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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Seeing recent edits to this paragraph, I wonder if it needs to be edited more thoroughly to be technically accurate:
Just about every sentence raises questions of accuracy. What is "otherwise self-extinguishing"? I interpret as saying "self-extinguishing taking into account only prompt neutrons." But delayed neutrons cannot be ignored, so this "self-extinguishing" characteristic is counterfactual (i.e. assumes facts known to be untrue). Calling fission products "embers" may be an evocative metaphor, but it not accurate. The reference to "movement" of fission products seems like a red herring, as they usually do not move appreciable distances. What delayed neutrons do is slow down the exponential ramp-up of a super-critical reaction to a time-scale amenable to external control. It does not necessarily mean that the reaction is "easily controlled," considering other factors that affect the stability of the reaction. One such factor is the thermal coefficient of reactivity (or in worse cases the void coefficient or reactivity). As the reaction rate increases and raises the temperature, does this accelerate (positive coefficient) or slow (negative coefficient) the rate of increase? For a thermal neutron reactor, it is usually the latter, since the fission cross section falls with increasing neutron energy. This may all be too much to put into the introductory section, but the explanation here does not seem accurate. NPguy ( talk) 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Fission reactions and subsequent neutron escape happen very quickly; this is important for nuclear weapons, where the objective is to make a nuclear core release as much energy as possible before it physically explodes. Most neutrons emitted by fission events are prompt: they are emitted effectively instantaneously. Once emitted, the average neutron lifetime () in a typical core is on the order of a millisecond, so if the exponential factor is as small as 0.01, then in one second the reactor power will vary by a factor of (1 + 0.01)1000, or more than ten thousand. Nuclear weapons are engineered to maximize the power growth rate, with lifetimes well under a millisecond and exponential factors close to 2; but such rapid variation would render it practically impossible to control the reaction rates in a nuclear reactor.
Fortunately, the effective neutron lifetime is much longer than the average lifetime of a single neutron in the core. About 0.65% of the neutrons produced by 235U fission, and about 0.20% of the neutrons produced by 239Pu fission, are not produced immediately, but rather are emitted from an excited nucleus after a further decay step. In this step, further radioactive decay of some of the fission products (almost always negative beta decay), is followed by immediate neutron emission from the excited daughter product, with an average life time of the beta decay (and thus the neutron emission) of about 15 seconds. These so-called delayed neutrons increase the effective average lifetime of neutrons in the core, to nearly 0.1 seconds, so that a core with of 0.01 would increase in one second by only a factor of (1 + 0.01)10, or about 1.1: a 10% increase. This is a controllable rate of change.
Most nuclear reactors are hence operated in a prompt subcritical, delayed critical condition: the prompt neutrons alone are not sufficient to sustain a chain reaction, but the delayed neutrons make up the small difference required to keep the reaction going. This has effects on how reactors are controlled: when a small amount of control rod is slid into or out of the reactor core, the power level changes at first very rapidly due to prompt subcritical multiplication and then more gradually, following the exponential growth or decay curve of the delayed critical reaction. Furthermore, increases in reactor power can be performed at any desired rate simply by pulling out a sufficient length of control rod. However, without addition of a neutron poison or active neutron-absorber, decreases in fission rate are limited in speed, because even if the reactor is taken deeply subcritical to stop prompt fission neutron production, delayed neutrons are produced after ordinary beta decay of fission products already in place, and this decay-production of neutrons cannot be changed.
I think that delayed neutrons don't belong to the History section. I moved them to the Nuclear power plants section and added a short description of the chain reaction. -- TuomoS ( talk) 14:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Someone tagged the intro as too long. They had a point, this whole bit about FDNPP sticks out like a sore thumb. So I'm moving it here. I also don't know who wrote this paragraph that I'm removing, but for some reason they thought it should be in the introduction. Four years after the Fukushima-Daiichi accident, there have been no fatalities due to exposure to radiation, and no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public and their descendants. [1] The Japan Times estimated 1,600 deaths were the result of evacuation, due to physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the tsunami, and suicides. [2]
References
User Boundarylayer reinstated the following paragraph to the lead section: "Collaboration on research and development towards greater efficiency, safety and recycling of spent fuel in future Generation IV reactors presently includes Euratom and the co-operation of more than 10 permanent countries globally." I had removed the paragraph because the lead section is too long, and this paragraph is in my opinion the least important part of it. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the "lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". This article has six paragraphs in the lead section. In my opinion the text that Boundarylayer inserted does not belong to the lead section. We should discuss the issue here. -- TuomoS ( talk) 10:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nuclear power has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Internatonal => International Libby Kane ( talk) 08:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The scheme of RBMK reactor is completely wrong. There is no vessel that is fulled with water, as other water-coolant reactors have. In RBMK, water is circulating in separate tubes inside reactor. The reactor operates in a helium–nitrogen atmosphere (70–90% He, 10–30% N2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:819C:AE80:EC82:75F5:8BD3:78C4 ( talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I hate editors who blank sections, without good reason. So I'm putting the two paragraphs that I've blanked as not necessary and essentially diversionary here.
I'd welcome other editors making a case for the re-addition of both?
Boundarylayer ( talk) 23:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Boundarylayer ( talk) 05:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Ita140188, Boundarylayer, TuomoS, and NPguy: What would ya'll think about asking for 1RR protection for this page? I don't know how we do that, but if we agree then there must be a way. Over the years, there have been episodes of a barrage of edits that are very challenging to review with one another in a collaborative way, as more edits come pouring in. Since wikipedia is not an emergency we could agree to throttle back the rate of edits, and in that way have more fun and do a better job. What do you think? (PS I have pinged all the eds who seem to have participated on talk page in recent months, but if I inadvertently missed anyone I apologize and I hope you will alert them instead.) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, I removed text added by Boundarylayer ( talk · contribs). The text reads
The NRC would describe its regulatory oversight after the accident, on the long-delayed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant as "a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision making," and "a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape." [1] |
The first problem is the super awkward sentence structure. Moreover, it misrepresents the source in two ways.
Here is
the url for this source and I'll quote, This case has been widely depicted as a serious failure of governmental process to resolve central issues in a timely and coordinated way- a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision-making on energy matters and of a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape. (note omitted)"
Thus it is not the NRC itself that characterizes the case in this manner. They merely noted that others have done so. The commission might even agree, but this quote doesn't say that.
In addition, BoundaryLayer's text lies this characterization at the feet of reaction to TMI. The source doesn't say that either.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
16:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
References
One editor has made extensive changes that are both badly written (ungrammatical and needlessly convoluted) and inaccurate. Please, rather than reverting my needed editorial fixes, discuss on this page first. NPguy ( talk) 04:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Please, stop hyperventilating. There was no "vandalism." I have repeatedly had to fix a false and misleading claim that PUREX is controversial because of its military legacy or because similar processes can be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. In fact, reprocessing is controversial precisely because it produces separated plutonium, which can be used in weapons. It has nothing to do with history the potential of related processes or facilities. It is the use of PUREX facilities as intended that produces weapons-usable nuclear material.
I have also had to fix multiple awkward, convoluted and ungrammatical constructions. To act as if one missing word results in vandalism is ridiculous. As others have said, focus on content and not accusations. NPguy ( talk) 00:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Trying to find reputable sources to patch up what I see as a major mystery presented to readers in the article at present and trying to put some light into just - why was there a cost escalation in the US and the then, massive wave of cancellations?
Finding sources that were reputable and then also carried by secondary sources, was a little trying, though Peter Lang [Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia] seems to have produced an exhaustive examination. With his paper appearing in the journal Energies[never heard of it prior]. He seems at first very anti-reg which was picked up by a lot of well, less than neutral secondary sources in the US, who have anti-reg as their central ideology. So while a little-suspicious of that, due to the lack of material at such level of analysis from anyone else. Though if not the whole story, it does seem part of it.
The average construction duration of the early nuclear power reactors built globally (i.e., all countries) was: 3.5 years for the first three, 4.0 years for the first ten, 4.4 years for the first twenty, 5 years for the first thirty, and 5.4 years for the first eighty https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm
the fall of nuclear power in the United States began with a 1971 decision in the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court case of Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. vs. Atomic Energy Commission.
The case, which is considered the first major judicial interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), required the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to comply with a mandate to prepare environmental impact statements for all proposed new nuclear power plants.
There’s nothing wrong with requiring environmental impact statements. There’s plenty wrong with requiring environmental impact statements that take years to complete and hang up projects with delays, not substantive findings.
At any rate, the AEC reacted to the Calvert Cliffs decision by suspending all licensing for nuclear power plants for 18 months while it devised new rules. Carnegie Mellon Historian Andrew Ramey maintains the Calvert Cliffs ruling was “the opinion which had the most far-reaching and detrimental effect on the development of nuclear power.” https://www.boulderweekly.com/opinion/cost-killing-nuclear-power/
Some other notable stats, in support of this[that it wasn't TMI, really at all]
Of all nuclear power reactors in the United States: The last construction permit for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1978 for Progress Energy Inc.'s
Shearon Harris plant, near Raleigh, North Carolina.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=5250
Though according to this reference in the article added by USer:NPguy Every order for a new power reactor in the United States since 1974 has been cancelled. Is one source wrong, or is there a difference between, being given a permit and ordering? Though shouldn't you get the permit and then order one? Truly, following bureaucratic rules, should be at the butt of more jokes, as they're a nightmare to understand. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_09/Fetter-VonHippel#note28
This reference also has a nice graph of the two waves of connections. Along with planned nuclear capacity additions began to slow as early as the late 1970s because of a number of factors, including slowing electric demand growth, high capital and construction costs, and public opposition. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30972
So with all that, it seems good enough for now. Though One other thing I haven't been able to find, was apparently the AEC had actually gamed the system a little with commercial reactors getting built in the early years, selecting demonstation licences for everything. This, [the impression I got at any rate], enabled reactors to be built without paying certain unspecified fees, that for example a coal power station had to, so it was considered anti-competitive and ended, as far as I can tell. However finding references that tell that dimension of this multi-faceted story is difficult. It's mentioned by Rod Adams on the Atomic Insights website. If others perhaps want to take a run at it? It does seem to, if it was a big fee that is, tell another potential story for the contribution to the nuclear slow-down.
Though as this is the global article and I'm now a little lazy about this matter after all that research, it could probably just be good enough to stick to the global major issues in each country rather than get far too US-centric.[That's a good enough rationalization for my laziness, right?]
Though honestly, a sentence on these mystery fees, that nuclear in its early days went without paying due to the label game, if they were substantial fees, could put some light on the initial perhaps anti-competitive ramp up of nuclear developments in the US. So if anyone knows more about them, please by all means, chip in. Boundarylayer ( talk) 02:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk · contribs) systematically removed all references by World Nuclear Association. I would like to remind that reliability of a source always depends on the context. WNA is clearly a reliable source for basic facts, like the fact that spent fuel is not being reprocessed in the United States, or that a nuclear power plant consists of a reactor, a cooling system, a turbine, and a generator. I understand questioning the reliability of WNA in, for example, comparing nuclear power with other energy sources. But WNA should be accepted as a source of basic, non-controversial information. If a user finds another reference, he can of course replace the WNA reference with that. But systematically removing all the WNA references did not improve the article. -- TuomoS ( talk) 15:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
sheesh Can't you all see I'm actively engaged in RS review and improvement? Drama or help or just wait, your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I am out of time possibly for a day or two. Wikipedia is not an emergency. Note to self, resume review at note 33. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I just saw a new edit summary in the article, so I'd like to let you know I've re-evaluated the possiblity of doing a comprehensive reference section review and decided its' simply not possible right now. I'll put world-nuclear.org refs back the way they were before doing other work. Family duty calls though, so it will have to wait a few hours. This doesn't mean I agree they are good refs, only that Wikipedia isn't an emergency and I'll put them back for now. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Just seeing this exchange after being away for one day. I have to say I'm mystified by the notion that WNA is not a reliable source. I find it quite reliable. Of course, opinions and analyses have to be understood as such, much like the opinion page of a newspaper. NPguy ( talk) 03:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The figures are a bit out of date.
Please change " In March 2016, China had 30 reactors in operation, 24 under construction and plans to build more.[156]" to " In January 2019, China had 45 reactors in operation, 13 under construction and plans to build 43 more which would make it the worlds largest generator of nuclear electricity."
Also higher up the section there is a request for a citation re China's expansion. The article below gives the above figures but needs registration.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/01/12/can-china-become-a-scientific-superpower
The new section on nuclear power vs. renewables seems both biased and disproportionately long. Regarding bias, per my edit summary, this section reads like advocacy for nuclear power and against renewables. The arguments are stacked, and the main advantage of renewables (cost) is overlooked. Regarding length, here is a separate article on that subject, so a brief summary and cross-reference should be sufficient. NPguy ( talk) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Why were the two paragraphs we had in the article specifically detailing this very full costing info, including the subsidy-racket, TuomoS and NPguy, just recently censored out of the article, bagged and disappeared?
I think the section needs to be put back pretty soon. As it seems to have been lost on other editors but the entire section is only really notable due to the environmentalist dispute, the Hansen vs. Jacobson and Caldeira vs. Jacobson disputes in the literature boiling over into the mass media. On writing the section I thought it obvious, if you had followed those disputes[though clearly not many here have], that the section just summarizes the indisputable metrics of energy comparison put forth by Hansen and Caldeira and others of their persuasion, though without citing their work directly per WP:SECONDARY. However on returning, it seems other editors seem to think the entire section is just a place for them to place their own 'vision' and then make me laugh by hurling accusations that it's my POV that is the problem? The section has since devolved into a censoring-swamp alongside a truly random collection of references to country specific integrations. Though, where did you get the idea, this was what the section was about? Some kind of repository of matters unrelated to the dispute?
The section is about the points put forth by Hansen and Caldeira and also, to mirror the renewable energy article, the section might as well be the place to give our readers info on what is the equivalent 100% nuclear energy world while we're at it. It isn't just some random WP:UNDUE weight, collection of current-events that editors happen to find that links nuclear and renewable energy, working in 'epic harmonious symphony'. It's about the big scientific dispute. Isn't that made clear in the very first paragraph of the section?
Does it need to be made clearer?
I mean on the renewable energy article, there is no mention of accomodation with nuclear, so why are some editors here pushing that we should?
Here are the prominent climatologists and the points that they make to the media, if you don't want to go reading everything they have penned themselves. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwGPOTYTDdk
Climate advocate, James Hansen more recently, having stated The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.” He follows that up by referring to the notion of an economy powered entirely by renewable energy a “fantasy.” Our job, is to summarize their notable work and the metrics they point to, why they call it a fantasy etc by just presenting the facts that they notably bring up.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 10:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in the section is even remotely similar to the material found in that separate article NPguy -proposed as renewable-. So what rationale was behind you considering that to be 'main article'? That specific article just focuses on the question of sustainable fuel supply. It also doesn't give any insight into your alarming suggestion, that raises concerns of advocacy, with your writing : and the main advantage of renewables (cost) is overlooked.. As according to whom, are renewables at a cost advantage? ...The fossil fuel industry and renewable advocates?
In writing the section, in writing energy related articles we simply take the established guide of articles on power sources, like the renewable energy article and the Hydroelectricity#Comparison and interactions with other methods of power generation section and add on the metrics and information about the intense debate amongst climatologists, conservationists and those in the energy field, relating to nuclear energy and 'new renewables' in the literature. We have reliable secondary sources calling this very thing Nuclear vs renewable, so that's why our specific section was given that specific title. It's what they call it. WP:USEBYOTHERS. Lastly, the debate and comparisons go much further than simply saying 'these are two low-carbon methods of generating electricity'. There were serious lawsuits, over the publishing of a scientific critique, on matters spanning a range of metrics of comparison, not just carbon but materials usage and so on, therefore our job is to give readers that info, on the WP:controversy. A controversy which, while not suitable for the article but perhaps you're unaware, has even included Naomi Oreskes making broad-side shots to anyone who isn't on board with the 100% renewable energy world, as the very same as a kind of climate denier. That's right, James Hansen being called the equivalent of a climate change denier.
Also to mirror the renewable energy article and how it gives a big chunk of text to that very 100% renewable energy world, we need to mirror that and give the respective, Barry Brook's, 100% nuclear energy world analysis its due weight, in this article. Boundarylayer ( talk) 16:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I'm working on infobox test cases, and want to double check if a single nuclear reactor always powers a single steam turbine in commercial nuclear power stations. Is this always the case? Are there any examples for power stations that powers more than one generation unit (i.e. steam turbine) using a single reactor? I searched around, but could not find any, and wanted to reconfirm here anyway. Thank you for your help! Reh man 04:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi again TuomoS, would you, or anyone reading this, know of any examples of a single nuclear power plant with more than one type of reactor? Reh man 01:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The UK needs to be changed to darkblue, to reflect the Hinkley C reactor being built in Somerset 51.7.20.152 ( talk) 09:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I have some issues with the caption for the image "Chernobyl-LWR-comparison.PNG", under Nuclear power#Regulations, pricing and accidents:
A simplified diagram of the major differences between the most common nuclear reactor design, the Light water reactor and the RBMK (Chernobyl) design
The first should be straightforward to fix. For the second point, maybe someone more experienced at Wikipedia knows what the best approach is. Then, it would be nice if someone could edit that, as I can't due to the page lockdown.-- Elimik31 ( talk) 11:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Try going to [1] Thanks! Aviationtune ( talk) 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm not quite sure I get the point of this image; I need to state at the outset I am most certainly a novice at best when it comes to matters of nuclear things but (or maybe because of that) this seems to be comparing apples with oranges and, I dunno, underpants.
AFAICT it seems to be comparing the size of the core of the RBMK with the entire enclosure of the AGCR (including its steam boilers and what-not; which would seem to be of broadly similar purpose to the RBMK's steam separators, not included, at least inasmuch as any sort of comparison can be made) and with various other reactors in various places in between.
Would it not be better to compare like-with-like rather than what appears to be a feature that fundamentally varies by design? Such as the actual core size, or perhaps the size of the facility needed to actually accomplish something useful. But as I started with, I'm not certain what's the point anyway: does size matter? -- Vometia ( talk) 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
User Prototyperspective created a graph of the cost of electricity generation by various technologies. The graph is supposed to present the average of three analyses, but actually Lazard is the only one that provides an estimate of the cost of nuclear power, which is obviously the most important number for this article. However, the Lazard analysis does not provide any details about how the costs were estimated. Today, the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency published a joint report Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020. This seems to be a much more transparent report than the Lazard analysis, as it provides details of the analysis methods. I propose that we use the IEA cost estimates in this article. Or what do other editors think? -- TuomoS ( talk) 15:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a paragraph based on the IEA report and removed the old cost graph.-- TuomoS ( talk) 15:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
it is given in the section of Fukushima nuclear disaster various countries like china Israel etc reviewed their plans after the accident, India responded to add additional safety measures if required and be more vigilant while continue operating the reactors following link can be used as citation and for knowing more depth of the subject https://www.dw.com/en/indian-reactions-to-japan/a-6473768 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey0927 ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As of now, the article is very long. The history section is the longest section, at 65kb. This would be long even if it was an article by itself. I propose to split it to History of nuclear power, which now is a redirect to the section. In this way we can shorten this article while avoiding deleting useful information. This is similar to what has been done to coutnless other topics, such as with History of wind power. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 04:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Boundarylayer has reintroduced a lot of material that was moved to other more detailed articles. In particular:
and
These paragraphs report details that, although encyclopedic, cannot be included in an article as broad as this. There is now a main article about the history, History of nuclear power, where all this information is already present. Moreover, the writing in these paragraphs is poor, with long and convoluted sentences that make them very difficult to read. I propose to remove (or significantly summarize) these paragraphs and other similar recent additions by Boundarylayer. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 02:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg ( talk · contribs) 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article soon. Expect comments in the next few days. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
I propose deleting the whole section Historic effect on carbon emissions. It is based on a study by Benjamin Sovacool. He concluded that adoption of renewables tends to be associated with significantly lower carbon emissions while larger-scale national nuclear attachments are not. His results have now been disputed in two publications: Fell et al. and Wagner. Fell et al. analyzed the same data as Sovacool and found that "nuclear power and renewable energy are both associated with lower per capita CO2 emissions with effects of similar magnitude". Wagner's results "are in complete contradiction" to the Sovacool study. Clearly there is no academic consensus about the question. Explaining both sides of the debate belongs to other articles, such as Nuclear power debate. -- TuomoS ( talk) 19:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that nobody opposes, so I will remove the section. -- TuomoS ( talk) 19:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
( Annual electricity net generation in the world.svg ) only has data to 2011 and says it is superceded by ( Annual world electricity net generation.svg ) which has data to 2018 and also lists the data it was created with (and invites updates). - Rod57 ( talk) 20:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
What is the atomic energy 175.157.113.67 ( talk) 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Most readers do not need to know that Voyager 2 used radioisotopes to explore outer space when learning about nuclear power. The article is about large scale nuclear power generation. I propose removing the sentence "Nuclear decay processes are used in niche applications such as radioisotope thermoelectric generators in some space probes such as Voyager 2." from the lead. ScientistBuilder ( talk) 21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It would be good to link to ITER in the lead's section on fusion research. ScientistBuilder ( talk) 17:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
ScientistBuilder made several biased edits to the article that made its quality worse, which is why I reverted it back to what the article was before. The editor added several references to nuclear power advocacy groups, changed the wording to be more favourable to nuclear power, and even added a claim to the lede backed up by a Forbes contributor article (not allowed by WP:RSP) and another source which looks like a blog. All of the edits are in the diffs if you want to see what I'm talking about. X-Editor ( talk) 04:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Why isn't uranium mining environnemental impact isn't a part of the environnemental impact of energy production using uranium? The same goes for other radioactive material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Having done a lot of work on this article bringing it up in quality, somewhat dismayed to see an editor, has entered combative prose against a peer-reviewed scientist and injected a bunch of tabloid reference stuffing, for what we can only conclude is for the readers and editors "pleasure", of wading through.
I'll start off one by one. The first thing, this graph and title chosen by the world in data is misleading in the extreme. You simply can't compare rarely produced nuclear reactors to items in which have come off assembly lines. This is not evidence, as is suggested by the "world in data" of some kind of instructive comparison, of their acclaimed "learning by doing did not happen"...when no such effort was really made in nuclears case. Similarly the lines for offshore-wind are likely too, not as steep as onshore, simply because less of that particular thing was made, not inherent to the actual form of energy.
It is data no doubt but unfortunately world in data has put its own unqualified interpretation upon it, that does not fit with the raw data. This graph would be more demystifed by simply looking at how much got added in a given time, of which a rarw confluence of factories and infrastructure tool over to support. Something that is moreso up to public and state support for such things, rather than some kind of lack of learning occurring. What people want got cheaper, got made in factories. Other things, not made in dedicated single purpose factories did not. Is this a "learning" error or an interpretation one, on behalf of World in Data? Apples vs Oranges.
I've since added some explanation on what we're actually seeing here. Things in already established factory manufacturing got cheaper...wow, wow really? [facetious]. These things occurred, For a while...right now material costs make this 2019 cutoff point very circumspect. Then someone calls it a "learning rate" as having been what was at play across the entire decade? For every energy source?...I'm not an economist but I think we can all appreciate, there are other things, factors, that go into the cost of things from factories. That have nothing to do with this acclaimed singlw factor "learning curve" but supply chains being stocked and in order. Raw materials etc. You could get better at doing something and the price could still shoot up, on the cost of the final product, due to factors outside your control. Say like the Russian mafia slowly down the Finnish EPR build, bankruptcies and lawsuits slowing down construction etc.
So I give World in data an F on this graph and their wholly unnuanced amateur-hour interpretation of the data.
I'm going with the more constrained explanation below. For now...but really if a better graph comes along, this should be quickly replaced. As costs are multi-factorial. Not shoe-horned into 1 sized fits all, pet fantasy "learning curves".
Boundarylayer ( talk) 00:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Ita140188: You tagged the article saying: "lead goes into too much detail on functioning of nuclear plants"....but there only three sentences that talk about the functioning, and then it talks about nuclear waste. The article is titled "nuclear power", and most discussion of nuclear power doesn't concern RTGs, but power plants, so it would make sense to me that we have some explanation of how they work. The sentence: "Fuel is removed when the percentage of neutron absorbing atoms becomes so large that a chain reaction can no longer be sustained, typically 3 years." is there to explain to readers why fuel is removed when 95% can still be bred into more fuel, as is explained in the reprocessing sentence(s).
What would your suggested wording be? --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm just repeating something that I had written here earlier to make anyone watching this page aware: "I noticed that the user User:Boundarylayer who is now blocked had done quite a bit of work on the nuclear power article in the past. I don't have enough knowledge or bandwidth regarding the nuclear power article but I would recommend that anyone who has an interest in that article takes a closer look at those earlier edits just to check if there were any WP:NPV issues there." NewsAndEventsGuy subsequently pointed out that the user in question had said that "PV solar is uneconomical compared to nuclear power [3] and then says choosing allegedly "uneconomical" and "intermittent" alternatives (like solar) over nuclear makes one an "accessory to murder"". - So therefore, it would be worth re-checking over the last few months' edits of this user BL here on nuclear power. Some/many of the edits might well be perfectly fine, I am not able to assess that - just saying to please check someone who knows more about this topic than I do. Thanks. EMsmile ( talk) 10:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I've corrected the lede for accuracy and then undone the reversion twice. Each time my finger has slipped onto the return key while I was writing the explanation, so the reversions look unexplained or incompletely explained. Sorry for that. But among the points that needed correcting: Nuclear (actinide) material usually is not by itself "fuel" but needs to be fabricated into fuel. It is "fissionable," since neutrons of high enough energy will cause it to fission and release energy. It is that energy that reprocessing is meant to make available by recovering that nuclear material/actinides. And reprocessing is not primarily about removing neutron-absorbing materials but about recovering fissionable material by removing highly radioactive fission products. This may incidentally remove some neutron poisons, but that is not its primary purpose. Also, France and Russia are not the only countries that reprocess; Japan, India, and China do as well. NPguy ( talk) 01:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
So we can discuss: What is your proposed sentence to properly summarize and describe the reprocessing activity? --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I haven't been on for a bit over a week, but I just want to respond to the discussion of reprocessing and plutonium above. It is simply not true that plutonium and reprocessing are merely historical proliferation concerns. I can't believe I have to say that. NPguy ( talk) 02:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to know about nuclear Energy Regarding to the current situation of "loadshedding" 41.113.181.188 ( talk) 08:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Seeing recent edits to this paragraph, I wonder if it needs to be edited more thoroughly to be technically accurate:
Just about every sentence raises questions of accuracy. What is "otherwise self-extinguishing"? I interpret as saying "self-extinguishing taking into account only prompt neutrons." But delayed neutrons cannot be ignored, so this "self-extinguishing" characteristic is counterfactual (i.e. assumes facts known to be untrue). Calling fission products "embers" may be an evocative metaphor, but it not accurate. The reference to "movement" of fission products seems like a red herring, as they usually do not move appreciable distances. What delayed neutrons do is slow down the exponential ramp-up of a super-critical reaction to a time-scale amenable to external control. It does not necessarily mean that the reaction is "easily controlled," considering other factors that affect the stability of the reaction. One such factor is the thermal coefficient of reactivity (or in worse cases the void coefficient or reactivity). As the reaction rate increases and raises the temperature, does this accelerate (positive coefficient) or slow (negative coefficient) the rate of increase? For a thermal neutron reactor, it is usually the latter, since the fission cross section falls with increasing neutron energy. This may all be too much to put into the introductory section, but the explanation here does not seem accurate. NPguy ( talk) 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Fission reactions and subsequent neutron escape happen very quickly; this is important for nuclear weapons, where the objective is to make a nuclear core release as much energy as possible before it physically explodes. Most neutrons emitted by fission events are prompt: they are emitted effectively instantaneously. Once emitted, the average neutron lifetime () in a typical core is on the order of a millisecond, so if the exponential factor is as small as 0.01, then in one second the reactor power will vary by a factor of (1 + 0.01)1000, or more than ten thousand. Nuclear weapons are engineered to maximize the power growth rate, with lifetimes well under a millisecond and exponential factors close to 2; but such rapid variation would render it practically impossible to control the reaction rates in a nuclear reactor.
Fortunately, the effective neutron lifetime is much longer than the average lifetime of a single neutron in the core. About 0.65% of the neutrons produced by 235U fission, and about 0.20% of the neutrons produced by 239Pu fission, are not produced immediately, but rather are emitted from an excited nucleus after a further decay step. In this step, further radioactive decay of some of the fission products (almost always negative beta decay), is followed by immediate neutron emission from the excited daughter product, with an average life time of the beta decay (and thus the neutron emission) of about 15 seconds. These so-called delayed neutrons increase the effective average lifetime of neutrons in the core, to nearly 0.1 seconds, so that a core with of 0.01 would increase in one second by only a factor of (1 + 0.01)10, or about 1.1: a 10% increase. This is a controllable rate of change.
Most nuclear reactors are hence operated in a prompt subcritical, delayed critical condition: the prompt neutrons alone are not sufficient to sustain a chain reaction, but the delayed neutrons make up the small difference required to keep the reaction going. This has effects on how reactors are controlled: when a small amount of control rod is slid into or out of the reactor core, the power level changes at first very rapidly due to prompt subcritical multiplication and then more gradually, following the exponential growth or decay curve of the delayed critical reaction. Furthermore, increases in reactor power can be performed at any desired rate simply by pulling out a sufficient length of control rod. However, without addition of a neutron poison or active neutron-absorber, decreases in fission rate are limited in speed, because even if the reactor is taken deeply subcritical to stop prompt fission neutron production, delayed neutrons are produced after ordinary beta decay of fission products already in place, and this decay-production of neutrons cannot be changed.
I think that delayed neutrons don't belong to the History section. I moved them to the Nuclear power plants section and added a short description of the chain reaction. -- TuomoS ( talk) 14:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Someone tagged the intro as too long. They had a point, this whole bit about FDNPP sticks out like a sore thumb. So I'm moving it here. I also don't know who wrote this paragraph that I'm removing, but for some reason they thought it should be in the introduction. Four years after the Fukushima-Daiichi accident, there have been no fatalities due to exposure to radiation, and no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public and their descendants. [1] The Japan Times estimated 1,600 deaths were the result of evacuation, due to physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the tsunami, and suicides. [2]
References
User Boundarylayer reinstated the following paragraph to the lead section: "Collaboration on research and development towards greater efficiency, safety and recycling of spent fuel in future Generation IV reactors presently includes Euratom and the co-operation of more than 10 permanent countries globally." I had removed the paragraph because the lead section is too long, and this paragraph is in my opinion the least important part of it. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the "lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". This article has six paragraphs in the lead section. In my opinion the text that Boundarylayer inserted does not belong to the lead section. We should discuss the issue here. -- TuomoS ( talk) 10:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nuclear power has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Internatonal => International Libby Kane ( talk) 08:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The scheme of RBMK reactor is completely wrong. There is no vessel that is fulled with water, as other water-coolant reactors have. In RBMK, water is circulating in separate tubes inside reactor. The reactor operates in a helium–nitrogen atmosphere (70–90% He, 10–30% N2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:819C:AE80:EC82:75F5:8BD3:78C4 ( talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I hate editors who blank sections, without good reason. So I'm putting the two paragraphs that I've blanked as not necessary and essentially diversionary here.
I'd welcome other editors making a case for the re-addition of both?
Boundarylayer ( talk) 23:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Boundarylayer ( talk) 05:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Ita140188, Boundarylayer, TuomoS, and NPguy: What would ya'll think about asking for 1RR protection for this page? I don't know how we do that, but if we agree then there must be a way. Over the years, there have been episodes of a barrage of edits that are very challenging to review with one another in a collaborative way, as more edits come pouring in. Since wikipedia is not an emergency we could agree to throttle back the rate of edits, and in that way have more fun and do a better job. What do you think? (PS I have pinged all the eds who seem to have participated on talk page in recent months, but if I inadvertently missed anyone I apologize and I hope you will alert them instead.) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, I removed text added by Boundarylayer ( talk · contribs). The text reads
The NRC would describe its regulatory oversight after the accident, on the long-delayed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant as "a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision making," and "a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape." [1] |
The first problem is the super awkward sentence structure. Moreover, it misrepresents the source in two ways.
Here is
the url for this source and I'll quote, This case has been widely depicted as a serious failure of governmental process to resolve central issues in a timely and coordinated way- a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision-making on energy matters and of a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape. (note omitted)"
Thus it is not the NRC itself that characterizes the case in this manner. They merely noted that others have done so. The commission might even agree, but this quote doesn't say that.
In addition, BoundaryLayer's text lies this characterization at the feet of reaction to TMI. The source doesn't say that either.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
16:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
References
One editor has made extensive changes that are both badly written (ungrammatical and needlessly convoluted) and inaccurate. Please, rather than reverting my needed editorial fixes, discuss on this page first. NPguy ( talk) 04:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Please, stop hyperventilating. There was no "vandalism." I have repeatedly had to fix a false and misleading claim that PUREX is controversial because of its military legacy or because similar processes can be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. In fact, reprocessing is controversial precisely because it produces separated plutonium, which can be used in weapons. It has nothing to do with history the potential of related processes or facilities. It is the use of PUREX facilities as intended that produces weapons-usable nuclear material.
I have also had to fix multiple awkward, convoluted and ungrammatical constructions. To act as if one missing word results in vandalism is ridiculous. As others have said, focus on content and not accusations. NPguy ( talk) 00:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Trying to find reputable sources to patch up what I see as a major mystery presented to readers in the article at present and trying to put some light into just - why was there a cost escalation in the US and the then, massive wave of cancellations?
Finding sources that were reputable and then also carried by secondary sources, was a little trying, though Peter Lang [Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia] seems to have produced an exhaustive examination. With his paper appearing in the journal Energies[never heard of it prior]. He seems at first very anti-reg which was picked up by a lot of well, less than neutral secondary sources in the US, who have anti-reg as their central ideology. So while a little-suspicious of that, due to the lack of material at such level of analysis from anyone else. Though if not the whole story, it does seem part of it.
The average construction duration of the early nuclear power reactors built globally (i.e., all countries) was: 3.5 years for the first three, 4.0 years for the first ten, 4.4 years for the first twenty, 5 years for the first thirty, and 5.4 years for the first eighty https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm
the fall of nuclear power in the United States began with a 1971 decision in the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court case of Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. vs. Atomic Energy Commission.
The case, which is considered the first major judicial interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), required the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to comply with a mandate to prepare environmental impact statements for all proposed new nuclear power plants.
There’s nothing wrong with requiring environmental impact statements. There’s plenty wrong with requiring environmental impact statements that take years to complete and hang up projects with delays, not substantive findings.
At any rate, the AEC reacted to the Calvert Cliffs decision by suspending all licensing for nuclear power plants for 18 months while it devised new rules. Carnegie Mellon Historian Andrew Ramey maintains the Calvert Cliffs ruling was “the opinion which had the most far-reaching and detrimental effect on the development of nuclear power.” https://www.boulderweekly.com/opinion/cost-killing-nuclear-power/
Some other notable stats, in support of this[that it wasn't TMI, really at all]
Of all nuclear power reactors in the United States: The last construction permit for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1978 for Progress Energy Inc.'s
Shearon Harris plant, near Raleigh, North Carolina.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=5250
Though according to this reference in the article added by USer:NPguy Every order for a new power reactor in the United States since 1974 has been cancelled. Is one source wrong, or is there a difference between, being given a permit and ordering? Though shouldn't you get the permit and then order one? Truly, following bureaucratic rules, should be at the butt of more jokes, as they're a nightmare to understand. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_09/Fetter-VonHippel#note28
This reference also has a nice graph of the two waves of connections. Along with planned nuclear capacity additions began to slow as early as the late 1970s because of a number of factors, including slowing electric demand growth, high capital and construction costs, and public opposition. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30972
So with all that, it seems good enough for now. Though One other thing I haven't been able to find, was apparently the AEC had actually gamed the system a little with commercial reactors getting built in the early years, selecting demonstation licences for everything. This, [the impression I got at any rate], enabled reactors to be built without paying certain unspecified fees, that for example a coal power station had to, so it was considered anti-competitive and ended, as far as I can tell. However finding references that tell that dimension of this multi-faceted story is difficult. It's mentioned by Rod Adams on the Atomic Insights website. If others perhaps want to take a run at it? It does seem to, if it was a big fee that is, tell another potential story for the contribution to the nuclear slow-down.
Though as this is the global article and I'm now a little lazy about this matter after all that research, it could probably just be good enough to stick to the global major issues in each country rather than get far too US-centric.[That's a good enough rationalization for my laziness, right?]
Though honestly, a sentence on these mystery fees, that nuclear in its early days went without paying due to the label game, if they were substantial fees, could put some light on the initial perhaps anti-competitive ramp up of nuclear developments in the US. So if anyone knows more about them, please by all means, chip in. Boundarylayer ( talk) 02:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk · contribs) systematically removed all references by World Nuclear Association. I would like to remind that reliability of a source always depends on the context. WNA is clearly a reliable source for basic facts, like the fact that spent fuel is not being reprocessed in the United States, or that a nuclear power plant consists of a reactor, a cooling system, a turbine, and a generator. I understand questioning the reliability of WNA in, for example, comparing nuclear power with other energy sources. But WNA should be accepted as a source of basic, non-controversial information. If a user finds another reference, he can of course replace the WNA reference with that. But systematically removing all the WNA references did not improve the article. -- TuomoS ( talk) 15:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
sheesh Can't you all see I'm actively engaged in RS review and improvement? Drama or help or just wait, your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I am out of time possibly for a day or two. Wikipedia is not an emergency. Note to self, resume review at note 33. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I just saw a new edit summary in the article, so I'd like to let you know I've re-evaluated the possiblity of doing a comprehensive reference section review and decided its' simply not possible right now. I'll put world-nuclear.org refs back the way they were before doing other work. Family duty calls though, so it will have to wait a few hours. This doesn't mean I agree they are good refs, only that Wikipedia isn't an emergency and I'll put them back for now. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Just seeing this exchange after being away for one day. I have to say I'm mystified by the notion that WNA is not a reliable source. I find it quite reliable. Of course, opinions and analyses have to be understood as such, much like the opinion page of a newspaper. NPguy ( talk) 03:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The figures are a bit out of date.
Please change " In March 2016, China had 30 reactors in operation, 24 under construction and plans to build more.[156]" to " In January 2019, China had 45 reactors in operation, 13 under construction and plans to build 43 more which would make it the worlds largest generator of nuclear electricity."
Also higher up the section there is a request for a citation re China's expansion. The article below gives the above figures but needs registration.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/01/12/can-china-become-a-scientific-superpower
The new section on nuclear power vs. renewables seems both biased and disproportionately long. Regarding bias, per my edit summary, this section reads like advocacy for nuclear power and against renewables. The arguments are stacked, and the main advantage of renewables (cost) is overlooked. Regarding length, here is a separate article on that subject, so a brief summary and cross-reference should be sufficient. NPguy ( talk) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Why were the two paragraphs we had in the article specifically detailing this very full costing info, including the subsidy-racket, TuomoS and NPguy, just recently censored out of the article, bagged and disappeared?
I think the section needs to be put back pretty soon. As it seems to have been lost on other editors but the entire section is only really notable due to the environmentalist dispute, the Hansen vs. Jacobson and Caldeira vs. Jacobson disputes in the literature boiling over into the mass media. On writing the section I thought it obvious, if you had followed those disputes[though clearly not many here have], that the section just summarizes the indisputable metrics of energy comparison put forth by Hansen and Caldeira and others of their persuasion, though without citing their work directly per WP:SECONDARY. However on returning, it seems other editors seem to think the entire section is just a place for them to place their own 'vision' and then make me laugh by hurling accusations that it's my POV that is the problem? The section has since devolved into a censoring-swamp alongside a truly random collection of references to country specific integrations. Though, where did you get the idea, this was what the section was about? Some kind of repository of matters unrelated to the dispute?
The section is about the points put forth by Hansen and Caldeira and also, to mirror the renewable energy article, the section might as well be the place to give our readers info on what is the equivalent 100% nuclear energy world while we're at it. It isn't just some random WP:UNDUE weight, collection of current-events that editors happen to find that links nuclear and renewable energy, working in 'epic harmonious symphony'. It's about the big scientific dispute. Isn't that made clear in the very first paragraph of the section?
Does it need to be made clearer?
I mean on the renewable energy article, there is no mention of accomodation with nuclear, so why are some editors here pushing that we should?
Here are the prominent climatologists and the points that they make to the media, if you don't want to go reading everything they have penned themselves. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwGPOTYTDdk
Climate advocate, James Hansen more recently, having stated The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.” He follows that up by referring to the notion of an economy powered entirely by renewable energy a “fantasy.” Our job, is to summarize their notable work and the metrics they point to, why they call it a fantasy etc by just presenting the facts that they notably bring up.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 10:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in the section is even remotely similar to the material found in that separate article NPguy -proposed as renewable-. So what rationale was behind you considering that to be 'main article'? That specific article just focuses on the question of sustainable fuel supply. It also doesn't give any insight into your alarming suggestion, that raises concerns of advocacy, with your writing : and the main advantage of renewables (cost) is overlooked.. As according to whom, are renewables at a cost advantage? ...The fossil fuel industry and renewable advocates?
In writing the section, in writing energy related articles we simply take the established guide of articles on power sources, like the renewable energy article and the Hydroelectricity#Comparison and interactions with other methods of power generation section and add on the metrics and information about the intense debate amongst climatologists, conservationists and those in the energy field, relating to nuclear energy and 'new renewables' in the literature. We have reliable secondary sources calling this very thing Nuclear vs renewable, so that's why our specific section was given that specific title. It's what they call it. WP:USEBYOTHERS. Lastly, the debate and comparisons go much further than simply saying 'these are two low-carbon methods of generating electricity'. There were serious lawsuits, over the publishing of a scientific critique, on matters spanning a range of metrics of comparison, not just carbon but materials usage and so on, therefore our job is to give readers that info, on the WP:controversy. A controversy which, while not suitable for the article but perhaps you're unaware, has even included Naomi Oreskes making broad-side shots to anyone who isn't on board with the 100% renewable energy world, as the very same as a kind of climate denier. That's right, James Hansen being called the equivalent of a climate change denier.
Also to mirror the renewable energy article and how it gives a big chunk of text to that very 100% renewable energy world, we need to mirror that and give the respective, Barry Brook's, 100% nuclear energy world analysis its due weight, in this article. Boundarylayer ( talk) 16:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I'm working on infobox test cases, and want to double check if a single nuclear reactor always powers a single steam turbine in commercial nuclear power stations. Is this always the case? Are there any examples for power stations that powers more than one generation unit (i.e. steam turbine) using a single reactor? I searched around, but could not find any, and wanted to reconfirm here anyway. Thank you for your help! Reh man 04:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi again TuomoS, would you, or anyone reading this, know of any examples of a single nuclear power plant with more than one type of reactor? Reh man 01:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The UK needs to be changed to darkblue, to reflect the Hinkley C reactor being built in Somerset 51.7.20.152 ( talk) 09:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I have some issues with the caption for the image "Chernobyl-LWR-comparison.PNG", under Nuclear power#Regulations, pricing and accidents:
A simplified diagram of the major differences between the most common nuclear reactor design, the Light water reactor and the RBMK (Chernobyl) design
The first should be straightforward to fix. For the second point, maybe someone more experienced at Wikipedia knows what the best approach is. Then, it would be nice if someone could edit that, as I can't due to the page lockdown.-- Elimik31 ( talk) 11:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Try going to [1] Thanks! Aviationtune ( talk) 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm not quite sure I get the point of this image; I need to state at the outset I am most certainly a novice at best when it comes to matters of nuclear things but (or maybe because of that) this seems to be comparing apples with oranges and, I dunno, underpants.
AFAICT it seems to be comparing the size of the core of the RBMK with the entire enclosure of the AGCR (including its steam boilers and what-not; which would seem to be of broadly similar purpose to the RBMK's steam separators, not included, at least inasmuch as any sort of comparison can be made) and with various other reactors in various places in between.
Would it not be better to compare like-with-like rather than what appears to be a feature that fundamentally varies by design? Such as the actual core size, or perhaps the size of the facility needed to actually accomplish something useful. But as I started with, I'm not certain what's the point anyway: does size matter? -- Vometia ( talk) 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
User Prototyperspective created a graph of the cost of electricity generation by various technologies. The graph is supposed to present the average of three analyses, but actually Lazard is the only one that provides an estimate of the cost of nuclear power, which is obviously the most important number for this article. However, the Lazard analysis does not provide any details about how the costs were estimated. Today, the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency published a joint report Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020. This seems to be a much more transparent report than the Lazard analysis, as it provides details of the analysis methods. I propose that we use the IEA cost estimates in this article. Or what do other editors think? -- TuomoS ( talk) 15:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a paragraph based on the IEA report and removed the old cost graph.-- TuomoS ( talk) 15:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
it is given in the section of Fukushima nuclear disaster various countries like china Israel etc reviewed their plans after the accident, India responded to add additional safety measures if required and be more vigilant while continue operating the reactors following link can be used as citation and for knowing more depth of the subject https://www.dw.com/en/indian-reactions-to-japan/a-6473768 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey0927 ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As of now, the article is very long. The history section is the longest section, at 65kb. This would be long even if it was an article by itself. I propose to split it to History of nuclear power, which now is a redirect to the section. In this way we can shorten this article while avoiding deleting useful information. This is similar to what has been done to coutnless other topics, such as with History of wind power. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 04:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Boundarylayer has reintroduced a lot of material that was moved to other more detailed articles. In particular:
and
These paragraphs report details that, although encyclopedic, cannot be included in an article as broad as this. There is now a main article about the history, History of nuclear power, where all this information is already present. Moreover, the writing in these paragraphs is poor, with long and convoluted sentences that make them very difficult to read. I propose to remove (or significantly summarize) these paragraphs and other similar recent additions by Boundarylayer. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 02:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg ( talk · contribs) 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article soon. Expect comments in the next few days. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
I propose deleting the whole section Historic effect on carbon emissions. It is based on a study by Benjamin Sovacool. He concluded that adoption of renewables tends to be associated with significantly lower carbon emissions while larger-scale national nuclear attachments are not. His results have now been disputed in two publications: Fell et al. and Wagner. Fell et al. analyzed the same data as Sovacool and found that "nuclear power and renewable energy are both associated with lower per capita CO2 emissions with effects of similar magnitude". Wagner's results "are in complete contradiction" to the Sovacool study. Clearly there is no academic consensus about the question. Explaining both sides of the debate belongs to other articles, such as Nuclear power debate. -- TuomoS ( talk) 19:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that nobody opposes, so I will remove the section. -- TuomoS ( talk) 19:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
( Annual electricity net generation in the world.svg ) only has data to 2011 and says it is superceded by ( Annual world electricity net generation.svg ) which has data to 2018 and also lists the data it was created with (and invites updates). - Rod57 ( talk) 20:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
What is the atomic energy 175.157.113.67 ( talk) 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Most readers do not need to know that Voyager 2 used radioisotopes to explore outer space when learning about nuclear power. The article is about large scale nuclear power generation. I propose removing the sentence "Nuclear decay processes are used in niche applications such as radioisotope thermoelectric generators in some space probes such as Voyager 2." from the lead. ScientistBuilder ( talk) 21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It would be good to link to ITER in the lead's section on fusion research. ScientistBuilder ( talk) 17:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
ScientistBuilder made several biased edits to the article that made its quality worse, which is why I reverted it back to what the article was before. The editor added several references to nuclear power advocacy groups, changed the wording to be more favourable to nuclear power, and even added a claim to the lede backed up by a Forbes contributor article (not allowed by WP:RSP) and another source which looks like a blog. All of the edits are in the diffs if you want to see what I'm talking about. X-Editor ( talk) 04:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Why isn't uranium mining environnemental impact isn't a part of the environnemental impact of energy production using uranium? The same goes for other radioactive material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Having done a lot of work on this article bringing it up in quality, somewhat dismayed to see an editor, has entered combative prose against a peer-reviewed scientist and injected a bunch of tabloid reference stuffing, for what we can only conclude is for the readers and editors "pleasure", of wading through.
I'll start off one by one. The first thing, this graph and title chosen by the world in data is misleading in the extreme. You simply can't compare rarely produced nuclear reactors to items in which have come off assembly lines. This is not evidence, as is suggested by the "world in data" of some kind of instructive comparison, of their acclaimed "learning by doing did not happen"...when no such effort was really made in nuclears case. Similarly the lines for offshore-wind are likely too, not as steep as onshore, simply because less of that particular thing was made, not inherent to the actual form of energy.
It is data no doubt but unfortunately world in data has put its own unqualified interpretation upon it, that does not fit with the raw data. This graph would be more demystifed by simply looking at how much got added in a given time, of which a rarw confluence of factories and infrastructure tool over to support. Something that is moreso up to public and state support for such things, rather than some kind of lack of learning occurring. What people want got cheaper, got made in factories. Other things, not made in dedicated single purpose factories did not. Is this a "learning" error or an interpretation one, on behalf of World in Data? Apples vs Oranges.
I've since added some explanation on what we're actually seeing here. Things in already established factory manufacturing got cheaper...wow, wow really? [facetious]. These things occurred, For a while...right now material costs make this 2019 cutoff point very circumspect. Then someone calls it a "learning rate" as having been what was at play across the entire decade? For every energy source?...I'm not an economist but I think we can all appreciate, there are other things, factors, that go into the cost of things from factories. That have nothing to do with this acclaimed singlw factor "learning curve" but supply chains being stocked and in order. Raw materials etc. You could get better at doing something and the price could still shoot up, on the cost of the final product, due to factors outside your control. Say like the Russian mafia slowly down the Finnish EPR build, bankruptcies and lawsuits slowing down construction etc.
So I give World in data an F on this graph and their wholly unnuanced amateur-hour interpretation of the data.
I'm going with the more constrained explanation below. For now...but really if a better graph comes along, this should be quickly replaced. As costs are multi-factorial. Not shoe-horned into 1 sized fits all, pet fantasy "learning curves".
Boundarylayer ( talk) 00:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Ita140188: You tagged the article saying: "lead goes into too much detail on functioning of nuclear plants"....but there only three sentences that talk about the functioning, and then it talks about nuclear waste. The article is titled "nuclear power", and most discussion of nuclear power doesn't concern RTGs, but power plants, so it would make sense to me that we have some explanation of how they work. The sentence: "Fuel is removed when the percentage of neutron absorbing atoms becomes so large that a chain reaction can no longer be sustained, typically 3 years." is there to explain to readers why fuel is removed when 95% can still be bred into more fuel, as is explained in the reprocessing sentence(s).
What would your suggested wording be? --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm just repeating something that I had written here earlier to make anyone watching this page aware: "I noticed that the user User:Boundarylayer who is now blocked had done quite a bit of work on the nuclear power article in the past. I don't have enough knowledge or bandwidth regarding the nuclear power article but I would recommend that anyone who has an interest in that article takes a closer look at those earlier edits just to check if there were any WP:NPV issues there." NewsAndEventsGuy subsequently pointed out that the user in question had said that "PV solar is uneconomical compared to nuclear power [3] and then says choosing allegedly "uneconomical" and "intermittent" alternatives (like solar) over nuclear makes one an "accessory to murder"". - So therefore, it would be worth re-checking over the last few months' edits of this user BL here on nuclear power. Some/many of the edits might well be perfectly fine, I am not able to assess that - just saying to please check someone who knows more about this topic than I do. Thanks. EMsmile ( talk) 10:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I've corrected the lede for accuracy and then undone the reversion twice. Each time my finger has slipped onto the return key while I was writing the explanation, so the reversions look unexplained or incompletely explained. Sorry for that. But among the points that needed correcting: Nuclear (actinide) material usually is not by itself "fuel" but needs to be fabricated into fuel. It is "fissionable," since neutrons of high enough energy will cause it to fission and release energy. It is that energy that reprocessing is meant to make available by recovering that nuclear material/actinides. And reprocessing is not primarily about removing neutron-absorbing materials but about recovering fissionable material by removing highly radioactive fission products. This may incidentally remove some neutron poisons, but that is not its primary purpose. Also, France and Russia are not the only countries that reprocess; Japan, India, and China do as well. NPguy ( talk) 01:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
So we can discuss: What is your proposed sentence to properly summarize and describe the reprocessing activity? --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I haven't been on for a bit over a week, but I just want to respond to the discussion of reprocessing and plutonium above. It is simply not true that plutonium and reprocessing are merely historical proliferation concerns. I can't believe I have to say that. NPguy ( talk) 02:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to know about nuclear Energy Regarding to the current situation of "loadshedding" 41.113.181.188 ( talk) 08:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)