Jump to content

Talk:Nuclear power: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 18) (bot
Line 152: Line 152:
The first should be straightforward to fix. For the second point, maybe someone more experienced at Wikipedia knows what the best approach is. Then, it would be nice if someone could edit that, as I can't due to the page lockdown.--[[User:Elimik31|Elimik31]] ([[User talk:Elimik31|talk]]) 11:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The first should be straightforward to fix. For the second point, maybe someone more experienced at Wikipedia knows what the best approach is. Then, it would be nice if someone could edit that, as I can't due to the page lockdown.--[[User:Elimik31|Elimik31]] ([[User talk:Elimik31|talk]]) 11:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
:I clarified the caption. --[[User:Ita140188|Ita140188]] ([[User talk:Ita140188|talk]]) 11:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
:I clarified the caption. --[[User:Ita140188|Ita140188]] ([[User talk:Ita140188|talk]]) 11:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

== I feel it needs more information. ==

Try going to <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://world-nuclear.org/|title=World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association|website=world-nuclear.org|access-date=2019-11-14}}</ref> Thanks! [[User:Aviationtune|Aviationtune]] ([[User talk:Aviationtune|talk]]) 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:14, 14 November 2019

Template:Vital article


Section titled Renewable energy vs nuclear power

The new section on nuclear power vs. renewables seems both biased and disproportionately long. Regarding bias, per my edit summary, this section reads like advocacy for nuclear power and against renewables. The arguments are stacked, and the main advantage of renewables (cost) is overlooked. Regarding length, here is a separate article on that subject, so a brief summary and cross-reference should be sufficient. NPguy (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section has major issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put this here, for you to keep in mind and to return to at your convenience. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Now with that in mind. Literally everything you've just grandiosely claimed here NPguy is disturbingly false, even the title you chose to name this section, before your buddy-editor there, helped you out in that department, speaks of your bias. As there is 1 no separate article, as you have fantastically claimed. Just what are you on about here? Honestly? Now for 2 really, Let us know more about this second fantasy of yours, that the main advantage of renewables is cost and is being overlooked? Are they? Are they cheaper as you claim NPguy? Is this what you're selling? According to whom are they "cheaper" when a full accounting is done? What specific reliable sources say that? Or how about you send up a brighter flare, to really illuminate what is going on here, is that we actually rightly intentionally "overlooked" your demonstrably biased, utterly unsourced and down-right fantastical claim. Which in your POV, makes you unhappy? Of course it actually should, to someone who is operating with this, your clearly demarcated fantasy-peddling. That's to be expected.
As the section gives readers a summary on the information regarding the major controversy between the two technologies that are generally considered as having the potential for eliminating fossil fuel usage. Something that, on paper at least, many governments are allegedly trying to do. It is therefore pertinent info relating to how energy systems are compared. It's a bitter dispute for some incapable of accepting the world is round. It includes the truly illuminating subversiveness found in this issue have engaged in, in the lawsuits and other legal maneuverings that has punctuated this truly massive controversy. The section is therefore both pertinent, extremely WP:NOTABLE relating to WP:CONTROVERSY and simply summarizes the issues amongst the reputable scientific community. The sustainability, materials, land etc. facets.
Within the section we also fairly clearly also include the cost and the subsidy racket, that you presumably and we gather, you especially wish to have bagged and disappeared? Furthermore, contrary to your claim, the section is actually particularly generous to give ink to the claims of one [not considerably notable] researcher in Duke University about an alleged solar cost cross-over point. When no such event has ever physically materialized. Yet be that as it may, we with great fairness, give this view some time in the article, an article on nuclear power. Why would we do this, if we're so called, biased and advocacy?
Moreover, both the article up to that point and the very section itself makes plain what the negative with nuclear energy is. As Brook's writes - the principal limitations on nuclear fission are not technical, economic or fuel-related, but are instead linked to complex issues of societal acceptance, fiscal and political inertia, and inadequate critical evaluation of the real-world constraints facing [the other] low-carbon alternatives
So claims of bias, issues being overlooked? Surely you are joking?
As the very foundation of your tagging is disturbingly what is in reality, that which is based on a demonstrably worryingly-fraudulent and unsubstantiated POV bias, in of itself. I'm therefore removing your tag that simply speaks of your own unfounded bias and fantastical-belief-spreading that is as we all know, identical to industry promotional hearsay. As It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. All that has been given is two fraudulent claims, alongside the awareness that some editors here are engaged in fantasy building, with now the recognition of the two buddies united in this, renewable's are cheaper treehouse-pov club. To generate WP:sham consensus.
As to repeat, NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Boundarylayer (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NPA violations in the preceeding comment make meaningful discussion impossible. @NPguy: I think you said you just want to write good articles and don't know about process. Bless you my son! If you have never seen WP:Don't take the bait its relevance here should be crystal clear. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR, but when I'm looking for unbiased information on relative costs or energy sources, the first place I turn is EIA, and look what I found: Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2017. NPguy (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NPguy: The document that you linked gives the cost of "advanced nuclear". Did you find what they mean by the word "advanced"? --TuomoS (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, levelized cost does not account for dispatching cost (or integration costs), which is the main problem with renewables. The more you increase penetration of non-dispatchable sources in the grid, the more these costs increase. When you get close to 100% penetration these costs may be an order of magnitude greater than LCOE of generation. There is of course a big variability depending on the circumstances, especially the amount of seasonal variability of renewable resources. The literature on this is vast, an example is [1] --Ita140188 (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TuomoS: I don't know what they mean by "advanced" nuclear and I didn't dig any deeper, but my assumption was that they were looking at market-ready designs, i.e. the latest large Gen III+ LWRs, for which cost estimates are more reliable, not the Gen IV bestiary and not SMRs. NPguy (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the two paragraphs we had in the article specifically detailing this very full costing info, including the subsidy-racket, TuomoS and NPguy, just recently censored out of the article, bagged and disappeared?

I think the section needs to be put back pretty soon. As it seems to have been lost on other editors but the entire section is only really notable due to the environmentalist dispute, the Hansen vs. Jacobson and Caldeira vs. Jacobson disputes in the literature boiling over into the mass media. On writing the section I thought it obvious, if you had followed those disputes[though clearly not many here have], that the section just summarizes the indisputable metrics of energy comparison put forth by Hansen and Caldeira and others of their persuasion, though without citing their work directly per WP:SECONDARY. However on returning, it seems other editors seem to think the entire section is just a place for them to place their own 'vision' and then make me laugh by hurling accusations that it's my POV that is the problem? The section has since devolved into a censoring-swamp alongside a truly random collection of references to country specific integrations. Though, where did you get the idea, this was what the section was about? Some kind of repository of matters unrelated to the dispute?

The section is about the points put forth by Hansen and Caldeira and also, to mirror the renewable energy article, the section might as well be the place to give our readers info on what is the equivalent 100% nuclear energy world while we're at it. It isn't just some random WP:UNDUE weight, collection of current-events that editors happen to find that links nuclear and renewable energy, working in 'epic harmonious symphony'. It's about the big scientific dispute. Isn't that made clear in the very first paragraph of the section?

Does it need to be made clearer?

I mean on the renewable energy article, there is no mention of accomodation with nuclear, so why are some editors here pushing that we should?

Here are the prominent climatologists and the points that they make to the media, if you don't want to go reading everything they have penned themselves. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwGPOTYTDdk

Climate advocate, James Hansen more recently, having stated The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.” He follows that up by referring to the notion of an economy powered entirely by renewable energy a “fantasy.” Our job, is to summarize their notable work and the metrics they point to, why they call it a fantasy etc by just presenting the facts that they notably bring up.

Boundarylayer (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was flag the section for bias. But if anything I think it should be cut back further. All that is needed is a brief summary of the article it links to. NPguy (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What article 'does it link to' exactly? You keep saying this and though I asked last week what you're referring to with this I got no response. All I do know is the article Hydropower/Hydroelectricity, which I linked to, has a comparisons section, yet it hasn't even been the subject of an intense academic controversy. It is therefore notable for us to have both a comparison section in this nuclear-power article and while we're at it, also summarize the issues and metrics of comparison used by those in the intense academic/legal dispute.
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was obvious I was referring to this article: Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy. NPguy (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you two are talking about different things. The issue of considering nuclear power a renewable energy (that is, using resources that are limitless) is different from the issue of comparing nuclear power to solar and wind power as a source of today's electricity. There is no article for that, maybe there should be? I am not sure. But this is largely the issue discussed in that section in this article. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of overlap, see for example Renewable energy, Sustainable energy, Low-carbon power, Fossil fuel phaseout, Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy .... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closest article to this issue is Low-carbon power. I mean the point of comparing nuclear and renewables is that they are both low carbon sources. Maybe we could move most of the section "Renewable energy and nuclear power" to that article and leaving a summary here? --Ita140188 (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An organizational overhaul of some sort is much needed. I support your approach... I would probably support other options too if any are suggested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the section is even remotely similar to the material found in that separate article NPguy -proposed as renewable-. So what rationale was behind you considering that to be 'main article'? That specific article just focuses on the question of sustainable fuel supply. It also doesn't give any insight into your alarming suggestion, that raises concerns of advocacy, with your writing : and the main advantage of renewables (cost) is overlooked.. As according to whom, are renewables at a cost advantage? ...The fossil fuel industry and renewable advocates?

In writing the section, in writing energy related articles we simply take the established guide of articles on power sources, like the renewable energy article and the Hydroelectricity#Comparison and interactions with other methods of power generation section and add on the metrics and information about the intense debate amongst climatologists, conservationists and those in the energy field, relating to nuclear energy and 'new renewables' in the literature. We have reliable secondary sources calling this very thing Nuclear vs renewable, so that's why our specific section was given that specific title. It's what they call it. WP:USEBYOTHERS. Lastly, the debate and comparisons go much further than simply saying 'these are two low-carbon methods of generating electricity'. There were serious lawsuits, over the publishing of a scientific critique, on matters spanning a range of metrics of comparison, not just carbon but materials usage and so on, therefore our job is to give readers that info, on the WP:controversy. A controversy which, while not suitable for the article but perhaps you're unaware, has even included Naomi Oreskes making broad-side shots to anyone who isn't on board with the 100% renewable energy world, as the very same as a kind of climate denier. That's right, James Hansen being called the equivalent of a climate change denier.

Also to mirror the renewable energy article and how it gives a big chunk of text to that very 100% renewable energy world, we need to mirror that and give the respective, Barry Brook's, 100% nuclear energy world analysis its due weight, in this article. Boundarylayer (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that this section and that article address different issues. I was wrong about that. That said, the idea that this article must address "100% nuclear energy" is wrong. There is no serious proposal for that. It would be original research.
This does not change my view that this section is biased and largely out of place as a section in this article, giving undue weight to criticism of renewable energy. NPguy (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China - number of reactors is out of date

The figures are a bit out of date.

Please change " In March 2016, China had 30 reactors in operation, 24 under construction and plans to build more.[156]" to " In January 2019, China had 45 reactors in operation, 13 under construction and plans to build 43 more which would make it the worlds largest generator of nuclear electricity."

Also higher up the section there is a request for a citation re China's expansion. The article below gives the above figures but needs registration.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/01/12/can-china-become-a-scientific-superpower

 Done, thank you for the updated information! ComplexRational (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One reactor per steam turbine?

Hello. I'm working on infobox test cases, and want to double check if a single nuclear reactor always powers a single steam turbine in commercial nuclear power stations. Is this always the case? Are there any examples for power stations that powers more than one generation unit (i.e. steam turbine) using a single reactor? I searched around, but could not find any, and wanted to reconfirm here anyway. Thank you for your help! Rehman 04:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VVER-440 reactors have two turbines, and two generators, per reactor (https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/vver-type-reactors-of-russian-design/11169900). China is constructing two HTR-PM reactors that share a single turbine. --TuomoS (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TuomoS. Rehman 04:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again TuomoS, would you, or anyone reading this, know of any examples of a single nuclear power plant with more than one type of reactor? Rehman 01:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rehman, there are many, for example: Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant, Rivne Nuclear Power Plant, Kori Nuclear Power Plant. --TuomoS (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Rehman 10:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The status of nuclear power globally (click image for legend) - update graph

The UK needs to be changed to darkblue, to reflect the Hinkley C reactor being built in Somerset 51.7.20.152 (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caption for Chernobyl-LWR-comparison.PNG: RBMKs most common reactor designs?

I have some issues with the caption for the image "Chernobyl-LWR-comparison.PNG", under Nuclear power#Regulations, pricing and accidents:

A simplified diagram of the major differences between the most common nuclear reactor design, the Light water reactor and the RBMK (Chernobyl) design

  • typo/grammar: design -> designs.
  • I don't think those are the most common reactor designs. Even though the RBMK is still in use in eastern europe, it seems quite rare nowadays. Is there a modern source for that claim which is still valid today? One could say "two common nuclear reactor designs", but I am not very fond of this either. What I like is the original description at the image page Nuclear power#/media/File:Chernobyl-LWR-comparison.PNG.

The first should be straightforward to fix. For the second point, maybe someone more experienced at Wikipedia knows what the best approach is. Then, it would be nice if someone could edit that, as I can't due to the page lockdown.--Elimik31 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the caption. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it needs more information.

Try going to [1] Thanks! Aviationtune (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association". world-nuclear.org. Retrieved 2019-11-14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_power&oldid=926169112"