Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 14 March 2006

Template:FAOL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages: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 1 (up to May 19, 2005):
• Archive 2 (May 19 to May 22, 2005):
• Archive 3 (May 23 to May 24, 2005):
• Archive 4 (May 25 to May 28, 2005):
• Archive 5 (June7 to June 13, 2005):
• Archive 6 (June 22 to August 10, 2005):
• Archive 7 (August 11 to August 31, 2005):
• Archive 8 (September 1 to December 28, 2005):
• Archive Solar (January 2006):
• Archive Oldberg (January 2006):
• Archive 9 (December 28, 2005 to February 28, 2006):

Unanswered Facts or Questions

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.

Surely a nuclear power station is capable of producing all the power it needs to operate itself... Roberdin 21:28, 6 March 2006 (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. --Robert Merkel 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the reason fossil fuels are used is due to the location of the processing plant. Benjamin Gatti

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. Simesa 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But we would be safe in assuming that the house load is a small fraction of the plant power output, wouldn't we? --Robert Merkel 05:24, 7 March 2006 (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. -- Kjkolb 13:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

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. Lucid-dream 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that where this article expresses soapbox opinions about matters other than Nuclear Power 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 Nuclear reactor - content itself with the subject matter without being a soapbox for the anti-renewable platform of it's editors. Benjamin Gatti 06:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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.. TastyCakes 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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:

• "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."

Most engaged minds believe that the most probable nexus between nuclear power and an ENO 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 English National Opera isn't it. —wwoods

(Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence) Benjamin Gatti

• 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. —wwoods

Fine - that belongs in the article - unbalanced assertions about wind do not and their presence justifies the NPOV tag. Benjamin Gatti 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. —wwoods 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. Benjamin Gatti

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? --DV8 2XL 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. Benjamin Gatti 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. Benjamin Gatti 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. --DV8 2XL 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. Benjamin Gatti 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. Benjamin Gatti 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So there are some. Benjamin Gatti 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

At least as long as Ben Gatti can still draw a breath. --DV8 2XL 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. Benjamin Gatti 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? kotepho 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vices (talk • contribs)

It depends on your perspective. An atomic bomb obviously does work (physics) 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. kotepho 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vices (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, drifting into Crystall Ball territory here. As it stands, surely we should view generation of energy as a positive thing. --OscarTheCat 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. kotepho 11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Being the contributor of the phrase "to do useful work" I can assure the concerned party that it is not intended as anything more than the driest scientific term. The prior language used the self-referential form "Nuclear energy is energy" which as you can see id helpful only to those who don't need help. Energy is fundamentally the ability to do work. Nuclear energy - as it is meant here, being separate from nuclear bomb for example - requires harnessing the rather volatile energy of a nuclear reaction to do more than mere work, but to do useful work, or work that is fungible and convertible into practical forms. The raw and unbridled release of nuclear energy is more properly the domain of nuclear explosions. In any case, this would make the first time I have been accused of a bias in favor of nuclear energy, something which many, including the Arbcom would take with some irony. Cheers. Benjamin Gatti 01:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in but I was puzzled by some of the wording on the article. Since the phrase starts with "the controlled use of" you don't really need the term "useful". A nuclear bomb is the uncontrolled use of fission. The delivery of the fissile material is controlled but what happens to the nuclear products is uncontrolled. Nuclear reactors are just controlled, contained atomic bombs - the physics is the same. The word "useful" does look like a POV as I've only ever seen it written like that in BNFL leaflets. Also why is the term nuclear reactions used and not nuclear fission which is what is actually taking place. This is a blurring of terms that should not happen. Again I have been annoyed by BNFL likening the workings of a nuclear reactor to how the sun works (Nuclear fusion) - if a nuclear reactor produced helium we'd all have a big party with lots of the balloons filled with the waste as opposed to concrete bunkers and special processing plants. SophiaTCF 14:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran

Recent edit "Iran allows IAEA oversight" by Kaveh - is there a source that can be cited for this change in Iran's policy? Had a look on some news sites without success. --OscarTheCat 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the deletion. In we have:

Still, it declared that – because of lack of sufficient cooperation from the Iranian side – the IAEA remained unable “to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.”

The finding was essentially an admission that the agency cannot establish whether Iran is hiding aspects of its nuclear program that it is obligated to report to the IAEA, the U.N. atomic watchdog, under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Simesa 12:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics