Talk:Nuclear power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Nuclear power as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Persian language Wikipedia.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
01 May 2008 Wikipedia distorts nuclear history EESHA WILLIAMS – Rutland Herald

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

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

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] What is this article about?

Well this keeps getting side-tracked, but I would like to try again with discussing what should be in this article. Feel free to add or debate what I bring up. I am sure I will miss a lot, but I am going to try and cover broad topics to which people can add to later. Remember, this article is "Nuclear Power," so topics are limited to those relating to power generation and its effects. Try to limit discussions to a minimum in this section, since too much debate will make this impossible to discern. If you add a topic or disagree with the inclusion of a topic, make sure you explain why, and since this is an encyclopedia, lets limit topics to those that can be scientifically backed. (Note: I am doing this without looking at the article to try and not be influenced by it. Forgive me if I follow the article exactly or stray from it greatly)

Most basically, this article is about energy emission and production originating from the nucleus of an atom. This would be fission, fusion, and radiation.

  • Fission (briefly cover what it is in order to desribe how it is used. Limited use directly relating to power generation. link to fission)
    • What is nuclear fission
      • Fuel
        • what is it
        • how is it made
        • how is it handled
        • how is it used
        • how is it disposed
          • environmental effects
      • Current methods
      • Future methods
      • Dangers of generation methods (historic events, scientifically-backed scenarios)
    • Byproducts
      • What are they
      • Environmental and human effects
      • What is done/can be done with them
      • Possibility of nuclear proliferation
  • Fusion (briefly cover what it is in order to desribe how it is used. Limited use directly relating to power generation. link to fusion)
      • Fuel
        • what is it
        • how is it made
        • how is it handled
        • how is it used
        • how is it disposed
    • Fusion power generation
      • Current methods being researched
      • Dangers of generation methods
    • Byproducts
      • What are they
      • Environmental and human effects
      • What is done/can be done with them
  • Radiation (briefly cover what it is in order to desribe how it is used. Limited use directly relating to power generation. link to radiation)
    • Radioactive power generation
      • Fuel
        • what is it
        • how is it made
        • how is it handled
        • how is it used
        • how is it disposed
      • Current methods
      • Future methods
      • Dangers of generation methods
    • Byproducts
      • What are they
      • Environmental and human effects
      • What is done/can be done with them

(I know there was a lot of research into fission-based rocket propulsion in the 50s. While this research does not exist today, does this article cover that, or is this strictly electrical production? I am unsure since including the Gen IV possible hydrogen-production capabilities should surely be included. Rocket propulsion is certainly very different, but it is none-the-less energy production.)Polypmaster (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is describing the nuclear energy article. There is no reason for including nuclear fusion in this article, which describes "practical", commercial applications of nuclear power. I have put practical in quotes because that is highly debatable. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then why do we have a Nuclear Power and a Nuclear Energy article? It seems that the use of the atomic nucleus for energy production should be one article. While fission has been used far more than the other two types, I don't see the reason for these two articles. Either that, or this article should not be called "Nuclear Power." That is too vague a name to only refer to fission. I get the impression that a lot of the controversy with these articles is that there is no organization of topics. No one knows what parts should go where, because everyone has a different idea of the organizational pattern.Polypmaster (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with myself. I just looked at the other articles, and there is no reference to electrical generation. Therefore, while still in the theoretical stages, fusion should definitely be included. Unless we want to divide Nuclear Power into three articles, one for each type of energy generation. This is an article about applications of Nuclear Energy, so this should be an overview of energy extraction methods, with more detail coming from specific reactor design articles. I would prefer more than the opinion of 199.125.109.57, because while he/she seems to be an intelligent and fairly reasonable person, I get the feeling they would prefer if this article and all nuclear technology not exist.Polypmaster (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We already have an article about Nuclear fusion which discusses the theoretical possibility of generating electricity, and also the Nuclear engineering article, which discusses the engineering discipline. So there are a lot of nuclear articles, and if it is not clear what should be in which than that should be clarified. No mention of fusion should be in this article, other than a tophat redirect (This article is about commercial applications of nuclear fission, for Nuclear fusion, see Nuclear fusion) - something like that. Pro-nuclear people tend to be so lost that they think that nuclear is better than sliced bread and don't want to hear anything about its detriments. And they also like to say oh and there is also fusion which is even better - except that we have been working on fusion for 50 years and are still 50 years away from any commercial application. So while my opinion about nuclear is not important, the facts about nuclear are important. And the facts are that it is not an important energy source. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that the earth was provided with all the nuclear power we will ever need in the form of radiation warming the earth's mantle and providing us with geothermal power, and the fact is that the earth was provided with a well engineered nuclear fusion reactor located a safe distance from major population centers - about 150 million kilometers (93 million miles) away. Nuclear provides some small niche applications, like making plutonium, etc, but is not viable as a realistic energy source. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The tab at the top of the page reads "discussion", not "editorials". Nailedtooth (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Again, everything you've alluded to about geothermal and solar power is completely unrelated to the topic of this article. This article is about what commercial nuclear power is. Not about what alternatives may or may not be better as sources of electric power. And yet again, comments about solar/wind/geothermal being better power sources than nuclear are not relevant for this article or this discussion. Lwnf360 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is relevant, but it should only be included at the very end of the article, in an "Alternatives" section, at the end of the "Debate" section. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no "alternatives" section to the Fossil fuel power plant article. Only a brief mention which is trivial: "Alternatives to fossil fuel power plants include nuclear power, solar power and other renewable energies (see non-carbon economy)." This is not a matter of pro-nuclear POV--it is a matter of anti-nuclear POV. Going on and on about how renewables are a "better" alternative than nuclear is POV and not appropriate for this article. For what I hope to be the last time: this article is about commercial nuclear power technology it is not about a comparison (be it subjective or objective) of various power technologies in relation to nuclear. If you want there to be an article which compares the benefits and detractions of all types of power generation, by all means go write one. But this article is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. It's flat-out off topic. Lwnf360 (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Since "this article is about commercial nuclear power", please remove the nonsense about fusion, which is well covered in the fusion article, and does not need any mention here. You say the article on fossil fuel has no section on alternatives, and then you quote from the same section. Do you see that it doesn't matter if you call it a sentence or a phrase or a section? It still needs to be included, and from what you are saying, alternatives are included in the fossil fuel article, but not in this article... 199.125.109.57 (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that no one knows what topics should go where. If this article is completely about the commercial aspects of nuclear fission, then the name of the article should not be "Nuclear Power." If the nuclear fusion article covers the application side of the technology and not just the theories behind it, then the nuclear fission article should be the same. In my opinion, any applications of nuclear technology related to energy production should be covered in this article, and the theory behind such technologies should be in nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and radioactive decay.
And again for the last time, THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! The article about Nuclear Power should be completely relevant to nuclear power. Mentioning that the alternatives to nuclear electricity generation are solar, wind, coal, oil, etc. is relevant. Continuing on discussing solar, wind, etc. seperate from nuclear power is not relevant. The reason there is no alternatives section is because Wikipedia has other articles for that purpose. Those are the alternatives.
Lastly, this article is not only about commerical applications of nuclear fission for electricity generation. This is about generating usable energy from the nucleus of an atom. While fusion is certainly not commerical yet, and my never get to that point, there certainly should be some mention about how that could be done and possible benifits/ramifications of commerical fusion. That section would certainly be shorter than the fission section. Also, this article is not just about commerical applications, because the Navy's nuclear vessels certainly fall under the category of nuclear power. If you disagree with my assessment and think this article should only cover nuclear fission electricity generation, discuss that. You will probably lose the argument, but at least do it properly.
P.S. There is no "alternatives" section in the solar energy article. The wind power article at least gives mention to opposition, but that is a far cry from an "alternatives" section. Look, you do not need to like nuclear power. I don't care. But this is an encyclopedia designed to provide unbiased information to the masses. Your suggestions would seriously hamper people's ability to get information on nuclear power if they wanted to. Your most recent suggestion would actually make the article POV AGAINST nuclear power. While I bet most people that edit this article are pro-nuclear power, there is no indication that the article is not NPOV. I would bet that some of us that edit the article don't think nuclear power is our best solution for the future, but they aren't trying to sabotague this article. At least stop trying to hide information from people. I would understand if there was some information about nuclear power that was kept off this page, but as far as I can tell there is not. If there is, feel free to add it, WITH REFERENCES. There is a lot of unscientific information out there too, so don't throw in some information that was made up by someone unsatisfied with a scientific report. My goal here is to create a concise, truthful article, that allows people to learn about nuclear power and come to there own conclusion. If you are afraid that allowing this would be bad for people, then you probably should not be editing Wikipedia.
Again, feel free to contribute if you feel there is something missing here. I always like an opinion from someone with an opposing point of view. Just be sure you are basing your facts on truth and the goals of the Wikipedia community. Polypmaster (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to comment on my outline? I would really like feedback from someone other than that anti-nuke guy. Thanks.Polypmaster (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking this article to be on the practical side. Fusion seems too experimental to spend much text on it. Did you want to compare it with the current article? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I was mostly writing this due to the POV problem from before. If there is no longer a disagreement over that, then maybe this is unnecessary. I agree, the fusion part would be very short, but none-the-less, a brief mention would be beneficial. The article already mentions it, so there may not be any need. As for organization, I am unsure whether the article would need to move some of its sections around or not. Let me know what you think about that. If the consensus is that the current article is mostly fine in its current form, then we will leave it as is and I will try to contribute to making this article a GA article. Thanks. Polypmaster (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't know. You are welcome to be aggressive in changes. Worst case we can always re-arrange it again. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Fusion should not be included at all. This is not a theoretical article about nuclear power in general, which is covered in the article nuclear energy. This is about commercial applications of nuclear power, which for probably at least the next 50 years will not include even one fusion power plant, so it shouldn't even be mentioned as a future technology. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not intended to predict the future. Fusion does not belong in this article. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

There seems to be a stretch without pictures between the Water and Health effects sections. One of the more interesting sights at a nuclear power plant is Cerenkov radiation. The picture could go in the high-level radioactive waste section. The caption could say something like: The glow from highly radioactive fuel rods is Cerenkov radiation or The intensity of Cerenkov radiation is roughly proportional to the level of radioactivity. A different idea would be to put pictures of a recently removed fuel rod and an old fuel rod side by side... This would be visually stimulating and it would explain the principle of decay. Mrshaba (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a comic book, it's an encyclopedia. It is entirely appropriate to have sections of text... 199.125.109.108 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Its not a comic book? Im on the wrong site. And if the article has one piece of space without a picture, i find its either 1. really sad, or 2. really short :D 10max01 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Info About Nuclear Power Plants????

I have to do a huge, fatty report/debate on the idea of buliding one of these monstocities (don't check my spelling!!) in my town. I am arguing FOR it, and need more info about this. Any percentages of accidents compared to sucesses, maybe? Idk, but anything besides the crappy articles on it would be FINE!!!

Thanks!!Iluvvampires (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)iluvvampires

Well I would start by going to the NRC website and seeing what there is. I would also check out some books on the subject, though you might have to buy them from Amazon.com. You can also check your local university to see if they have any books, though the larger the university the better. Also, the newer the book, the more accurate the data. There are also some monthly publications, such as Nuclear News shich I subscribe to and provides very detailed information on the status of the industry. I think the subscription is something like $25 for a year. I am not sure how long you have to do this report, but that is where I would look.
Also, if you are going to be debating with someone arguing the anti-nuclear side, make sure you research books by Helen Calldicott. she is a big anti-nuke and tends to make up data to support her case at times. Not saying her arguments are totally baseless, but its always good to study the other side of your research.Polypmaster (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Evidently that last bit was added because this article does not accurately portray all sides to nuclear power? If so, that needs to be corrected. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy debater? If so i can help with it, but i doubt nuclear power is the best. 10max01 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about new matter

  • A dispute about some new matter:
    1. At 21:45, 31 May 2008 User:Johnfos inserted 4 Kbytes of matter about matters affecting reliability of nuclear power stations, with the edit comment "Reliability: expanding for NPOV".
    2. At 03:20, 3 June 2008 User:Lwnf360 reverted this addition with edit comment "the only source used in the additional sections is rmi.org, an admited anti-nuclear group".
    3. At 03:37, 3 June 2008 User:Johnfos added a new section "==Complexity==", about 2 Kbytes.
    4. At 04:06, 3 June 2008 User:Daniel.Cardenas removed this addition with edit comment "Complexity: section moved to nuclear safety. Per agreement on talk page, this article is mostly about nuclear power technology".
    5. At 04:31, 3 June 2008 User:Johnfos added about 3 Kbytes about reliability with edit comment "expanding for NPOV".
    6. At 06:43, 3 June 2008 User:Lwnf360 removed this addition with edit comment "Reliability: removal of POV edits. I discussed this on the user's talk page. Please don't engage in a revert war on this. Rather, discuss on article's talk page."
    • The disputed matter seems to me to be relevant to the operation of nuclear power stations, if it is true. Whether or not facts (rather then opinions) in this matter come from a pro-nuclear site or an anti-nuclear site or neither, they may be valid, IF they can be independently verified: please discuss their verifiability here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the above material pertains to the section called "Debate on nuclear power", but there is actually remarkably little debate going on here. The section is quite short and there are many relevant issues which are not discussed, and most of what has been said has a one-sided pro-nuclear slant. I have tried to remedy this situation with the contributions made. I have cited a range of verifiable sources, including papers, reports, and news items, and if there are any factual errors in the material inserted, I would be happy for them to be pointed out.
One important issue which is not discussed in this Debate section is the debate about "Alternative reactor designs", and I am adding a small section on that now. Johnfos (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been previous discussions about article content. Most people agree that the article should be about the technology with just a mention of issues. If the "Debate" section can't be kept small, then I'm in favor of moving it completely to the safety article. Others have suggestion this in the past also. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. The main article needs to accurately summarize any subarticles. You can't say oh I'll just hide that in a subarticle so that no one sees it. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is much debate on topic. For more information go to the subarticle... Theres going to be a lot in the debate section since the NFL has made alternative fuels their topic for policy debate next year. (and i know a few who comment here on the current topics) 10max01 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, please don't try and censor what is being said in relation to the nuclear power debate. There are many verifiable sources which discuss the debate and WP readers are entitled to encyclopedic NPOV coverage...
Nuclear power has been called "the world's most misunderstood energy source"[1] and there has been a renewed debate about nuclear power in recent years.[2][3][4] Some propose an expansion of nuclear energy[5][6][7] and others are against the expanded use of nuclear power.[8][2][4]
I am adding the expanded "Reliability" section to the article again; but this time have removed a paragraph in order to reach agreement on the inclusion of this material. Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Debate discussion is endless. There needs to be a scope to the article. In scope is technology. Out of scope are pros and cons. This is per prior discussion with editors. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Persian version has been Featerud Article. I request from Administrators for add to article. Thank you Ladsgroup (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done—WWoods (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ladsgroup (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)