| Revision as of 18:55, 10 March 2006 editTawker (talk | contribs)Administrators18,670 editsm Reverted edits by 208.22.248.4 (Talk) to last version by Oscarthecat← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:42, 28 October 2024 edit undo205.168.57.114 (talk) →DiddyTag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{FAOL|Finnish|fi:Ydinvoima}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
|
| action1date = 27 June 2008 |
|
|
| action1link = Talk:Nuclear power/GA1 |
|
|
| action1result = failed |
|
|
| action1oldid = 221769862 |
|
|
| action2 = PR |
|
|
| action2date = 8 September 2018 |
|
|
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Nuclear power/archive1 |
|
|
| action2result = Reviewed |
|
|
| action2oldid = 858298212 |
|
|
| action3 = GAN |
|
|
| action3date = 21 April 2021 |
|
|
| action3link = Talk:Nuclear power/GA2 |
|
|
| action3result = listed |
|
|
| action3oldid = 1019008692 |
|
|
| currentstatus = GA |
|
|
| itndate = |
|
|
| dykdate = |
|
|
| dykentry = |
|
|
| dyknom = |
|
|
| topic = engtech |
|
|
| small = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Nuclear power| |
|
|
1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Technology}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |author=Williams, Eesha|title=Misplaced Pages Distorts Nuclear History|org='']'' |url= http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/OPINION03/805010312/1039/OPINION03 |date=1 May 2008 |archiveurl= http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080924193429/http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/OPINION03/805010312/1039/OPINION03 |archivedate=24 September 2008| accessdate=2 April 2011}} |
|
|
{{section size}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
{{Copied|from=Nuclear power|from_oldid=1013784323|to=History of nuclear power|to_diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_nuclear_power&type=revision&diff=1013796381&oldid=831010743}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 18 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Nuclear power/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archive box |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index=/Archive index | |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask1=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|mask2=/ArchiveSolar |
|
|
|mask3=/ArchiveOldberg |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Nuclear zero-emission? == |
|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. |
|
|
If further archiving is needed, see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the introduction, the article says that the USA produce "800 TWh of zero-emissions electricity per year". It is obvioulsy not zero-emission: green house gases are emitted in the process of building the plant, extracting and transporting the fuel and decomissionning the plant. ] (]) 05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
'''Previous discussions:(Please note that the archive page currently contains material relevant to ongoing content discussions, so you may find relevant material there)''' |
|
|
|
:Fixed. --] (]) 06:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::its unfortunately says no emissions again, should we fix? ] (]) 03:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023 == |
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
*]: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Nuclear power|answered=yes}} |
|
== Unanswered Facts or Questions== |
|
|
|
Under the section titled 'Safety' in the third paragraph 'With a death rate of 0.07 per TWh' should be changed to 'With a death rate of 0.03 per TWh'. The source is citation 199 in the nuclear power page, which is this article <ref>https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy</ref>. |
|
There has been no mention in the Nuclear Power wiki article on how much remote energy (from fossil fuel run power sources) is needed to run a typical nuclear power station/reactor on a day to day basis. |
|
|
|
This is the source cited for the original statistic, but I believe it was copied incorrectly. ] (]) 19:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Surely a nuclear '''power station''' is capable of producing all the power it needs to operate itself... ] 21:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Fixed. It was not copied incorrectly, but the source has been updated in 2022, based on more recent analysis and estimates. --] (]) 20:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::It certainly is. In most life cycle studies, the major uses of fossil fuel in operating nuclear plants is in the construction and ultimate decomissioning of the plants, and enrichment of the uranium (assuming that the electricity from enrichment is generated by fossil fuels, which is not necessarily the case). Day to day operations are a miniscule fraction of the power generated by the plants. --] 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Looking back through, the graph shown at the start of the safety section uses the old statistic and also should be corrected. ] (]) 20:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
:::Presumably the reason fossil fuels are used is due to the location of the processing plant. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024 == |
|
Actually, nuclear power plants prefer to run on offsite power. This is so that, in the event of a sudden shutdown of the unit, it may not be necessary to start the emergency diesel generators - one less challenge to the safety systems. (The EDGs are routinely tested and the start times carefully monitored.) However, that offsite power may essentially come from another nuclear plant. I have no knowledge what the typical "house loads" are. ] 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Nuclear power|answered=yes}} |
|
:But we would be safe in assuming that the house load is a small fraction of the plant power output, wouldn't we? --] 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 10:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes ] (]) 10:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:That an energy source, such as solar or nuclear, is dependent on another, perhaps less desirable one or that it produces less energy than it consumes is a usually false claim used by opponents of the energy source. It is true for hydrogen, but that is because some people mistook it for an energy source when, at least on Earth, it is really an energy storage medium, though a potentially useful one. Also, some people either do not understand or do not realize that a power plant can produce more energy than it took to build it, operate it and to deliver and prepare the fuel. Anyway, Robert Merkel is correct. The energy used for processing is small compared to the nuclear power plant output. -- ] 13:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you add more pictures for learning |
|
== NPOV Tag == |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 14:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
Do we still need a NPOV tag on this article? It seems reasonably NPOV at this time. If someone could point out specifically where the NPOV issues exist, I would appreciate it. Otherwise I would like to remove the NPOV tag. ] 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Units for Nuclear power generation graph == |
|
:I would suggest that where this article expresses soapbox opinions about matters other than ] it violates NPOV. Do a search for the word "wind". In each case, the sentence is an irresponsible pot shot citing the worst case studies and leaving out the absence of best case research. The article should - as does ] - content itself with the subject matter without being a soapbox for the anti-renewable platform of it's editors. ] 06:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The vertical axis is labelled in TWh which is a unit of energy not power. I guess the graph is of TWh/year which is a (weird) unit for power. 2,500 TWh/year is 290GW BTW. Does this bother anyone else? ] (]) 08:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't see what's the problem. That's the energy generated each year (not the installed capacity). This is the standard way and units for displaying this information. The convention in energy engineering and energy science is to use kW and multiples for installed capacity and kWh and multiples (including TWh) for energy generated. --] (]) 12:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ita is correct. Read other power plant articles and about things like ] and you'll see these are the standard units used. ---''']]''' 23:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024 == |
|
::Aren't you the one that keeps inserting comparisons to renewables into the article? at least where you believe they are favourable to renewables? and "irresponsible" is the wrong word - wikipedia is responsible for nothing ;). I think it's time we got rid of the tag too, can you give a list of exact instances you still find issue with? Lets fix them and move on at last.. ] 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Nuclear power|answered=yes}} |
|
:::As the Supreme Court often says - it's all or nothing. If this is going to be a platform to denigrate emerging renewable energy technologies, than it should also be a platform to defend them. Take your pick. NPOV is fine with both sides being told, and NPOV is fine with neither side being told, and I happen to lean towards the notion that the article should stick closely with its advertised subject. The list again is every instance of the word "wind" - there are about three, and in each case its a cherry-picked research paper intended to throw nuclear energy in the best light. I think the article is apologetic for Chernobyl and downright hostile to wind: |
|
|
|
Change number of employees from 556 to 329. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m an employee there and this is the number listed in our Outlook directory. It is well known publicly that we had significant layoffs in 2024 (~28% in January and then ~10% more in July). ] (]) 15:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
*''"While the Chernobyl accident caused great negative health, economic, environmental and psychological effects in a widespread area, the accident at Chernobyl was caused by a combination of the faulty RBMK reactor design, the lack of a containment building, poorly trained operators, and a non-existent safety culture."'' |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I think you added this to the wrong article. This is the article on nuclear power. It does not have any employee counts that I can find. ] (]) 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
Most engaged minds believe that the most probable nexus between nuclear power and an ] will be intentional - thus the anachronistic argument that no one will make this mistake again is apologetic. Chernobyl represents the ''least'' dangerous threat of nuclear power, and no amount of blaming Chernobyl on faulty design will reduce the chances of intentional misappropriation. |
|
|
:: I don't know what an ENO is, but I'm fairly sure ] isn't it. ] |
|
|
:::(Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
*''Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power.'' In many studies, wind is calculated as cheaper and continuing to improve. Nuclear, as a mature technology is not experiencing much cost improvement. |
|
|
:: Actually, nuclear costs have improved substantially as load factors have increased. And new designs offer the prospect of further improvements. ] |
|
|
::: Fine - that belongs in the article - unbalanced assertions about wind do not and their presence justifies the NPOV tag. ] 19:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*''For example, studies in Britain have shown that increasing wind power production contribution to 20% of all energy production, without costly pumped hydro or electrolysis/fuel cell storage, would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup in the absence of power storage.'' This presupposes an irrational market which is blinded to supply/demand. If we operated our roads under this concept, we would fail to account for rush hour. The truth is there are many ways to avoid travelling during peak load, thus this study demonstrates a market failure, not a technology impasse. |
|
|
:: People will continue to expect power when they want it, whether or not the wind is blowing, so back-up is not optional. ] 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Nuclear doesn't respond well to demand shifts any more than wind doesn't respond well to supply shifts, in both cases, pumped storage and or expensive NG will be required to arbitrage the difference. Making the false argument justifies then NPOV tag. ] |
|
|
::::That's pure nonsense as nothing is stopping the building of a large enough spinning reserve into a nuclear powerplant to cover the difference. Another one of your half-truths. Do you wonder why you get no respect? --] 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Other than economics of course. What size spinning reserve do you imagine is necessary to shift the winter peak into the spring ? What size do you suppose necessary even to cover the six hour peak loads in a typical summer afternoon? The point is that Nuclear energy has every bit as much the same challenge in meeting 100% demand at 100% utilization as wind has - the recent improvements in utilization are largely due to the rise in cheap to buy, but expensive to use NG peakers. We might hope to have alternatives to fossil fired peakers in the future, but citing an article which disparages the capability of wind to match supply with demand in a nuclear article is naive, misleading, and at this point - willfully so. ] 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::So you have some numbers to cover your suppositions about scaling? In other words why would it be more expensive to cover peaking with larger (or more) N-plants than it would be for storage to cover for wind? The big difference being that thermonuclear is an known technology and large scale storage is still in the development stages. |
|
|
::::::::It is silly to build nuclear plants to cover peak loads; they are very expensive to build and to secure, which means much of the cost (interest) is incurred whether they are running or not. Economically, they make sense only for base loads. NG plants on the other hand are cheap to build (about a third $700 per KW vs. $2000 per KW) but they have higher running costs (Particular if NG goes up). To build enough nuclear to cover peak loads as well as base loads would cost maybe twice as much as building NG peakers. Also bear in mind that NG peakers can be built ''where'' they are needed, sometimes even mobile so they can address infrastructure limitations as well (ie wires), and be more efficient with respect to wire losses. So bottom line - Nuclear is not a load-following solution - as wind is not a load-following solution. To use this article as a forum to denigrate wind for not following load without disclosing that nuclear doesn't follow load is clearly inappropriate and justifies the NPOV tag. ] 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Like I said below: not while Ben is here. |
|
|
*''Nuclear power, coal, and wind power are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached (see peak oil). '' Wave, Tidal, and Gyre sources are abundant and only beginning to be tapped. There is no evidence that oil will peak - there is such a theory and it has many detractors - this is hardly the place to presuppose future events. (WP:Crystal Ball) |
|
|
::NIMBY seems to be at work on those projects too. --] 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::NIMBY issues exist with wind, and impounded tidal projects. Free flow tidal, gyre, and wave projects do not appear to trigger substantial concern. Wave power in particular may have additional benefits such as border containment and the mitigation of coastal erosion. It is arguable that a wave plant in front of New Orleans could have absorbed much of the storm force and prevented some of the devastation. ] 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The others haven't drawn fire because they haven't been developed to the stage where large projects are seeking aproval. I can forsee a few enviormental issues that will have to be answered for all of them. |
|
|
:::::First - neither true nor false - second, the NIMBY issue for renewables is I suggest not fully relevant to nuclear. ] 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So there are some. ] 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::At least as long as Ben Gatti can still draw a breath. --] 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I didn't place the NPOV tag, and I worked to get rid of it, even removed it myself once - good luck - I'm just answering the question posed. ] 19:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the article is still POV to a point. The life cycle section should mention current usage. ''It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. The current waste may well become valuable fuel in the future, particularly if it is not reprocessed, as in the U.S.'' could use a source; as could ''Proponents of nuclear power state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. The cost of some renewables would be increased too if they included necessary back-up due to their intermittent nature.'' and ''Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent coal-fuelled or gas-fuelled plant. However, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel, and natural gas significantly more expensive than coal - thus natural gas-generated power is the most expensive.'' and the Operating Costs section and ''Nuclear power, coal, and wind power are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached''. What is the Rocky Montain Institute and why do I care what they think? ] 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Nuclear power is the controlled use of nuclear reactions to do '''useful''' work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity." The word useful is biased and indicates that the creation of these energies is favored. Certainly we no longer say that slavery is useful, because it causes more problems than it solves. Perhaps a similar light will eventually be cast on these energies. {{unsigned|Vices}} |
|
|
:It depends on your perspective. An atomic bomb obviously does ] but there is no way to harness that work to do something productive. I think the wording could be better, but it is a far stretch to call it biased. ] 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The point was that the word useful is a perspective, point of view, essentially biased adjective. Few adjectives are not biased, and I was simply pointing out the idea that energy production is blindly considered to be a positive thing in our culture. The idea being that there may eventually be a culture in which the 'production' of heat, electrical, or atomic energy is considered bad or inappropriate. {{unsigned|Vices}} |
|
|
:::Hmmm, drifting into ] territory here. As it stands, surely we should view generation of energy as a positive thing. --]<sup><font style="background: #0000" face="Ariel" color="#00AA00">]</font></sup>] 12:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Energy cannot be produced so certainly we cannot view it as a positive thing. If a culture comes to exist that does not value doing anything I'll burn that bridge when I come to it. ] 11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
In the introduction, the article says that the USA produce "800 TWh of zero-emissions electricity per year". It is obvioulsy not zero-emission: green house gases are emitted in the process of building the plant, extracting and transporting the fuel and decomissionning the plant. 82.147.145.235 (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Under the section titled 'Safety' in the third paragraph 'With a death rate of 0.07 per TWh' should be changed to 'With a death rate of 0.03 per TWh'. The source is citation 199 in the nuclear power page, which is this article .
This is the source cited for the original statistic, but I believe it was copied incorrectly. ThePiMaven (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The vertical axis is labelled in TWh which is a unit of energy not power. I guess the graph is of TWh/year which is a (weird) unit for power. 2,500 TWh/year is 290GW BTW. Does this bother anyone else? PeterGrecian (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Change number of employees from 556 to 329.
I’m an employee there and this is the number listed in our Outlook directory. It is well known publicly that we had significant layoffs in 2024 (~28% in January and then ~10% more in July). 131.150.2.197 (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 
Not done: I think you added this to the wrong article. This is the article on nuclear power. It does not have any employee counts that I can find. meamemg (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)