Talk:Nuclear power

 Nuclear power was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: June 10, 2008
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Nuclear power as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Persian language Wikipedia.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
01 May 2008 Wikipedia distorts nuclear history EESHA WILLIAMS – Rutland Herald

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:(Please note that the archive page currently contains material relevant to ongoing content discussions, so you may find relevant material there)

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Fuel Supply Question

At one point we read that there is an 80 year supply of nuclear fuel today, that is, U-235. In the Breeder Reactor section it says there is a 5 billion year supply of U-238 fuel. Since U-238 is only 140 times as abundant as U-235, I don't see where such a huge number can come from. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That 80 year figure comes from the assumption that we do not recycle and reuse fuel. The Earth's crust contains 2.7 ppm by mass, of which 99.2745% is U238 and 0.72% is U235 (The remainder is 0.0055% U234). Current thermal (slow) neutron reactors run off of the U235, not the U238. Essentially there is enough U235 in the world to run the current nuclear power plants for another 80 years. Fast reactors, or breeder reactors use the U238 as fuel and also can convert U238 into U235 (U238 + Neutron = U239 : U239 decays into Np239 : Np239 decays into Pu239 : Pu239 can be used as fuel and also decays into U235). Therefore, if we can run our current plants for another 80 years with the 0.72% of the Uranium, we can run at the same generating capacity for another 11,111 years, assuming no loss of fissile material. A once through fuel cycle like we use now, however, only uses 1 to 5% of the possible energy. This is mostly due to fission products building up in the fuel and making the nuclear reaction inefficient. If we were to recycle and reuse, in theory we could have between 225,000 and 1.1 million years of fuel left. I still have not gotten to 5 billion, so if someone else sees something I missed, please add it on. I have a feeling the 5 billion year number is actually referring to all possible nuclear fuel, which would include Thorium (3x as much as Uranium). That does not get you to 5 billion either, so I am not sure. Regardless, 225,000 years worth is a lot of fuel. I am curious if power plant efficiency is assumed to be higher in the billion year figure, though that would not help enough either. Ok, well someone let us know if I missed something. I hope this helped some. Polypmaster (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The 5 billion year figure comes from Bernard Cohen. See McCarthy's synopsis. It assumes economical extraction from seawater and breeder reactors to use U238, but not thorium.
The article still needs to be fixed. The 5 billion year fuel supply is about ultra-low grade extraction processes. By the same argument, there is 50 million years of U-235 left for conventional reactors. Cohen's estimates about uranium from sea water should go somewhere else, and somebody should insert the correct figure about how much breeder reactors proportionally increase our fuel supply. I assume it is on the order of 100-fold for uranium, and about 300 or 400 fold for thorium, which is more abundant. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the 80 year figure is out of date — it's now up to 100 years.
—WWoods (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That's 100 years "at present consumption level". Double consumption and it drops to 50 years. Quadruple consumption (bringing it to about half the supply of electricity), and it would drop to 25 years - by the time the reactors were built the supply would be gone. When I look at the photo on the uranium report of a typical Uranium mine I wonder if you wouldn't be able to get a lot more energy from covering the mine area with solar panels than you do from the Uranium. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Your figures assume a once-through cycle. Multiply any once through figure by 20-40 times to account for reprocessing. Then add recoverable but not currently economic ore to account for increases in uranium prices (which doesn't affect the price of nuclear power much, because so little uranium is needed). Add thorium reserves to account for breeder reactors. Conservative estimates stretch into the hundreds of years, even assuming nuclear provides all of our energy, not just electricity.
Also, I don't think the uranium deposits in the arctic near Baker Lake, Nunavut, Canada are going to be giving us much in terms of solar power.Nailedtooth (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, reprocessing fuel from conventional reactors gives a 30 *percent* increase in uranium utilization. see ref #1 in Nuclear reprocessing. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read the articles you link to. "...recycling plutonium once as MOX fuel... ...[extends] energy extracted by only about 30%." (emphasis mine). The article states that recycling plutonium, uranium and actinides could increase the extractable energy by a factor of 60. My estimate was 50-300% low. Nailedtooth (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the Peak uranium pertain to this question? Simesa (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nuclear power/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unfortunately, I am failing this article because it is severely lacking inline citations. The section "Nuclear reactor technology", which also has a {{refimprove}} template, has no references. "Low-level radioactive waste" and "Depleted uranium" are other sections that don't have references; there are several more. Please resolve these issues and then feel free to return the article for renomination. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is "severely lacking inline citations". It might seem like we have lots of references here, but there is much totally unsourced material. This should be removed or citations found, per Wikipedia:When to cite. Johnfos (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Request

I just realized that I am not yet a confirmed user, and therefore cannot edit this page at this time. In reading the section 6.3 Environmental Effects, the article states that nuclear power emits "direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions (water vapor, CO2, NO2)." While this statement is factually true, it is slightly misleading because of the three gasses listed only water vapor is directly emitted, while the more worrisome CO2 and NO2 are completely indirect. For reference, please see article Environmental effects of nuclear power and the citations within there. If an auto confirmed user would take the time to make this more clear in the primary article and then delete this section of the talk page, I would be grateful. Something like "direct water vapor emissions, indirect CO2 and NO2 greenhouse gas emissions" would be more accurate. Blazersguy (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. —WWoods (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability

There is a section about sun/wind energy that needs to be deleted. It's got nothing to do with the subject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.69.203 (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Have another look, I took a shot at it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant shut down must be mentioned or else we just don't have an NPOV article... Johnfos (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on that point. The KK plant shutdown was simply not unique in history and has no claim to a place in a summarizing article on nuclear power. In the same country just a few years earlier they had the TEPCO data fabrication scandals, which by ANY metric was more damaging to the nuclear industry worldwide and domestic, as well as the electric grid itself.
The correct way to accomplish what I believe you're striving for would be to have a brief list of the largest common cause plant shutdowns in history. I don't have this information right now, but if I or someone else finds it, I think the appropriateness of it would be well founded, unlike mentioning this single incident simply because it was a media-fair. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This KK situation incident is mentioned in the debate section because there has been a lot of debate about it. Simple as that. Johnfos (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What is so special about the KK shutdown? Any industrial plant would have shut down and been examined. And is "Some radioactive material was released" using weasel words? Radioactive material is released when a cinder block breaks, as well as during normal operation of a coal-fired power plant. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to improve the wording if there is better wording that could be used, and include the appropriate citation to support the change. Johnfos (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree. While the news media tend to gravitate towards stories that involve the word nuclear, that does not make it a unique event. Similarly, the outage in Florida a couple months ago shutdown a couple reactors AND a couple coal plants, yet the news focused almost exclusively on the nuclear plants. I don't know if it is because using 'nuclear' grabs people's attention or if it is terms like SCRAM, but a plant shutdown does not necessarily mean a newsworthy story.
I also agree that saying "some radioactive material was released" is misleading. I am not sure on the specifics of this incident, but radiation is one of the worst understood concepts there is, and just saying radiation was released without quantifying it to some extent is dangerous. If there are specifics on the amout released, someone should probably add the amount and the relation between that and average background radiation. Polypmaster (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to improve the wording if there is better wording that could be used, and include the appropriate citation to support the change. Johnfos (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn it, the thing that got reverted was a pretty significant keystone I thought.

Not included in this data is plant size, which also strongly factors into integration with the grid. For nuclear power, reliability metrics compare favorably to other power sources, it has a median unit size larger than any other power source. This means that a large grid is needed to accommodate nuclear, and a sweeping common cause unplanned capacity for many plants can put stresses on the grid.

My problem is that most readers won't be able to put something like the KK plant into perspective. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that the KK incident is not directly related to the reliability of nuclear power. Everything is affected by earthquakes and a power station that was shut down for inspection following an earthquake says nothing for or against the reliability of that type of power source. That could have happened to any type of thermoelectric station. The mention is superfluous. The simple reporting of the incident doesn't transmit any new information to the reader. If some sort of conclusion can be drawn from that incident at the KK or other plants then that should be part of the section using KK as an example, but as it stands that's now how the section reads. The current paragraph has absolutely nothing to say for or against the reliability of nuclear power. It needs to be removed and completely rewritten. Nailedtooth (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and being in the "reliability" section also means that the expected reliability is an issue. The power companies are familiar with reliability and the design and proposal documents probably include the expected reliability and expected reasons for problems. If the plant is operating within the expected reliability then it's as reliable as expected. Did someone check the expected reliability? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, here is the current text for rewriting:

On 16 July 2007 a severe earthquake hit the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. The plant with seven units is the largest single nuclear power station in the world. Some release of radioactive material occurred and all of the reactors were shut down and are expected to remain closed for damage verification and repairs for at least one year.[1]

[edit] Environmental Impact

I am concerned that saying a nuclear power plant does not produce any direct CO2 is misleading. Under normal operation that is indeed true, but the backup diesel genreators certainly produce greenhouse gases. Those are rarely used, but in the case of a disconnect with the grid and a SCRAM they would indeed come online. I am not sure about the percentage of the time a diesel generator is online on average, but if that information exists it may be best to mention that. Polypmaster (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is now explicitly "under normal conditions" (grid synchronisation isn't unique to nuclear generation, after all) -- Ratarsed (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion

The article does not really indicate that fusion reactor technology, though it has been researched since the 1950s, is not yet anywhere close to actual implementation as an energy source. I think something to this effect should be added to the article, as one could easily come away with the impression that fusion work is right around the corner, when even if breakeven is achieved in the next 5-10 years (which is optimistic to say the least), actual conversion to power stations will surely take longer. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement of Nuclear power stations.png

Hi, I have a very small suggestion for the article. Image "Nuclear power stations.png" which is actually a map should be improved: Crimea must be the same colour as Ukraine itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.131.51 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alarming Article

Jeffrey St. Clair of Counterpunch has written an alarming article, titled Pools of Fire: The Looming Nuclear Nightmare in the Backwoods of North Carolina about the Shearon Harris nuclear plant there of which I think a mention should be included in "Accidents" section. I'd suggest at the bottom of the paragraph which includes the link to the report An American Chernobyl: Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986. 4.246.205.246 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the heavy bias in the article (presented through complete and total lack of knowledge concerning spent fuel pools, meltdowns, etc.), there is no accident being discussed. Only an what-if scenario that doesn't get most of the facts right. So I would say no. THaskin (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map out of date

The map of countries with nuclear power plants is out of date, Ontario is building a new plant near Toronto is open by 2018. Canationalist (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they're still at the planning stage. Darlington Nuclear Generating Station says "OPG has also begun the process for building up to 4 new nuclear units ... No decision has been made on what technology will be used but the government has indicated its preference for the CANDU design."
But Italy is also planning new reactors, and I don't think Denmark has built one yet.
—WWoods (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no decision concerning building nuclear reactors in Italy, right now there are only discussion. As of Denmark, they had three research reactors, all of them decommissioned now. There was never any commercial reactor in Denmark.Beagel (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Following countries are missing or incorrect:

  • In Africa: Ghana, Namibia, Nigeria - considering first NPP.[1]
  • Albania - considering first NPP.[2], [3]
  • Belarus is still considering, construction doesn't start yet. (see Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant)
  • Turkey started the bidding process [4]. Is this still considering phase or already construction phase?
  • Tunisia - considering first NPP.[5]
  • Azerbaijan doesn't have any NPP yet, so it should be marked as considering first, not as considering new.[6]
  • Mongolia - probably considering the first NPP, not building yet.[7]
  • Venezuela - considering first NPP.[8]
  • Bangladesh - considering first NPP.[9], [10]
  • Thailand - considering first NPP.[11]
  • Bulgaria- construct for construction of new NPP has signed (see Belene Nuclear Power Plant)

Beagel (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would go by the PRIS database, they do have some authority to declare the official construction start seeing as how they're the IAEA. [12]. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate on Merging Criticisms Into Sections

Such merging would be a great disservice to the average reader. I understand the fervor of some to make anti-nuclear points anywhere and everywhere, but we've had this discussion before and it would make the sections horrendously long and filled with charge and counter-charge and (to the average reader) meaningless nuances. It's far superior to lay out the essentials and then concentrate the extensive debate in an appropriate section for that. Simesa (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As it's been a week and there's been no other discussion, I'm going to remove the tag. If anyone objects, put the tag back in and we can discuss this after folks come back from the Labor Day holiday. Simesa (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental effects Under normal generating conditions, nuclear power does produce

The most important greenhouse gases are:

water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth.

Depletion of Freshwater Resources

Lack of contribution to hydrologic cycle.

In practice, about 60-75% is evaporative, depending on atmospheric factors.

pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen Manic mechanic (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Those are true, but I would be careful with saying 36-70% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. Not only is this a large discrepancy, but the addition of water vapor by nuclear power is a drop in the ocean compared to the water vapor already in the atmosphere. Also, water vapor can be removed from the atmosphere far easier than CO2 can (rain). Water emissions from power plants are also a couple of orders of magnitude from having an appreciable affect on the environment. Also, the emission of water vapor into the atmosphere is not limited to nuclear plants; this is a primary byproduct of the Rankine cycle, which is used by just about every steam-driven power plant. This is emphasized more in nuclear power because it is the only emission into the atmosphere and because the standard nuclear plant is larger than the standard coal or natural gas plant.

The depletion of freshwater resources is a good point, but is only a real factor for those built on relatively small bodies of water. Those on the ocean, seas, or large lakes like the Great Lakes have little to no problem with this because their reservoir is so large relative to the amount of energy expelled and water needed. Situations like the one in France that happened a few years ago are serious events, but must remain in context with the fact that there really should not have been that number of plants along the same bodies of water. This is again not only a nuclear power problem though. Had the nuclear plants been replaced by an equal (in Megawatts) amount of coal plants, the same problem with the river temperatures would have happened. The difference is that the nuclear cores need to have adequate core cooling at all times, which proved more difficult with high water temperatures. This is more about bad placement than bad design though. It is a limitation, but with good placement does not have a serious effect on the environment as a whole.

I am not sure what you mean by 'lack of contribution to the hydrologic cycle.' As far as I understand, water vapor from a nuclear plant would contribute to greater atmospheric water vapor and eventually that vapor would follow the cycle like any other water. Also, water vapor effects are mostly the problem of plants with cooling towers. Those that dump the waste heat into a reservoir like the ocean or other large body of water would not contribute significantly to the hydrologic cycle because their waste heat is minimal compared to solar radiation. I am curious what you mean, so if you could elaborate that would be great. Thanks. Polypmaster (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MERGE: competing nuclear-debate articles

The article Anti-nuclear movement has a large (and very unbalanced) debate section. It didn't even link to Economics of new nuclear power plants until I put that in. We've had this debate before, but should we have one unified Nuclear Debate article? Simesa (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Energy development article also contains a list of nuclear energy pros and cons, and probably should be merged as well. Simesa (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted Merge notices in Anti-nuclear movement and Energy development articles and Discussion pages just now, and suggested we debate this for a week before merging the various debate sections here in Nuclear Power. Simesa (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I pointed the relevant section in Nuclear energy policy to here. Simesa (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the same for the criticisms in the Complexity section of Nuclear safety. Will now merge text in here. Simesa (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the non-economic criticisms from Economics of new nuclear power plants and will merge them in here later today. Simesa (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed all the Nuclear power#2145f1 on nuclear power links I could find to Nuclear debate, which now points to \"#2145f1 on nuclear power" here. Simesa (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV Pushing

This morning I deleted a paragraph which added nothing to the article except to push a POV allusion, which was based on an NOT-YET-ACCEPTED, NOT PEER-REVIEWED, DRAFT report by an infamous aging anti-nuclear kook which said at the top of the first page:

"A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.

That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; ...

I'm sorry, but based on the above the author is obviously senile. I read the job ads - China, South Africa and yesterday an unnamed very-wealthy Middle Eastern country are all hiring in droves. National governments are reversing their anti-nuclear positions. There are 35 new plants planned for the U.S. alone so far, and BOTH our Presidential candidates are anti-global-warming and receptive to more nuclear power. The actual situation is that nuclear power is currently undergoing a renaissance - to aver otherwise is strongly indicative of a loss of touch with reality. And the above is without a carbon tax ever having been enacted.

The POV-pushing that's going on in these articles is flat unconscionable. Simesa (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe he's too young at 61 to be senile. His conclusions still aren't rational, nor was the allusion he allegedly made (which, by the way, was misquoted - Lovins did not use the word "intermittent", he used the even-less-approriate word "unreliable"). Simesa (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." I contest the reliability, the third-partyness, and it being published. (In my opinion it also borders strongly on being from an extremist source, but the first sentnce here is enough.) Simesa (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages

Please give us some advantages of Nuclear Power! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.120.248 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_power"

kostiumy erotyczne wikipedia Apteka Architekt wnętrz Producenci kawy Canon G9 Katalog stron qlweb Gazowe piece kondensacyjne kajaki krutynia Samochody www poznań Frezowanie Opisy GG Sprzedaż domen surowce-ciast kick koparki Bułgaria wczasy Karaoke tani kredyt hipoteczny COOLsurf