# Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 4

## Power is not Energy any more than squareroot is addition - Energy from nuclear reaction includes the bomb

I want to Object to where the intro is going. First I think "Energy over Time" is silly - i inserted to make the point that Power is not Energy. Second - this appears to be a narrow discussion of the use of nuclear power rather than say coal or wind. We have exactly zero comparisons to the relative benefits of Chemical or Biological alternative to Nuclear Power as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Which raises a problem. We should disambig Nuclear Weapon, reactor, energy, Power (Nation), as well as fission and fussion, because a discussion of sustained energy (power) cannot more than speculate about fusion, and it is misleading to suggest that the power of the sun is the same as the 6.8% of the world's energy which is provided by nuclear fission reactors. Benjamin Gatti 03:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Energy over time" is very silly, and I'm about to change it. For those of you who are about to say, because you've learned it in physics class, that power and energy are not the same thing, are confusing the technical uses of the term with the common uses. For most people 'nuclear power' and 'nuclear energy' are the same thing, and we should accept that usage, at least in the introduction. There may be a case for mentioning it further down, but frankly for this article it makes no difference. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Historically "Nuclear Power" and "Atomic Energy" are the same. Nuclear energy refers rather specifically to the energy contained in the nucleus governed by ${\displaystyle E=MC^{2}}$. If ever invented, Fusion power will probably be called "Hydrogen Power" in the same was the fusion bomb is called the "Hydrogen Bomb".Benjamin Gatti 02:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Propose Losing the POV Tag

In Five Days if there are no votes against losing the Tag - the Tag should be removed by Consensus.

It strikes me that we've found some comity, the latest movement is less about POV and more about ontology. The proposed Introductions (other than mine of course) are fairly bland with respect to POV, and in short I don't see a huge discrepency. Ultra seems to be pushing for vaguely sourced assertions in favor ("some governments" is vague), and while its unencyclopedic IMHO, its not aggregiously POV, so Here's ONE VOTE FOR REMOVING POV. Benjamin Gatti 06:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think the ongoing debate over the content to the level that we cannot even agree on an introduction paragraph is reason enough to leave the NPOV tag. I suspect that no one has responded to the suggestion is not a sign of agreement but rather a feeling that it so obviously needs to stay in place that no response was needed. That is the case anyway for myself. Dalf | Talk 07:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## Percent isn't Disputed

There's a few numbers, but the balance of sources do converge on this number 6.8% of energy etc... Since I'm the only other source contributer on that - I'll stipulate to the higher number - as comfortable. And it is very important in the first few sentences to establish the scope of the article. Any person of ordinary intelligence can see that the article is not about nuclear weapons. It is not about "natural decay" which makes the next sentence (Could replace oil) a non sequitor. And if it is about Fusion, then scratch all the "realistic" assertions. This is a factual article describing the source of near 20% of the world's energy. Any Nuclea Power technology which has significantly contributed to that 20% is welcome - all others need not apply. Benjamin Gatti 06:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## Building Reactors

"Canada is planning to build new reactors, or reopen old ones.". News to me. Any sources? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Form the source in the article "* In Canada, 'planned' figure is 2 laid-up Pickering A reactors and 2 Bruce A units." Ultramarine 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## Article scope (fusion not included?)

Ultramarine, this article is titled nuclear power which means energy already being generated. Also, nuclear power historically has meant a radioactive nuclear reaction, so fusion does not fit additionally (but this secondary point is a side point). Renewable energy options that don't tangibly exist yet are labeled in their respective articles as being speculative but they, unlike fusion power here, fit the scope of their article so your comparison is an apples vs oranges one. Fusion power would be much more appropriate in Future energy development or even Fusion power, don't you think? Why mention fusion power in the intro here when there is already a Fusion power article? zen master T 15:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is called Nuclear power, not Fission power. Fusion power should be included, just like non producing forms like wave power, OTEC, ocean current, and biodiesel from algae is included in renewables. Ultramarine 15:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
You may be missing the point, I dispute that fusion power is included under the definition of nuclear power. If something is disputed then it should not be stated as fact, and should not be included in the intro certainly. Please make a case to defend fusion as being under to definition of nuclear power (the burden of proof is on you). "Nuclear power" has a scientific definition and a common usage definition, the common usage definition does not include fusion (sorry, but that is the way it is). zen master T 15:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica "also called Atomic Energy, energy that is released in significant amounts in processes that affect atomic nuclei, the dense cores of atoms. It is distinct from the energy of other atomic phenomena such as ordinary chemical reactions, which involve only the orbital electrons of atoms. One method of releasing nuclear energy is by controlled nuclear fission in devices called reactors, which now operate in many parts of the world. (See nuclear reactor.) Another method for obtaining nuclear energy, controlled nuclear fusion, had not been perfected by the late 1980s. Nuclear energy has beenreleased explosively by both nuclear fusion and nuclear fission (qq.v.)."
MS Encarta, redirect from Nuclear power: "Nuclear Energy, energy released during the splitting or fusing of atomic nuclei." Ultramarine 16:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Since fusion power is speculative at best nuclear power has come to mean, colloquially at least, just power generated from splitting. And I think we should separate fusion from the definition of nuclear power anyway because it has the potential to be more environmentally friendly (is that true?). Wouldn't proponents of fusion power want to distance themselves from the historic unsound/not environmentally friendly definition of nuclear (fission) power? Perhaps we should disambig with Nuclear power (fission) and Nuclear power (fusion), though there already is a fusion power article... zen master T 16:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
We should not create a new defintion which is original research. As I have shown, fusion is included in nuclear power. Ultramarine 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Then are you arguing for a merging of fusion power into this article? Ask yourself why there already is a separate fusion power article? Answer: because the non scientific definition of nuclear power means only fission. At the very least mentioning fusion power in this article is redundant given Fusion power. At the very least your proposal needlessly commingles the highly speculative nuclear fusion power with a historically controversial source of actual power: nuclear fission. Why needlessly commingle the different concepts? For the sake of clarity they should be separate and for the most part they already are. zen master T 16:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
This is on overview article. Nuclear fission is discussed in more technical detail in Nuclear reactor. Nuclear fusion in that article. Renewable energy is also an overview and has many very speculative energy sources. Ultramarine 18:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Fusion can join the club as soon as it has generated power - i promise really. Whether or not we include fusion will define the article. Nuclear Power could mean warheads, could mean any kind of energy released from the nuclear of an atom - which includes warheads, But the article such as it is does not include warheads. In fact the entire article is about fission power exclusively (Move anyone?) Zen is right none of what is said below in any way applies to fusion - none of it. so it doesn't belong in this article - it may well belong under the title which suggests the article is in the wrong place.Benjamin Gatti 20:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Nuclear fusion has generated power, although with an EROI below 1, just like OTEC or wave power. But anyhow, nuclear power is commonly accepted as including nuclear fusion and thus wikipedia should include it. Please read No original research. On example of original research is "it provides new definitions of old terms" Ultramarine 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I put this below but I guess the discussion is more relevant here. Scientifically speaking Fusion power is nuclear power. It is not presently available for commercial use but it does exist in expiremental settings were the amount of energy released is not more than energy put in. But, in terms of inclusion in this article the longterm future of nuclear power is fusion power! Given the risks and dangers of current fission technology I think we can all agree that if there was a breakthrough in the next few years (or even 50 years) that all the old fission reactors would be decommissioned and replaced with cleaner safer fusion ones. If we seriously want to talk about nuclear power and human society in terms of where the research spending is going and where the industry is going then Fusion should be included in this article but it should very clearly be noted that it is only something we are trying to figure out and is not a existent technology for power generation at present. Lots of articles include possible future application and future advances in them. I haven't checked but I bet the computer article has mention of quantum computers even though quantum computers probably also have their own article. Dalf | Talk 01:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Google says Nuclear Power is Fission

A google search of "Nuclear Power" returns several pages of entries not one of which refers to anything other than the generation of electricity by fission. I vote for the article to express the commonest meaning of the word - leaving pedagogy to the disabiguation line.Benjamin Gatti 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Nuclear wastes

"the unsolved problem of storing radioactive waste for 10,000 years"

NUCLEAR WASTES DO NOT LAST 10,000 YEARS! The longest lived wastes last only a few hundred years. Another POV statement that has just been removed. Andros 1337 00:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone has added it back in and I once again reverted it. THERE IS NO WAY I WILL LET A HUGE LIE BE IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE.. I have also changed the template to TotallyDisputed. Andros 1337 01:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Radioactivity can last for over 10,000 years. What do you base your statement on? In my opinion, you honestly sound like you are performing a test of some sort. If you can provide a citation for just 100 years then we should change the sentence to 100 years, rather than remove the sentence completely. I caveatted that sentence previously with "may" last for as long as 10,000 years. zen master T 01:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[1]. Scroll down the page and see for yourself. Andros 1337 01:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does this URL disprove the claim of 10,000 years? Uranium and other "fuel" sources used in nuclear power are radioactive themselves for greater than 10,000 years, right? (it's not just the "waste", environmentalists' "unsound" point against nuclear power basically argues that the fuel itself is waste, given that it is highly concentrated and radioactive [more or less]) Is this URL's hundred years point specific to "new" reactor types only perhaps? Would nuclear power justifiably be considered even more "unsound" if the full truth of accidents etc was known? We can change the sentence in the article to something like "between 300 and 10,000 years" and/or note the waste estimate is disputed if you truly desire. This website has a very pro industry slant to it, how did an "institute" get a dot edu anyway? zen master T 01:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am opposed to putting any number at all. I would support "an indefinite period of time" but putting an exact number is wrong because we are talking about many different kinds of waste and some of them will last longer than others. Additionally the length of time they remain dangerous depends on the environment they are stored in, what manner they are stored and what technological changes may happen. In any event I suspect that at least some of it will not be safe to say put in the water table for significantly longer than 10k years and some of it would be ok in a few hundred. We are talking about a wide array of different substances and so giving a number like a hard and true fact is simply wrong. Mind I am not saying that the 10k year figure is not in the ballpark if you are talking about the vast bulk of the material in question but neither am I saying that we (or anyone) really knows. What we can all agree on is that it will outlive us in its radioactivity and so for all intents and purposes it is indefinite. So I would support the totally disputed tag. Also in regards to Ben's comment about removing the nopv tag. I think we need to have the WHOLE article overhauled before we remove that. Dalf | Talk 03:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"indefinitely" sounds good to me. zen master T 03:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the best is to say "for a vey long time" and to put a link to the article nuclear waste for more details. In fact, some waste products have half-lives of millions of years but are only present in trace amounts in the waste. The amount of time for the spent fuel radioactivity to decrease back to the original uranium ore radioactivity is about 100 000 years, and this is mainly due to the contribution of transuranium elements like plutonium, neptumium and americium, which are fortunaltely not very mobile and relatively easy to contain. --Philipum 5 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

# News Flash Consortium

Cool link, did you see the survey?

Scary Benjamin Gatti 02:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## So let's add weaponry and Fussion - a lot of work to do

I added the image of military use - since that's what nuclear power means now based on non-orginal research of another encyclopedia. Personally i think the article loses focus and the wiki is poorer for it, but the image certainly describes the subject matter (so defined) Benjamin Gatti 21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Renewable energy should contain a long section that describes all military uses of energy? Ultramarine 21:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that Nuclear Power in the non-pedogogic, colliquial, and catholic sense that we have reduced it to for the purposes of using the subject as a platform to promote the deformation of a future nation of children (i heard children in belarus now have a very high risk of genetic deformation) might at least be redeemable if it were to focus on the History, Risks, Economics and other facts most specifically related to the heading. Adding in Fusion, saying "it" as in what-were-talking-about-here powers the sun is diversionary and not meaningfully within the scope of the article. I'm really not involved in Renewable Energy as an article and this article should stand on its own to the extent possible. I for one fail to see what Nuclear Power has to do with renewables except that they compete for the attention of governmnets seeking alternatives to external energy reliances.Benjamin Gatti 00:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This is silly! Fusion if it existed in a form that could be used for power would be classified as nuclear power. There are several different groups working towards this goal all over the world. Some of them are colorations. In that context Fusion belongs in the article as a possible future of nuclear power and as such belongs in the introduction so that it does not seem out of place in the article. As a compromise I think we can not mention it in the introduction and but also not exclude it. Stating that Nuclear power is the power derived from a controlled nuclear reaction would include it but not specifically name it. Incidentally this is how Encarta defines it. Or more specifically the first sentence of the Nuclear power article on encarta says:
Nuclear Power, electrical power produced from energy released by controlled fission or fusion of atomic nuclei in a nuclear reaction. [2]
It is also worth noting that Encarta has a sperate article for Nuclear energy.
It strikes me as strange how you are using semantics to nitpick ext ream specificity for some points "political debate" and then using semantics to blur definitions at other times such as here. Dalf | Talk 00:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
1.) Admit that the term is being defined here in its inaccurate but popular sense- we are ignoring that energy != power, that nuclear power, if defined as any energy released from a nucleus includes the bomb - which is admittedly a deserving subject of its own - but we are overreaching, not leastly because such articles already exist under more specific and accurate terms such as Nuclear Reactions and Nuclear Weapons one important aspect of an encyclopedia should be to achieve the highest degree of data normalization. I fear that i'm objecting to this merely to be objectionable, but Pstudier agrees eloquently, and I can't disuade myself of my own argument. Google is a virtual authority on the most popular use of terms, and google is clear that "Nuclear Power" in general discussion refers exclusively to sustained fission for electricity production. I specifically prefer "sustained" to "controlled" as it also resolves the difference between "energy" and "power". Power by definition is "sustained energy". In History we talk about the first sustained reaction, and tis truly is the critical point of development. Fusion has been "controlled" but not sustained. (See) When Fusion is sustainable - then it is a source of power, currently its a consumer of power. I would tolerate a mention only to disambiguate - or in an isolated section of future designs and possibilities, But consider the temporal nature of the phrase. Already we have "atomic energy" morphing into "nuclear power" from 1955 to (1970-80's?) presumably in responce to the peace movement which painted the a-bomb as the anti-christ. Given chernobyl and the black mark which is nuclear power, there is no chance that GE or whoever markets a clean process fusion reactor is going to allow it to be confused in any way with "nuclear power". And so - i say as something of a critic of nuclear - that we would be doing fusion a favor not to paint it with the same brush. "nuclear power is a temporal term used to describe sustained fission rections for generating electricity."Benjamin Gatti 01:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
There is not reason to use a incorrect definition especially not in an encyclopedia. You are confused on several points. First Power is many things not just "energy over time" which is a very ambiguous and imprecise definition. In this context it is harnessed or controlled useful energy. For other contexts look at dictionary.com: power. Also Google is not an authority on lots of things and it is downright wrong on many more, it promotes common misconceptions and biases. For example using google and online sources a computer program trying to do translations between languages will think that the words terrorist and Palestinian terrorist are equivalent. Google is not the answer. Also I defy you to find a way to make google say that Nuclear power is absolutely NOT fusion, which is what you are advocating. There is a lot of ambiguity between the words energy and power in English before you even get to colloquial usage so that is a problem but in this case the scientific and popular usages of the terms are easy to understand.
I too have begun to worry that you are objecting to this merely to be objectionable especially since Pstudier did not as far as I have seen advocate excluding it, he only did not want it specifically called out in the intro and not in the article beyond the basic facts that it does not exist and is at best a future solution. Dalf | Talk 05:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

## Lists of imaginary things

When did the encyclopedia become the list of imaginary things? I am suggesting that this article (By its substance at least) refers to the substantial generation of sustained energy by fission. Every sentence in the article relates to that phrase. The title is misleading - but is nonetheless used to describe just that very often. The theoric subject of potential power which could be release from the nucleus ought to include every known and suspected methodology, but should not concern itself wit the history , the economics, and the risks of just one to the exclusion of all others. We are talking here about the history of fission reactors - in that discussion what iis fussion other than competative technology?Benjamin Gatti 14:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Since when did fusion become an imaginary thing? You are aware that the nuclear weapons that you so dearly want included in this article are actually fusion bombs? The more primitive ones used in WWII were fusion weapons but the modern ones are based on both a fission and a fusion reaction. The initial fission reaction provides the heat and pressure for the fusion reaction which then provides a huge supply of neutrons which speed the fission reaction up massively (meaning it is more complete by the time all the fissile material is blown apart).
Outside of weapons there are several research places such as the Joint European Torus or JET for short that have achieved fusion in the lab (only it still takes more energy to get it to happen than they produce). ITER is also a international project that is hoping to develop Fusion to the point of commercial exploit ability. These are not fairy tales, they are realistic future technologies that are possibly going to be available in our lifetime. The article if it is to be complete will include mention of them even if they were not scientifically classified as nuclear technology simply because the moment they become practical it will be the ultimate death of fission based power.
I know you are upset because you want to hate everything mentioned in this article so let me help you. I thought you would know this but apparently not. Fusion is not likely to be clean enough for you! It will be orders of magnitude cleaner than fission but it will still produce radioactive waste, the difference is this waste will only last hundreds of years not thousands and will be significantly less in volume. But, since the current batch of nuclear waste has not been around for a hundred years and only small amounts of it have actually gotten in places that have caused havoc I suspect that even when fusion is possible most of the people who now oppose fission in all its forms will oppose the new technology as well (especially when they see the price tag I would wager) Dalf | Talk 03:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I got in late tonight - i was out protesting discrimination in my southern (formerly confederate) state. But as i managed to avoid arrest - although I was escorted out by armed sherrifs - i made it home safely. I'm really not upset by the article and don't hate nuclear energy. I want to compete with it with renewable sources and I don't like the Price Anderson act because it unlevels the risk aspect of a fair playing field. In short there would be more money available for renewable energy if nuclear energy did not have a risk subsidy. We have spent 300 Billion on nuclear energy not counting about that much to clean up one accident (mostly in Belarus (Little Russia).) I do think if spent that on renewables we could solve the problem - i have even proposed a scenario for replacing fossil fuels incrementally which no one has even suggested violates some economic or physical law. I'm not saying fusion is clean - i suggest that whatever IS true of fusion, isn't necessarily or perhaps even remotely true of fission and visa versa - they are so different. However let me concede a few points: It is probably true that Federal regulation will fall under the same department - so that's a point for shared meaning. Second, nuclear seem more restrictive a phrase than atomic sense the nucleus refers only to a part of the atom. So that points strikes ma as a non sequitor. I'm not wholly opposed to a tangential mention of nuclear as a theory, or as being in whatever state it is in - no net generation - experimental - unsustained, so long as we don't then reach to poetry by suggesting that 17% of the world's energy is derived from the same process that powers the sun. In short - fusion is not fully on point - it is merely related. no intro, no metaphor, no implication that the sub sections in the article apply to fusion. (I humbly and gently suggest).Benjamin Gatti 03:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right about Atomic vs. Nuclear in terms of whichever is more restrictive. However, the shift in the literature and in government usage has changed in the last 50 years. At present I am just focusing on the introduction. I think we are close to a nice agreeable version then we can focus on the rest of the article, which is where your sun comment comes in. If the article refers to the sun as the same sort of energy source as our current Nuclear technology then I am 100% behind you in opposing that. If it is only mentioned in context of some future technology which we are currently trying to develop then its fine. For what it is worth, and this may shock you, I agree that if the choice was mine the big bucks would be spent mostly on renewable energy. I would probably want to dump most of it into solar-thermal (not PV) and tidal as they are they most predictable. I have a friend who worked for about a year "flying" the wind farm near the San Francisco Bay area (the Altamont Pass) and so I have heard a lot of the problems associated with that technology. You complain about the subsidizing of nuclear power but wind is helped out too. If the power companies had a choice (they don't) none of them would buy wind because it destabilizes the power grid and about half the energy available has to be used to compensate. The work around is usually huge capacitor farms that cost millions and buffer the power so that output which fluctuates wildly is smoothed out and does not mess things up. But I digress. Given the choice I would want the money spent on renewables. But, I am a pragmatist and nuclear is a lot more likely in the short term and I think the environmental impact of fossil fuels is such that nuclear is preferable. I think we should stop building fossil fuel based power plants right now. Meet growing demand with some of the newer safer generation of nuclear power plants and dump all the research money into renewables as a long term solution ..... but that is not what this article is about and being a science geek I like things to be accurate. Dalf | Talk 04:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Which is why in my design, the generators are simultaneoulsy driven by natural gas and renewable energy (They are at altamount pass as well - its just less obvious because the NG backups which are spinning are not connected to the same shaft. Connecting them smooths out the power - which as you say really is important. Power companies just want to make a profit - they have the talent to deal with these issues, and they are happy to do whatever the market wants. Wind is problematic for its visual impact - which i think is valid - you may be surprised, and for bird kills - which for endangered species like eagles is unfortunate and perhaps unfair. I happen to prefer wave energy because there is a great deal of it (twice as much as tidal) though tidal and gyre current have some promise. and finally we need to adopt the method of reactive consumption, in which some high inertial applications (air conditioning, hot water heating and battery charging) can be synchonized with energy availability. This alone could net a 3x gain in capacity - which coincidentally about what we need to bring the rest of the world into a tolerable standard of living (150M BTU per year per capita) - or there abouts.Benjamin Gatti 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is already rather long, so I support restricting it to fission for electricity, heat and hydrogen. Since fusion has never generated a single kilowatt-hour of electricity, let alone a net energy gain other than as a bomb, it only deserves a mere mention. pstudier 01:21, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It deserves a mention and that mention should include what you just said, that it is not in use. It is a possible future source and there is lots of money being dumped into related research. What I am arguing here is that the introduction should not include wording that is factually incorrect. Saying that nuclear power refers only to fission (rather than power from a nuclear reaction) is factually incorrect. Dalf | Talk 01:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Peak oil

I re-worded the sentence in the intro again to change the text so that it does not use the phrase "peak oil depletion" which I don't think is logicially/grammatically correct. If it is in the strictest sense grammatically correct it is at the very least confusing and awkward when read. The problem as I see it is that peak oil is not a very accurate term. It does not refer to the process so much as the peak itself, therefore the term "peak depletion" does not make a lot of sense. In energy and environmental circles people will read this and immediately understand when you say "peak oil" you are referring to a process, but most native English speakers wont unless they already know about the phenomena and the various attempts to apply it to a global scale.

The wording I replaced it with "to decline in availability" refers only to the part of the "Hubbert peak process" that is releavent to the sentence and is intuitively understood by nearly all English speakers. It also is one that they will likely click on as the idea of scarcity of resources and cost of oil is one that people read about in the news a lot and they can relate to. If someone generally follows the evening news about gas prices with interest, they are very likely to follow that link.

If everyone disagrees with me that if fine but as a compromise if you want to change it back could we possibly change it to "Hubbert peak depletion" instead as this is less likely to sound awkward to the reader. Dalf | Talk 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

How about instead of "begin to decline in availability" something more simple like "begin depletion"? zen master T 02:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well in terms of the Hubbert peak process the decline relates directly to a lower technological availability (i.e. it cost more to get the same amount so prices go up). This will have the effect of making nuclear power and all the renewables more attractive in terms of cost. But, that is not important the implication of depletion is lowered availability so I was jumping a step ahead for clarity. I will not however object to the re-wording. Do you want to change it or should I? Dalf | Talk 02:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned that up just now and hopefully addressed Benjamin's separate criticism below. Prices will go up precisely because there is less oil available, we will have to make do with less ability to do work since alternatives aren't nearly as good nor are they ready to full the ever increasing depletion gap. zen master T 02:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I tweaked it one mroe time to read "alternative to fossil fuel should they become less practical due to depletion", since most models of how the peak will go do not involve a rapid decreas in avalibility when depletion starts but a gradual increas in cost that grows faster and faster untill it becomes unsupportable. Is this ok? Dalf | Talk 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Your last change works for me. Perhaps we should have started this content dispute one edit at a time ;) Though I suspect the final product would be stylistically ... errr .... interesting. Dalf | Talk 03:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

How about zero speculation? I second the idea that peak oil used as a noun is at best jargon and uncyclopedic as the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain jargon to the unintiated. Aside from which I hardly see why Peak Oil is relevent to nukes. Perhaps we're not settled on whether this is an essay about the realtive merits of nuclear, or simply a description of the thing in the first place. Probalems with nuclear are relevent - problems with oil should be covered under oil. Its appearance here seems intended to convey the POV that nuclear should be considered a viable alternative to oil. I feel an encyclopedia is not the plac to make that argument. Fission power exists, it has risks, it generates electricity which is important. This is its history etc... Comprarisons to competative fuels are tangential at best and ought to appear at a point where their relevence has been established - such as economy, or the future of nuclear - which i think is speculation and not the subject of encyclopedias. Benjamin Gatti 02:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not actually speculation, it's a factual statement within the context of industry/governmental advocacy for an increased usage of nuclear power in the future, which is necessary (at least arguably) because of peak oil. zen master T 02:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Zen-master is correct here. The eventual depletion of fossil fuels (and more importantly the desire to take preemptive steps to insure our way of life is not disrupted) is a significant driving force behind Nuclear power development (or at least the people lobbying for it) and also behind the same push for renewables. The details are speculation, theories on when this peak will be reached vary from some time next year to about 30 years from now for oil and +10-20 years for gas. But, no one denies that it will happen. The models it is based on are the same ones that they use for logistics planning in exploiting individual oil fields and mines only applied to a global scale. Dalf | Talk 02:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see people lobbying for it - or industry for that matter. I believe the government is the only party lobbying for it - you see they have a 50% subsidy out - that's government lobbing indurty. If they sweeten the pie to the point of corporate welfare - its little wonder you have some interest - but I don't really see any commercial interprises excited about being the next corp in Greenpeace's crosshairs. Really is oil depletion the concern - compared to foriegn control (OPEC) i think depletion is the lone gunman theory of the moment - it even has a person's name atached as if its one' guys idea. BTW - his is an interesting point and interesting to reflect that all energy sources probably have a bathtub shaped curve with respect to EROI. They start high due to research and learning curve, then they experience the lowest cost as a result of exploiting the richest resources first - over time, rich resources give way to mediocre resources, and so the cost creeps up, until it crosses the rabbit theory threshold. Wind is in its decline, after a point, the good sites on land will be used, and the shallow offshore sites will be more expensive followed by the deep offshore sites. In the case of nuclear, the ideal sites would be those where the plant can be bult close to demand (IE in south africa it might be accepted), but on long island, the cost of nuclear energy will reflect the higher cost of transporting over long cables. Taken together it is a compelling argumant for fuel diversity because the higher EROI occurs in different places for different technologies, and at different times. While oil experiences the bathtub with respect to a constant level of consumption - renewables experience the curve over increased capacity - which really amounts to the same thing as long as demand is growing.Benjamin Gatti 03:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This link is on the Nuclear reactor page and shows a graph of how many Nuclear power plants came on line each year. I thought it was intresting. Dalf | Talk 03:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

## End of POV?

Strikes me no one is in major disagreement about the content - both sides seem satisfied that neither is overstating their facts. No complaints - POV Goes (maybe three days or so?)

## Los Alamos Lab

Can I just mention the news article today in which a whistle-blower gets beat up for shining light of problems in a nuclear facility. Uh and that's in the American States (As one wikipedians said).

I just want to share how comforting it is to know that nuclear facilities are run by people who would have whistle-bloweres beat up the night before they testify - it goes well with the idea that nuclear power is so very safe - we ought to put it in the hands of more people.

Can't wait.

Benjamin Gatti 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have URLs/citations for this info? indeed interesting, thx. zen master T 03:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MSNBC Photo Benjamin Gatti 03:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guardian Sgkay 08:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are these allegations just localized fraud or something larger about the industry/lobby as a whole? What evidence or allegations might these whistle blowers present besides fraud? Are there any suspects? Why aren't we hearing more about this in the media? zen master T 08:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems we got a healthy dose here in Charlotte - his picture was on (Probably Fox or MSNBC or both since that's my typical cable news fare) There's a fair chance that it was nothing - and he just angered some people, but the logic is missing. Even if a guy bumps you or perhaps hits you - I doubt that would be enough provocation to beata man to a pulp and leave him for dead - that explanantion doesn't presume rational actors. The idea that he and another have been threated verbally, and then there is follow through on the eve of testimony - that presumes rational actors with a secret. I would therefore put more weight on the explaination which presumes rational actors - until shown false.

Benjamin Gatti 00:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Great Speach - Carter 1977

Carters insights into energy and nuclear safety are more sentient today then in 1977 when he gave them.

## List of enviromentalists who support/don't support to new article?

I think the list of "environmentalists" that support or don't support nuclear power could quickly get out of hand and grow unwieldy, I propose that we create a new article for just that, or just remove it from this article completely. Does the nuclear power industry really claim many "environmentalists" support nuclear power? Admittedly I haven't looked at the list in too much detail, but the "environmentalist" credentials for many supporters of nuclear power seem rather dubious.

Also Benjamin, are you obviously trying to violate NPOV as some sort of test by labeling Richard Nixon and other supporters as "(criminal)"? What is the context for such a label in a subsection section on nuclear power and alleged environmentalist supporters? zen master T 06:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I wasn't aware that Nixins and Larouche's credentials as criminals was a matter of point of view. Perhaps you are aware of a point of view which excludes breaking and entering and tax fraud as criminal acts in the US? please explain. Actually, i restored the viewpoint neutrallity of the article by adding the "environmentalists opposed section. You should be chiding whoever inserted the flamebait section "environmentalists for nuclear power" as intentionally violating the delicate balance we have all so honorably worked to attain.

There would by the way be a huge number of environmentalists from belarus who would oppose nuclear power - but they are dead, do the souls of those killed by nuclear power count as opposition?

Why is the status of persons as "Environmentalists" more pertainant than the status as "Criminals" or "Racists" (bob jones university and high profile supporters thereof- including our good President GW Bush)

Indeed, if nuclear power is being supported by criminals, then I think that is very pertainent - far more so than the tenuous commitment of lone individuals to environmental responsability. Benjamin Gatti 15:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As much as they are criminals they were never convicted so the article can't say that, but more importantly any context of how them being criminals relates to nuclear power and environmentalism is lost. I vote we remove that entire section but I suspect some people will disagree. zen master T 18:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Larouche was convicted and spent five years behind bars. Nixon was pardoned - which if accepted, is the same as an admission of guilt.

Benjamin Gatti 06:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the sections don't belong at all. You don't fnd them in other articles. Simesa 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would support zen master's proposal to remove the environmentalist supporters/opponents section if Benjamin Gatti would remove the box in the talk secion which begins: The neutrality of this article is so biased it boooooooooooggles the imagination. and if he stops suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is either crazy or criminal. pstudier 23:32, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Done. The For against list probably isn't encyclopedic - for one reason because people have the right to change their mind - while encyclopedic information ought to be inherently stable. Thus it may be encyclopedic that - in 1977 Carter expressed concern about nuclear energy - but a timeless commitment is not factual. Happy to remove the box - which was merely a piece of humorous wikiart, not to be confused with medical advice. Sure, i think nuclear has a clear and present track record of being unsafe, and I see no convincing evidence that any group of people is capable of handling "the ring" without it corrupting their soul. The news items speak to this. history speaks to this principle, and if you consider the supporters of nuclear power, there is a pattern of criminality and inhumanity - its just the epic nature of power of that kind - and the degree to which one must discount the real effect of radiation on humans in order to embrace power at any price - such people are either naive or sociopathic or they have access to a chain of logic which certainly hasn't been expressed here. So help out those of us who see the real risks of proliferation and user error ie chernobyle as real possibilities. How do you justify it? - you say we have new technology which is safe - only problem it isn't tested - so its experimental technology which is intended to prevent the risks. But the engineers who designed the old plants witnessed hiroshima - they knew the risks - are modern engineers smarter than - Einstien? probably not. What has changed - mostly, we WANT to believe it is safer - we have found someone who has proved nothing - who SAYS its safer. So we believe. That's Kool Aid - not logic.

So here's one sould who is not going to drink the Kool Aid - yes - we have incompatible definitions of sanity. So we are mutually insane - I can live with that.

Great Line - situation with Tucker Carlson "More Nuclear power plants are to Terrorism what orgies are to aids ." Benjamin Gatti 01:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read The Nuclear Energy Option. Cohen is very good at estimating and comparing risks. Basically, nuclear is safer and cleaner than fossil fuels. Renewables other than hydroelectric currently produce very small amounts of very expensive power. Hydroelectric has killed hundreds of thousands (see Banqiao Dam), and it would probably be politically inpossible to build another major dam in the US. pstudier 23:55, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

## New Related Articles

I'd appreciate it if folks would read over and comment on Price-Anderson Act, containment building and Nuclear Power 2010 Program. Simesa 01:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure of the context. What does "Dominion-led consortium" mean exactly? zen master T 02:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dominion [4], owns VEPCO (Virginia Electric & Power Company) and it's four nuclear units (North Anna and Surry). Dominion now operates the Millstone units as well. Thanks for looking the articles over. Simesa 04:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

# Intro Proposals:

Intro Current version Nuclear power is energy generated from nuclear reactions or decay of an atom. It is thought by some to be the cheapest energy source that can realistically be built out rapidly if fossil fuels become depleted through peak oil or discouraged because of environmental problems such as global warming, as it generates relatively little greenhouse gases. Its use is controversial because of the long term problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive contamination by an accident, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is disputed whether the risks of nuclear power can be mitigated through new technology.

## A Proposal by Benjamin

 Nuclear power is energy generated from nuclear reactions or decay of an atom. After having dropped the a-bomb on Hiroshima President Dwight Eisenhower of the United States commissioned the USS Savannah as the flagship of his Atoms for Peace Campaign hoping to represent a peaceful role for the twin terrors: the a-bomb, and a nation willing to use it. Atomic energy as it was first called was held out as an endless source of electricity abundant enough to share and "too cheap to meter". An unfortunate series of accidents and political cover-ups led to the formal organisation of grassroots so-called environmentalist groups including greenpeace which contiue to oppose the use of nuclear power because of the long term problems of storing radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive contamination by an accident, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Recent concerns about global warming have caused even some environmentalists to reconsider its potential as newer designs once again hold out the promise of safe, clean, and abundant energy. It is disputed whether the risks of nuclear power can be mitigated through new technology.
• I think we agree this is a solilique on the social rather than the scientific issues related to nucular power. There are many truly intresting tidbits which are less well know - such as that nuclear power was pushed - more because Ike wanted atomic reactions to do as much good as they had done evil, and the industry was compelled quite literally by a sense of atomic-regret. the other is the foundational issue of greenpeace, and - as you say - that renewable energy proponants are split on the issue. I suggest that the links are the best use of this artical, since details on Chernobyl belong under chernobyl, reactiondetails - including the venting of krypton probably belong under that particular reactor - because there are other form of this title which to which that does not relate. We're overlength generally, and i think it is due to lack of subject matter discipline.
• I was sort of hoping we could try one change at a time and discuss it before moving to the next. In the case of whole sections of information like this about Eisenhower we don't have to start with exact wording but instead what information specifically we would like to include. After we decide on what information is general enough for an overview describing Nuclear power in the generic then we can decide on a wording that fits into the rest of the intro with out sounding like a non sequitur. Dalf | Talk 20:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

## Another Intro by Ben

 Nuclear power is energy released by the destruction of atomic particles. Nuclear power currently provides 2.5% of the worlds energy. Due to growing concerns related to the use and availability of fossil fuels, some governments continue to invest in nuclear power because it could provide reliable energy at market prices with less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. It's use however is controversial because of the long term problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is disputed whether the risks can be suffeceintly reduced with new technology.

Benjamin Gatti 01:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

## An Intro Proposal by Dalf

See section below for comments and responses to the numbers in (())
 Nuclear power is power, usually in the form of electircity, generated by harnesing the energy released in a controled nuclear reaction. It currently provides about 17% of the world’s electricity and 6.8% of total energy. Nuclear power was first commercially used in the 1950's. It was initially viewed by many with significant optimism as a nearly limitless source of cheap power. However, in the decades that followed a number of accidents at nuclear facilities and the continued unresolved problem of long term storage of nuclear waste, shook public confidence in the technology. As a result new construction on nuclear power plants, especially in western countries, all but stopped. In recent years growing environmental concerns, projections of future energy demand, concerns about long term availability of fossil fuels, and the view of nuclear power as a reliable and relatively clean power source has prompted some governments to reinstate or start commercial nuclear power programs. Its use however is still controversial largely because of the long term problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for radioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As a result there is significant debate both internationally and within nations about the comparative benefits and risks of the technology.
• How is this version? I am not 100% happy with it myself (and I wrote it) I would like to have some better details about exactly when new construction stopped in the west (a decade or half a decade will be fine). I also tend towards run on sentences and poor punctuation etc. I tried to write it so that it did not sound like each sentence was written by one side or the other and frame the whole thing in terms of the actual use of nuclear power in the world. I did not mention any countries specifically only "the west" which I think is important since it includes a large portion of users of nuclear power as of a few decades ago. This does omit the USSR and its descendant states but I don't know if there was a similar stop/slow down there at the time (though given that Chernobyl was there one would expect this). In any event what does everyone think? Dalf | Talk 02:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• P.S. feel free to fix any spelling, grammar, or wording for readability in my proposal as long as you don't change the basic meaning or organization. I will not be offended. If you think your change is enough that I might object then add it as a new proposal if I like yours better I will withdraw mine or perhaps strike it out or something. Dalf | Talk 03:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

### Some responses

• This version is ok, but I fell asleep halfway through and couldn't remember if I had read the part before - it seems to touch on accidents - then hopeful - then risks again. I suggest that whichever side opens, the other should close. We have generally allowed the Pro to Open, the anti to close, with the "agree to disagree" at the end. This at least is standard thesis - antithesis - synthesis form of dialectic and preserves poetic momentum.
• I was actually trying to word it so that it was not pro or con in each section only factual. Saying that the technology was initially seen in a much more optimistic light than it later became could be said to be pro or con, and either way it is factual. We can flesh out exactly what it means with references later in the history section. I agree that the re-covering of ground reads a bit off but I could not quickly think of a smoother reading format. Dalf | Talk 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Trying to say "the Potential for accidents" without being pro or con is impossible. There are risks, and benefits - they should be treated fluidly rather than jumping back and forth under the form of dialectic.
• I disagree, both sides agree that there exists the potential for accidents. The intro above only mentiones that they exist and the concern people to diffrent degreees. That is not even a contentious claim. I am trying to get a version that mentiones the areas of debate only how would you re-word the sentence in question? Also in what way do you find the introduction dialectic? Dalf | Talk 00:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Under blackbelt POV rules a POV is expressed by un-contested facts when they appear in greater number for one side than for the other. Both sides in this debate have uncontested facts in the fight. If we agree that both sides have a roughly equal number of adherents - then both sides are entitled to an equal amount of page inches listing uncontested facts which would tend to support their conclusions.
• I still don't see how simply mentioning that there is a debate with basically no detail is POV. NPOV does not in all cases mean equal time it can sometime mean neutral language and yes even the passive voice. Dalf | Talk 07:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• We should agree in this case it DOES mean equal time, because there are an equal number of credible adherents to pro and con. If there were only a minority of oppponents, that POV provision would apply - I suggest it doesn't. I have yet to see evidence tha a majority of anything other than dictaorships are in favor of nuclear expansion.Benjamin Gatti 14:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• I think we are miscommunicating here. I am proposing that the intro give equal time to each side by giving both sides zero time. The introduction should only describe what is in the article (or what will be in the article when we are done). Dalf | Talk 20:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oh yes and in regards to that last bit about dictatorships, aside from the fact that several western countries are looking into building nuclear power stations again (including the US)India is also doing so and India aside form what you may think has the same style of government as the USA:
The Constitution of India states India to be a sovereign, secular, democratic republic. India is a federal republic, with a bicameral parliament operating under a Westminster-style parliamentary system. It has a three branch system of governance consisting of the legislature, executive and judiciary.

### History

• This is good in that it is a bit more comprehensive - I understand the desire to touch on WWII but that is merely a proxy for Hiroshima which is the real connection. Leaving the reader to understand the relevance of WWII is unencylopedic.
• Actually I did not specifically call out the bombs because nuclear weapons are not and example of nuclear power in terms of how this article is addressing it. I don't want to leave the reader to make the connection I only want to postpone that connection until the reader gets to the history section. That said changing it to something like: "First commercially used a decade after the use of nuclear weapons to end World War II; it was initially viewed with significant optimism as a nearly limitless source of cheap power." I am not sure if the ; is correct there but you get the idea. Does that look better? Dalf | Talk 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Then why bring up WWII? The a-bomb is very much powered by the energy released from the nucleus of an atom, and as such it is a form of Nuclear Power - if you refuse to cover it as such - there should be a disambiguity page - i'll be happy to make one. If you want to define Nucleap power specifically as electricity generated from nuclear sources - you can - probably need a new title.
• I actually have been having second thoughts about mentioning WWII and instead going all the way back to the first emergence of the idea of nuclear power when it was only a theoretical implication. Though I think you will find it very hard to justify the description of a nuclear or atomic detonation as nuclear power. That would be nuclear energy but the word power is not generally used in the context of unconstrained or un controlled energy. But if it is going to be contentious and because it is slightly out of place anyway I will remove it in favor of a longer historical view. Dalf | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Re-worded to ommit mention of WWII. Dalf | Talk 00:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

### View as Passive Voice

• The repetitious use of the word "view" is unverifiable. It was presented, advertised, promoted are verifiable facts, but unless you have a poll which states how these messages were perceived - perception is unverifiable, and misses the point. The action is the promotion of the thing - one might even blame the viewers for their errors in perception. Let's not convict bystanders - let's name the names of those who sold us a bill of goods. Benjamin Gatti 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Again I think that degree of detail does not belong in the introduction, it would clutter it and detract from the points. Also I think we can agree that nuclear power is seen in general by everyone in a less rosy light now than in the 1950's and 1960's. The level of drilling into that perception and the shift in perception that happened is going to take us to a place we cannot agree on. My goal was only to mention the shift in perception not draw any conclusions about the shift and who was involved in it (all good things for the history section). Dalf | Talk 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• The Point is the intro should be in the active voice. Eisenhowever launched a campaign called atoms for peace to promote the peaceful uses of atomic energy. That is active voice and verifiable. "It was viewed as rosy posey" is passive POV-crap.
• Again I am not referring to Eisenhower here he is merely an example of a larger world wide sentiment which can be fully documented and referenced in the History section. The thing about summaries and introductions is that they summarize and introduce. This implies some degree of generality which is ok if the rest of the article supports it. Dalf | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Does Decay accurately describe forced destruction?

• Decay is the correct scientific term, and the terms forced and destruction are somewhat incorrect form a scientific stand point. The process is natural in that it is inherent to the elements and happens naturally at a slower rate. Fission plants simply induce criticality causing the reaction to happen much faster, and nothing is destroyed that would violate several laws of physics, the material is transmuted (though I am not sure that transmute is 100% correct scientifically). In any event decay is the correct term.
• Decay is the natural breakdown which occurs in stored uranium and is governed by the half-life phenom. Atomic energy actually refers to the conversion of mass into energy using the formula E=MC2 where E is Energy (not Power) M is Mass and C is the speed of light. In practice Power is derived from this process by placing atomic mass close enough that the natural decay of one atom releases accelerated particles which bang into another mass and compel the immediate conversion of mass in that atom - which in tun etc etc chain reaction.
• I am glad that you put the distinction here between raw energy and power. It applies to your argument above about weapons. In this case it does not apply since the whole point of the power plant is to convert this raw energy into power. It is true that the process is artificially speed up in a nuclear reactor but the process is the same. The equation for conversion of mass to energy (with total conservation of the two) applies. But if we want to be more clear how about: Nuclear power is power released as part of a controlled nuclear reaction constituting either the fission or fusion of atomic particles.' It is explicit and describes exactly what happens. Dalf | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• I don't agree with the word Decay. In nature, uranium will decay into lead. In nuclear fission, which is almost all of nuclear power, uranium and plutonium is split into fission products which are much lighter than lead. The exceptions are radioisotope generators, which are an extremely small percentage of nuclear power, and fusion, which has not generated a single watt-hour of electrical power in history. pstudier 00:51, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• I changed the wording above to use more precise language and not the word decay. Dalf | Talk 07:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

### Fatal?

• As I understand it there have been a number of accidents involving actual power plants, research reactors and storage facilities. Not all of them have been fatal but all have contributed to one degree or another to public opposition to the technology. I think the details can be mentioned in the article. In fact I think we could even do a section on accidents (though I think including that information in the history section first THEN seeing it deserves its own sub-heading would be the way to go).
• We should agree that it is the gravestones and the horrible nature of the death which has people concerned. Non-fatal accidents are used to punctuate the more important fatal accidents.
• Oh I think the environmental damage is an issue for a lot of people. I also think that all of this should be mentioned in detail in the article not in the introduction! Dalf | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Except France?

• I am not sure about France in detail, I am sure there was some impact though the statement in the proposal does not preclude all construction only that it was mostly stopped in western countries. I would not be opposed to a re-wording to moderate that statement.
• France quietly continued to expand their nuclear portfolio because they have no other cheap alternatives.

Competition?

• I am not sure what you mean here could you expand it a bit?
• You use the word "Need" as if only fat rich Hummer-driving WWJD bracelet wearing WASPS in the West "need" fuel. The fact is that everyone whether they were born in a US backed Dictatorship in the developing world or in the Rich Hyper-Polluting Nations have exactly the same need for electricity. Electricity is what makes it possible to live "our" standard of life, and everyone has an equal interest and frankly an equal right to that standard. What is growing is not the "need" for energy, but the ability to participate in the open auction for other people's resources sold off by (often US-Imposed) dictators for self-enrichment which is the Global Commodities Exchange.
• I am not sure that I implied all of those slurs at all. In fact I was thinking of mostly developing nations. It is places like China and India and to a lesser extent Africa that will see the most significant increases in the coming years. I fail to see your objection here. Are you denying that global (everyone) energy demands are going up and are expected to keep going up? Dalf | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Your word was "Need" and yes I am denying that Need is going up, because Need is not that which is going up. There are large difference in the terms "energy need", "energy demand", and "energy consumption". There are winners and losers, and a global cometition for energy is just that. It isn't Global need, or even Demand really. The ability of developing nations to place a utility on mobile energy which coincides with global market prices is expanding. To reduce that phenomen to the word "need" is to ignore the underlying historical fact that their 'need' has been forceably deprived by centuries of empiralistic colonialization, post-ghandi colonialization, and puppet-dictator colonialization.
• I still think it is a minor semantic gripe not one of true substance I mean we could all live like the amish and use very little energy and then there woudl be no problem so from that perspective even the power grid itself is not a NEED. However, I have change the word need to demand. Dalf | Talk 07:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

### Last sentence

• I really like the parts of the last sentence that you struck out for the following reasons: It shows that the debate is more than academic, the results of this debate have a real impact on what sort of power plants get built. While I have no doubt that the issues is discussed in countries without the capability/resources/will to build nuclear power the impact of the debate in those areas is less significant to the use of the technology. The wording also adds a sort of connection to the rest of the introduction so that it does not seem to come out of nowhere as an added sentence to the end. Dalf | Talk 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not at all convinced that people in non-nuclear countries don't engage in this debate. Georgia for example may not have nukes, but the cloud of Chernobyl went right through there - you think they don't mention it from time to time?
• But it is not a policy debate in those countries. If it became one then they would have to be countries where it was an option. I will however re-word the whole thing and see if I can satisfy you. Dalf | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Also - i think the question of whether or not the problems have been fixed is debated at scientific levels as well as political levels - and for all I know at religious levels - remember that Chernobyl was trumped as the fullfillment of the prophecy regarding "Wormwood" to say nothing about medical levels regarding the real impact of radiation - what level is dangerous etc...
• I don't see how ANY of the proposed intorductions (mine or yours) imply that any problems have been fixed. Mine specifically states that the storage of raidoactive waste is notably UNresolved. Dalf | Talk 07:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Also note that I did change the wording in responce to your comments here, so this is a little bit of a moot point. Dalf | Talk 07:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• I object to the word "political debate", as the debate is not specifically political, it is quite general, so its an extra word which is bad, and an innaccurate word which is worse.
• Changed. Dalf | Talk 20:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## An Accurate Intro

(Redirected from Nuclear Power)

Nuclear energy is energy released from the nucleus of an atom by the conversion of its mass to energy consistent with Albert Einstien's formula E=MC^2 in which E = Energy, M = Mass and C = the Constant Speed of Light. Nuclear energy was first used in 1895 by German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen to produce X-ray photographs. Nuclear energy was later used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States of America to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, Japan by means of the atomic bomb. After the War, Nuclear energy was harnessed to create electricity and today supplies some 2.5%[5] of the World's energy. The use of Nuclear energy for peace or war is controversial because of the long term problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential forradioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is hoped that new reactor designs and underground storage schemes could prevent these problems.

• X-Rays aren't a nuclear phenomenon. Referring to Henri Becquerel and the Curies would be more accurate.
• Energy from nuclear fission was harnessed to create electricity and provide naval propulsion...
• It is hoped that new reactor designs could prevent operational hazards and underground storage would alleviate the risks associated with spent fission fuel.
Atlant 16:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I think mentioning that it is power derived from nuclear reactions and linking to the article on it is better than trying to describe the process in the introduction. I changed my proposed version above to do this and removed the word decay. Dalf | Talk 00:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This site Answers] has a few intros to compare.

Benjamin Gatti 16:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

added disambig with Nuclear powers after reading this link. Dalf | Talk 00:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice How optimism figures highly in the essays. Note the essay is published by respectable company as NPOV and stated that nuclear has come and gone? My guess is George W. Bush probably read those comics growing up drinking.Benjamin Gatti

Do you have a source for the 2.5% figure? According to [6], nuclear provides 16% of the worlds electricity, and IIRC, electricity is about half of the total energy consumption. pstudier 00:45, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Some say 6% This says 2.5% One could I suppose include the burning of wood as biofuels for direct cooking heat in dev Countries to explain the difference? - Anyway it,s an interesting Meeting with luminaries like Al Gore and Gorbechov.

Source for 2.5% Benjamin Gatti 01:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is a source that says }6.8% of energy and 16.9% of electricity. [7] Ultimate source is International Energy Agency. Your source contradicts it's self, and I quote To propose nuclear energy as a solution is to propose no solution at all, since nuclear energy represents only 6% of world energy production today and its costs – infrastructure, risk management and waste disposal – are extremely high. Laponche says that “it is necessary go further in terms of energy efficiency, and the measures we take can be manifold: energy savings, consume less and better, redesign the transport system in order to generate an effective decrease in energy demand. I think the 6% or 6.8% figure is probably more accurate. pstudier 02:52, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Does "energy" include transportation fuel? I don't think so. I've read nuclear would have to increase over 100 fold to match fossil fuels (that would be 500% of world energy which doesn't make sense). I changed the intro to say "about 5%" which seems better than a huge range. zen master T 06:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## fusion or fission - power or energy

If you are trying to exclude the speculative fusion power from the intro with the first sentence then ok, but I think it would be easier if we just specifically state nuclear power does not include fusion to avoid any confusion. I think "nuclear reactions" pretty clearly means the splitting rather than the fusing of atoms, especially considering, as you point out in the check in comment, that fusion power does not yet exist. zen master T 06:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think Nuclear reaction includes all of them even the ones that we cannot use as power sources yet. I was a little worried about this in my version of the introduction and think we should make sure that Fusion power is only speculative at this point later in the article. I also updated my version above to include the 16% electricity figure since that seems to be the figure that is better understood and agreed upon as to what it means. Dalf | Talk 07:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The historic problem with nuclear power (it being an arguably unsound energy source) is because it uses radioactive nuclear reactions. Fusion power, on the other hand, is not included in the definition of "nuclear power" precisely because it does not utilize radioactive nuclear reactions (also because it does not exist yet). After thinking about the propaganda used in this article I now wonder if the nuclear industry and governments may try to pass old fashioned nuclear power off as fusion power to allay the public's concerns over safety. zen master T 14:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
We are using Nuclear power in the coloquial sense here - rather than the broadest generalities to which the term could possible apply. And in that sense, we are justified in a topic dedicated to the 17% of world electricity. Fusion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that. If we want to broaden the subject to include fairytales, then we are unjustified in isolating ALL uses of nuclear power including the bomb - maybe I should change the picture to Hiroshima? - Na - that's another article - Speculative fusion power? Na another article - speculative wind and coal and LNG and solar? Na. Let's stick to the facts on the ground - the 17% electricity. If fusion does come on line it woud no doubt require a new name - and deservedly so. It is as different from fission as coal is from wind.

Benjamin Gatti 14:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You'r coal and wind analogy is way off base here. A better dicotomy would be coal and natural gas in an article about fossil fuels. But wait you say both coal and natural gas are presently in use while fusion power is not workable yet (ever?). However, like coal and gas are both fossil, fission and fusion are both nuclear. Furthermore fusion is being activly researched to fill this role, within that context it if factual and worth mentioning. As such re-defining nuclear power to specifically exclude fusion (even if your POV is that if it ever works it will deserve a diffent name since you hate one and presumably not the other) is worthy not only of {{NPOV}} but {{TotallyDisputed}}. Dalf | Talk 02:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Impact in Belarus Have a look at this presentation of the effect of cherny. The potential of massive radiation is disturbing - and shouldn't be encouraged. If Fusion is a different beast it deserved its own reputation. I think its like comparing the Space shuttle and battlestar galctica in the same article. One really exists and really went into space, the other exists on the drawing table. Then worse to interchange the two by saying the thing that powers spaceships is the same as what powers the sun - when in fact its onl true of the fictitious ship is juvinile and ridiculous and deserving of {{Just Plain Silliness}} .
Your comparison here is way off. You cannot rename things and change science to fit with your political views. I am sorry that is not how the world (and not wikipedia) works. I studies physics at university, the word nuclear does not mean fusion! GO look at the nuclear bomb article they are both included there. On top of being just plane factually wrong, I don't even understand you objection. No one is proposing that the article be written to imply that nuclear power plants are using fusion. NO one is implying that the article make people believe that nuclear is ok as it currently stands since fusion is a possibility. Do you really think people are that stupid? Even if they are (which I don't buy) that does not mean that we can change the facts to make you happy. I am not even advocating that fusion be mentioned in the introduction at all!!! I only want the introduction to be scientifically accurate and wording it to exclude fusion specifically is not only POV (in the ext ream) but it is wrong. You seem to think that not anti-nuclear is POV since you appear to think that only unreasonable people disagree with you. Well there was a version of the intro that called out Fusion, then there was your version that excluded it specifically, a version that does not mention it but does not exclude it is a nice NPOV compromise and has the added benefit of being scientifically/factually correct. Dalf | Talk 05:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
At the point of this objection - the Article stated "Such reactions power the sun" That is an assertion that this article is a rational discussion of fussion power - completely unacceptable. "Nuclear" doesn't mean fusion.
Can you show me one government agency in English which uses "Nuclear Power" as part of its title - i can show you five or six which use "Nuclear Energy" in their title - thus the Official as in governmental word for this topic is Nuclear Energy. When you went to University - Nuclear energy was a new field - as we go forward, (if we go forward) we will clearly want to disambiguate Fission reactors from Fussion reactors, and referring to them as the same thing will be embarassingly anachronistic.
IN 1951 the government taught kids via Bert the Turtle to "Duck and Cover" - what do you propose kids do in the evnt of a nuclear incident?
Re-setting indentation

First off nuclear may not mean fusion but it does include fusion! From dictionary.com:

```nu·cle·ar
2. Physics. Of or relating to atomic nuclei: a nuclear chain reaction.
3. Using or derived from the energy of atomic nuclei: nuclear power.
```

Second regarding energy vs. power: This concept is not that hard to grasp. All Power is or involves energy but not vice versa, this is just like the concept that all Fords are automobiles but not all automobiles are Fords. Further a good deal of the names of government agencies do tend to use slightly less precise and more colloquial meanings of words. This is not a big deal since if the agency is big enough or important enough all the words in the name start to lose their meaning and people simply associate the name with what they have come to know about the agency. Also some of them were named in the past when the accepted or preferred words for some things were different. "Atomic energy" for example would in most cases be Nuclear energy in government agency names or official documents now days. This actually represents an expansion in the scope of the name as Nuclear is a more encompassing word than atomic. Also the agencies you are referring too in most cases are going to be dealing with all nuclear technology not just power plants since the power plants are converting the energy into power but bomb builders are working to release raw energy the term energy is more accurate.

## Regarding "duck and cover":

As to the duck and cover bits. I have seen these ridiculed by many people and places at various times and it is true with modern nuclear weapons a lot of the area of destruction is going to be vaporized. However, if you are 30-40 miles from the center you are in a zone of destruction where this might actually do some good. Since it is not practical in the event of a nuclear attack to calculate the the exact ground zero and determine if you are going to be vaporized or just in a building that is going to get knocked over (and not especially useful even if you could do it in the time the bombs were falling) its not really that bad of advice. Dalf | Talk 02:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I just watched the full length. I is brought by the "Civil Defense Department" (remind you of anything?), and it was a silly attempt to make people feel beter (or worse depending on POV) by suggesting that fires are dangerous but we have a plan so - we - so they're not so dangerous. if we see a flash we should duck and cover with a newspaper - so we don't get a bad sunburn. It is quite dangerous because if fails to stress the importance of Iodine, which is really the one thing which can be done to avoid thyroid uptake of radioactive iodine. But i have to think that scanning every person before they go on an airplane is about as likely to solve the problem (Of really stupid pilots opening the door and handing over the keys) as ducking and covering is likely to keep you safe "sometimes" when the atomic bomb explodes.Benjamin Gatti 04:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This Duck and Cover film was for defense against nuclear attacks. It has no relevance for nuclear reactor accidents. Including this is just an attempt to confuse people into believing that reactors will blow up like a nuclear weapon. pstudier 21:46, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Good point!Dalf | Talk 22:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
This film came up in an official paper on nuclear power. It is relevent history, and in the spirit of "we report - you decide" it should be included without comment. Are we sayingthis article is no longer about "the Bomb?" So its about the bomb when it suits one POV, but material about the bomb is excluded when it doesn't? That's POV. Another point - government reaction to catastrophy has played a major role in worsening the outcome, and undermining trust - why? because the consumption of iodine very early is critical to preventing the uptake of radiation into the thyroid where it is otherwise absorbed and cancerous. If we can't trust government to give us the best possible chance of survival in order to save face, then we can't trust gub'mint with Nukes. and that's good ol'e USA. the people who made that movie were part of the greatest generation! Those are the good guys, the rest of us are inferior to that standard - not better. (or so we're told.) So I'm reverting todays edit war waiting to hear better discussions on the issues.Benjamin Gatti 03:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I never said any part of the article is "about the bomb", mentioning the bomb as related technology is ok as long as you only do that. Its the same situation as mentioning Enrico Fermi (who is actually more topical here) is ok but going into a discussion about his family life and childhood would be inapproprate here. Surley you understand that? Keeping things to the topic at hand is not as hard as you make it sound. Dalf | Talk 07:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I propose we remove referance to the Bomb. I have inserted "sustained" nuclear reactions and deleted "natural decay" and this has not been reverted. If we can agree on that scope for the definition as well as the article ans to keep other possible definitions to the disambiguity line - I think we would be better off removing the bomb and all references. But if the Bomb is included in the definition and intro - even by mere physics - than everything about the bomb is as relevent here as anything about reactors IMHO. That is why i believe we should further restrict it to fission - because as the World Nuke Association says - all power produced by nuclear means is produced by fission. I think we might do well to pattern the scope of the article after the WNA.
Benjamin Gatti 14:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I would still prefer "controlled nuclear reaction" or perhaps "moderated nuclear reaction" though this second one reads just as bad as sustained. This is a stylistic preference as I think sustained is so strongly implied (indeed required for a power plant) that it sounds a little dumb. It would be like saying I don't know "sustained burning of coal" in a coal power plant ... I mean duh! The key point in a nuclear power plant is that the reaction is dampened or undampened based on the desired power output of the plant. As so the fission/fusion issue I will let all my other comments on this issue that can be found in just about every section of the talk page stand. As I said its a stylistic prefrence and I have long sense given up on the idea that good style is ever going to matter in this article so I wont really push for it. Dalf | Talk 05:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except that we don't have coal bombs as a differentiated use of coal. If we can agree to Sustained, or Regulated or both then we can differentiate the article from nuclear explosions, and focus on energy. We can't honestly differentiate if we use a more general phrase such as "power is energy from nuclear reactions" - which is as meaninglessly general as it is inaccurate.
Benjamin Gatti 01:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are the only one suffering from the bomb ambiguity though. The word Power is sufficient for everyone else. The only context in which the word power applies to bombs is as a stand in for might or capability. Such as military might or destructive capability. Since neither meaning of the word power applies to how the article uses it talking about constructive use of energy. This is really basic semantics and really basic English. Power is derived from energy power represents a form of energy but all energy is not power. It is really a non sequator the way you keep drawing these connections to the bomb but really it is just an artificial ambiguity. Dalf | Talk 06:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Regarding heat wave

I have removed that part of the sentence mentioning the heat wave in France from the introduction (this has been reomoved and reinstated before now). The fact that a heat wave caused thousands of deaths in France has nothing to do with nuclear power and mentioning this in the introduction is confusing. The effects of increasing water coolant temperature on the generation of nuclear power is mentioned in the disadvantages section further on, so it is not disregarded in this article. --AjAldous 12:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

# Refactored - Storage - alternatives - cheaper or unrealistic

Ultramarine argues the difference between realistic and cheap.

I'm curious - if cost were no object - why couldn't wind powe be used to replace every use of nuclear power - other than blowing up stuff?

So its intermittant - storage cost money - but it's quite doable. So power gets lost in transit - we move it offshore, which is expensive - but doable.

I'd like to hear one reason why we couldn't use wind rather than nuclear - besides cost.

and if its just about cost - we should be willing to say it (might be) just the cheapest way to go.

Benjamin Gatti 16:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

As stated with references in the article, there is no current technology that can give intermittent power sources an energy share greater than 20%. There are simply today no energy storage systems which can store very large amounts of energy. Ultramarine 16:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Pumped Hydro Storage, Compressed Air Storage, Flow Batteries, Tidal Barrage - are all tested system which can store vast amounts of energy. I'm not saying they're cheap - but i don't agree that they are unrealistic in any sense other than cost.

Benjamin Gatti 18:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The only existing technology for large scale storage is Pumped Water Storage. Most suitable places are already developed in developed nations. The best places are in mountains that are often far from industrial or residential areas which often have flat terrain. Sure, it might be theoretically possible to build giant artifical dams and flood large areas also on flat terrain. This would have numerous environmental and safety issues. I doubt it would have a positive EROI. Do you have any study indicating that this might be possible? Ultramarine 18:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
You missed Compressed Air storage which is both large and in use. And Studied. Environmental issues are not the same as unrealistic - when comparing it to Nuclear which has pretty devastating environmental consequences - or has had. Storage doesn't really experience EROI - except in the full scheme of the plant. Windmills have positive EROI, and the lifetime of a dike is pretty long so the amortization of invested energy would render positive EROI. I'm not proposing - just saying its realistic within the degree of certainty that safe nuclear is realistic.Benjamin Gatti 18:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

On What Basis is it the only realistic ya da ya?

1. There is no history with the proposed new designs - no more than with any alternative proposal - see Salter's Duck for good theory never tested.
2. There is bad history with the current designs - so that doesn't count as a basis for realism. - unless you propose to rebuild chernobyl.
3. It curently requires subsidies of immense porportion - on what planet is a subsides energy form - realistic?

The pretense that nuclear future is the ONLY realistic option is flagrant POV. Benjamin Gatti 18:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not sayint that nuclear is the only realistic future option. Only that with current technology it the only realistic option. Future tecbnology may change this, for example hydrogen might become feasible. CAES is also currently only possible when geology is appropriate. You have presented no evidence that there exists a large scale storage system that today can store energy for renewables. Ultramarine 18:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
The storage system will decrease EROI for renewables and make them more expensive. Ultramarine 19:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes - Storage will add costs to renewable energies - including energy return on energy invested and EROI. We should really talk about cost though because i agree to say "it may be cheaper" what i don't agree to is that it is exclusivly realistic. I have given no evidence for long term storage - except that we have both CAES and Pumped Hydro actually built and in use. - and i suggest at least one reason we don't build more is cost and environmental sensativity - which is fine, but doesn't earn nuclear a gold start for either. You - on the other hand have provided no proof that pebble bed is going to be safe or cost effective unless deeply subsidized. so we have a proof war in which i offer real technologies actually in use, and you offer drawing board diagrams of pebbles being safe. That doesn't earn you the right to say nuclear is the winner of the reality award. Benjamin Gatti 19:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You might find this study interesting. It rules out sun power as an energy source that can replace fossil fuels for Australia, in large part due to current lack of storage systems. It can in no way by be biased towards nuclear power since is it against this as a solution a priori. [8] Ultramarine 19:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This is also interesting [9]. Ultramarine 20:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting Perhaps to some - not news for me.

First neither study included Wave potential - there is a group in Australia now doing cutting edge work in Waves - Energetech. Second, one study included liquid fuel needs - ie for transportation, and Nuclear doesn't solve this either. The Solar article deals only with Solar which is down all night - Waves are not, Tidal currents are not and wind is not. It would be more informative to discuss the seasonal storage needs than the daily storage since there is so much more required. Why does energy need to be stored so much - because we can't control when we cosume it? What if we could, what if everybody paid 5x higher for energy on demand than for energy when available. You could cool your house when energy was cheapest - you could even store coolness in a bed of rocks under the house for cheap. we could run aluminium processes when energy was cheapest. In short, we could find a million small ways to store energy or use it opportunistically if the price reflected availability. Benjamin Gatti 22:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Again I don't think debating renew ables is what we should be doing here. But, since we are I am going to have to (amazingly) agree with Benjamin Gatti the first report you link to above seems to be evaluating the most unfavorable and unrealistic set up of solar power possible, making all assumptions in the way least favorable to solar power and all in all a pretty crappy study (done by a social worker). It does not account for such things as solar power heliostats and molten salts such as in the so called solar power tower [10] several of which have been built and which solve the problem of night time power quite well (and incidentally can provide a 10 MW plant for 40 million making it 4 billion for a 1000 MW facility higher than coals 800 million in that paper but much better then the 130 billion predicted in the paper for solar. It also takes the rather unfair stance of assuming that such a huge investment in solar power would lead to zero increases in efficiency (all the while assuming the lowest levels of efficiencies and highest costs of the PV panels themselves). A few more links to the solar power towers are: [11], [12] the second one here is a bit different using a sort of green house to head an air column. The point being that the contention that renew ables simply cannot be made to supply our energy needs is IMHO wrong. Saying that nuclear power is the only developed and currently in use technology that can affordably/realistically do this other than fossil fuels is probably right and at least supported by the fact that china is planning on building hundreds if not thousands of them in the next 50 years [13]. Dalf | Talk 00:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

## realistic counter proposal

I am working on a proposal to use obsolete single hull ships at sea with Dual Driven LNG-fired turbines and Wave energy (when available) with an undersea cable(s) and seasonal migration up and down the california coast providing partially renewable peak power during the respective seasonal peaks. The system needs no redundant generator because it is always spinning. It integrates renewables as available while providing 100% utilisation of the mechanical investment. And it solves the problem with oil extraction of the US coast - which is what to do with the NG - Over the long term, if hydrogen storage becomes available, such can be generated and used to sweeten the NG, or burned directly creating 100% renewable energy from a scheme which starts today as LNG at 100% reliability and availability - Now in what way is such a scheme any less tested than a pebble bed reactor, any greater cost than a nuclear plant, and in hte end any less "realistic" as you claim? Benjamin Gatti 21:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

## Intro revisited

While I am tempted to enter this discussion about storage systems and such because I find it really interesting (and worth of an article of its own if there is not already one). I want to try and bring this discussion back to the actual content in the Nuclear power article. The sentence in question if I am not mistaken is:
Nuclear power may be the only energy source that realistically can be built out rapidly if fossil fuels begin peak oil depletion or become discouraged because of environmental problems such as global warming since it generates relatively little greenhouse gases.
First off I think this is a run on sentence. The last part about relatively little greenhouse gases use to have its own sentence further down in the intro and I think we should move it back there. I also think that we should move the sentences about it being controversial up above this sentence and expand that section to include a brief overview of nuclear powers rise as a new source of power and its subsequent decline due to a number of accidents that dammed its public image and exacerbated fears associated with the waste problem. Then having addressed the history (in overview no conclusions that are not mere summary of the what has happened and no details on the worries and fear and how founded those are that can go down further in the article) then we can add the section stated that of current technologies that are developed and have known costs associated with them it represents a realistic power source for the future to meet growing power needs in the light of environmental risks. I think the mention of peak oil is out of place here and should be moved down into the article where this is discussed. A present I have not really taken much part in editing the article because frankly I do not trust my abilities to write really professional looking content but I think I have given this a bit of thought so if I will work on a wording that I think sounds ok and propose it here this evening.
In short I think the intro should mirror the article but with no specifics. The article currently goes like this: History, Current and planned use, Reactor Types, Fuel resources, Risks, Economy. Granted we can change re-order and or merge them but I think modeling the intro after this structure or whatever structure we decide on is a good plan and that means doing it in the same order too. Though we might want to think about the relationship between the Fuels resources and economy going forward and possibly move those around a bit.
In honesty I think we can all agree to disagree and still build a good article. In fact I think we should strive to bring the article to featured article standard. Dalf | Talk 21:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dalf that the intro should be a narrative on the table of contents - or visa versa, I think we should agree that there are equal number of proponents and that we should not reach to the conclusion that one side deserves to be underrepresented because it is a minority view - or has inferior facts - chernobyl is the elephant in the room and by itself stands against all the researchers this and theorists that. In short we don't need no stinking sources - we have gravestones. I agree that peak oil is out of place - its a theory and probably controversial in its own right (I'm neutral on it BTW). I would propose that reactor type and fuel sources be moved to the reactor topic - because they cannot be summarized in the introduction without stretching the limits of coherent thought.

History, Current Use, Outlook, Risks, Benefits, Economic Factors Might work. Benjamin Gatti 21:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"This includes having a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic, headings and have a substantial, but not overwhelming table of contents " from featured article standard.

I agree the lead section should be comprehensive - which means anything not touched in the lead should be dropped from the article. It should non-controversial, which means controversial statements should be isolated - the subject of a new article, and mentioned here as a subject of related debate. Benjamin Gatti 22:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I object to the proposed phrase Atomic energy as it was first called was held out as an endless source of electricity abundant enough to share and "too cheap to meter". One person once in a fit of irrational exuberance once said this. It was never generally believed that it would be too cheap to meter. Shall we criticize renewables by quoting the dumbest things any supporter has ever claimed? pstudier 00:38, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Actually, President Eisenhower put a lot of effort into pushing atomic energy under the program "Atoms for Peace" and i think it is quite fair to point out that the official policy of the US was behind the idea of cheap energy for all. I think its a noble goal, i'm less certain tha nuclear is the right way to achieve it.Benjamin Gatti 02:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not married to the exact phrase "too cheep to meter" and you are probably right about it never representing a majority view. Though I think we should somehow express that in the early history of the use of Nuclear power there was an optimism about its future that was never bore out and was perhaps to a lesser extent not realistic (though I know some people think that its failure to fulfill such hopes was primarily a political one). I also think that the most significant current development in the world of Nuclear power is what is happening in Asia. Here we have two countries (china and India) with 1/3 of the worlds population rapidly and alarmingly increasing their peoples standard of living (alarming in an environmental sense at least) and therefore their per capita energy usage. Even folks who are on the skeptical side of environmental issues like global warming will tell you that if China had the same per capita energy use as USA and got the energy from roughly the same sources the environmental impact would be catastrophic, so what china does in the next few decades is a significant statement on the future and the economics of energy. As I said above I think renewables would be the preferred way to go but Ultramarine is right about nuclear being the only current energy source with acceptable economics and environmental profile to fill this need (as demonstrated by the plans China is making). With nuclear you run a risk of very very serious environmental disaster but no environmental impact in the accident free state. With coal you have the certainty of monotonically increasing environmental disaster no matter what you do. I have my own opinions about the trade off and what the smart thing to do will be but no one asked me and no one asked any of the rest of us here as far as I know :).
All of this is to me very interesting and fun to talk about but I think we should debate it only in context of the content. As such I am going to go now and try and come up with a wording for the introduction. I will post it here on the talk page before putting it in the article as another edit war will not help at all. Dalf | Talk 01:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

## Energy = Population Stability

Curious point on India and China - according to US Stats, when countries supply a moderate level of electricity - the population stabilizes, which suggests that if an environmental source of energy were found, future impact on the environment caused by growth, water consumption, construction, deforestation for foodcrops housing & roads and competition for natural resourcs could be reduced while increasing education and literacy would result. In short the argument for nuclear power could be very strong. Benjamin Gatti 02:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

## Refactoring

If no one has objections I want to reorder this talk page so that all the discussion about the introduction is together and basically in the order that it happened. I wont remove any comments and I will leave associated comments together so they make sense. What will change is as follows:

• The headings Intro revisited and intro needs to provide interesting facts - which are supported in the article will be merged under one heading Introduction with a sub heading of Content and style and the section for proposals of what the intro should look like will have the subheading Proposals and then perhaps a subheading at the bottom for Votes and discussion that we can use once we have a few proposals up that people like. I suspect we will be bale to narrow it down to 2 or 3 proposals and then I bet we will be able to get a number of people to vote. Granted a lot of people don't like voting on everything but in this case I think it will serve us well, and there are a number of lurkers around who are interested and probbly following parts of this discussion who will contribute their opinions if we get that far.

The other sections Storage (was Cheap not the same as realistic), realistic counter proposal, Energy = Population Stability will be merged under the heading Economics of Nuclear vs. Renewables or some other better named heading that someone will suggest in the next 12 or so hours. This section will be left at the bottom (or top what do you think) to record what was done.

Dalf | Talk 02:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Good - Done. BTW I was once arrested for cleaning up illegal advertisments from the side of the road. I have a criminally compulsive tendency to clean things up. - that's right under a morality law passed by the KKK in 1885 it is illegal in NC to clean up illegal ads (street spam) on public property - even if they promote smoking to children. I'm thinking the jail sentence for premature archiving is probably less than 6 months. Benjamin Gatti 04:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, I am more interested right now in getting the introduction section done and agreed upon then we can start the history section (which I think needs a lot of work). If any of the other stuff comes back up we can dig it out or summarize it. Dalf | Talk 04:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

## Power is not Energy any more than squareroot is addition - Energy from nuclear reaction includes the bomb

I want to Object to where the intro is going. First I think "Energy over Time" is silly - i inserted to make the point that Power is not Energy. Second - this appears to be a narrow discussion of the use of nuclear power rather than say coal or wind. We have exactly zero comparisons to the relative benefits of Chemical or Biological alternative to Nuclear Power as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Which raises a problem. We should disambig Nuclear Weapon, reactor, energy, Power (Nation), as well as fission and fussion, because a discussion of sustained energy (power) cannot more than speculate about fusion, and it is misleading to suggest that the power of the sun is the same as the 6.8% of the world's energy which is provided by nuclear fission reactors. Benjamin Gatti 03:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Energy over time" is very silly, and I'm about to change it. For those of you who are about to say, because you've learned it in physics class, that power and energy are not the same thing, are confusing the technical uses of the term with the common uses. For most people 'nuclear power' and 'nuclear energy' are the same thing, and we should accept that usage, at least in the introduction. There may be a case for mentioning it further down, but frankly for this article it makes no difference. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Historically "Nuclear Power" and "Atomic Energy" are the same. Nuclear energy refers rather specifically to the energy contained in the nucleus governed by ${\displaystyle E=MC^{2}}$. If ever invented, Fusion power will probably be called "Hydrogen Power" in the same was the fusion bomb is called the "Hydrogen Bomb".Benjamin Gatti 02:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Propose Losing the POV Tag

In Five Days if there are no votes against losing the Tag - the Tag should be removed by Consensus.

It strikes me that we've found some comity, the latest movement is less about POV and more about ontology. The proposed Introductions (other than mine of course) are fairly bland with respect to POV, and in short I don't see a huge discrepency. Ultra seems to be pushing for vaguely sourced assertions in favor ("some governments" is vague), and while its unencyclopedic IMHO, its not aggregiously POV, so Here's ONE VOTE FOR REMOVING POV. Benjamin Gatti 06:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think the ongoing debate over the content to the level that we cannot even agree on an introduction paragraph is reason enough to leave the NPOV tag. I suspect that no one has responded to the suggestion is not a sign of agreement but rather a feeling that it so obviously needs to stay in place that no response was needed. That is the case anyway for myself. Dalf | Talk 07:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## Percent isn't Disputed

There's a few numbers, but the balance of sources do converge on this number 6.8% of energy etc... Since I'm the only other source contributer on that - I'll stipulate to the higher number - as comfortable. And it is very important in the first few sentences to establish the scope of the article. Any person of ordinary intelligence can see that the article is not about nuclear weapons. It is not about "natural decay" which makes the next sentence (Could replace oil) a non sequitor. And if it is about Fusion, then scratch all the "realistic" assertions. This is a factual article describing the source of near 20% of the world's energy. Any Nuclea Power technology which has significantly contributed to that 20% is welcome - all others need not apply. Benjamin Gatti 06:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## Building Reactors

"Canada is planning to build new reactors, or reopen old ones.". News to me. Any sources? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Form the source in the article "* In Canada, 'planned' figure is 2 laid-up Pickering A reactors and 2 Bruce A units." Ultramarine 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## Article scope (fusion not included?)

Ultramarine, this article is titled nuclear power which means energy already being generated. Also, nuclear power historically has meant a radioactive nuclear reaction, so fusion does not fit additionally (but this secondary point is a side point). Renewable energy options that don't tangibly exist yet are labeled in their respective articles as being speculative but they, unlike fusion power here, fit the scope of their article so your comparison is an apples vs oranges one. Fusion power would be much more appropriate in Future energy development or even Fusion power, don't you think? Why mention fusion power in the intro here when there is already a Fusion power article? zen master T 15:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is called Nuclear power, not Fission power. Fusion power should be included, just like non producing forms like wave power, OTEC, ocean current, and biodiesel from algae is included in renewables. Ultramarine 15:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
You may be missing the point, I dispute that fusion power is included under the definition of nuclear power. If something is disputed then it should not be stated as fact, and should not be included in the intro certainly. Please make a case to defend fusion as being under to definition of nuclear power (the burden of proof is on you). "Nuclear power" has a scientific definition and a common usage definition, the common usage definition does not include fusion (sorry, but that is the way it is). zen master T 15:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica "also called Atomic Energy, energy that is released in significant amounts in processes that affect atomic nuclei, the dense cores of atoms. It is distinct from the energy of other atomic phenomena such as ordinary chemical reactions, which involve only the orbital electrons of atoms. One method of releasing nuclear energy is by controlled nuclear fission in devices called reactors, which now operate in many parts of the world. (See nuclear reactor.) Another method for obtaining nuclear energy, controlled nuclear fusion, had not been perfected by the late 1980s. Nuclear energy has beenreleased explosively by both nuclear fusion and nuclear fission (qq.v.)."
MS Encarta, redirect from Nuclear power: "Nuclear Energy, energy released during the splitting or fusing of atomic nuclei." Ultramarine 16:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Since fusion power is speculative at best nuclear power has come to mean, colloquially at least, just power generated from splitting. And I think we should separate fusion from the definition of nuclear power anyway because it has the potential to be more environmentally friendly (is that true?). Wouldn't proponents of fusion power want to distance themselves from the historic unsound/not environmentally friendly definition of nuclear (fission) power? Perhaps we should disambig with Nuclear power (fission) and Nuclear power (fusion), though there already is a fusion power article... zen master T 16:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
We should not create a new defintion which is original research. As I have shown, fusion is included in nuclear power. Ultramarine 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Then are you arguing for a merging of fusion power into this article? Ask yourself why there already is a separate fusion power article? Answer: because the non scientific definition of nuclear power means only fission. At the very least mentioning fusion power in this article is redundant given Fusion power. At the very least your proposal needlessly commingles the highly speculative nuclear fusion power with a historically controversial source of actual power: nuclear fission. Why needlessly commingle the different concepts? For the sake of clarity they should be separate and for the most part they already are. zen master T 16:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
This is on overview article. Nuclear fission is discussed in more technical detail in Nuclear reactor. Nuclear fusion in that article. Renewable energy is also an overview and has many very speculative energy sources. Ultramarine 18:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Fusion can join the club as soon as it has generated power - i promise really. Whether or not we include fusion will define the article. Nuclear Power could mean warheads, could mean any kind of energy released from the nuclear of an atom - which includes warheads, But the article such as it is does not include warheads. In fact the entire article is about fission power exclusively (Move anyone?) Zen is right none of what is said below in any way applies to fusion - none of it. so it doesn't belong in this article - it may well belong under the title which suggests the article is in the wrong place.Benjamin Gatti 20:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Nuclear fusion has generated power, although with an EROI below 1, just like OTEC or wave power. But anyhow, nuclear power is commonly accepted as including nuclear fusion and thus wikipedia should include it. Please read No original research. On example of original research is "it provides new definitions of old terms" Ultramarine 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I put this below but I guess the discussion is more relevant here. Scientifically speaking Fusion power is nuclear power. It is not presently available for commercial use but it does exist in expiremental settings were the amount of energy released is not more than energy put in. But, in terms of inclusion in this article the longterm future of nuclear power is fusion power! Given the risks and dangers of current fission technology I think we can all agree that if there was a breakthrough in the next few years (or even 50 years) that all the old fission reactors would be decommissioned and replaced with cleaner safer fusion ones. If we seriously want to talk about nuclear power and human society in terms of where the research spending is going and where the industry is going then Fusion should be included in this article but it should very clearly be noted that it is only something we are trying to figure out and is not a existent technology for power generation at present. Lots of articles include possible future application and future advances in them. I haven't checked but I bet the computer article has mention of quantum computers even though quantum computers probably also have their own article. Dalf | Talk 01:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Google says Nuclear Power is Fission

A google search of "Nuclear Power" returns several pages of entries not one of which refers to anything other than the generation of electricity by fission. I vote for the article to express the commonest meaning of the word - leaving pedagogy to the disabiguation line.Benjamin Gatti 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Nuclear wastes

"the unsolved problem of storing radioactive waste for 10,000 years"

NUCLEAR WASTES DO NOT LAST 10,000 YEARS! The longest lived wastes last only a few hundred years. Another POV statement that has just been removed. Andros 1337 00:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone has added it back in and I once again reverted it. THERE IS NO WAY I WILL LET A HUGE LIE BE IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE.. I have also changed the template to TotallyDisputed. Andros 1337 01:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Radioactivity can last for over 10,000 years. What do you base your statement on? In my opinion, you honestly sound like you are performing a test of some sort. If you can provide a citation for just 100 years then we should change the sentence to 100 years, rather than remove the sentence completely. I caveatted that sentence previously with "may" last for as long as 10,000 years. zen master T 01:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[14]. Scroll down the page and see for yourself. Andros 1337 01:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does this URL disprove the claim of 10,000 years? Uranium and other "fuel" sources used in nuclear power are radioactive themselves for greater than 10,000 years, right? (it's not just the "waste", environmentalists' "unsound" point against nuclear power basically argues that the fuel itself is waste, given that it is highly concentrated and radioactive [more or less]) Is this URL's hundred years point specific to "new" reactor types only perhaps? Would nuclear power justifiably be considered even more "unsound" if the full truth of accidents etc was known? We can change the sentence in the article to something like "between 300 and 10,000 years" and/or note the waste estimate is disputed if you truly desire. This website has a very pro industry slant to it, how did an "institute" get a dot edu anyway? zen master T 01:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am opposed to putting any number at all. I would support "an indefinite period of time" but putting an exact number is wrong because we are talking about many different kinds of waste and some of them will last longer than others. Additionally the length of time they remain dangerous depends on the environment they are stored in, what manner they are stored and what technological changes may happen. In any event I suspect that at least some of it will not be safe to say put in the water table for significantly longer than 10k years and some of it would be ok in a few hundred. We are talking about a wide array of different substances and so giving a number like a hard and true fact is simply wrong. Mind I am not saying that the 10k year figure is not in the ballpark if you are talking about the vast bulk of the material in question but neither am I saying that we (or anyone) really knows. What we can all agree on is that it will outlive us in its radioactivity and so for all intents and purposes it is indefinite. So I would support the totally disputed tag. Also in regards to Ben's comment about removing the nopv tag. I think we need to have the WHOLE article overhauled before we remove that. Dalf | Talk 03:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"indefinitely" sounds good to me. zen master T 03:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

# News Flash Consortium

Cool link, did you see the survey?

Scary Benjamin Gatti 02:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## So let's add weaponry and Fussion - a lot of work to do

I added the image of military use - since that's what nuclear power means now based on non-orginal research of another encyclopedia. Personally i think the article loses focus and the wiki is poorer for it, but the image certainly describes the subject matter (so defined) Benjamin Gatti 21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Renewable energy should contain a long section that describes all military uses of energy? Ultramarine 21:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that Nuclear Power in the non-pedogogic, colliquial, and catholic sense that we have reduced it to for the purposes of using the subject as a platform to promote the deformation of a future nation of children (i heard children in belarus now have a very high risk of genetic deformation) might at least be redeemable if it were to focus on the History, Risks, Economics and other facts most specifically related to the heading. Adding in Fusion, saying "it" as in what-were-talking-about-here powers the sun is diversionary and not meaningfully within the scope of the article. I'm really not involved in Renewable Energy as an article and this article should stand on its own to the extent possible. I for one fail to see what Nuclear Power has to do with renewables except that they compete for the attention of governmnets seeking alternatives to external energy reliances.Benjamin Gatti 00:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This is silly! Fusion if it existed in a form that could be used for power would be classified as nuclear power. There are several different groups working towards this goal all over the world. Some of them are colorations. In that context Fusion belongs in the article as a possible future of nuclear power and as such belongs in the introduction so that it does not seem out of place in the article. As a compromise I think we can not mention it in the introduction and but also not exclude it. Stating that Nuclear power is the power derived from a controlled nuclear reaction would include it but not specifically name it. Incidentally this is how Encarta defines it. Or more specifically the first sentence of the Nuclear power article on encarta says:
Nuclear Power, electrical power produced from energy released by controlled fission or fusion of atomic nuclei in a nuclear reaction. [15]
It is also worth noting that Encarta has a sperate article for Nuclear energy.
It strikes me as strange how you are using semantics to nitpick ext ream specificity for some points "political debate" and then using semantics to blur definitions at other times such as here. Dalf | Talk 00:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
1.) Admit that the term is being defined here in its inaccurate but popular sense- we are ignoring that energy != power, that nuclear power, if defined as any energy released from a nucleus includes the bomb - which is admittedly a deserving subject of its own - but we are overreaching, not leastly because such articles already exist under more specific and accurate terms such as Nuclear Reactions and Nuclear Weapons one important aspect of an encyclopedia should be to achieve the highest degree of data normalization. I fear that i'm objecting to this merely to be objectionable, but Pstudier agrees eloquently, and I can't disuade myself of my own argument. Google is a virtual authority on the most popular use of terms, and google is clear that "Nuclear Power" in general discussion refers exclusively to sustained fission for electricity production. I specifically prefer "sustained" to "controlled" as it also resolves the difference between "energy" and "power". Power by definition is "sustained energy". In History we talk about the first sustained reaction, and tis truly is the critical point of development. Fusion has been "controlled" but not sustained. (See) When Fusion is sustainable - then it is a source of power, currently its a consumer of power. I would tolerate a mention only to disambiguate - or in an isolated section of future designs and possibilities, But consider the temporal nature of the phrase. Already we have "atomic energy" morphing into "nuclear power" from 1955 to (1970-80's?) presumably in responce to the peace movement which painted the a-bomb as the anti-christ. Given chernobyl and the black mark which is nuclear power, there is no chance that GE or whoever markets a clean process fusion reactor is going to allow it to be confused in any way with "nuclear power". And so - i say as something of a critic of nuclear - that we would be doing fusion a favor not to paint it with the same brush. "nuclear power is a temporal term used to describe sustained fission rections for generating electricity."Benjamin Gatti 01:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
There is not reason to use a incorrect definition especially not in an encyclopedia. You are confused on several points. First Power is many things not just "energy over time" which is a very ambiguous and imprecise definition. In this context it is harnessed or controlled useful energy. For other contexts look at dictionary.com: power. Also Google is not an authority on lots of things and it is downright wrong on many more, it promotes common misconceptions and biases. For example using google and online sources a computer program trying to do translations between languages will think that the words terrorist and Palestinian terrorist are equivalent. Google is not the answer. Also I defy you to find a way to make google say that Nuclear power is absolutely NOT fusion, which is what you are advocating. There is a lot of ambiguity between the words energy and power in English before you even get to colloquial usage so that is a problem but in this case the scientific and popular usages of the terms are easy to understand.
I too have begun to worry that you are objecting to this merely to be objectionable especially since Pstudier did not as far as I have seen advocate excluding it, he only did not want it specifically called out in the intro and not in the article beyond the basic facts that it does not exist and is at best a future solution. Dalf | Talk 05:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

## Lists of imaginary things

When did the encyclopedia become the list of imaginary things? I am suggesting that this article (By its substance at least) refers to the substantial generation of sustained energy by fission. Every sentence in the article relates to that phrase. The title is misleading - but is nonetheless used to describe just that very often. The theoric subject of potential power which could be release from the nucleus ought to include every known and suspected methodology, but should not concern itself wit the history , the economics, and the risks of just one to the exclusion of all others. We are talking here about the history of fission reactors - in that discussion what iis fussion other than competative technology?Benjamin Gatti 14:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Since when did fusion become an imaginary thing? You are aware that the nuclear weapons that you so dearly want included in this article are actually fusion bombs? The more primitive ones used in WWII were fusion weapons but the modern ones are based on both a fission and a fusion reaction. The initial fission reaction provides the heat and pressure for the fusion reaction which then provides a huge supply of neutrons which speed the fission reaction up massively (meaning it is more complete by the time all the fissile material is blown apart).
Outside of weapons there are several research places such as the Joint European Torus or JET for short that have achieved fusion in the lab (only it still takes more energy to get it to happen than they produce). ITER is also a international project that is hoping to develop Fusion to the point of commercial exploit ability. These are not fairy tales, they are realistic future technologies that are possibly going to be available in our lifetime. The article if it is to be complete will include mention of them even if they were not scientifically classified as nuclear technology simply because the moment they become practical it will be the ultimate death of fission based power.
I know you are upset because you want to hate everything mentioned in this article so let me help you. I thought you would know this but apparently not. Fusion is not likely to be clean enough for you! It will be orders of magnitude cleaner than fission but it will still produce radioactive waste, the difference is this waste will only last hundreds of years not thousands and will be significantly less in volume. But, since the current batch of nuclear waste has not been around for a hundred years and only small amounts of it have actually gotten in places that have caused havoc I suspect that even when fusion is possible most of the people who now oppose fission in all its forms will oppose the new technology as well (especially when they see the price tag I would wager) Dalf | Talk 03:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I got in late tonight - i was out protesting discrimination in my southern (formerly confederate) state. But as i managed to avoid arrest - although I was escorted out by armed sherrifs - i made it home safely. I'm really not upset by the article and don't hate nuclear energy. I want to compete with it with renewable sources and I don't like the Price Anderson act because it unlevels the risk aspect of a fair playing field. In short there would be more money available for renewable energy if nuclear energy did not have a risk subsidy. We have spent 300 Billion on nuclear energy not counting about that much to clean up one accident (mostly in Belarus (Little Russia).) I do think if spent that on renewables we could solve the problem - i have even proposed a scenario for replacing fossil fuels incrementally which no one has even suggested violates some economic or physical law. I'm not saying fusion is clean - i suggest that whatever IS true of fusion, isn't necessarily or perhaps even remotely true of fission and visa versa - they are so different. However let me concede a few points: It is probably true that Federal regulation will fall under the same department - so that's a point for shared meaning. Second, nuclear seem more restrictive a phrase than atomic sense the nucleus refers only to a part of the atom. So that points strikes ma as a non sequitor. I'm not wholly opposed to a tangential mention of nuclear as a theory, or as being in whatever state it is in - no net generation - experimental - unsustained, so long as we don't then reach to poetry by suggesting that 17% of the world's energy is derived from the same process that powers the sun. In short - fusion is not fully on point - it is merely related. no intro, no metaphor, no implication that the sub sections in the article apply to fusion. (I humbly and gently suggest).Benjamin Gatti 03:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right about Atomic vs. Nuclear in terms of whichever is more restrictive. However, the shift in the literature and in government usage has changed in the last 50 years. At present I am just focusing on the introduction. I think we are close to a nice agreeable version then we can focus on the rest of the article, which is where your sun comment comes in. If the article refers to the sun as the same sort of energy source as our current Nuclear technology then I am 100% behind you in opposing that. If it is only mentioned in context of some future technology which we are currently trying to develop then its fine. For what it is worth, and this may shock you, I agree that if the choice was mine the big bucks would be spent mostly on renewable energy. I would probably want to dump most of it into solar-thermal (not PV) and tidal as they are they most predictable. I have a friend who worked for about a year "flying" the wind farm near the San Francisco Bay area (the Altamont Pass) and so I have heard a lot of the problems associated with that technology. You complain about the subsidizing of nuclear power but wind is helped out too. If the power companies had a choice (they don't) none of them would buy wind because it destabilizes the power grid and about half the energy available has to be used to compensate. The work around is usually huge capacitor farms that cost millions and buffer the power so that output which fluctuates wildly is smoothed out and does not mess things up. But I digress. Given the choice I would want the money spent on renewables. But, I am a pragmatist and nuclear is a lot more likely in the short term and I think the environmental impact of fossil fuels is such that nuclear is preferable. I think we should stop building fossil fuel based power plants right now. Meet growing demand with some of the newer safer generation of nuclear power plants and dump all the research money into renewables as a long term solution ..... but that is not what this article is about and being a science geek I like things to be accurate. Dalf | Talk 04:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Which is why in my design, the generators are simultaneoulsy driven by natural gas and renewable energy (They are at altamount pass as well - its just less obvious because the NG backups which are spinning are not connected to the same shaft. Connecting them smooths out the power - which as you say really is important. Power companies just want to make a profit - they have the talent to deal with these issues, and they are happy to do whatever the market wants. Wind is problematic for its visual impact - which i think is valid - you may be surprised, and for bird kills - which for endangered species like eagles is unfortunate and perhaps unfair. I happen to prefer wave energy because there is a great deal of it (twice as much as tidal) though tidal and gyre current have some promise. and finally we need to adopt the method of reactive consumption, in which some high inertial applications (air conditioning, hot water heating and battery charging) can be synchonized with energy availability. This alone could net a 3x gain in capacity - which coincidentally about what we need to bring the rest of the world into a tolerable standard of living (150M BTU per year per capita) - or there abouts.Benjamin Gatti 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is already rather long, so I support restricting it to fission for electricity, heat and hydrogen. Since fusion has never generated a single kilowatt-hour of electricity, let alone a net energy gain other than as a bomb, it only deserves a mere mention. pstudier 01:21, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It deserves a mention and that mention should include what you just said, that it is not in use. It is a possible future source and there is lots of money being dumped into related research. What I am arguing here is that the introduction should not include wording that is factually incorrect. Saying that nuclear power refers only to fission (rather than power from a nuclear reaction) is factually incorrect. Dalf | Talk 01:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Peak oil

I re-worded the sentence in the intro again to change the text so that it does not use the phrase "peak oil depletion" which I don't think is logicially/grammatically correct. If it is in the strictest sense grammatically correct it is at the very least confusing and awkward when read. The problem as I see it is that peak oil is not a very accurate term. It does not refer to the process so much as the peak itself, therefore the term "peak depletion" does not make a lot of sense. In energy and environmental circles people will read this and immediately understand when you say "peak oil" you are referring to a process, but most native English speakers wont unless they already know about the phenomena and the various attempts to apply it to a global scale.

The wording I replaced it with "to decline in availability" refers only to the part of the "Hubbert peak process" that is releavent to the sentence and is intuitively understood by nearly all English speakers. It also is one that they will likely click on as the idea of scarcity of resources and cost of oil is one that people read about in the news a lot and they can relate to. If someone generally follows the evening news about gas prices with interest, they are very likely to follow that link.

If everyone disagrees with me that if fine but as a compromise if you want to change it back could we possibly change it to "Hubbert peak depletion" instead as this is less likely to sound awkward to the reader. Dalf | Talk 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

How about instead of "begin to decline in availability" something more simple like "begin depletion"? zen master T 02:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well in terms of the Hubbert peak process the decline relates directly to a lower technological availability (i.e. it cost more to get the same amount so prices go up). This will have the effect of making nuclear power and all the renewables more attractive in terms of cost. But, that is not important the implication of depletion is lowered availability so I was jumping a step ahead for clarity. I will not however object to the re-wording. Do you want to change it or should I? Dalf | Talk 02:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned that up just now and hopefully addressed Benjamin's separate criticism below. Prices will go up precisely because there is less oil available, we will have to make do with less ability to do work since alternatives aren't nearly as good nor are they ready to full the ever increasing depletion gap. zen master T 02:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I tweaked it one mroe time to read "alternative to fossil fuel should they become less practical due to depletion", since most models of how the peak will go do not involve a rapid decreas in avalibility when depletion starts but a gradual increas in cost that grows faster and faster untill it becomes unsupportable. Is this ok? Dalf | Talk 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Your last change works for me. Perhaps we should have started this content dispute one edit at a time ;) Though I suspect the final product would be stylistically ... errr .... interesting. Dalf | Talk 03:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

How about zero speculation? I second the idea that peak oil used as a noun is at best jargon and uncyclopedic as the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain jargon to the unintiated. Aside from which I hardly see why Peak Oil is relevent to nukes. Perhaps we're not settled on whether this is an essay about the realtive merits of nuclear, or simply a description of the thing in the first place. Probalems with nuclear are relevent - problems with oil should be covered under oil. Its appearance here seems intended to convey the POV that nuclear should be considered a viable alternative to oil. I feel an encyclopedia is not the plac to make that argument. Fission power exists, it has risks, it generates electricity which is important. This is its history etc... Comprarisons to competative fuels are tangential at best and ought to appear at a point where their relevence has been established - such as economy, or the future of nuclear - which i think is speculation and not the subject of encyclopedias. Benjamin Gatti 02:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not actually speculation, it's a factual statement within the context of industry/governmental advocacy for an increased usage of nuclear power in the future, which is necessary (at least arguably) because of peak oil. zen master T 02:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Zen-master is correct here. The eventual depletion of fossil fuels (and more importantly the desire to take preemptive steps to insure our way of life is not disrupted) is a significant driving force behind Nuclear power development (or at least the people lobbying for it) and also behind the same push for renewables. The details are speculation, theories on when this peak will be reached vary from some time next year to about 30 years from now for oil and +10-20 years for gas. But, no one denies that it will happen. The models it is based on are the same ones that they use for logistics planning in exploiting individual oil fields and mines only applied to a global scale. Dalf | Talk 02:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see people lobbying for it - or industry for that matter. I believe the government is the only party lobbying for it - you see they have a 50% subsidy out - that's government lobbing indurty. If they sweeten the pie to the point of corporate welfare - its little wonder you have some interest - but I don't really see any commercial interprises excited about being the next corp in Greenpeace's crosshairs. Really is oil depletion the concern - compared to foriegn control (OPEC) i think depletion is the lone gunman theory of the moment - it even has a person's name atached as if its one' guys idea. BTW - his is an interesting point and interesting to reflect that all energy sources probably have a bathtub shaped curve with respect to EROI. They start high due to research and learning curve, then they experience the lowest cost as a result of exploiting the richest resources first - over time, rich resources give way to mediocre resources, and so the cost creeps up, until it crosses the rabbit theory threshold. Wind is in its decline, after a point, the good sites on land will be used, and the shallow offshore sites will be more expensive followed by the deep offshore sites. In the case of nuclear, the ideal sites would be those where the plant can be bult close to demand (IE in south africa it might be accepted), but on long island, the cost of nuclear energy will reflect the higher cost of transporting over long cables. Taken together it is a compelling argumant for fuel diversity because the higher EROI occurs in different places for different technologies, and at different times. While oil experiences the bathtub with respect to a constant level of consumption - renewables experience the curve over increased capacity - which really amounts to the same thing as long as demand is growing.Benjamin Gatti 03:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This link is on the Nuclear reactor page and shows a graph of how many Nuclear power plants came on line each year. I thought it was intresting. Dalf | Talk 03:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

## End of POV?

Strikes me no one is in major disagreement about the content - both sides seem satisfied that neither is overstating their facts. No complaints - POV Goes (maybe three days or so?)

## Los Alamos Lab

Can I just mention the news article today in which a whistle-blower gets beat up for shining light of problems in a nuclear facility. Uh and that's in the American States (As one wikipedians said).

I just want to share how comforting it is to know that nuclear facilities are run by people who would have whistle-bloweres beat up the night before they testify - it goes well with the idea that nuclear power is so very safe - we ought to put it in the hands of more people.

Can't wait.

Benjamin Gatti 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have URLs/citations for this info? indeed interesting, thx. zen master T 03:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MSNBC Photo Benjamin Gatti 03:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guardian Sgkay 08:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are these allegations just localized fraud or something larger about the industry/lobby as a whole? What evidence or allegations might these whistle blowers present besides fraud? Are there any suspects? Why aren't we hearing more about this in the media? zen master T 08:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems we got a healthy dose here in Charlotte - his picture was on (Probably Fox or MSNBC or both since that's my typical cable news fare) There's a fair chance that it was nothing - and he just angered some people, but the logic is missing. Even if a guy bumps you or perhaps hits you - I doubt that would be enough provocation to beata man to a pulp and leave him for dead - that explanantion doesn't presume rational actors. The idea that he and another have been threated verbally, and then there is follow through on the eve of testimony - that presumes rational actors with a secret. I would therefore put more weight on the explaination which presumes rational actors - until shown false.

Benjamin Gatti 00:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Great Speach - Carter 1977

Carters insights into energy and nuclear safety are more sentient today then in 1977 when he gave them.

## List of enviromentalists who support/don't support to new article?

I think the list of "environmentalists" that support or don't support nuclear power could quickly get out of hand and grow unwieldy, I propose that we create a new article for just that, or just remove it from this article completely. Does the nuclear power industry really claim many "environmentalists" support nuclear power? Admittedly I haven't looked at the list in too much detail, but the "environmentalist" credentials for many supporters of nuclear power seem rather dubious.

Also Benjamin, are you obviously trying to violate NPOV as some sort of test by labeling Richard Nixon and other supporters as "(criminal)"? What is the context for such a label in a subsection section on nuclear power and alleged environmentalist supporters? zen master T 06:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I wasn't aware that Nixins and Larouche's credentials as criminals was a matter of point of view. Perhaps you are aware of a point of view which excludes breaking and entering and tax fraud as criminal acts in the US? please explain. Actually, i restored the viewpoint neutrallity of the article by adding the "environmentalists opposed section. You should be chiding whoever inserted the flamebait section "environmentalists for nuclear power" as intentionally violating the delicate balance we have all so honorably worked to attain.

There would by the way be a huge number of environmentalists from belarus who would oppose nuclear power - but they are dead, do the souls of those killed by nuclear power count as opposition?

Why is the status of persons as "Environmentalists" more pertainant than the status as "Criminals" or "Racists" (bob jones university and high profile supporters thereof- including our good President GW Bush)

Indeed, if nuclear power is being supported by criminals, then I think that is very pertainent - far more so than the tenuous commitment of lone individuals to environmental responsability. Benjamin Gatti 15:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As much as they are criminals they were never convicted so the article can't say that, but more importantly any context of how them being criminals relates to nuclear power and environmentalism is lost. I vote we remove that entire section but I suspect some people will disagree. zen master T 18:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Larouche was convicted and spent five years behind bars. Nixon was pardoned - which if accepted, is the same as an admission of guilt.

Benjamin Gatti 06:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the sections don't belong at all. You don't fnd them in other articles. Simesa 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would support zen master's proposal to remove the environmentalist supporters/opponents section if Benjamin Gatti would remove the box in the talk secion which begins: The neutrality of this article is so biased it boooooooooooggles the imagination. and if he stops suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is either crazy or criminal. pstudier 23:32, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Done. The For against list probably isn't encyclopedic - for one reason because people have the right to change their mind - while encyclopedic information ought to be inherently stable. Thus it may be encyclopedic that - in 1977 Carter expressed concern about nuclear energy - but a timeless commitment is not factual. Happy to remove the box - which was merely a piece of humorous wikiart, not to be confused with medical advice. Sure, i think nuclear has a clear and present track record of being unsafe, and I see no convincing evidence that any group of people is capable of handling "the ring" without it corrupting their soul. The news items speak to this. history speaks to this principle, and if you consider the supporters of nuclear power, there is a pattern of criminality and inhumanity - its just the epic nature of power of that kind - and the degree to which one must discount the real effect of radiation on humans in order to embrace power at any price - such people are either naive or sociopathic or they have access to a chain of logic which certainly hasn't been expressed here. So help out those of us who see the real risks of proliferation and user error ie chernobyle as real possibilities. How do you justify it? - you say we have new technology which is safe - only problem it isn't tested - so its experimental technology which is intended to prevent the risks. But the engineers who designed the old plants witnessed hiroshima - they knew the risks - are modern engineers smarter than - Einstien? probably not. What has changed - mostly, we WANT to believe it is safer - we have found someone who has proved nothing - who SAYS its safer. So we believe. That's Kool Aid - not logic.

So here's one sould who is not going to drink the Kool Aid - yes - we have incompatible definitions of sanity. So we are mutually insane - I can live with that.

Great Line - situation with Tucker Carlson "More Nuclear power plants are to Terrorism what orgies are to aids ." Benjamin Gatti 01:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read The Nuclear Energy Option. Cohen is very good at estimating and comparing risks. Basically, nuclear is safer and cleaner than fossil fuels. Renewables other than hydroelectric currently produce very small amounts of very expensive power. Hydroelectric has killed hundreds of thousands (see Banqiao Dam), and it would probably be politically inpossible to build another major dam in the US. pstudier 23:55, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

## New Related Articles

I'd appreciate it if folks would read over and comment on Price-Anderson Act, containment building and Nuclear Power 2010 Program. Simesa 01:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure of the context. What does "Dominion-led consortium" mean exactly? zen master T 02:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dominion [17], owns VEPCO (Virginia Electric & Power Company) and it's four nuclear units (North Anna and Surry). Dominion now operates the Millstone units as well. Thanks for looking the articles over. Simesa 04:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## NIMBY vs. NIABY

It is my impression that there are not a large number of opponents of nuclear power who approve of nuclear power in "Other People's Backyard."

Certainly Greenpeace is universally opposed.

The article goes on to say that people who already have nuclear plants are interested in more. - this is logical because their property values are already discounted for the presence of nuclear energy - bringing more jobs is a plus, aith little _Marginal_ costs in terms of negative housing values. But in any case - it is inconsistent to say people want them in their own backyard - and then complaint about NIMBY hypocrisy. Opponents to nuclear are I suggest not hypocritical on that level (They may drive hummers - which is a different issue) So I suggest we drop NIMBY as use the more accurate NIABY. Benjamin Gatti 02:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are locales with nuclear power plants that don't want more, and most locales without nuclear units don't want any - hence NIMBY. NIABY concerns refer more to the importing of protestors into an area that does want more nuclear. The two concerns are different, hence both should be mentioned. Simesa 17:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you've confused the NIMBY term. It characterizes the hypocricy of people who like the idea of renewable energy, but don't want wind tubines where they can see them, in general who beleiev such things should exists, such as half-way houses, mental institutions, homeless shelters, and needle exchanges, but are horrified at the prospect of any of these things being in their own posh neighborhoods. The word implies there are people who are Pro-Nuclear power, but opposed to having a nuclear plant in thier neck of the woods. Certainly, we have no such voices active in this forum, there have been no articles suggesting that such people exists, and every confrontation, insult, and disagreement present on these pages suggests that nuclear is either fine and dandy, safe and secure - or it not fine, not safe, and not dandy, not here, not there, not in a train, and not in the rain. So unless there is an actual cite to a significant group of people who are PRO-nuclear but ANTI-nuclear in theor own neighborhood - the term is in violation of wiki rules - as origiinal research.Benjamin Gatti 04:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You start by admitting such people are plentiful, then deny they can exist regarding nuclear power??? Simesa 04:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly NIMBYs are plentiful with respect to other issue, and I named several. But I for one have never heard any significant voice praise nuclear in general while damning it in their own neighborhood, I would suggest the opposite generally is true, that most people think if we have to have nuclear, better in "our" country than in iran, north korea etc... So the term NIMBY doesn't really apply. The NIMBY group is the people who are right now criticizing the Cape Wind project - some prefer a beautiful coast to a clean environment. But again, i see no evidence of a nimby voice re nuclear, unless we have a quote, than really it is original research and better left to peer reviewed journals than to encyclopedias.

Benjamin Gatti 05:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can give you one off the top of my head - Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. He's pro-nuclear but doesn't want the Yucca Mountain repository on the Nevada Test Site. Simesa 05:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
... Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this week touted the pro-nuke provisions before Congress. "You're going to see a movement toward nuclear power," he said. ... [18] Simesa 28 June 2005 08:10 (UTC)

Yours is a good point. In France as well, Nuclear power is welcome, but nuclear storage has raised the NIMBY hackles even of proponants. Could we incorportate the very different attitudes between generation and storage? I think its true that nuclear generation in the vicinity means cleaner air, but storage is viewed as all negative. It is interesting that nuclear is processed by burning the dirtiest coal in poor regions, power is generated in rich areas, and then the waste is sent to poor areas. Are we not engaging in the rich dumping their trash on the poor?

Benjamin Gatti 28 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)

The TVA is hardly in a rich region - many other plants are in the boondocks as well. TVA power drives the Portsmouth enrichment facility. And Yucca Mountain isn't in a poor area - it's in the empty area of the Nevada Test Site and the Nellis Air Force Base Test Range. Of the six proposed sites for new construction, only one is in an "affluent" area (Lusby, MD). Simesa 29 June 2005 01:41 (UTC)

TVA power is some of the dirtiest. It is in standing violation of EPA standards. North Carolina is suing TVA to clean up its act. As you say it drive the processing plant. Actual Power plants seem to be prevelent in the north east, with coal dominating the southern and central regions - if i remember. Yucca is relatively sparce, but people live their, the don't benefit from nukes, why shouldn't the people who want energy bury that trash in their own vegiitable garden - ain't so safe perhaps?Benjamin Gatti 29 June 2005 01:57 (UTC)
Think of TVA nuclear units supplying their fuel enrichment facility. There are more of every kind of power plant in the Northeast - power from Ohio and Canada is sent to the Northeast. No, no one lives anywhere near Yucca Mountain - it's federal land [19]. Simesa 29 June 2005 08:32 (UTC)

Processing Plants have coal fired power stations in the US. Near is a question of scale. There are more dirty ops, mining, polluting industries in poor neighborhoods. Benjamin Gatti 29 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)

## "Nuclear power has no disadvantages. Only hippies don't like it."

An editor just replaced a section with this salient sentiment and since it so accurately reflects the views of some of my colleagues, i thought i'd preserve it here for the record.

Apparently I'm a hippie. Granted, i own a home, lease a car, eshew smoking, and am married with children, but as long as i have reservation about a deadly form of medical experimentation, i'm a hippie.

hip hip hooray Benjamin Gatti 29 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)

An administrator reverted those edits in under 4 minutes. They were grossly inappropriate. Simesa 29 June 2005 08:33 (UTC)

## Nuclear Proliferation

The statement is technically correct but misleading nevertheless. Israel was de facto at war. The other governments are dictatorships and at least should be so identified. But other nations have had no problems. Japan has a massive nuclear program, and reprocessing, but no nuclear weapons. Taiwan has six operating reactors and doesn't reprocess. It is either reprocessing or fuel enrichment thatis the danger, not the plants themselves. In the case of Iran, Russia wil keep possession of the fuel it provides, leaving the enrichment project as the problem. Simesa 17:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## "Nuclear power has no disadvantages. Only hippies don't like it."

An editor just replaced a section with this salient sentiment and since it so accurately reflects the views of some of my colleagues, i thought i'd preserve it here for the record.

Apparently I'm a hippie. Granted, i own a home, lease a car, eshew smoking, and am married with children, but as long as i have reservation about a deadly form of medical experimentation, i'm a hippie.

hip hip hooray Benjamin Gatti 29 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)

An administrator reverted those edits in under 4 minutes. They were grossly inappropriate. Simesa 29 June 2005 08:33 (UTC)

## NPOV Proposal - Let's each editor agree that nuclear is safe - or that it isn't safe, and then be consistent with that assertion.

• Nuclear is safe - therefore the Price Anderson is unnecessary, Nuclear plants should stand in line with wind generators at the same insurance office to get standard accounting insurance.
• Nuclear isn't safe - we need Price Anderson - and it's probably a really bad idea to build more of these things. (Ben)(Zen Master)(Belarus)(Greenpeace)(Ralph Nader)
• Like to have it both ways - wants nukes, doesn't care why or how. Says Nukes are safe - says Price Anderson is necessary (Bush)(GE)(Bechtel)(British Nuclear Fuel)(Simesa)(Pstudier)
As soon as a maximum insured amount is decided on, I believe the industry would be happy to insure for that. I suggest the value of everything in one-sixth of the EPZ. Till then, we'll need Price-Anderson. Simesa 30 June 2005 16:42 (UTC)

-1/6 the EPZ - something something zone, probably a radius from the plant - just curious what that is, and why you suggest a sixth - but its not critical.

Just explain for the people why this isn't the case for windmills? Benjamin Gatti
What windmills? The only windmill farm I know of is in Altamont Pass, and that's not near anyone/anything. Simesa 30 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)
Wy isn't it difficult to insure windmills - could it be because windmills are safe - and nuclear power is ... dangerous?

Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

In 1957, according to Public Citizen, the United States Senate stated that Price Anderson should only be needed for ten years because "the problem of reactor safety will be to a great extent solved and the insurance people will have had an experience on which to base a sound program of their own."

Oops not solved in 42 years. Insurance people have had experience - can you say chernobyl - ain't touchin it.

Just admit it - Price Anderson is a blatent admission that nuclear reactors are not safe and are not insurable, and could not so much as pay the rent on their radioactive double-wides without copious transfusions of wealthfare. Benjamin Gatti 30 June 2005 19:45 (UTC)

The insurance people have essentially _no_ experience. The only experience they have is Three Mile Island, and that cost essentially nothing under Price-Anderson. All the insurance people know is that the maximum amount would be more than TMI and less than Chernobyl. Simesa 30 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

If you're right, and nuclear has a cost advantage in the market and it is safe, why don't you join with other like-minded individuals to insure and fund nuclear, then you can benefit by selling it to me, or by using the energy to build SUV's. Where I object is when you can't find enough people who agree with <Strikout>me</Strikout>you, so in a secret coven, the government decides that I _HAVE TO_ join with nuclear supporters to fund and insure nuclear energy. I really don't want to, and in a free market, i shouldn't have to. So Price is a violation of my right to free association etc ... How do the insurance people know more about Wind - or about flying a private rocket, or about any other thing - they make an educated guess - that's not the problem so much as that nuclear energy isn't competative if it had to pay the market price for its insurance. How is that not fact? Your POV that insurance companies refuse to participate is POV, the truth is nuclear investors don't see a competative advantage if the cost of insurance is included in the market - so they leaned on congress to externalize the cost of insurance. Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

I didn't think that Wikipedia is a place to argue what the law or policy should be, but since you bring it up my opinion is that Price Anderson should be repealed. My favorable opinion of nuclear is well known. I think nuclear would still be viable without P-A, but this can only be truly determined in a free market in which both subsidies and unnecessary burdens are eliminated for all energy sources. For example, wind is the only non-hydro form of renewable energy with any significant production. It gets tax credits of 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour, which coincidentally is the same as the operating cost of nuclear power including provisions for nuclear waste and decommissioning. pstudier 2005 July 1 00:28 (UTC)

I concur. I am not proud of subsidies - even for wind - see my contributions to subsidy - because they encourage consumption by denying the consumer the full dollar value of not consuming. I do think that "Free" markets should try to impose the costs of "pollution" fairly - so a consumption tax on oil is in order. But the voters hate the word tax, and they like pork barreling - its a flaw in democracies generally, Alexis de Toqueville could elaborate. Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

## Comparative Subsidies

If we're going to discuss renewable subsidies, it needs perspective - it can source it adequately if that's the complaint.

option II leave out renewable subsidies. Benjamin Gatti 30 June 2005 02:42 (UTC)

• Extensive discussion of the estimated "real cost" of various energy sources for producing hydrogen to fuel onroad vehicles may be found in a recent article in Science. Although nuclear power is not included, the methodology may be of interest and, to a knowledgible person, may suggest a way of comparing the "real cost" of nuclear power to that of alternatives. Myron 30 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)
This reference [20], while unacceptably conservative, does contain a valid list of the "supply side" subsidies renewables benefit from. I'll look for better sources. Simesa 30 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

"A multibillion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. While previous renewable capacity built with liberal government subsidies is widely acknowledged to have been uneconomic and is at risk with falling electricity prices ... "

could be equally true as

"A multibillion-dollar government crusade to promote nuclear energy for electricity generation, now in its Fifth decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. While previous nuclear capacity built with liberal government subsidies is widely acknowledged to have been uneconomic and is at risk with falling electricity prices ... "

It's a source, but the source is clearly POV - in that sense its not an NPOV source of fact, just a source of opinion.

"Mandatory labeling of electricity sold to consumers, sought by some, should be rejected."

What's wrong with truth in advertising - consumers are conspirators in the production of the things they consume - why should they be shielded from their conspiracy? ~~

"Environmentalists should respect consumers' decisions to define "green" energy however they wish"

So all words should be deprived their meaning in order to confuse the issue - wow this guy fell out of the orwellian doublespeak tree and hit every branch on the way down. Benjamin Gatti

Subsidies List

Supply-Side:

• Tax code preferences for renewable energy generation (federal and state).3
• Ratepayer cross-subsidies for renewable energy development (state).
• Mandatory utility purchases of power generated by renewable energy sources at the utility's "avoided cost" (federal/state).
• Imputed environmental costs ("full environmental costing") to penalize fossil-fuel generation planning choices (state).
• Fuel-diversity premiums to penalize reliance on natural gas in power generation (state).
• Government payments for renewable energy research, development, and commercialization (federal and state).
• Early entry into open-access programs for renewable energy generation (state).
• "Green pricing" programs that are subsidized by the utilities' other electric sources (state).

Demand Side:

• Taxpayer subsidies for energy-efficiency programs (federal and state).
• Ratepayer subsidies for energy efficiency, so-called demand-side management, or DSM (state).
• Minimum energy-efficiency building and appliance standards (federal and state).

-A Long List doesn not a big subsidy make - some are redundant.

"A rough estimate of electric subsidies for renewables and conservation over the last 20 years is between \$30 billion and \$50 billion, which does not include the substantial private costs associated with building and appliance energy-efficiency standards. This represents the largest governmental peacetime energy expenditure in U.S. history"

-This is meat. lets say \$50Billion. What do we estimate for Nuclear - i think in the neighborhood of \$300 Billion, but nuclear is a forward looking subsidy - like social security, the obligation to store nuclear waste projects forward and is unfunded - meaning there is not an interest bearing instrument set aside to generate the modey needed to fund storage for thousands of years. So how do we get from these numbers to Renewable get the most subsides? Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

## Request For Cooling-Off Period

Due to the frequent editwarring on this article, I filed for a Cooling-Off Period. Simesa 1 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

I suggest that the state of the page during the cooling off period should be decided by the non-moving party - or is cooling off a POV oriented policy? Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

POV edits are the reason for reqesting the cooling off period. As to which text should be preserved, I believe a consensus version would be appropriate. Simesa 3 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

## Criticisms and Life Cycle

It would be more appropriate if the text matched the heading, and if the sources actually said what the text says they did. Simesa 3 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

# News Flash Consortium

Cool link, did you see the survey?

Scary Benjamin Gatti 02:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## So let's add weaponry and Fussion - a lot of work to do

I added the image of military use - since that's what nuclear power means now based on non-orginal research of another encyclopedia. Personally i think the article loses focus and the wiki is poorer for it, but the image certainly describes the subject matter (so defined) Benjamin Gatti 21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Renewable energy should contain a long section that describes all military uses of energy? Ultramarine 21:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that Nuclear Power in the non-pedogogic, colliquial, and catholic sense that we have reduced it to for the purposes of using the subject as a platform to promote the deformation of a future nation of children (i heard children in belarus now have a very high risk of genetic deformation) might at least be redeemable if it were to focus on the History, Risks, Economics and other facts most specifically related to the heading. Adding in Fusion, saying "it" as in what-were-talking-about-here powers the sun is diversionary and not meaningfully within the scope of the article. I'm really not involved in Renewable Energy as an article and this article should stand on its own to the extent possible. I for one fail to see what Nuclear Power has to do with renewables except that they compete for the attention of governmnets seeking alternatives to external energy reliances.Benjamin Gatti 00:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This is silly! Fusion if it existed in a form that could be used for power would be classified as nuclear power. There are several different groups working towards this goal all over the world. Some of them are colorations. In that context Fusion belongs in the article as a possible future of nuclear power and as such belongs in the introduction so that it does not seem out of place in the article. As a compromise I think we can not mention it in the introduction and but also not exclude it. Stating that Nuclear power is the power derived from a controlled nuclear reaction would include it but not specifically name it. Incidentally this is how Encarta defines it. Or more specifically the first sentence of the Nuclear power article on encarta says:
Nuclear Power, electrical power produced from energy released by controlled fission or fusion of atomic nuclei in a nuclear reaction. [21]
It is also worth noting that Encarta has a sperate article for Nuclear energy.
It strikes me as strange how you are using semantics to nitpick ext ream specificity for some points "political debate" and then using semantics to blur definitions at other times such as here. Dalf | Talk 00:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
1.) Admit that the term is being defined here in its inaccurate but popular sense- we are ignoring that energy != power, that nuclear power, if defined as any energy released from a nucleus includes the bomb - which is admittedly a deserving subject of its own - but we are overreaching, not leastly because such articles already exist under more specific and accurate terms such as Nuclear Reactions and Nuclear Weapons one important aspect of an encyclopedia should be to achieve the highest degree of data normalization. I fear that i'm objecting to this merely to be objectionable, but Pstudier agrees eloquently, and I can't disuade myself of my own argument. Google is a virtual authority on the most popular use of terms, and google is clear that "Nuclear Power" in general discussion refers exclusively to sustained fission for electricity production. I specifically prefer "sustained" to "controlled" as it also resolves the difference between "energy" and "power". Power by definition is "sustained energy". In History we talk about the first sustained reaction, and tis truly is the critical point of development. Fusion has been "controlled" but not sustained. (See) When Fusion is sustainable - then it is a source of power, currently its a consumer of power. I would tolerate a mention only to disambiguate - or in an isolated section of future designs and possibilities, But consider the temporal nature of the phrase. Already we have "atomic energy" morphing into "nuclear power" from 1955 to (1970-80's?) presumably in responce to the peace movement which painted the a-bomb as the anti-christ. Given chernobyl and the black mark which is nuclear power, there is no chance that GE or whoever markets a clean process fusion reactor is going to allow it to be confused in any way with "nuclear power". And so - i say as something of a critic of nuclear - that we would be doing fusion a favor not to paint it with the same brush. "nuclear power is a temporal term used to describe sustained fission rections for generating electricity."Benjamin Gatti 01:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
There is not reason to use a incorrect definition especially not in an encyclopedia. You are confused on several points. First Power is many things not just "energy over time" which is a very ambiguous and imprecise definition. In this context it is harnessed or controlled useful energy. For other contexts look at dictionary.com: power. Also Google is not an authority on lots of things and it is downright wrong on many more, it promotes common misconceptions and biases. For example using google and online sources a computer program trying to do translations between languages will think that the words terrorist and Palestinian terrorist are equivalent. Google is not the answer. Also I defy you to find a way to make google say that Nuclear power is absolutely NOT fusion, which is what you are advocating. There is a lot of ambiguity between the words energy and power in English before you even get to colloquial usage so that is a problem but in this case the scientific and popular usages of the terms are easy to understand.
I too have begun to worry that you are objecting to this merely to be objectionable especially since Pstudier did not as far as I have seen advocate excluding it, he only did not want it specifically called out in the intro and not in the article beyond the basic facts that it does not exist and is at best a future solution. Dalf | Talk 05:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

## Lists of imaginary things

When did the encyclopedia become the list of imaginary things? I am suggesting that this article (By its substance at least) refers to the substantial generation of sustained energy by fission. Every sentence in the article relates to that phrase. The title is misleading - but is nonetheless used to describe just that very often. The theoric subject of potential power which could be release from the nucleus ought to include every known and suspected methodology, but should not concern itself wit the history , the economics, and the risks of just one to the exclusion of all others. We are talking here about the history of fission reactors - in that discussion what iis fussion other than competative technology?Benjamin Gatti 14:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Since when did fusion become an imaginary thing? You are aware that the nuclear weapons that you so dearly want included in this article are actually fusion bombs? The more primitive ones used in WWII were fusion weapons but the modern ones are based on both a fission and a fusion reaction. The initial fission reaction provides the heat and pressure for the fusion reaction which then provides a huge supply of neutrons which speed the fission reaction up massively (meaning it is more complete by the time all the fissile material is blown apart).
Outside of weapons there are several research places such as the Joint European Torus or JET for short that have achieved fusion in the lab (only it still takes more energy to get it to happen than they produce). ITER is also a international project that is hoping to develop Fusion to the point of commercial exploit ability. These are not fairy tales, they are realistic future technologies that are possibly going to be available in our lifetime. The article if it is to be complete will include mention of them even if they were not scientifically classified as nuclear technology simply because the moment they become practical it will be the ultimate death of fission based power.
I know you are upset because you want to hate everything mentioned in this article so let me help you. I thought you would know this but apparently not. Fusion is not likely to be clean enough for you! It will be orders of magnitude cleaner than fission but it will still produce radioactive waste, the difference is this waste will only last hundreds of years not thousands and will be significantly less in volume. But, since the current batch of nuclear waste has not been around for a hundred years and only small amounts of it have actually gotten in places that have caused havoc I suspect that even when fusion is possible most of the people who now oppose fission in all its forms will oppose the new technology as well (especially when they see the price tag I would wager) Dalf | Talk 03:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I got in late tonight - i was out protesting discrimination in my southern (formerly confederate) state. But as i managed to avoid arrest - although I was escorted out by armed sherrifs - i made it home safely. I'm really not upset by the article and don't hate nuclear energy. I want to compete with it with renewable sources and I don't like the Price Anderson act because it unlevels the risk aspect of a fair playing field. In short there would be more money available for renewable energy if nuclear energy did not have a risk subsidy. We have spent 300 Billion on nuclear energy not counting about that much to clean up one accident (mostly in Belarus (Little Russia).) I do think if spent that on renewables we could solve the problem - i have even proposed a scenario for replacing fossil fuels incrementally which no one has even suggested violates some economic or physical law. I'm not saying fusion is clean - i suggest that whatever IS true of fusion, isn't necessarily or perhaps even remotely true of fission and visa versa - they are so different. However let me concede a few points: It is probably true that Federal regulation will fall under the same department - so that's a point for shared meaning. Second, nuclear seem more restrictive a phrase than atomic sense the nucleus refers only to a part of the atom. So that points strikes ma as a non sequitor. I'm not wholly opposed to a tangential mention of nuclear as a theory, or as being in whatever state it is in - no net generation - experimental - unsustained, so long as we don't then reach to poetry by suggesting that 17% of the world's energy is derived from the same process that powers the sun. In short - fusion is not fully on point - it is merely related. no intro, no metaphor, no implication that the sub sections in the article apply to fusion. (I humbly and gently suggest).Benjamin Gatti 03:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right about Atomic vs. Nuclear in terms of whichever is more restrictive. However, the shift in the literature and in government usage has changed in the last 50 years. At present I am just focusing on the introduction. I think we are close to a nice agreeable version then we can focus on the rest of the article, which is where your sun comment comes in. If the article refers to the sun as the same sort of energy source as our current Nuclear technology then I am 100% behind you in opposing that. If it is only mentioned in context of some future technology which we are currently trying to develop then its fine. For what it is worth, and this may shock you, I agree that if the choice was mine the big bucks would be spent mostly on renewable energy. I would probably want to dump most of it into solar-thermal (not PV) and tidal as they are they most predictable. I have a friend who worked for about a year "flying" the wind farm near the San Francisco Bay area (the Altamont Pass) and so I have heard a lot of the problems associated with that technology. You complain about the subsidizing of nuclear power but wind is helped out too. If the power companies had a choice (they don't) none of them would buy wind because it destabilizes the power grid and about half the energy available has to be used to compensate. The work around is usually huge capacitor farms that cost millions and buffer the power so that output which fluctuates wildly is smoothed out and does not mess things up. But I digress. Given the choice I would want the money spent on renewables. But, I am a pragmatist and nuclear is a lot more likely in the short term and I think the environmental impact of fossil fuels is such that nuclear is preferable. I think we should stop building fossil fuel based power plants right now. Meet growing demand with some of the newer safer generation of nuclear power plants and dump all the research money into renewables as a long term solution ..... but that is not what this article is about and being a science geek I like things to be accurate. Dalf | Talk 04:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Which is why in my design, the generators are simultaneoulsy driven by natural gas and renewable energy (They are at altamount pass as well - its just less obvious because the NG backups which are spinning are not connected to the same shaft. Connecting them smooths out the power - which as you say really is important. Power companies just want to make a profit - they have the talent to deal with these issues, and they are happy to do whatever the market wants. Wind is problematic for its visual impact - which i think is valid - you may be surprised, and for bird kills - which for endangered species like eagles is unfortunate and perhaps unfair. I happen to prefer wave energy because there is a great deal of it (twice as much as tidal) though tidal and gyre current have some promise. and finally we need to adopt the method of reactive consumption, in which some high inertial applications (air conditioning, hot water heating and battery charging) can be synchonized with energy availability. This alone could net a 3x gain in capacity - which coincidentally about what we need to bring the rest of the world into a tolerable standard of living (150M BTU per year per capita) - or there abouts.Benjamin Gatti 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is already rather long, so I support restricting it to fission for electricity, heat and hydrogen. Since fusion has never generated a single kilowatt-hour of electricity, let alone a net energy gain other than as a bomb, it only deserves a mere mention. pstudier 01:21, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It deserves a mention and that mention should include what you just said, that it is not in use. It is a possible future source and there is lots of money being dumped into related research. What I am arguing here is that the introduction should not include wording that is factually incorrect. Saying that nuclear power refers only to fission (rather than power from a nuclear reaction) is factually incorrect. Dalf | Talk 01:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

## Peak oil

I re-worded the sentence in the intro again to change the text so that it does not use the phrase "peak oil depletion" which I don't think is logicially/grammatically correct. If it is in the strictest sense grammatically correct it is at the very least confusing and awkward when read. The problem as I see it is that peak oil is not a very accurate term. It does not refer to the process so much as the peak itself, therefore the term "peak depletion" does not make a lot of sense. In energy and environmental circles people will read this and immediately understand when you say "peak oil" you are referring to a process, but most native English speakers wont unless they already know about the phenomena and the various attempts to apply it to a global scale.

The wording I replaced it with "to decline in availability" refers only to the part of the "Hubbert peak process" that is releavent to the sentence and is intuitively understood by nearly all English speakers. It also is one that they will likely click on as the idea of scarcity of resources and cost of oil is one that people read about in the news a lot and they can relate to. If someone generally follows the evening news about gas prices with interest, they are very likely to follow that link.

If everyone disagrees with me that if fine but as a compromise if you want to change it back could we possibly change it to "Hubbert peak depletion" instead as this is less likely to sound awkward to the reader. Dalf | Talk 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

How about instead of "begin to decline in availability" something more simple like "begin depletion"? zen master T 02:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well in terms of the Hubbert peak process the decline relates directly to a lower technological availability (i.e. it cost more to get the same amount so prices go up). This will have the effect of making nuclear power and all the renewables more attractive in terms of cost. But, that is not important the implication of depletion is lowered availability so I was jumping a step ahead for clarity. I will not however object to the re-wording. Do you want to change it or should I? Dalf | Talk 02:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned that up just now and hopefully addressed Benjamin's separate criticism below. Prices will go up precisely because there is less oil available, we will have to make do with less ability to do work since alternatives aren't nearly as good nor are they ready to full the ever increasing depletion gap. zen master T 02:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I tweaked it one mroe time to read "alternative to fossil fuel should they become less practical due to depletion", since most models of how the peak will go do not involve a rapid decreas in avalibility when depletion starts but a gradual increas in cost that grows faster and faster untill it becomes unsupportable. Is this ok? Dalf | Talk 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Your last change works for me. Perhaps we should have started this content dispute one edit at a time ;) Though I suspect the final product would be stylistically ... errr .... interesting. Dalf | Talk 03:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

How about zero speculation? I second the idea that peak oil used as a noun is at best jargon and uncyclopedic as the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain jargon to the unintiated. Aside from which I hardly see why Peak Oil is relevent to nukes. Perhaps we're not settled on whether this is an essay about the realtive merits of nuclear, or simply a description of the thing in the first place. Probalems with nuclear are relevent - problems with oil should be covered under oil. Its appearance here seems intended to convey the POV that nuclear should be considered a viable alternative to oil. I feel an encyclopedia is not the plac to make that argument. Fission power exists, it has risks, it generates electricity which is important. This is its history etc... Comprarisons to competative fuels are tangential at best and ought to appear at a point where their relevence has been established - such as economy, or the future of nuclear - which i think is speculation and not the subject of encyclopedias. Benjamin Gatti 02:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not actually speculation, it's a factual statement within the context of industry/governmental advocacy for an increased usage of nuclear power in the future, which is necessary (at least arguably) because of peak oil. zen master T 02:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Zen-master is correct here. The eventual depletion of fossil fuels (and more importantly the desire to take preemptive steps to insure our way of life is not disrupted) is a significant driving force behind Nuclear power development (or at least the people lobbying for it) and also behind the same push for renewables. The details are speculation, theories on when this peak will be reached vary from some time next year to about 30 years from now for oil and +10-20 years for gas. But, no one denies that it will happen. The models it is based on are the same ones that they use for logistics planning in exploiting individual oil fields and mines only applied to a global scale. Dalf | Talk 02:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see people lobbying for it - or industry for that matter. I believe the government is the only party lobbying for it - you see they have a 50% subsidy out - that's government lobbing indurty. If they sweeten the pie to the point of corporate welfare - its little wonder you have some interest - but I don't really see any commercial interprises excited about being the next corp in Greenpeace's crosshairs. Really is oil depletion the concern - compared to foriegn control (OPEC) i think depletion is the lone gunman theory of the moment - it even has a person's name atached as if its one' guys idea. BTW - his is an interesting point and interesting to reflect that all energy sources probably have a bathtub shaped curve with respect to EROI. They start high due to research and learning curve, then they experience the lowest cost as a result of exploiting the richest resources first - over time, rich resources give way to mediocre resources, and so the cost creeps up, until it crosses the rabbit theory threshold. Wind is in its decline, after a point, the good sites on land will be used, and the shallow offshore sites will be more expensive followed by the deep offshore sites. In the case of nuclear, the ideal sites would be those where the plant can be bult close to demand (IE in south africa it might be accepted), but on long island, the cost of nuclear energy will reflect the higher cost of transporting over long cables. Taken together it is a compelling argumant for fuel diversity because the higher EROI occurs in different places for different technologies, and at different times. While oil experiences the bathtub with respect to a constant level of consumption - renewables experience the curve over increased capacity - which really amounts to the same thing as long as demand is growing.Benjamin Gatti 03:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)