Archive 1 - August 11 - August 18, 2005
There seems to be a factual error in the article. It is indeed possible to successfully build a bomb with reactor grade plutonium, as has been demonstrated in a 1962 weapons test by the DOE. See: http://www.ccnr.org/plute_bomb.html
I don't think it was an error but rather misunderstanding. Tested device was not created from "normal" fuel. Anyway it was my mistake not to mention the bomb that has more psychological than practical significance. Hope this correct my mistake. Thanks for reminding me.-- Trigor 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
152.78.98.1 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you propose these countries? They are not even considering nuclear phase out. -- Trigor 08:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it is [2] -- 212.200.123.157 08:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. Can you add Finland as well? It is because Finland is also working on Nuclear Power development. They have recently commisioned 5th reactor. Thanks for your explanation. I am going to work on it.
-- Trigor 21:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
As Talk:Nuclear power phase-out/to do hasn't been updated since last November, IMO it is serving no purpose to have it at the top of this talk page. Feel free to reinstate it if you wish to use it, it's just a matter of adding {{to do}} to the top of the page (or wherever you feel it belongs on the page). Many of the issues raised are still outstanding, as are several others, but it needs to be updated to reflect the activity that has occurred over the past two months.
I'd suggest that if it is reinstated, it should be in bullet-point form. It's far too long to be useful as is. Andrewa 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I object to the removal of Price anderson as evidence that the government as well as industry firmly asserting that nuclear reactors are riskier (in terms of external liabiity) than the market is willing to bear. And why should we shield this fact from the reading public? Is that what Encyclopedias do? I thought that's what book burning was for. Benjamin Gatti
The removed paragraph said:
Though it may be a valid argument, I think it is a little POV in the wording. If you restate it you could probably achieve a consensus to put it back. You should also ask User:SEWilco for his/her word if you do that. Ben T/ C 06:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The evidence most cited that Nuclear reactors continue to be unsafe is the fact that the companies who build and operate them are unwilling to accept liability for potential damages. This is unlike any other energy technology; Wind power for example does not need a taxpayer subsidized liability waiver in order to attract investors. The Price-anderson act, which transfers the cost of potential pain and suffering caused by a nuclear explosion from well-informed investors to taxpayer, who are much less-informed about the risks because of the plants and their operations are strictly confidential, was extended in the Energy policy act of 2005 to apply to future reactors in the US. Benjamin Gatti
Wind power is heavily subsidized in all countries. It is not economical without such subsides. Furthermore it requires a backup of some kind that can give constant base load. Saying it is not subsidized is not truth and there is no such example. Nuclear explosion is also wrong because it can't happen in nuclear power plant. High confidentiality is also not in order. I would be surprised if nuclear power in west would refuse you a visit. I think it is also badly scripted and has bias. What you should tell is that insurance is partly guaranteed by government without pig and risk comments. Let reader judge and take their own conclusion.
-- Trigor 22:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Trigor 07:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody have a subscription to Science? Google keeps giving me [3]. Short summary relevant to this article would be appreciated. Ben T/ C 07:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Post link or remove this paragraph:
Researchers at Southampton University concluded that a link was present, deducing that radiation damage to men working at the plants had caused genetic abnormalities in their children. After this report British Nuclear Fuels initially advised workers who were being exposed to high levels of radiation not to father children, although they have since withdrawn this advice.
-- Trigor 13:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This is clearly wrong or outdated. I am going to change it if I don't get some really good reason not to. I have work for BNFL as a student and have acces to all their documents and articles. I have nevere never seen something like this. Furthermore it sounds rather astonishing to me especialy the thing about fathering. On my link you can see that there is no any link. [4]
--unsigned Trigor ( Ben T/ C 07:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC))
Ben T/ C 07:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
"This practice is similar to that for banks, which are also backed with government guarantees."
There are hundred things a subsidy is like. Stealing comes to mind. Its probably more like bank robbery than FICA insurance. For one thing FICA protects those who choose to participate. Price anderson REMOVES protections from people whether they choose or not. If an edit war is wanted - promoting Price on anything other than the most neutral grey tone will garentee one. Benjamin Gatti
Hey, it would be nice to have graphs
One could have an icon of a NPP and on the countries that have NPPs, like in Risk. The syntax at Meta:Images and other uploaded files for locators could be useful. (More info is on Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials.)
Comments? Suggestions on icons for nuclear power plants? (possibly three: operating/defunct/planned) Ben T/ C 06:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to discuss two changes. First, I think this is not in order:
This has happened in Israel, India, Iran, North Korea, and South Africa (which later gave up its nuclear weapons).
First of all neither Israel nor Iran nor North Korea nor South Africa had civilian nuclear program when they developed nuclear weapons or they don't have nuclear program for civilian use still. Israel for example doesn't have civilian program at all nor does it generate electricity from nuclear. Same goes for Iran and North Korea. South Africa does have it but the started developing bombs in early 1970s while first reactor was on line in 1984. If you want to include them you should state that their programs were military ones as uninformed reader could conclude they were from civilian one. In addition I hope you could also put "military" reactor as they are used strictly by military and it is not possible to make that kind of plutonium in ordinary reactor.
-- Trigor 07:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
What reference do you want. That it is military purpouse or that it needs special reactor or both? -- Trigor 10:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
hydro: 71% nuclear: 0% other: 0% (2001) [7]
If you are so desperate to list Korea you should point out that it has MILITARY reactor that has very very weak energy capacity indeed
-- Trigor 17:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Should there be a mantion about the US, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China also? AFAIK in all these countries nuclear weapons preceded (civilian) energy production. 213.243.182.3 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
What about this here? Why did you remove it, Trigor? You don't think that's important for the discussion?
Ben T/ C 10:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I do. I didn't remove it.
-- Trigor 10:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I saw. I really didn't have intention to delete it like that. Thank you for puting it back It must have been misstake. My apologises.
-- Trigor 11:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought it could be better to merge it into one big pro- AND contra thing, the distinction between pro and contra sections is already getting very blurred anyway. Opinions? Ben T/ C 06:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC) Ben T/ C 06:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
The section "Greenhouse gases and environmental protection" has:
According to biodegradation, the term specifically relates to degradation caused by biological agents (which is concordant with the etymology of the word).
Radioactive materials such as nuclear waste decay precisely because they are radioactive. The fact of radioactivity guarantees that the amount of radiation will decrease over time.
Unless there's something here I'm missing? Direvus 13:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correction. -- Trigor 13:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a good point. After anything from a few decades to a few millenia (that's a few, about 3000 years max) depending on the fuel cycle used, the residual radioactivity in the waste is less than the radioactivity in the original ore body. So fission reactors actually make the world a less radioactive place within this timescale, and the reduction is permanent from then on. In my experience, most people still do not believe this very simple and relevant fact.
This is in spectacular contrast to two other proposed energy technologies, both (ironically IMO) generally seen as greener than fission.
The first of these of course is fusion. The disposal of the highly radioactive lining material from the first generation of fusion power plants is the second biggest problem still to solve. (The biggest problem is developing materials that will withstand the enormous neutron flux, even for the time between shutdowns to replace the lining, and they are obviously related.) This is new radioactivity; The earth is very, very slightly but permanently more radioactive as a result of even the few small-scale fusion experiments conducted to date.
The second is carbon sequestration. As far as we know, the CO2 we put into the ground is there forever, or at least until it eventually leaks out. Nobody seems to have thought of that! The mind boggles. Andrewa 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That is really good point indeed. Carbon sequestration is still a pilot so I didn’t mention it as it is not mainstream in fossil fuel industry. Overall it is good thing. They are mimicking nuclear fuel cycle. Still we don’t know how it is going to impact the price but if they make it feasible on large scale and apply good containment (let’s not forger it is still toxic) it is the step in the right direction. The only problem is that average fossil fuel power plant pumps 4-8 tons of gasses and ashes into the atmosphere each second . It is going to be real challenge to make storage for that even for short term operation.
The first point is also nicely putted and it deals about morality of use of nuclear power over longer term. Something that some people like to distort. The truth is that nuclear power reduces radioactivity on earth in the longer term. That is not question of POV but of mathematics. Why don’t you put that into the article. Although you would have to explain it thoroughl.
-- Trigor 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
IMO this page needs a complete refactor. It is too long (61KB), the headings are vague (or have discussed it, other countries), the information repetitive and poorly focussed.
It should have a clearly marked section for countries that have initiated phase out by closing at least one plant (or in one case never opening it!), and another for countries that are committed in some way, for example having an act of parliament that forbids construction of new nuclear power plants.
It's hard to know what to say about other countries, but there's no call for example for a detailed history of nuclear power in the USA, that should go elsewhere, perhaps in an article Nuclear technology in the United States to match Category:Nuclear technology in the United States. Putting this material here creates the impression that the USA has in some way initiated phase-out, which is simply not true, although their once clear lead in this technology has been substantially reduced over the last few decades.
On the other hand Oregon and California have initiated a phase-out locally, and closed Trojan and Rancho Seco respectively to implement it. That deserves a mention. Are there other states that have done likewise?
We should probably have a paragraph on New Zealand, which is widely and falsely believed to have an act of parliament banning nuclear power. Whether we should even mention countries such as France, China and Japan who are currently installing new capacity I'm inclined to doubt; This information is probably better in a separate article.
Nor should a country be listed here simply because one or more of its minority parties have opposed nuclear power; This has probably occurred in all countries if we look hard enough.
This article has improved a lot, but more is needed. Comments on the above proposals welcome. Andrewa 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Another place for some of the politics might be the existing article at nuclear power controversy. Much of the material to be removed from this article is there already. Andrewa 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia convention for using the word ' billion' in the sense of 109 exclusive to 1012 (British)? -- DV8 2XL 18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This discution came about as I made an entry that reported the timescale of the Oklo reactors in 'millions of years' only to have it changed to 'billions'. In the entry Natural nuclear fission reactor I had used '2000 million years' already to avoid this confusion. I also agree it might be well be time for a policy on this issue -- DV8 2XL 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph about Insurances does a good job at describing shortly the insurance system in the US (the systems in effect in other relevant countries, such as France and Japan, should be added). I understand $10,000 million is the coverage available before taxpayers must start paying for damages. However, how much is this damage likely going to be? Has anyone a monetization of the Chernobyl accident, if only as an order of magnitude? What about Three Mile Island? -- Orzetto 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As for TMI there were no significant releases there was no significant damage outside. However the cleanup of TMI-2 was quite expensive and was rated at $973 million. The bill was footed jointly by insurer and utility. No taxpayer money was used. Most of the money came from TMI-1 which is one of the top rated reactors world wide. So the figure is not representative as it is only partially covered by PA as Andrewa tells us. As for Chernobyl I can't find accurate estimate. But it is most likely above $5 billion. Great damage was also the loss of remaining 4 reactors (2 planed and 2 in operating conditions) that had been shut down under pressure from EU in 2000. That alone accounts for $3 billion. Not to mention natureal gas costs that is going to rise (e.g. Russian-Ukraniak gass dispute) -- Trigor 12:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As asked by Ben on the Danish wikipedians notice board, here are some facts about Danish Nuclear Power. Since it is not in the article, i would like to point your attention to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Danish_wikipedians%27_notice_board#nuclear_power_phase-out (unsigned comment by User:87.49.114.61. Attributed by Ben T/ C 20:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC))
I've re-included a modified version of my original sentence which was removed by Trigor:
"However, an issue of debate [66] is that greenhouse emissions from mining, milling and enrichment may be substantially greater in the future as the world's reserves of high grade uranium are depleted, and low grade uranium is increasingly used."
I have left the paragraph that follows, which was added by Trigor. The references refer mainly to current life cycle analysis. The issue of the grade of ore utilised is common to all mined ores - high grade resources are mined first followed by diminishing grades. This is non-controversial. Some sources refute the claim that this will substantially increase greenhouse emissions, but the issue is one of legitimate debate, and is argued strongly by others. It should remain of point of debate. -- User:GrahamP 7 March 2006
Look. I did not intend to remove your sentence. However your point steams from Storm van Leeuwen & Smith. No other study has ever managed to reproduce their results and that is because their numbers are simply wrong and discredited. Evidence of that can be found on many places and some of them are listed. In the BBC link I can't see some connection with this debate. But because we should accept points of view we disagree with, leave your sentence in the current form but you have to state the writers of the papers. Personally I did remove your part but have restated it all over again before showing contradictions in the study. Now it's a bit stupid because you are saying your bit:
"However, an issue of debate [66] is that greenhouse emissions from mining, milling and enrichment may be substantially greater in the future as the world's reserves of high grade uranium are depleted, and low grade uranium is increasingly used. [67] This view is not supported by the nuclear power industry."
And than:
"In a semi-technical paper Storm van Leeuwen & Smith named “Is Nuclear Power Sustainable? and its May 2002 successor: Can Nuclear Power Provide Energy for the Future; would it solve the CO2-emission problem?”. In these they alleged that nuclear power would eventually surpass fossil fuels in green house gases emission as high grade ore becomes scarce, thus putting in doubt it’s substantiality and part of environmental protection. However this paper has been dismissed as false by industry. Published results on ore extraction are showing 99% advantage for nuclear based generation on the bases of CO2 emissions over fossil fuels. Thus authors greatly reduced its paper and republished it in 2005, omitting most of numerical values they used in previous paper. Even these are proved wrong by life cycle studies (e.g. Vattenfal). All this heavily disputes article which forecasts are alleged wrong for basis for them, current data, is proven wrong even 3:1 in some cases. For greater details please review 68 [69]"
We are repeating the same thing
And yes. The claim that emission will rise in the future is controversial because article does not take account for advancement in enrichment technology or utilization of breeders once high grade ore becomes scarce. This would results in even lower emissions than today. There is no debate regarding this issue because you can't play poker if you don't have any cards. But if you can point to other scientific papers please do. I will read them just like I did read the last one you have sent. Thanks -- Trigor 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The same Storm van Leeuwen & Smith paper (
http://www.stormsmith.nl/) claims that if worldwide electrical
energy demands were met solely by nuclear, that known reserves of nuclear fuel would be used up within 4 years. Does anyone know if such an expiry in a single-digit number of years is verifiable? If true, then it should point to nuclear power never being more than a stop-gap solution, but it's a bold claim I've never seen elsewhere.
57.66.65.38
19:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Andrew
http://www.techmind.org/
Is someone having a bit of fun?
Nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gases or ash during normal operation
I hope not! -- Dilaudid 15:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, since my (relatively minor) revision was reverted, I'd like to ask about the support for the statement "# Wind power - the only alternative which directly mitigates the effects of global warming"
Is this anything other than an opinion? Aren't there other options that "mitigate the effects of global warming"? How does wind power mitigate said effects? This seems to me to be a statement openly biased in favor of wind power. I'll admit I'm not in favor of that power source (finding it horribly inefficient, especially on calm days), but I don't go to the alernative energy article and lampoon it as the joke I believe it is.-- G 1 17:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it proofed that there is no realistic way for a "fast" nuclear power phase-out? Seems to be a bit unneutral! -- Edroeh 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This segment: " a nuclear reactor can operate for 9-12 months on a few million dollars worth of fuel and maintenance while a coal-fired plant consumes tens of thousands of dollars of fuel a day. " We probably shoudn't compare one year of operation with one day of operation. Mathiastck 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This article has come a long way, and it is much better now. But I still take issue with certain points in the article. Let me show what I think should be changed:
I feel this whole section is bad. First of all, it is from a source which is ten years old. It says:
Nuclear power has always been one of the cheapest forms of energy, even back then and that shouldn't be controversial. On top of that, it is saying that the price of fossil fuels 'probably won't increase enough to make nuclear competitive'. Well this prediction turns out not to be true. Back then, natural gas was expect to stay around $2/MMBTU. Last winter it went over $15/MMBTU, and right now is steady at over $6/MMBTU: http://www.wtrg.com/daily/oilandgasspot.html
It also states:
When all 104 nuclear power plants are operating at full capacity is a very curious and misleading number to use. First of all, there is no context to this. All the wind farm plants in the US would NEVER operate at full capacity. Nuclear power plants would undoubtably actually be the highest out of all the types of energy prodution. Second of all, once again this data must be 10 years old, and capacity factor of nuclear power has nearly maxed out since then. Thirdly, the number that should be used is the "average capacity factor", in which I believe for nuclear power plants is about 92%. Finally, the main reason nuclear power plants stop is to refuel, not because they are not safe.
If that was true, nuclear power plants would not be built because they would never turn a profit...and yet they are all over the world in Japan, China, India, Finland, etc. Furthermore, in the US, the NRC expects about 12 applications for 18-20 nuclear power plants in the coming years.
This does not have much to do with this sub-topic and should be moved/deleted. As a whole, the entire sub-section should probably be deleted since the argument doesn't hold any water.
______________________________
"This" is ambiguous. What do they dispute? Certainly because nuclear power doesn't emit GHG, it is a possible solution. It should read: Several environmental organizations dispute nuclear power is a good solution.
______________________________
What constitutes "substantially greater"? Could it be MORE than coal plants? ...or would it still be LESS than solar power? Some context would be nice here.
_______________________________
This is worded badly. For someone reading this who doesn't know what radiation is, they may ask, "Emitted where? Into the atmosphere? Into my lungs?" It should say: "99.1% of the radioactivity will be gone after 50 years."
_______________________________
Also, I believe that the section Countries that have initiated a phase out or have discussed it should be split into two sections since some countries which have "discussed it" are actually ALSO discussing building new ones (such as Switzerland): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/06/world/main1183535.shtml
Finally, this article could also use some context. As a whole, more than 70 nuclear power plants (by many countries) are being built/planned around the world, which I bet is more than the ones being "phased-out". http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf47.htm
That is my two cents. I put this all in here to discuss these things first before I make changes, because I know many people are opinionated about this article. Ajnosek 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
According to all official reports (they can be seen at IAEA website number stands at 41. Others are unofficial and if quoted they must be named as such. -- Trigor 10:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
According to http://www.uic.com.au/nip19.htm :
Spain has a program to add 810 MWe (11%) to its nuclear capacity through upgrading its nine reactors by up to 13%. For instance, the Almarez nuclear plant is being boosted by more than 5% at a cost of US$ 50 million. Some 519 MWe of the increase is already in place.
That's not the impression you'd get from the current article, which reads as though Spain is closing down its nukes, not investing heavily in upgrading them. Andrewa 02:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"As of 2005, South Korea has 18 operational nuclear power reactors, with two more under construction and scheduled to go online by 2004." - Do i have to say more? Experts in temporal relations needed.... or indeed this is a very sarcastic comment, and therefore unsuitable in an encyclopedia.-- ExpImp talk con 22:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
(See also Talk:Nuclear energy policy#Separate but not)
It seems to me that we've gone from one extreme to the other by the merge to nuclear energy policy.
A nuclear power phase-out remains a policy of several political parties in Europe, and has from time to time been government policy in several countries too. That makes it an encyclopedic topic. It has also of course been a policy of many lobby groups worldwide, but it's the adoption (or otherwise) of the policy by significant political parties and by governments that is most notable.
What the article should say is who has supported the policy and when, concentrating on parties that had at least one elected representative in the parliament of the country concerned at the time. Unattributed arguments in favour or against the concept aren't what we want, they belong on political websites instead. Even statements attributed to lobby groups or political hopefuls with no electoral following are of dubious historical interest. Perhaps the test should be, that the person or organisation quoted is significant enough to themselves be subject of a Wikipedia article.
And of course there should be a balance. Many people have rejected the idea, even in Western Europe. And in Asia, there has never been any significant support. Andrewa 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1 - August 11 - August 18, 2005
There seems to be a factual error in the article. It is indeed possible to successfully build a bomb with reactor grade plutonium, as has been demonstrated in a 1962 weapons test by the DOE. See: http://www.ccnr.org/plute_bomb.html
I don't think it was an error but rather misunderstanding. Tested device was not created from "normal" fuel. Anyway it was my mistake not to mention the bomb that has more psychological than practical significance. Hope this correct my mistake. Thanks for reminding me.-- Trigor 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
152.78.98.1 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you propose these countries? They are not even considering nuclear phase out. -- Trigor 08:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it is [2] -- 212.200.123.157 08:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. Can you add Finland as well? It is because Finland is also working on Nuclear Power development. They have recently commisioned 5th reactor. Thanks for your explanation. I am going to work on it.
-- Trigor 21:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
As Talk:Nuclear power phase-out/to do hasn't been updated since last November, IMO it is serving no purpose to have it at the top of this talk page. Feel free to reinstate it if you wish to use it, it's just a matter of adding {{to do}} to the top of the page (or wherever you feel it belongs on the page). Many of the issues raised are still outstanding, as are several others, but it needs to be updated to reflect the activity that has occurred over the past two months.
I'd suggest that if it is reinstated, it should be in bullet-point form. It's far too long to be useful as is. Andrewa 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I object to the removal of Price anderson as evidence that the government as well as industry firmly asserting that nuclear reactors are riskier (in terms of external liabiity) than the market is willing to bear. And why should we shield this fact from the reading public? Is that what Encyclopedias do? I thought that's what book burning was for. Benjamin Gatti
The removed paragraph said:
Though it may be a valid argument, I think it is a little POV in the wording. If you restate it you could probably achieve a consensus to put it back. You should also ask User:SEWilco for his/her word if you do that. Ben T/ C 06:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The evidence most cited that Nuclear reactors continue to be unsafe is the fact that the companies who build and operate them are unwilling to accept liability for potential damages. This is unlike any other energy technology; Wind power for example does not need a taxpayer subsidized liability waiver in order to attract investors. The Price-anderson act, which transfers the cost of potential pain and suffering caused by a nuclear explosion from well-informed investors to taxpayer, who are much less-informed about the risks because of the plants and their operations are strictly confidential, was extended in the Energy policy act of 2005 to apply to future reactors in the US. Benjamin Gatti
Wind power is heavily subsidized in all countries. It is not economical without such subsides. Furthermore it requires a backup of some kind that can give constant base load. Saying it is not subsidized is not truth and there is no such example. Nuclear explosion is also wrong because it can't happen in nuclear power plant. High confidentiality is also not in order. I would be surprised if nuclear power in west would refuse you a visit. I think it is also badly scripted and has bias. What you should tell is that insurance is partly guaranteed by government without pig and risk comments. Let reader judge and take their own conclusion.
-- Trigor 22:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Trigor 07:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody have a subscription to Science? Google keeps giving me [3]. Short summary relevant to this article would be appreciated. Ben T/ C 07:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Post link or remove this paragraph:
Researchers at Southampton University concluded that a link was present, deducing that radiation damage to men working at the plants had caused genetic abnormalities in their children. After this report British Nuclear Fuels initially advised workers who were being exposed to high levels of radiation not to father children, although they have since withdrawn this advice.
-- Trigor 13:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This is clearly wrong or outdated. I am going to change it if I don't get some really good reason not to. I have work for BNFL as a student and have acces to all their documents and articles. I have nevere never seen something like this. Furthermore it sounds rather astonishing to me especialy the thing about fathering. On my link you can see that there is no any link. [4]
--unsigned Trigor ( Ben T/ C 07:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC))
Ben T/ C 07:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
"This practice is similar to that for banks, which are also backed with government guarantees."
There are hundred things a subsidy is like. Stealing comes to mind. Its probably more like bank robbery than FICA insurance. For one thing FICA protects those who choose to participate. Price anderson REMOVES protections from people whether they choose or not. If an edit war is wanted - promoting Price on anything other than the most neutral grey tone will garentee one. Benjamin Gatti
Hey, it would be nice to have graphs
One could have an icon of a NPP and on the countries that have NPPs, like in Risk. The syntax at Meta:Images and other uploaded files for locators could be useful. (More info is on Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials.)
Comments? Suggestions on icons for nuclear power plants? (possibly three: operating/defunct/planned) Ben T/ C 06:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to discuss two changes. First, I think this is not in order:
This has happened in Israel, India, Iran, North Korea, and South Africa (which later gave up its nuclear weapons).
First of all neither Israel nor Iran nor North Korea nor South Africa had civilian nuclear program when they developed nuclear weapons or they don't have nuclear program for civilian use still. Israel for example doesn't have civilian program at all nor does it generate electricity from nuclear. Same goes for Iran and North Korea. South Africa does have it but the started developing bombs in early 1970s while first reactor was on line in 1984. If you want to include them you should state that their programs were military ones as uninformed reader could conclude they were from civilian one. In addition I hope you could also put "military" reactor as they are used strictly by military and it is not possible to make that kind of plutonium in ordinary reactor.
-- Trigor 07:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
What reference do you want. That it is military purpouse or that it needs special reactor or both? -- Trigor 10:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
hydro: 71% nuclear: 0% other: 0% (2001) [7]
If you are so desperate to list Korea you should point out that it has MILITARY reactor that has very very weak energy capacity indeed
-- Trigor 17:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Should there be a mantion about the US, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China also? AFAIK in all these countries nuclear weapons preceded (civilian) energy production. 213.243.182.3 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
What about this here? Why did you remove it, Trigor? You don't think that's important for the discussion?
Ben T/ C 10:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I do. I didn't remove it.
-- Trigor 10:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I saw. I really didn't have intention to delete it like that. Thank you for puting it back It must have been misstake. My apologises.
-- Trigor 11:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought it could be better to merge it into one big pro- AND contra thing, the distinction between pro and contra sections is already getting very blurred anyway. Opinions? Ben T/ C 06:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC) Ben T/ C 06:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
The section "Greenhouse gases and environmental protection" has:
According to biodegradation, the term specifically relates to degradation caused by biological agents (which is concordant with the etymology of the word).
Radioactive materials such as nuclear waste decay precisely because they are radioactive. The fact of radioactivity guarantees that the amount of radiation will decrease over time.
Unless there's something here I'm missing? Direvus 13:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correction. -- Trigor 13:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a good point. After anything from a few decades to a few millenia (that's a few, about 3000 years max) depending on the fuel cycle used, the residual radioactivity in the waste is less than the radioactivity in the original ore body. So fission reactors actually make the world a less radioactive place within this timescale, and the reduction is permanent from then on. In my experience, most people still do not believe this very simple and relevant fact.
This is in spectacular contrast to two other proposed energy technologies, both (ironically IMO) generally seen as greener than fission.
The first of these of course is fusion. The disposal of the highly radioactive lining material from the first generation of fusion power plants is the second biggest problem still to solve. (The biggest problem is developing materials that will withstand the enormous neutron flux, even for the time between shutdowns to replace the lining, and they are obviously related.) This is new radioactivity; The earth is very, very slightly but permanently more radioactive as a result of even the few small-scale fusion experiments conducted to date.
The second is carbon sequestration. As far as we know, the CO2 we put into the ground is there forever, or at least until it eventually leaks out. Nobody seems to have thought of that! The mind boggles. Andrewa 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That is really good point indeed. Carbon sequestration is still a pilot so I didn’t mention it as it is not mainstream in fossil fuel industry. Overall it is good thing. They are mimicking nuclear fuel cycle. Still we don’t know how it is going to impact the price but if they make it feasible on large scale and apply good containment (let’s not forger it is still toxic) it is the step in the right direction. The only problem is that average fossil fuel power plant pumps 4-8 tons of gasses and ashes into the atmosphere each second . It is going to be real challenge to make storage for that even for short term operation.
The first point is also nicely putted and it deals about morality of use of nuclear power over longer term. Something that some people like to distort. The truth is that nuclear power reduces radioactivity on earth in the longer term. That is not question of POV but of mathematics. Why don’t you put that into the article. Although you would have to explain it thoroughl.
-- Trigor 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
IMO this page needs a complete refactor. It is too long (61KB), the headings are vague (or have discussed it, other countries), the information repetitive and poorly focussed.
It should have a clearly marked section for countries that have initiated phase out by closing at least one plant (or in one case never opening it!), and another for countries that are committed in some way, for example having an act of parliament that forbids construction of new nuclear power plants.
It's hard to know what to say about other countries, but there's no call for example for a detailed history of nuclear power in the USA, that should go elsewhere, perhaps in an article Nuclear technology in the United States to match Category:Nuclear technology in the United States. Putting this material here creates the impression that the USA has in some way initiated phase-out, which is simply not true, although their once clear lead in this technology has been substantially reduced over the last few decades.
On the other hand Oregon and California have initiated a phase-out locally, and closed Trojan and Rancho Seco respectively to implement it. That deserves a mention. Are there other states that have done likewise?
We should probably have a paragraph on New Zealand, which is widely and falsely believed to have an act of parliament banning nuclear power. Whether we should even mention countries such as France, China and Japan who are currently installing new capacity I'm inclined to doubt; This information is probably better in a separate article.
Nor should a country be listed here simply because one or more of its minority parties have opposed nuclear power; This has probably occurred in all countries if we look hard enough.
This article has improved a lot, but more is needed. Comments on the above proposals welcome. Andrewa 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Another place for some of the politics might be the existing article at nuclear power controversy. Much of the material to be removed from this article is there already. Andrewa 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia convention for using the word ' billion' in the sense of 109 exclusive to 1012 (British)? -- DV8 2XL 18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This discution came about as I made an entry that reported the timescale of the Oklo reactors in 'millions of years' only to have it changed to 'billions'. In the entry Natural nuclear fission reactor I had used '2000 million years' already to avoid this confusion. I also agree it might be well be time for a policy on this issue -- DV8 2XL 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph about Insurances does a good job at describing shortly the insurance system in the US (the systems in effect in other relevant countries, such as France and Japan, should be added). I understand $10,000 million is the coverage available before taxpayers must start paying for damages. However, how much is this damage likely going to be? Has anyone a monetization of the Chernobyl accident, if only as an order of magnitude? What about Three Mile Island? -- Orzetto 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As for TMI there were no significant releases there was no significant damage outside. However the cleanup of TMI-2 was quite expensive and was rated at $973 million. The bill was footed jointly by insurer and utility. No taxpayer money was used. Most of the money came from TMI-1 which is one of the top rated reactors world wide. So the figure is not representative as it is only partially covered by PA as Andrewa tells us. As for Chernobyl I can't find accurate estimate. But it is most likely above $5 billion. Great damage was also the loss of remaining 4 reactors (2 planed and 2 in operating conditions) that had been shut down under pressure from EU in 2000. That alone accounts for $3 billion. Not to mention natureal gas costs that is going to rise (e.g. Russian-Ukraniak gass dispute) -- Trigor 12:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As asked by Ben on the Danish wikipedians notice board, here are some facts about Danish Nuclear Power. Since it is not in the article, i would like to point your attention to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Danish_wikipedians%27_notice_board#nuclear_power_phase-out (unsigned comment by User:87.49.114.61. Attributed by Ben T/ C 20:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC))
I've re-included a modified version of my original sentence which was removed by Trigor:
"However, an issue of debate [66] is that greenhouse emissions from mining, milling and enrichment may be substantially greater in the future as the world's reserves of high grade uranium are depleted, and low grade uranium is increasingly used."
I have left the paragraph that follows, which was added by Trigor. The references refer mainly to current life cycle analysis. The issue of the grade of ore utilised is common to all mined ores - high grade resources are mined first followed by diminishing grades. This is non-controversial. Some sources refute the claim that this will substantially increase greenhouse emissions, but the issue is one of legitimate debate, and is argued strongly by others. It should remain of point of debate. -- User:GrahamP 7 March 2006
Look. I did not intend to remove your sentence. However your point steams from Storm van Leeuwen & Smith. No other study has ever managed to reproduce their results and that is because their numbers are simply wrong and discredited. Evidence of that can be found on many places and some of them are listed. In the BBC link I can't see some connection with this debate. But because we should accept points of view we disagree with, leave your sentence in the current form but you have to state the writers of the papers. Personally I did remove your part but have restated it all over again before showing contradictions in the study. Now it's a bit stupid because you are saying your bit:
"However, an issue of debate [66] is that greenhouse emissions from mining, milling and enrichment may be substantially greater in the future as the world's reserves of high grade uranium are depleted, and low grade uranium is increasingly used. [67] This view is not supported by the nuclear power industry."
And than:
"In a semi-technical paper Storm van Leeuwen & Smith named “Is Nuclear Power Sustainable? and its May 2002 successor: Can Nuclear Power Provide Energy for the Future; would it solve the CO2-emission problem?”. In these they alleged that nuclear power would eventually surpass fossil fuels in green house gases emission as high grade ore becomes scarce, thus putting in doubt it’s substantiality and part of environmental protection. However this paper has been dismissed as false by industry. Published results on ore extraction are showing 99% advantage for nuclear based generation on the bases of CO2 emissions over fossil fuels. Thus authors greatly reduced its paper and republished it in 2005, omitting most of numerical values they used in previous paper. Even these are proved wrong by life cycle studies (e.g. Vattenfal). All this heavily disputes article which forecasts are alleged wrong for basis for them, current data, is proven wrong even 3:1 in some cases. For greater details please review 68 [69]"
We are repeating the same thing
And yes. The claim that emission will rise in the future is controversial because article does not take account for advancement in enrichment technology or utilization of breeders once high grade ore becomes scarce. This would results in even lower emissions than today. There is no debate regarding this issue because you can't play poker if you don't have any cards. But if you can point to other scientific papers please do. I will read them just like I did read the last one you have sent. Thanks -- Trigor 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The same Storm van Leeuwen & Smith paper (
http://www.stormsmith.nl/) claims that if worldwide electrical
energy demands were met solely by nuclear, that known reserves of nuclear fuel would be used up within 4 years. Does anyone know if such an expiry in a single-digit number of years is verifiable? If true, then it should point to nuclear power never being more than a stop-gap solution, but it's a bold claim I've never seen elsewhere.
57.66.65.38
19:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Andrew
http://www.techmind.org/
Is someone having a bit of fun?
Nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gases or ash during normal operation
I hope not! -- Dilaudid 15:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, since my (relatively minor) revision was reverted, I'd like to ask about the support for the statement "# Wind power - the only alternative which directly mitigates the effects of global warming"
Is this anything other than an opinion? Aren't there other options that "mitigate the effects of global warming"? How does wind power mitigate said effects? This seems to me to be a statement openly biased in favor of wind power. I'll admit I'm not in favor of that power source (finding it horribly inefficient, especially on calm days), but I don't go to the alernative energy article and lampoon it as the joke I believe it is.-- G 1 17:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it proofed that there is no realistic way for a "fast" nuclear power phase-out? Seems to be a bit unneutral! -- Edroeh 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This segment: " a nuclear reactor can operate for 9-12 months on a few million dollars worth of fuel and maintenance while a coal-fired plant consumes tens of thousands of dollars of fuel a day. " We probably shoudn't compare one year of operation with one day of operation. Mathiastck 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This article has come a long way, and it is much better now. But I still take issue with certain points in the article. Let me show what I think should be changed:
I feel this whole section is bad. First of all, it is from a source which is ten years old. It says:
Nuclear power has always been one of the cheapest forms of energy, even back then and that shouldn't be controversial. On top of that, it is saying that the price of fossil fuels 'probably won't increase enough to make nuclear competitive'. Well this prediction turns out not to be true. Back then, natural gas was expect to stay around $2/MMBTU. Last winter it went over $15/MMBTU, and right now is steady at over $6/MMBTU: http://www.wtrg.com/daily/oilandgasspot.html
It also states:
When all 104 nuclear power plants are operating at full capacity is a very curious and misleading number to use. First of all, there is no context to this. All the wind farm plants in the US would NEVER operate at full capacity. Nuclear power plants would undoubtably actually be the highest out of all the types of energy prodution. Second of all, once again this data must be 10 years old, and capacity factor of nuclear power has nearly maxed out since then. Thirdly, the number that should be used is the "average capacity factor", in which I believe for nuclear power plants is about 92%. Finally, the main reason nuclear power plants stop is to refuel, not because they are not safe.
If that was true, nuclear power plants would not be built because they would never turn a profit...and yet they are all over the world in Japan, China, India, Finland, etc. Furthermore, in the US, the NRC expects about 12 applications for 18-20 nuclear power plants in the coming years.
This does not have much to do with this sub-topic and should be moved/deleted. As a whole, the entire sub-section should probably be deleted since the argument doesn't hold any water.
______________________________
"This" is ambiguous. What do they dispute? Certainly because nuclear power doesn't emit GHG, it is a possible solution. It should read: Several environmental organizations dispute nuclear power is a good solution.
______________________________
What constitutes "substantially greater"? Could it be MORE than coal plants? ...or would it still be LESS than solar power? Some context would be nice here.
_______________________________
This is worded badly. For someone reading this who doesn't know what radiation is, they may ask, "Emitted where? Into the atmosphere? Into my lungs?" It should say: "99.1% of the radioactivity will be gone after 50 years."
_______________________________
Also, I believe that the section Countries that have initiated a phase out or have discussed it should be split into two sections since some countries which have "discussed it" are actually ALSO discussing building new ones (such as Switzerland): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/06/world/main1183535.shtml
Finally, this article could also use some context. As a whole, more than 70 nuclear power plants (by many countries) are being built/planned around the world, which I bet is more than the ones being "phased-out". http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf47.htm
That is my two cents. I put this all in here to discuss these things first before I make changes, because I know many people are opinionated about this article. Ajnosek 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
According to all official reports (they can be seen at IAEA website number stands at 41. Others are unofficial and if quoted they must be named as such. -- Trigor 10:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
According to http://www.uic.com.au/nip19.htm :
Spain has a program to add 810 MWe (11%) to its nuclear capacity through upgrading its nine reactors by up to 13%. For instance, the Almarez nuclear plant is being boosted by more than 5% at a cost of US$ 50 million. Some 519 MWe of the increase is already in place.
That's not the impression you'd get from the current article, which reads as though Spain is closing down its nukes, not investing heavily in upgrading them. Andrewa 02:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"As of 2005, South Korea has 18 operational nuclear power reactors, with two more under construction and scheduled to go online by 2004." - Do i have to say more? Experts in temporal relations needed.... or indeed this is a very sarcastic comment, and therefore unsuitable in an encyclopedia.-- ExpImp talk con 22:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
(See also Talk:Nuclear energy policy#Separate but not)
It seems to me that we've gone from one extreme to the other by the merge to nuclear energy policy.
A nuclear power phase-out remains a policy of several political parties in Europe, and has from time to time been government policy in several countries too. That makes it an encyclopedic topic. It has also of course been a policy of many lobby groups worldwide, but it's the adoption (or otherwise) of the policy by significant political parties and by governments that is most notable.
What the article should say is who has supported the policy and when, concentrating on parties that had at least one elected representative in the parliament of the country concerned at the time. Unattributed arguments in favour or against the concept aren't what we want, they belong on political websites instead. Even statements attributed to lobby groups or political hopefuls with no electoral following are of dubious historical interest. Perhaps the test should be, that the person or organisation quoted is significant enough to themselves be subject of a Wikipedia article.
And of course there should be a balance. Many people have rejected the idea, even in Western Europe. And in Asia, there has never been any significant support. Andrewa 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)