This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Nuclear power in Canada was split to Nuclear industry in Canada on 21:05, 30 August 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
This page requires major revision. I have edited the most egregious of the errors, but the rest remains substandard both in style and content. Use at your own risk, just like the rest of Wikipedia. Whitlock 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't stand it any longer. I am doing a total rewrite, -- DV8 2XL 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you've cut and paste some of this from here. Is there any other plagiarism we should know about? TastyCakes 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Added a paragraph about the SLOWPOKE reactor. Hugo Dufort 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically SLOWPOKE is a backronym -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym 24.84.205.71 ( talk) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to have grown beyond the scope of "Nuclear Power", should it be renamed? Something like Nuclear Technology in Canada or something? That doesn't flow very well... TastyCakes 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This article seems very biased. There's no mention of any of the controversy surrounding nuclear power (including the new proposal for a reactor in Alberta). The whole thing reads like an industry brochure. "Canada’s used reactor fuel is now safely stored on an interim basis at licensed facilities located where the waste is produced." That's a pretty rosy way of saying that reactors store their waste on site because Canada has no long term disposal strategy in place. Ae491 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)ae491
I don't think the information that is there is biased, it is for the most part just the facts about Canada's nuclear power use, uranium mining industry etc. That there is no criticism section could be construed as biased, but whoever finds the absence that abrasive can start one themselves. I agree the final paragraph is full of fluff, I will try and cut some of it out. TastyCakes ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was no consensus -- Aervanath ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we make a nuclear industry in Canada article, move all the mining, isotope and maybe CANDU reactor sales stuff there and leave only the stuff directly related to nuclear power in Canada in this article? TastyCakes ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. An editorial decision to split the page can be made without regard to the outcome of this move request. There appears to be significant support for splitting the page. Dekimasu よ! 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Nuclear power in Canada → Nuclear technology in Canada — The article is currently (oops - a pun!) more than about "power". — -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel ( talk) 15:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why the 2009 Darlington release of faintly tritiated water is a notable accident, but I've added more details to improve it. -- Energy4All ( talk) 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Public opinion (perhaps rightly) seems to be that any unintended consequence at any nuclear facility is a notable accident. I think the logic might be that tolerance for accidents in each industry ought to have some form of inverse relationship to the severity of that industry's theoretical worst-case events. Nuclear energy had the misfortune of being first introduced to the general public during war in the form of highly destructive weapons, leading to a strong (and not unjustified, though perhaps overstated) perception that nuclear's worst-case events are very bad. Notability is a function of public perception, not a function of risk assessment. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I read that they built a new reactor but it had a positive power growth when shut down, so they had to cancel it. The scientists had predicted a negative power growth. Is this story somewhere in the article?-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Okay found it Multipurpose_Applied_Physics_Lattice_Experiment-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the table in the Generation section of the article. The table entry for NB in 2015 shows generation of 3.3 TWh but no percentage figure. Is the 3.3 TWh figure erroneous (ie generation in NB is discontinued)? SquashEngineer ( talk) 17:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Are financial figures listed in Canadian or US dollars? I would presume Canadian, but it'd be useful to have explicit confirmation of this, as it's quite ambiguous at the moment. – Jadebenn ( talk · contribs · subpages) 08:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Nuclear power in Canada was split to Nuclear industry in Canada on 21:05, 30 August 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
This page requires major revision. I have edited the most egregious of the errors, but the rest remains substandard both in style and content. Use at your own risk, just like the rest of Wikipedia. Whitlock 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't stand it any longer. I am doing a total rewrite, -- DV8 2XL 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you've cut and paste some of this from here. Is there any other plagiarism we should know about? TastyCakes 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Added a paragraph about the SLOWPOKE reactor. Hugo Dufort 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically SLOWPOKE is a backronym -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym 24.84.205.71 ( talk) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to have grown beyond the scope of "Nuclear Power", should it be renamed? Something like Nuclear Technology in Canada or something? That doesn't flow very well... TastyCakes 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This article seems very biased. There's no mention of any of the controversy surrounding nuclear power (including the new proposal for a reactor in Alberta). The whole thing reads like an industry brochure. "Canada’s used reactor fuel is now safely stored on an interim basis at licensed facilities located where the waste is produced." That's a pretty rosy way of saying that reactors store their waste on site because Canada has no long term disposal strategy in place. Ae491 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)ae491
I don't think the information that is there is biased, it is for the most part just the facts about Canada's nuclear power use, uranium mining industry etc. That there is no criticism section could be construed as biased, but whoever finds the absence that abrasive can start one themselves. I agree the final paragraph is full of fluff, I will try and cut some of it out. TastyCakes ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was no consensus -- Aervanath ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we make a nuclear industry in Canada article, move all the mining, isotope and maybe CANDU reactor sales stuff there and leave only the stuff directly related to nuclear power in Canada in this article? TastyCakes ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. An editorial decision to split the page can be made without regard to the outcome of this move request. There appears to be significant support for splitting the page. Dekimasu よ! 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Nuclear power in Canada → Nuclear technology in Canada — The article is currently (oops - a pun!) more than about "power". — -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel ( talk) 15:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why the 2009 Darlington release of faintly tritiated water is a notable accident, but I've added more details to improve it. -- Energy4All ( talk) 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Public opinion (perhaps rightly) seems to be that any unintended consequence at any nuclear facility is a notable accident. I think the logic might be that tolerance for accidents in each industry ought to have some form of inverse relationship to the severity of that industry's theoretical worst-case events. Nuclear energy had the misfortune of being first introduced to the general public during war in the form of highly destructive weapons, leading to a strong (and not unjustified, though perhaps overstated) perception that nuclear's worst-case events are very bad. Notability is a function of public perception, not a function of risk assessment. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I read that they built a new reactor but it had a positive power growth when shut down, so they had to cancel it. The scientists had predicted a negative power growth. Is this story somewhere in the article?-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Okay found it Multipurpose_Applied_Physics_Lattice_Experiment-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the table in the Generation section of the article. The table entry for NB in 2015 shows generation of 3.3 TWh but no percentage figure. Is the 3.3 TWh figure erroneous (ie generation in NB is discontinued)? SquashEngineer ( talk) 17:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Are financial figures listed in Canadian or US dollars? I would presume Canadian, but it'd be useful to have explicit confirmation of this, as it's quite ambiguous at the moment. – Jadebenn ( talk · contribs · subpages) 08:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)