topic of nuclear power. For example, saying Solar is safer, is irrelevant to this article. I believe most people prefer this article should be about Nuclear Power technology and there should be separate article about nuclear power safety concerns.
Ultimately the article should be about what will serve wikipedia readers the best. Suggestion is that concerns be mentioned but details and debates be relegated to a separate article. There is a lot of thrash on this kind of topic. People put non encyclopedic material with references. Best if we keep the thrash to a minimum so that our nuclear scientist contributors don't get turned off. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well bless their little hearts, we sure wouldn't want to offend the delicate sensibilities of those nuclear scientists now would we? "Ultimately the article should be about what will serve wikipedia readers the best". Yes, that is the issue, but from who's perspective? 4.246.207.117 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're ignoring the bulk of what Dan C. said here. His main point was that most editors want this article to be about nuclear power technology and that anti-nuclear sentiment does not add balance but introduces it. In the same way I'm sure he'd agree that pro-nuclear sentiment does not belong either.
I think the biggest problem editors have with the article is that the technical information on nuclear power lends itself to a positive view of the industry. I suspect that there are editors who are biased enough to see a purely neutral description of nuclear technology as industry propaganda. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The difficult part is that those who are knowledgeable are generally (but not always) those who are in support of nuclear power. To write a thorough and NPOV article, it has to be done by someone who knows the technology very well, but can write very dryly, so as not to add a positive spin on the technology. That is why I originally suggested that rewriting the article would require both those knowledgeable on the subject and also those against nuclear technology. It would be my hope that any bias could be negated. The problem is finding enough people on both sides who won't try to kill each other. Polypmaster (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In summary it seems we are in agreement that the article should be about raw science and technology. Point of view either positive or negative should be mostly relegated to sub articles. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not. By "we" you mean only the people who agree with you, which is a self-defining group, and does not represent everyone. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So far the only individuals who support inclusion of political issues are anonymous users. This article has a long history of vandalism and POV pushing from anonymous users--this is why it is protected. Lwnf360 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that the article should be about the technical description of the technology viz. what nuclear power is. As opposed to including political opinions about what nuclear power is not. Lwnf360 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a chance - the article needs to be a balanced representation of commercial nuclear power. Nothing more, and nothing less. Ip editors are also just as welcome as registered editors. Wikipedia stats show that 97% of vandalism comes from Ip editors, but also that 75-85% of all Ip contributions are constructive. I've been editing for a year now, or something like that. Do you think I could have taken 60 seconds to register a user name? Most of the Ip editors see something wrong in an article and prefer to just click the edit link to taking time out to registering a useless username that they may never use again. Some are perennial Ip editors, like myself. Many others edit for a few months to a year as an Ip editor, and then register. If this article was balanced there would be less "POV pushing", because whatever their POV was, was properly represented. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not about "including everyone's POV so that they feel they are fairly represented." It's about not including any POV (to the extent that this is realistically possible). It is not a matter of POV that commercial nuclear power provides 20% of the electricity in the US--it is a matter of genuine fact--a fact which is independently verifiable. It is a matter of fact that commercial nuclear power is for the express purpose of using fission to generate heat, which is used to heat a working fluid, which drives a turbine, to provide rotational force needed to turn a generator--thus generating electricity. That is the kind of information that this article should contain. Lwnf360 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

interwiki to ml

ml:അണുശക്തി may please be added --sunil (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ad for nuclear power

The page is sort of written like an add for nuclear power. When it talks about the toxins beingless then others it does not mention that nuclear toxins last ten thousand years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.88.69 (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a nuclear byproduct lasts for thousands of years makes it nearly harmless. The level of radiation an element emits is inversely proportional to it's half-life; the longer the half-life the less radiation is emitted. It's only the elements that have half-lives in days to months that are really dangerous. Elements that decay quickly will do so before they have time to be ingested, inhaled or otherwise absorbed by humans. Elements that last for thousands of years are not very radioactive to begin with, so they are not very dangerous. This is not to mention that many radioactive elements play no part in human biology so they will be expelled by the body before they can do any damage. Uranium is not an element the human body uses and any that enters the body gets filtered out by the kidneys within one to two weeks.
I'm sorry if you feel that what's stated in the article isn't true, but it really does provide accurate information on nuclear power.Nailedtooth (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
U-238 has caused a lot of health problems, and it has a lifetime of 4.5 billion years. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
U-238 is removed from the body by the kidneys. The World Health Organization says 70% of uranium that enters the body is removed within 24hrs, and 90% within a few days. The extremely long half-life of U-238 means it will not undergo a significant number of fissions before the body removes it. The WHO also says that the major danger from U-238 is it's toxicity as a heavy metal, not its radioactivity. This effectively makes U-238 no more dangerous than tungsten, and easily obtainable and unregulated metal. Beliefs that significant health problems arise from casual or even significant exposure to U-238 are unfounded. Nailedtooth (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You won't have much luck convincing OSHA that it can be safely handled without protective gear or convincing the people who live near Uranium mines that it is safe. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
U-238 is a slow alpha emitter. Its radiation is stopped by a few millimeters of air, and human skin. The only precautions needed are gloves and respirators to provide extra protection in keeping it from getting inside the body through accidental ingestion or inhalation. Your anonymous POV pushing comments are a disruption of productive discussion.Lwnf360 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Funny you should mention safety precautions because the MSDS on Uranium says that a wood container is sufficient for storage and the only protective requirements are a mask for dust in case of fire. Protective gloves are optional since hand washing is enough to otherwise prevent contamination. Like Lwnf360 said, if you want to completly prevent accidental contamination you can wear a mask and gloves, but in normal conditions no protective gear is required to handle uranium metal. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

External criticism of this article

Wikipedia distorts nuclear history, 1 May 2008, Rutland Herald. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of points raised in the criticism piece might be useful to improve this article. But, there are many problems with that write-up. See the comments on that page for details. 202.75.197.38 (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the Rutland Herald article demonstrates the so-called liberal media's bias against the nuclear industry. The article was poorly researched in all aspects, both with respect to the nuclear industry in general, and in respect to wikipedia. The piece provides no citations and has glaring factual errors. In-brief, it is the opinion of a history grad student who is misinformed about both nuclear power and wikipedia. The fact that this was even published speaks to bias and poor journalism.
That being said we can take a look at his points regarding this article and wikipedia in general:
1) This page can only be edited by wikimedia foundation staff members. False.
However it is a valid point that it can only be edited by wikipedians, whatever that is, to have called wikipedians "staff members" is not correct but also not far from the truth either. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2) It's hard or impossible to identify who has edited an article. False See: WP:Privacy
Once again, mostly true. Very few pseudo-identified editors use their own name, and no IPusers normally do. However, it seems odd that they did not see the "history" tab and play with it a little. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's entirely false. Edits are tracked and version controlled (which is available through history). Users can be identified by IP, ISP and a ton of other information through the admin tool checkuser. See the privacy policy for details regarding this, and why it is only done in severe cases of wiki policy breaking. ISPs can be contacted, and subpoenaed if the id is for legal reasons, to disclose the names of their account holders. Lwnf360 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what they meant is "nearly impossible for them to identify by real name". The reporter does not have the power to ask for a subpoena nor is there any guarantee that the pseudonym can be identified (first you would have to go through checkuser, which you would not be able to do, second you would have to identify a possibly obfuscated IP address or addresses). It's not as simple a looking at the byline of the Britannica articles. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
3) The article "bends over backwards" to downplay concerns about nuclear power Debatable. (and we have been debating it.)
4) The article fails to mention Price-anderson et. al. and other US related issues Irrelevant.--cf. Nuclear power in the United States.
A common mistake - not irrelevant, but they are writing a US newspaper article to a US audience and fail to recognize that Wikipedia is written to and by a global audience and tries to avoid items that are of interest to only one region. Price-anderson, however is vitally important in the US. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that Price-Anderson is irrelevant to the US nuclear article, which is why I linked to it. Price-Anderson is important, and it should be mentioned in the US nuclear article. Lwnf360 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
5) The article fails to mention an NRC study of Indian Point Energy Center where high casualties were predicted. Irrelevant.--cf. Indian Point article and nuclear power in the US article.
Same as above, although, highly likely that it should have been mentioned in the main article along with Chernobyl. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6) Former NRC member James Asselstine, claims a 45% chance of catastrophic accident at US plant every 20 years. Irrelevant and Refuted.-- per WP:reliable cf. Probabilistic risk assessment regarding nuclear accidents.
Hind sight is 20:20 - it is helpful to predict the future, but claims like this would certainly be more relevant if they had been demonstrated. 20 years is a long time. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
7) Spent fuel pool security/structural integrity concerns. Rate of Mention--regarding containment and safety in general
8) Various studies of Chernobyl death toll False. cf. Chernobyl disaster effects. The variance in death toll numbers rate of mention.
Studies widely vary and are not mentioned adequately. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The UNSCEAR reports say that there were 57 direct deaths, and they estimated 4000 related thyroid cancer cases were contracted between 1986 and 2004. This is the internationally accepted data compiled by the UN from dozens of other agencies. The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH) report, which was compiled by organizations dissatisfied with the UNSCEAR report (i.e. disagreed with results from multiple peer-reviewed, internationally accepted studies--this means the TORCH report groups were dissatisfied by scientifically sound results--the only right results for these groups are the results they want to hear.) predicts 30,000 to 60,000 deaths. Greenpeace--an anti-nuclear advocacy group--predicts upwards of 200,000. The Greenpeace study has been widely discredited. See the Chernobyl disaster for more detailed information. Lwnf360 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
9) Yucca mountain concerns Irrelevant. again cf. nuclear power in the united states Waste disposal rates of mention, and examples of various countries' strategies are appropriate (i.e. reprocessing, deep geologic repository, etc.)
Particularly relevant because no country has developed adequate waste storage and disposal, including the United States. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Completely false. In fact, every country with a major nuclear program except the US has an extensive reprocessing and waste-disposal program. Yucca mountain is relevant for the US nuclear article only. This article should generally discuss the general issues with reprocessing and disposing of waste, not country-specific issues. Lwnf360 (talk)
10) Waste will become valuable in the future as a baseless claim. False The waste is valuable now, which is why they are keeping it and not really pushing all that hard for Yucca mountain
Valuable for making plutonium? Reprocessing has an abysmal record around the globe. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Reprocessing allows for 95% of the spent fuel to be recycled. The remaining 5% (the fission fragments--note that this is the exact same amount as the enrichment level of U235 for the fuel) can be vitrified and stored in deep geologic repositories. The only western country with a poor record of reprocessing is the UK. France has done it for decades, profitably and without incident. Japan had criticality accident where some workers were killed due to human error. Reprocessing is the solution for spent nuclear fuel management. Lwnf360 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
11) Claims about energy efficiency and renewables Irrelevant. They have their own articles. Articles about comparisons of electric energy types could include such information.
Highly relevant to compare with alternatives. Especially when NP is so odious. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not relevant for this article. This article is about commercial nuclear power technology--not about the political debate regarding its use. Comparisons of electric generating methods--for the express purpose of highlighting the benefits of renewables--should be contained in a separate article on that particular topic. I would support a link to such an article to be included in this page. Addition of a discussion of renewables adds POV to this article. Lwnf360 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
12) No nuclear plants have been ordered in the US since 1978. False and Irrelevant. 4 new plants have been ordered as of May 2008, the NRC expects ~30 to be ordered in the next 2 years. Again, not relevant for the general article
Touche - one wrong, 12 right. It is not clear what the definition of "ordered" is, nor the time frame. Didn't Bill Clinton want to question what the word "is" meant? 199.125.109.50 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Westinghouse and Shaw Group have signed a multi-billion dollar engineering and procurement contract with Southern Company for Vogtle 3 & 4 to be built in Georgia. Construction will begin as soon as Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) gives approval--this is the final obstacle as I understand it. Vogtle 3 & 4 has an Early Site Permit and a Combined construction and Operating License (COL) application has been filed. The AP1000 plant has Final Design Certification from the NRC. It's a pretty steep mountain of evidence that says 2 AP1000s will be built in Georgia.
13) Effect of anti-nuclear activism on the industry. Relevant. This should be discussed.

Again this article is riddled with errors and misunderstandings, but we can still address the relevant issues raised. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)