
#REDIRECT Nuclear power
:''This article is about power derived from nuclear reactions. For countries who possess nuclear weapons see Nuclear powers. Nuclear power currently involves converting the nuclear energy of fissable uranium into thermal energy by fission, from thermal to kinetic energy by means of a steam turbine and finally to electron energy by a generator. Nuclear reactors currently use nuclear power to provide about 17% of the world's electricity and 7% of global energy. Opponents of nuclear power, including many environmental groups, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists [http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/index.cfm ], argue against the use of nuclear power, often prefering renewable energy, because of the unsolved problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use will lead to the nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents of nuclear power, including some national governments, claim that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology. They claim nuclear power is currently the most viable alternative to oil and gas after they increasingly becomes unavailable due to Hubbert peak or if its use is discouraged because of global warming, since nuclear power plants, once built, generate essentially no greenhouse gases. [[image:AKW-LeibstadtCH.jpg|frame|none|right|Nuclear power station at Leibstadt, Switzerland, Switzerland. The nuclear reactor is inside the dome-shaped containment building.]] == History == The first successful experiment with nuclear fission was conducted in 1938 in Berlin by the German physicists Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassman. During the World War II, a number of nations embarked on crash programs to develop nuclear energy, focusing first on the development of nuclear reactors. The first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was obtained by Enrico Fermi in 1943, and reactors based on his research were used to produce the plutonium necessary for two of the nuclear weapons (the "Trinity site" device and the "Fat Man" weapon dropped on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Several nations began their own construction of nuclear reactors at this point, primarily for weapons use, though research was also being conducted into their use for civilian electricity generation. On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant that generated electricity for commercial use was officially connected to the Soviet Union power grid at Obninsk, USSR. The reactor was graphite moderated, water cooled and had a capacity of only 5 MW. The second reactor for commercial uses was Calder Hall in Sellafield, England with a capacity of 45 MW. The Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania) was the first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States. In 1954, the chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (forerunner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) declared that nuclear power would be ''"too cheap to meter"'' [http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html]. However, falling fossil fuel prices gradually made nuclear power less economically competitive during the 1980s (see also Oil price increases of 2004 and 2005). A popular movement against nuclear power also gained strength in the Western world, based on the fear of a possible nuclear accident and on fears of latent ionizing radiation. These, economic costs related to vastly extended construction times, and the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, effectively stopped new plant construction in many countries. However it still continued strongly in many other countries, notably France, Japan, the former Soviet Union and now People's Republic of China. In 1986, a large accident at the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl, Ukraine, exposed much of Europe to nuclear fallout and greatly heightened European concerns about nuclear power and nuclear safety. The units at the power plant, RBMKs, had been built (as was normal in the Soviet Union) without containment buildings around them. == Current and planned use == In 2000, there were 438 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 351 gigawatts. In 2001, the U.S. nuclear share of electricity generation was 19%. In 2004, there were 104 (69 pressurized water reactors, 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate in the United States, producing a total of 97,400 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20 percent of the nation's total electric energy consumption. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power. In France, as of 2002, 78% of all electric power was generated by nuclear reactors. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, India, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the U.S. (Browns Ferry and the Nuclear Power 2010 Program) are currently planning or building new nuclear reactors or reopening old ones. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Israel, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, and Vietnam are considering doing this. Armenia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom have nuclear reactors but currently no advanced proposals for expansion. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.htm] [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm][http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html]. According to the EIA and the IEA, nuclear power is projected to have a slightly declining 5-10% share of world energy production until 2025, assuming that fossil fuel production can continue to expand rapidly, which is controversial. See Future energy development. ==Reactor Types== ===Current Technology=== There are two types of nuclear power reactors in current use: 1. The nuclear reactor produces heat through a controlled nuclear chain reaction in a critical mass of fissile material. All current nuclear power plants are critical fission reactors, which are the focus of this article. 2. The radioisotope thermoelectric generator produces heat through passive radioactive decay. Some radioisotope thermoelectric generators have been created to power space probes (for example, the Cassini-Huygens probe), some lighthouses in the former Soviet Union, and some pacemakers. ===Experimental Technologies=== A number of other designs for nuclear power generation are the subject of active research and may be used for practical power generation in the future. 1. A number of advanced nuclear reactor designs could also make critical fission reactors much cleaner and safer. Typical new reactor designs have a construction time of three to four years [http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm]. 2. Subcritical reactors are designed to be safer and more stable, but pose a number of engineering and economic difficulties. 3. Controlled nuclear fusion could in principle be used in fusion power plants to produce safer, cleaner power, but significant scientific and technical obstacles remain. Several fusion reactors have been built, but as of yet none has produced more energy than it consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050 [http://www.iter.org/index.htm]. The ITER project is currently the leading the effort to commercialize fusion power. Nuclear power primarily produces concentrated heat. This can be converted to electricity and this currently constitutes a small but significant percentage of worldwide electricity generation. The heat can also be converted to mechanical work and this is the power source for many large military ocean going vessels (and a few commercial or government vessels). Other possible uses for the heat is in chemical processes, like in the production of hydrogen, desalination [http://www.control.com.au/bi2003/articles242/feat2_242.shtml], or direct heating of houses. == Fuel resources == At the present use rate, there are 50 years left of low cost known uranium reserves [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm]. Given that the cost of fuel is a minor cost factor for fission power, more expensive, lower grade, sources of uranium could be used in the future. For example: extraction from seawater [http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278] or granite. Another alternative would be to use thorium as fission fuel. Thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth crust than uranium [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm]. Current LWR burn the nuclear fuel poorly, leading to energy waste. Nuclear reprocessing [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.htm] or burning the fuel better using different reactor designs would reduce the amount of waste material generated and allow better use of the available resources. As opposed to current light water reactors which use Uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder use Uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years (=remaining life of the Sun) worth of Uranium-238 for use in these power plants [http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html]. Breeder technology has been used in several reactors [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm]. Proposed fusion reactors assume the use deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in most current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global ouput and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years. [http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf] ==Advantages== Nuclear power provides steady energy at a consistent price without competing for resources from other countries. Nuclear generation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. ==Disadvantages== Nuclear reactors require water to keep the reactor cool. The process of extracting energy from a heat source, called the Brayton cycle, requires the steam to be cooled down. In practice, this means that on extremely hot days, which is when demand can be at its highest, the capacity of a nuclear plant may go down because the incoming water - usually a river - has been warmed so that the maximum allowed temperature for the exhaust water (which is lower than the fishkill temperature) is closer to the inlet temperature. ==Risks== Opponents of nuclear power, like Greenpeace, Sierra Club[http://www.ge.com/ar2004/proxy/prop02.jsp ] and Friends_of_the_Earth, argue against its use due to issues like 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 nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons. They point to the chequered history of nuclear power and its continual procession of List_of_nuclear_accidents, from the 1950s to the present day. Proponents argue that the risks are small and that fear has been the single largest obstacle to the widespread use of nuclear power. They believe that nuclear power or coal are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached (see peak oil). Coal currently contributes significantly to problems like global warming, acid rain, various diseases due to airborne pollution, and the storage of large amounts of ash. Renewables have not solved problems like intermittent output, high costs, and diffuse output which requires the use of large surface areas and much construction material and which increases distribution losses. For example, studies in Britain has shown that increasing windpower production contribution to 20% of all energy production would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup. Increasing the contribution of intermittent energy sources above that is not possible with current technology [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.htm]. Future technology may both increase the efficiency and safety of alternative energy sources, including nuclear, and make them more environmentally friendly. ===Accident or attack=== Opponents argue that a major disadvantage of the use of nuclear reactors is the threat of a Nuclear_accidents or terrorist attack and the possible resulting exposure to radiation. Proponents argue that the potential for a meltdown, as in Chernobyl accident is very small due to the care taken in designing adequate safety systems, and that the nuclear industry has much better statistics regarding humans deaths from occupational accidents than coal or hydropower [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.htm]. The accident at Chernobyl is thought to have been caused by a combination of a faulty reactor design (such as no containment building present in all Western reactors), poorly trained operators, and a non-existent safety culture. Even in an accident such as Three Mile Island, the containment vessels were never breached, so that very little radiation was released into the environment. Research is being done to lessen the risks by developing automated and passively safe fission reactors. Fusion reactors have little risk since the fuel contained in the reaction chamber is only enough to sustain the reaction for about a minute, whereas a fission reactor contains about a year's supply of fuel. Subcritical reactors never have a self sustained nuclear chain reaction. Opponents of nuclear power express concerns that nuclear waste is not well protected, and that it can be released in the event of terrorist attack. Other energy sources like, hydropower plants and liquified natural gas tankers, are also vulnerable to accidents attacks. Proponents of nuclear power contend, however, that nuclear waste ''is'' well protected, and state their argument that there has been no accident involving any form of nuclear waste from a civilian program worldwide. In addition, they point to large studies carried out by NRC and other agencies that tested the robustness of both reactor and waste fuel storage, and found that they should be able to sustain a terrorist attack comparable to the September 11, 2001 attacks terrorist attacks [http://www.world-nuclear.org/news/resistance.htm]. Spent fuel is usually housed inside reactor containment [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.htm]. In the US, insurance for nuclear or radiological incidents is covered (except for facilities built after 2002) by the Price-Anderson Act. In 2005, Congress of the United States will debate extending coverage to newer facilities. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 American States have requested emergency doses of potassium iodine which the NRC recommends for those living within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant [http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/emerg-preparedness/protect-public/potassium-iodide.html]. The United States Navy owns and operates half of the nuclear reactors in the world. There has never been an incident in 51 years of near constant naval operation of these hundreds of power plants. === Airborne pollution === All power sources, including renewables, contribute to global warming, for example when mining and refining raw materials. However, most life cycle analysis shows that nuclear power contribution is about equal to that of many renewables and is much less than that from fossil fuels. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.htm]. Fission reactors produce gases such as iodine-131 or krypton-85 which have to be stored on-site for several half-lives until they have decayed to levels officially regarded as safe. According to several independent organizations, a person receives more radioactivity from household appliances than from nuclear power [http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/ne6.htm]. === Health effect on population near nuclear power plants === Most of the human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities. However, in Britain there are elevated childhood leukemia levels near some industrial facilities, particularly near Sellafield, where children living locally are ten times more likely to contract the cancer. The reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear, but one study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are orders of magnitude too low to account for the excess incidences reported. One explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being introduced into a local community by the mass movement of migrant workers. Likewise, small studies have found an increased incidence of childhood leukemia near some nuclear power plants has also been found in Germany [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9210727] and France [http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/lahague.html]. Nonetheless, the results of larger multi-site studies in these countries invalidate the hypothesis of an increased risk of leukaemia related to nuclear discharge. The methodology and very small samples in the studies finding an increased incidence has been criticized. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11990512&dopt=Abstract] [http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=1112&docid=&format=print] [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.htm] [http://www.personalmd.com/news/n0818103222.shtml]. === Solid waste === ''Main article: Nuclear waste Nuclear power produces spent fuel, a unique solid waste problem. Because spent nuclear fuel is radioactive, extra care and forethought are given to facilitate their safe storage (see nuclear waste). The waste from highly radioactive spent fuel needs to be handled with great care and forethought due to the long half-lifes of the radioactive isotopes in the waste. As of 2003, the United States accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. Unlike other countries, U.S. policy forbids recycling of used fuel and is treated as waste. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. It is unclear whether this material can be safeguarded for such a long period of time. The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a difficult challenge. Because of potential harm from radiation, spent nuclear fuel must be stored in shielded basins of water, or in dry storage vaults or containers until its radioactivity decreases naturally ("decays") to safe levels. This can take days or thousands of years, depending on the type of fuel. Most waste is currently stored in temporary storage sites, requiring constant maintenance, while suitable permanent disposal methods are discussed. Underground storage like Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. Some argue that the generation of nuclear waste outpaces the ability of the current temporary storage sites to safely store it [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-waste12jun12,0,7666923.story?coll=la-home-headlines]. See the article on the nuclear fuel cycle for more information. The nuclear industry produces a much greater volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and upon decomissioning the materials of which the reactor itself is built. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly attempted to allow low-level materials to be handled as normal waste: landfilled, recycled into consumer items, etc. Much low-level waste release very low levels of radioactivity and is essentially considered radioactive waste because of its history. For example, according to the standards of the NRC, the radiation released by coffee is enough to treat it as low level waste. Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring radioactive material in the coal. In addition, the nuclear industry fuel cycle produces many tons of depleted uranium (uranium from which the easily fissile U235 element has been removed, leaving behind only U238). This material is much more concentrated than natural uranium ores, and must be disposed of. U238 is a very tough metal with several commercial uses, for example aircraft production and radiation shielding. Nuclear power has useful additional advantages, including production of radioisotopes used in medicine and food preservation, though the demand for these products can be satisfied by a relatively small number of plants. In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes (which remains hazardous indefinitely) [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.htm]. The amounts of waste can be reduced in several ways. Both nuclear reprocessing and fast breeder reactors can reduce the amounts of waste and increase the amount of energy gained per fuel unit. Subcritical reactors or fusion reactors could greatly reduce the time the waste has to be stored [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm]. Subcritical reactors may also be able to do the same already existing waste. It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. The current waste may well become valuable fuel in the future, particularly if it is not reprocessed, as in the U.S. === Nuclear proliferation === ''Main article: Nuclear proliferation'' [[Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion can be used for military purposes. See Nuclear weapons.]] Opponents of nuclear power point out that nuclear technology is often dual-use technology, and much of the same materials and knowledge used in a civilian nuclear program can be used to develop nuclear weapons. This concern is known as nuclear proliferation and is a major reactor design criterion. The military and civil purposes for nuclear energy are intertwined in most countries with nuclear capabilities. in the US for example the mission statement of the department of energy states its two primary goals: :"''1) Ensuring a dependable energy supply for the American economy; 2) ensuring a secure, reliable nuclear deterrent for the nation’s defense.''"[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/budget/energy.pdf ] While the enriched uranium used in most nuclear reactors is not concentrated enough to build a bomb (most nuclear reactors run on 4% enriched uranium, while a bomb requires an estimated 90% enrichment), the technology used to enrich uranium could be used to make the highly enriched uranium needed to build a bomb. In addition, breeder reactor designs such as CANDU can be used to generate plutonium for bomb making materials. It is believed that the nuclear programs of India and Pakistan used CANDU-like reactors to produce fissionable materials for their weapons. To prevent this, safeguards on nuclear technology were published in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of 1968.Nations signing the treaty are required to report to the IAEA what nuclear materials they hold and their location. They agree to accept visits by IAEA auditors and inspectors to verify independently their material reports and physically inspect the nuclear materials concerned to confirm physical inventories of them in exchange for access to nuclear materials and equipment on the global market. Several states did not sign the treaty and were able to use international nuclear technology (often procured for civilian purposes) to develop nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa). Of those who have signed the treaty and received shipments of nuclear paraphernalia, many states have either claimed to or been accused of attempting to use supposedly civilian nuclear power plants for developing weapons, including Iran and North Korea. Certain types of reactors are more conducive to producing nuclear weapons materials than others, and a number of international disputes over proliferation have centered on the specific model of reactor being contracted for in a country suspected of nuclear weapon ambitions. New technology, like SSTAR, may lessen the risk of nuclear proliferation by providing sealed reactors with a limited self-contained fuel supply and with restrictions against tampering. Some proponents of nuclear power agree that the risk of nuclear proliferation may be a reason to prevent nondemocratic developing nations from gaining any nuclear technology but argue that this is no reason for democratic developed nations to abandon their nuclear power plants. Especially since it seems that democracies never make war against each other (See the democratic peace theory). Furthermore, all power sources and technology can be used to produce and use weapons. The weapons of mass destruction used in chemical warfare and biological warfare are not dependent on nuclear power. Humans could still make war even if all technology was forbidden. == Economy == Opponents of nuclear power claim that any of the environmental benefits are outweighed by safety compromises and by the costs related to construction and operation of nuclear power plants, including costs for spent-fuel disposition and plant retirement. Proponents of nuclear power state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. The cost of many renewables would be increased if they included necessary back-up due to their intermittent nature. Also not included in costs, hydropower produces large amount of greenhouse gases when organic matter decomposes in the dams [http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=aeab79d7983d4a8995b9beb2f22ffeb4&referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,25;journal,29,89;linkingpublicationresults,1:100344,1] A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plant in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 per tonne CO2 (£110/tC) for coal and gas. Wind power was shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, coal, nuclear and gas ranged 2.2-2.6 p/kWh and coal gasification was 3.2 p/kWh - all base-load plant. Adding the carbon tax (up to 2.5 p) took coal close to onshore wind (with back-up) at 5.4 p/kWh - offshore wind is 7.2 p/kWh, while nuclear remained at 2.3 p/kWh. Nuclear figures included decommissioning. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm]. Proponents note that several opponents of nuclear power have been forced to conclude in studies that renewables cannot replace all current energy production from fossil fuels, due to issues like intermittent output. To accept nuclear power may be a better solution than the lower livings standards some argue for [http://sharpgary.org/RenewableE.html][http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.inderscience.com/filter.php%3Faid%3D2383]. ===Capital costs=== In the U.S, a single nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than a single steam-based coal-fired plant. A coal plant is itself more expensive to build than a single natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant. Although the cost per megawatt for a nuclear power plant is comparable to a coal-fired plant and less than a natural gas plant, the smallest nuclear power plant that can be built is much larger than the smallest natural gas power plant, making it possible for a utility to build natural gas plants in much smaller increments. In the U.S., licensing, inspection and certification delays add large amounts of time and cost to the construction of a nuclear plant. These delays and costs are not present when building either gas-fired or coal-fired plants. Because a power plant does not earn money during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher interest charges on borrowed construction funds. However, the regulatory processes for siting, licensing, and constructing have since been standardized, to make construction of newer and inherently safer designs more attractive to utilities and their investors. In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are significantly less because of streamlined government licensing and certification procedures. In France, one model of reactor was type-certified, using a safety engineering process similar to the process used to certify aircraft models for safety. That is, rather than licensing individual reactors, the regulatory agency certified a particular design and its construction process to produce safe reactors. U.S. law permits type-licensing of reactors, but no type license has ever been issued by a U.S. nuclear regulatory agency. In an attempt to encourage development of nuclear power, the US Department of Energy DOE has offered interested parties the opportunity to introduce France's model for licensing and to subsidize 50% of the construction expenses. Several applications were made but the project is still in its infancy. ===Operating costs=== In the U.S., these charges require that coal and nuclear power plants must operate more cheaply than natural gas plants in order to be built. In general, coal and nuclear plants have the same operating costs (operations and maintenance plus fuel costs). However, nuclear and coal differ in the source of those costs. Nuclear has lower fuel costs but higher operating and maintenance costs than coal. In recent times in the United States these operating costs have not been low enough for nuclear to repay its high investment costs. Thus new nuclear reactors have not been built in the United States. Coal's operating cost advantages have only rarely been sufficient to encourage the construction of new coal based power generation. Around 90 to 95 percent of new power plant construction in the United States has been natural gas-fired. These numbers exclude capacity expansions at existing coal and nuclear units. To be competative in the current market, both the nuclear and coal industries must reduce new plant investment costs and construction time. The burden is clearly greater for nuclear producers than for coal producers, because investment costs are higher for nuclear plants, which also have the same operating costs. Operation and maintenance costs are particularly important because they represent a large portion of costs for nuclear power. ===Subsidies=== Energy research and development (R&D) for nuclear power has and continues to receive much larger state subsidies than R&D for renewable energy or fossil fuels. However, today most of this takes places in Japan and France, in most other nations renewable R&D get more money. In the U.S., public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 to 2000 [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.htm]. Renewables receive large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.htm]. Fossil fuels receive large indirect subsidies since they do not have to pay for their pollution and in various other ways [http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=149]. Nuclear power also receives subsidies, for example in the U.S. they have limited liability for accidents (9.5 billion dollars as of 2004) under the Price-Anderson Act. ===Other economic issues=== Nuclear Power plants tend to be most competitive in areas where no other resources are readily available. China and India top the list of new plant starts. France, most notably, has almost no native supplies of fossil fuels [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html]. The province of Ontario, Canada is already using all of its best sites for hydroelectric power, and has minimal supplies of fossil fuels, so a number of nuclear plants have been built there. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, according to the government's Department Of Trade And Industry, no further nuclear power stations are to be built, due to the high cost per unit of nuclear power, compared to fossil fuels [http://www.dti.gov.uk/nuclear/nuclear.htm]. However, the British government's chief scientific advisor David King reports that building one more generation of nuclear power plants may be necessary [http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050512-082200-3520r.htm]. Most new gas-fired plants are intended for peak supply. The larger nuclear and coal plants cannot quickly adjust their instantaneous power production, and are generally intended for baseline supply. The market price for baseline power has not increased as rapidly as that for peak demand. Some new experimental reactors, notably pebble bed modular reactors, are specifically designed for peaking power. Any effort to construct a new nuclear facility, whether it is a older design or a newer experimental design, around the world must deal with NIMBY issues. Given the high profile of both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, few municipalities would welcome a new nuclear reactor, processing plant, transportation route, or experimental nuclear burial ground within their borders, and many have issued local ordinances prohibiting the development of nuclear power. Current nuclear reactors returns around 40-60 times the invested energy when using life cycle analysis. This is better than coal, natural gas, and current renewables except hydropower [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.htm]. ==List of atomic energy groups== * American Nuclear Society (United States) * Department of Energy (United States) * Areva (France) * Électricité de France (France) * MinAtom (Russia) * EnergoAtom (Ukraine) * Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority * United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) *EURATOM (Europe) *International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ==References== * [http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN03-26-99/savannah_story.htm Atoms for Peace] *[http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html The Nuclear Energy Option], online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Pro nuclear power. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear. ==External links== * [http://www.westinghousenuclear.com Westinghouse Electric Co.] * [http://www.areva.com Areva (and Framatone)] * [http://www.world-nuclear.org/index.htm World Nuclear Association] * [http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html Calendar of Nuclear Accidents] * [http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html World Information Service on Energy (WISE)] ==See also== *Fusion power *Nuclear physics *Future energy development Nuclear technology Electric power th:พลังงานนิวเคลียร์
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) *Talk:Nuclear Power/Archive_1: *Talk:Nuclear Power/Archive_2: =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== {| border=0 width=90% background=white align=center |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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 20:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ==Another Intro by Ben== {| border=0 width=90% background=white align=center |Nuclear power is energy released by the destruction of nuclear reactions. Nuclear power currently provides 2.5% of the worlds energy. Due to growing concerns related to the global warming and Peak Oil 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 radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive radioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is disputed whether the risks can be suffeceintly reduced with new technology. |} User:Benjamin Gatti 01:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == An Intro Proposal by Dalf== :''See section below for comments and responses to the numbers in (())'' {| border=0 width=90% background=white align=center |Nuclear power is power, usually in the form of electircity, generated by harnesing the energy released in a controled nuclear reactions. 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 Peak Oil 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 radioactive waste, the potential for radioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the nuclear 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? User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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? User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.User: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). User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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 System 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? User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ****Re-worded to ommit mention of WWII. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User: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). User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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 NPOV. ****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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ===comments/questions=== 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Pstudier 00:51, 2005 May 25 (UTC) ***I changed the wording above to use more precise language and not the word decay. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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! User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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? User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. 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%[http://www.barcelona2004.org/eng/banco_del_conocimiento/documentos/ficha.cfm?idDoc=350 ] 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 radioactive waste, the potential forradioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is hoped that new reactor designs and underground storage schemes could prevent these problems. :Comments: :* X-Rays aren't a nuclear phenomenon. Referring to Henri Becquerel and the Maria Sklodowska-Curie 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''. :User: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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 00:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) This site [http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=10i79tmjuy0kh?tname=list-of-countries-with-nuclear-weapons&method=6&sbid=lc03b Answers]] has a few intros to compare. User:Benjamin Gatti 16:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :added disambig with Nuclear powers after reading this link. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.User:Benjamin Gatti Do you have a source for the 2.5% figure? According to [http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm], nuclear provides 16% of the worlds electricity, and IIRC, electricity is about half of the total energy consumption. User: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. [http://www.barcelona2004.org/eng/banco_del_conocimiento/documentos/ficha.cfm?idDoc=350 Source for 2.5%] User:Benjamin Gatti 01:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Here is a source that says }6.8% of energy and 16.9% of electricity. [http://213.130.42.236/wna_pdfs/nea-overview.pdf] 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. User: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. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 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. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 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. User: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 but . User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 02:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::[http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/YohnkmwBelarus.ppt 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 .
::::::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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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
adj.
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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.User: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. User:Pstudier 21:46, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
:Good point!User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.User: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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.
::::User: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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.
::::::User: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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. --User: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.
User: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. User: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.
User: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? User: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.User:Benjamin Gatti 18:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
On What Basis is it the only realistic ya da ya?
# 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.
# There is bad history with the current designs - so that doesn't count as a basis for realism. - unless you propose to rebuild chernobyl.
# 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. User: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. User:Ultramarine 18:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
:The storage system will decrease EROI for renewables and make them more expensive. User: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.
User: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. [http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.inderscience.com/filter.php%3Faid%3D2383] User:Ultramarine 19:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
This is also interesting [http://sharpgary.org/RenewableE.html]. User: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.
User: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 User: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 [http://rhlx01.rz.fht-esslingen.de/projects/alt_energy/sol_thermal/powertower.html] 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: [http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/energy/powertower.html], [http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/0/A7BD712D34AE25B3CA256B12001BA833?open] 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 [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html?tw=wn_tophead_7]. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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?
User: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 Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.
User: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 Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article.
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.
User: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? User: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.User: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 User: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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.
User: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.
User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.
User: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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.
User: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. User: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 . If ever invented, Fusion power will probably be called "Hydrogen Power" in the same was the fusion bomb is called the "Hydrogen Bomb".User: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. User: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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.
User: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? User: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." User:Ultramarine 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks. User: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
Nuclear Power
#REDIRECT Nuclear power
Nuclear power
:''This article is about power derived from nuclear reactions. For countries who possess nuclear weapons see Nuclear powers. Nuclear power currently involves converting the nuclear energy of fissable uranium into thermal energy by fission, from thermal to kinetic energy by means of a steam turbine and finally to electron energy by a generator. Nuclear reactors currently use nuclear power to provide about 17% of the world's electricity and 7% of global energy. Opponents of nuclear power, including many environmental groups, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists [http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/index.cfm ], argue against the use of nuclear power, often prefering renewable energy, because of the unsolved problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use will lead to the nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents of nuclear power, including some national governments, claim that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology. They claim nuclear power is currently the most viable alternative to oil and gas after they increasingly becomes unavailable due to Hubbert peak or if its use is discouraged because of global warming, since nuclear power plants, once built, generate essentially no greenhouse gases. [[image:AKW-LeibstadtCH.jpg|frame|none|right|Nuclear power station at Leibstadt, Switzerland, Switzerland. The nuclear reactor is inside the dome-shaped containment building.]] == History == The first successful experiment with nuclear fission was conducted in 1938 in Berlin by the German physicists Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassman. During the World War II, a number of nations embarked on crash programs to develop nuclear energy, focusing first on the development of nuclear reactors. The first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was obtained by Enrico Fermi in 1943, and reactors based on his research were used to produce the plutonium necessary for two of the nuclear weapons (the "Trinity site" device and the "Fat Man" weapon dropped on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Several nations began their own construction of nuclear reactors at this point, primarily for weapons use, though research was also being conducted into their use for civilian electricity generation. On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant that generated electricity for commercial use was officially connected to the Soviet Union power grid at Obninsk, USSR. The reactor was graphite moderated, water cooled and had a capacity of only 5 MW. The second reactor for commercial uses was Calder Hall in Sellafield, England with a capacity of 45 MW. The Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania) was the first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States. In 1954, the chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (forerunner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) declared that nuclear power would be ''"too cheap to meter"'' [http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html]. However, falling fossil fuel prices gradually made nuclear power less economically competitive during the 1980s (see also Oil price increases of 2004 and 2005). A popular movement against nuclear power also gained strength in the Western world, based on the fear of a possible nuclear accident and on fears of latent ionizing radiation. These, economic costs related to vastly extended construction times, and the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, effectively stopped new plant construction in many countries. However it still continued strongly in many other countries, notably France, Japan, the former Soviet Union and now People's Republic of China. In 1986, a large accident at the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl, Ukraine, exposed much of Europe to nuclear fallout and greatly heightened European concerns about nuclear power and nuclear safety. The units at the power plant, RBMKs, had been built (as was normal in the Soviet Union) without containment buildings around them. == Current and planned use == In 2000, there were 438 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 351 gigawatts. In 2001, the U.S. nuclear share of electricity generation was 19%. In 2004, there were 104 (69 pressurized water reactors, 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate in the United States, producing a total of 97,400 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20 percent of the nation's total electric energy consumption. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power. In France, as of 2002, 78% of all electric power was generated by nuclear reactors. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, India, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the U.S. (Browns Ferry and the Nuclear Power 2010 Program) are currently planning or building new nuclear reactors or reopening old ones. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Israel, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, and Vietnam are considering doing this. Armenia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom have nuclear reactors but currently no advanced proposals for expansion. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.htm] [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm][http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html]. According to the EIA and the IEA, nuclear power is projected to have a slightly declining 5-10% share of world energy production until 2025, assuming that fossil fuel production can continue to expand rapidly, which is controversial. See Future energy development. ==Reactor Types== ===Current Technology=== There are two types of nuclear power reactors in current use: 1. The nuclear reactor produces heat through a controlled nuclear chain reaction in a critical mass of fissile material. All current nuclear power plants are critical fission reactors, which are the focus of this article. 2. The radioisotope thermoelectric generator produces heat through passive radioactive decay. Some radioisotope thermoelectric generators have been created to power space probes (for example, the Cassini-Huygens probe), some lighthouses in the former Soviet Union, and some pacemakers. ===Experimental Technologies=== A number of other designs for nuclear power generation are the subject of active research and may be used for practical power generation in the future. 1. A number of advanced nuclear reactor designs could also make critical fission reactors much cleaner and safer. Typical new reactor designs have a construction time of three to four years [http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm]. 2. Subcritical reactors are designed to be safer and more stable, but pose a number of engineering and economic difficulties. 3. Controlled nuclear fusion could in principle be used in fusion power plants to produce safer, cleaner power, but significant scientific and technical obstacles remain. Several fusion reactors have been built, but as of yet none has produced more energy than it consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050 [http://www.iter.org/index.htm]. The ITER project is currently the leading the effort to commercialize fusion power. Nuclear power primarily produces concentrated heat. This can be converted to electricity and this currently constitutes a small but significant percentage of worldwide electricity generation. The heat can also be converted to mechanical work and this is the power source for many large military ocean going vessels (and a few commercial or government vessels). Other possible uses for the heat is in chemical processes, like in the production of hydrogen, desalination [http://www.control.com.au/bi2003/articles242/feat2_242.shtml], or direct heating of houses. == Fuel resources == At the present use rate, there are 50 years left of low cost known uranium reserves [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm]. Given that the cost of fuel is a minor cost factor for fission power, more expensive, lower grade, sources of uranium could be used in the future. For example: extraction from seawater [http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278] or granite. Another alternative would be to use thorium as fission fuel. Thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth crust than uranium [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm]. Current LWR burn the nuclear fuel poorly, leading to energy waste. Nuclear reprocessing [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.htm] or burning the fuel better using different reactor designs would reduce the amount of waste material generated and allow better use of the available resources. As opposed to current light water reactors which use Uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder use Uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years (=remaining life of the Sun) worth of Uranium-238 for use in these power plants [http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html]. Breeder technology has been used in several reactors [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm]. Proposed fusion reactors assume the use deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in most current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global ouput and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years. [http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf] ==Advantages== Nuclear power provides steady energy at a consistent price without competing for resources from other countries. Nuclear generation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. ==Disadvantages== Nuclear reactors require water to keep the reactor cool. The process of extracting energy from a heat source, called the Brayton cycle, requires the steam to be cooled down. In practice, this means that on extremely hot days, which is when demand can be at its highest, the capacity of a nuclear plant may go down because the incoming water - usually a river - has been warmed so that the maximum allowed temperature for the exhaust water (which is lower than the fishkill temperature) is closer to the inlet temperature. ==Risks== Opponents of nuclear power, like Greenpeace, Sierra Club[http://www.ge.com/ar2004/proxy/prop02.jsp ] and Friends_of_the_Earth, argue against its use due to issues like 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 nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons. They point to the chequered history of nuclear power and its continual procession of List_of_nuclear_accidents, from the 1950s to the present day. Proponents argue that the risks are small and that fear has been the single largest obstacle to the widespread use of nuclear power. They believe that nuclear power or coal are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached (see peak oil). Coal currently contributes significantly to problems like global warming, acid rain, various diseases due to airborne pollution, and the storage of large amounts of ash. Renewables have not solved problems like intermittent output, high costs, and diffuse output which requires the use of large surface areas and much construction material and which increases distribution losses. For example, studies in Britain has shown that increasing windpower production contribution to 20% of all energy production would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup. Increasing the contribution of intermittent energy sources above that is not possible with current technology [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.htm]. Future technology may both increase the efficiency and safety of alternative energy sources, including nuclear, and make them more environmentally friendly. ===Accident or attack=== Opponents argue that a major disadvantage of the use of nuclear reactors is the threat of a Nuclear_accidents or terrorist attack and the possible resulting exposure to radiation. Proponents argue that the potential for a meltdown, as in Chernobyl accident is very small due to the care taken in designing adequate safety systems, and that the nuclear industry has much better statistics regarding humans deaths from occupational accidents than coal or hydropower [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.htm]. The accident at Chernobyl is thought to have been caused by a combination of a faulty reactor design (such as no containment building present in all Western reactors), poorly trained operators, and a non-existent safety culture. Even in an accident such as Three Mile Island, the containment vessels were never breached, so that very little radiation was released into the environment. Research is being done to lessen the risks by developing automated and passively safe fission reactors. Fusion reactors have little risk since the fuel contained in the reaction chamber is only enough to sustain the reaction for about a minute, whereas a fission reactor contains about a year's supply of fuel. Subcritical reactors never have a self sustained nuclear chain reaction. Opponents of nuclear power express concerns that nuclear waste is not well protected, and that it can be released in the event of terrorist attack. Other energy sources like, hydropower plants and liquified natural gas tankers, are also vulnerable to accidents attacks. Proponents of nuclear power contend, however, that nuclear waste ''is'' well protected, and state their argument that there has been no accident involving any form of nuclear waste from a civilian program worldwide. In addition, they point to large studies carried out by NRC and other agencies that tested the robustness of both reactor and waste fuel storage, and found that they should be able to sustain a terrorist attack comparable to the September 11, 2001 attacks terrorist attacks [http://www.world-nuclear.org/news/resistance.htm]. Spent fuel is usually housed inside reactor containment [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.htm]. In the US, insurance for nuclear or radiological incidents is covered (except for facilities built after 2002) by the Price-Anderson Act. In 2005, Congress of the United States will debate extending coverage to newer facilities. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 American States have requested emergency doses of potassium iodine which the NRC recommends for those living within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant [http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/emerg-preparedness/protect-public/potassium-iodide.html]. The United States Navy owns and operates half of the nuclear reactors in the world. There has never been an incident in 51 years of near constant naval operation of these hundreds of power plants. === Airborne pollution === All power sources, including renewables, contribute to global warming, for example when mining and refining raw materials. However, most life cycle analysis shows that nuclear power contribution is about equal to that of many renewables and is much less than that from fossil fuels. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.htm]. Fission reactors produce gases such as iodine-131 or krypton-85 which have to be stored on-site for several half-lives until they have decayed to levels officially regarded as safe. According to several independent organizations, a person receives more radioactivity from household appliances than from nuclear power [http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/ne6.htm]. === Health effect on population near nuclear power plants === Most of the human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities. However, in Britain there are elevated childhood leukemia levels near some industrial facilities, particularly near Sellafield, where children living locally are ten times more likely to contract the cancer. The reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear, but one study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are orders of magnitude too low to account for the excess incidences reported. One explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being introduced into a local community by the mass movement of migrant workers. Likewise, small studies have found an increased incidence of childhood leukemia near some nuclear power plants has also been found in Germany [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9210727] and France [http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/lahague.html]. Nonetheless, the results of larger multi-site studies in these countries invalidate the hypothesis of an increased risk of leukaemia related to nuclear discharge. The methodology and very small samples in the studies finding an increased incidence has been criticized. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11990512&dopt=Abstract] [http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=1112&docid=&format=print] [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.htm] [http://www.personalmd.com/news/n0818103222.shtml]. === Solid waste === ''Main article: Nuclear waste Nuclear power produces spent fuel, a unique solid waste problem. Because spent nuclear fuel is radioactive, extra care and forethought are given to facilitate their safe storage (see nuclear waste). The waste from highly radioactive spent fuel needs to be handled with great care and forethought due to the long half-lifes of the radioactive isotopes in the waste. As of 2003, the United States accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. Unlike other countries, U.S. policy forbids recycling of used fuel and is treated as waste. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. It is unclear whether this material can be safeguarded for such a long period of time. The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a difficult challenge. Because of potential harm from radiation, spent nuclear fuel must be stored in shielded basins of water, or in dry storage vaults or containers until its radioactivity decreases naturally ("decays") to safe levels. This can take days or thousands of years, depending on the type of fuel. Most waste is currently stored in temporary storage sites, requiring constant maintenance, while suitable permanent disposal methods are discussed. Underground storage like Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. Some argue that the generation of nuclear waste outpaces the ability of the current temporary storage sites to safely store it [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-waste12jun12,0,7666923.story?coll=la-home-headlines]. See the article on the nuclear fuel cycle for more information. The nuclear industry produces a much greater volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and upon decomissioning the materials of which the reactor itself is built. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly attempted to allow low-level materials to be handled as normal waste: landfilled, recycled into consumer items, etc. Much low-level waste release very low levels of radioactivity and is essentially considered radioactive waste because of its history. For example, according to the standards of the NRC, the radiation released by coffee is enough to treat it as low level waste. Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring radioactive material in the coal. In addition, the nuclear industry fuel cycle produces many tons of depleted uranium (uranium from which the easily fissile U235 element has been removed, leaving behind only U238). This material is much more concentrated than natural uranium ores, and must be disposed of. U238 is a very tough metal with several commercial uses, for example aircraft production and radiation shielding. Nuclear power has useful additional advantages, including production of radioisotopes used in medicine and food preservation, though the demand for these products can be satisfied by a relatively small number of plants. In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes (which remains hazardous indefinitely) [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.htm]. The amounts of waste can be reduced in several ways. Both nuclear reprocessing and fast breeder reactors can reduce the amounts of waste and increase the amount of energy gained per fuel unit. Subcritical reactors or fusion reactors could greatly reduce the time the waste has to be stored [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm]. Subcritical reactors may also be able to do the same already existing waste. It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. The current waste may well become valuable fuel in the future, particularly if it is not reprocessed, as in the U.S. === Nuclear proliferation === ''Main article: Nuclear proliferation'' [[Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion can be used for military purposes. See Nuclear weapons.]] Opponents of nuclear power point out that nuclear technology is often dual-use technology, and much of the same materials and knowledge used in a civilian nuclear program can be used to develop nuclear weapons. This concern is known as nuclear proliferation and is a major reactor design criterion. The military and civil purposes for nuclear energy are intertwined in most countries with nuclear capabilities. in the US for example the mission statement of the department of energy states its two primary goals: :"''1) Ensuring a dependable energy supply for the American economy; 2) ensuring a secure, reliable nuclear deterrent for the nation’s defense.''"[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/budget/energy.pdf ] While the enriched uranium used in most nuclear reactors is not concentrated enough to build a bomb (most nuclear reactors run on 4% enriched uranium, while a bomb requires an estimated 90% enrichment), the technology used to enrich uranium could be used to make the highly enriched uranium needed to build a bomb. In addition, breeder reactor designs such as CANDU can be used to generate plutonium for bomb making materials. It is believed that the nuclear programs of India and Pakistan used CANDU-like reactors to produce fissionable materials for their weapons. To prevent this, safeguards on nuclear technology were published in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of 1968.Nations signing the treaty are required to report to the IAEA what nuclear materials they hold and their location. They agree to accept visits by IAEA auditors and inspectors to verify independently their material reports and physically inspect the nuclear materials concerned to confirm physical inventories of them in exchange for access to nuclear materials and equipment on the global market. Several states did not sign the treaty and were able to use international nuclear technology (often procured for civilian purposes) to develop nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa). Of those who have signed the treaty and received shipments of nuclear paraphernalia, many states have either claimed to or been accused of attempting to use supposedly civilian nuclear power plants for developing weapons, including Iran and North Korea. Certain types of reactors are more conducive to producing nuclear weapons materials than others, and a number of international disputes over proliferation have centered on the specific model of reactor being contracted for in a country suspected of nuclear weapon ambitions. New technology, like SSTAR, may lessen the risk of nuclear proliferation by providing sealed reactors with a limited self-contained fuel supply and with restrictions against tampering. Some proponents of nuclear power agree that the risk of nuclear proliferation may be a reason to prevent nondemocratic developing nations from gaining any nuclear technology but argue that this is no reason for democratic developed nations to abandon their nuclear power plants. Especially since it seems that democracies never make war against each other (See the democratic peace theory). Furthermore, all power sources and technology can be used to produce and use weapons. The weapons of mass destruction used in chemical warfare and biological warfare are not dependent on nuclear power. Humans could still make war even if all technology was forbidden. == Economy == Opponents of nuclear power claim that any of the environmental benefits are outweighed by safety compromises and by the costs related to construction and operation of nuclear power plants, including costs for spent-fuel disposition and plant retirement. Proponents of nuclear power state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. The cost of many renewables would be increased if they included necessary back-up due to their intermittent nature. Also not included in costs, hydropower produces large amount of greenhouse gases when organic matter decomposes in the dams [http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=aeab79d7983d4a8995b9beb2f22ffeb4&referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,25;journal,29,89;linkingpublicationresults,1:100344,1] A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plant in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 per tonne CO2 (£110/tC) for coal and gas. Wind power was shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, coal, nuclear and gas ranged 2.2-2.6 p/kWh and coal gasification was 3.2 p/kWh - all base-load plant. Adding the carbon tax (up to 2.5 p) took coal close to onshore wind (with back-up) at 5.4 p/kWh - offshore wind is 7.2 p/kWh, while nuclear remained at 2.3 p/kWh. Nuclear figures included decommissioning. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm]. Proponents note that several opponents of nuclear power have been forced to conclude in studies that renewables cannot replace all current energy production from fossil fuels, due to issues like intermittent output. To accept nuclear power may be a better solution than the lower livings standards some argue for [http://sharpgary.org/RenewableE.html][http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.inderscience.com/filter.php%3Faid%3D2383]. ===Capital costs=== In the U.S, a single nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than a single steam-based coal-fired plant. A coal plant is itself more expensive to build than a single natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant. Although the cost per megawatt for a nuclear power plant is comparable to a coal-fired plant and less than a natural gas plant, the smallest nuclear power plant that can be built is much larger than the smallest natural gas power plant, making it possible for a utility to build natural gas plants in much smaller increments. In the U.S., licensing, inspection and certification delays add large amounts of time and cost to the construction of a nuclear plant. These delays and costs are not present when building either gas-fired or coal-fired plants. Because a power plant does not earn money during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher interest charges on borrowed construction funds. However, the regulatory processes for siting, licensing, and constructing have since been standardized, to make construction of newer and inherently safer designs more attractive to utilities and their investors. In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are significantly less because of streamlined government licensing and certification procedures. In France, one model of reactor was type-certified, using a safety engineering process similar to the process used to certify aircraft models for safety. That is, rather than licensing individual reactors, the regulatory agency certified a particular design and its construction process to produce safe reactors. U.S. law permits type-licensing of reactors, but no type license has ever been issued by a U.S. nuclear regulatory agency. In an attempt to encourage development of nuclear power, the US Department of Energy DOE has offered interested parties the opportunity to introduce France's model for licensing and to subsidize 50% of the construction expenses. Several applications were made but the project is still in its infancy. ===Operating costs=== In the U.S., these charges require that coal and nuclear power plants must operate more cheaply than natural gas plants in order to be built. In general, coal and nuclear plants have the same operating costs (operations and maintenance plus fuel costs). However, nuclear and coal differ in the source of those costs. Nuclear has lower fuel costs but higher operating and maintenance costs than coal. In recent times in the United States these operating costs have not been low enough for nuclear to repay its high investment costs. Thus new nuclear reactors have not been built in the United States. Coal's operating cost advantages have only rarely been sufficient to encourage the construction of new coal based power generation. Around 90 to 95 percent of new power plant construction in the United States has been natural gas-fired. These numbers exclude capacity expansions at existing coal and nuclear units. To be competative in the current market, both the nuclear and coal industries must reduce new plant investment costs and construction time. The burden is clearly greater for nuclear producers than for coal producers, because investment costs are higher for nuclear plants, which also have the same operating costs. Operation and maintenance costs are particularly important because they represent a large portion of costs for nuclear power. ===Subsidies=== Energy research and development (R&D) for nuclear power has and continues to receive much larger state subsidies than R&D for renewable energy or fossil fuels. However, today most of this takes places in Japan and France, in most other nations renewable R&D get more money. In the U.S., public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 to 2000 [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.htm]. Renewables receive large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.htm]. Fossil fuels receive large indirect subsidies since they do not have to pay for their pollution and in various other ways [http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=149]. Nuclear power also receives subsidies, for example in the U.S. they have limited liability for accidents (9.5 billion dollars as of 2004) under the Price-Anderson Act. ===Other economic issues=== Nuclear Power plants tend to be most competitive in areas where no other resources are readily available. China and India top the list of new plant starts. France, most notably, has almost no native supplies of fossil fuels [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html]. The province of Ontario, Canada is already using all of its best sites for hydroelectric power, and has minimal supplies of fossil fuels, so a number of nuclear plants have been built there. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, according to the government's Department Of Trade And Industry, no further nuclear power stations are to be built, due to the high cost per unit of nuclear power, compared to fossil fuels [http://www.dti.gov.uk/nuclear/nuclear.htm]. However, the British government's chief scientific advisor David King reports that building one more generation of nuclear power plants may be necessary [http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050512-082200-3520r.htm]. Most new gas-fired plants are intended for peak supply. The larger nuclear and coal plants cannot quickly adjust their instantaneous power production, and are generally intended for baseline supply. The market price for baseline power has not increased as rapidly as that for peak demand. Some new experimental reactors, notably pebble bed modular reactors, are specifically designed for peaking power. Any effort to construct a new nuclear facility, whether it is a older design or a newer experimental design, around the world must deal with NIMBY issues. Given the high profile of both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, few municipalities would welcome a new nuclear reactor, processing plant, transportation route, or experimental nuclear burial ground within their borders, and many have issued local ordinances prohibiting the development of nuclear power. Current nuclear reactors returns around 40-60 times the invested energy when using life cycle analysis. This is better than coal, natural gas, and current renewables except hydropower [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.htm]. ==List of atomic energy groups== * American Nuclear Society (United States) * Department of Energy (United States) * Areva (France) * Électricité de France (France) * MinAtom (Russia) * EnergoAtom (Ukraine) * Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority * United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) *EURATOM (Europe) *International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ==References== * [http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN03-26-99/savannah_story.htm Atoms for Peace] *[http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html The Nuclear Energy Option], online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Pro nuclear power. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear. ==External links== * [http://www.westinghousenuclear.com Westinghouse Electric Co.] * [http://www.areva.com Areva (and Framatone)] * [http://www.world-nuclear.org/index.htm World Nuclear Association] * [http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html Calendar of Nuclear Accidents] * [http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html World Information Service on Energy (WISE)] ==See also== *Fusion power *Nuclear physics *Future energy development Nuclear technology Electric power th:พลังงานนิวเคลียร์
Nuclear power
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) *Talk:Nuclear Power/Archive_1: *Talk:Nuclear Power/Archive_2: =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== {| border=0 width=90% background=white align=center |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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 20:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ==Another Intro by Ben== {| border=0 width=90% background=white align=center |Nuclear power is energy released by the destruction of nuclear reactions. Nuclear power currently provides 2.5% of the worlds energy. Due to growing concerns related to the global warming and Peak Oil 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 radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive radioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is disputed whether the risks can be suffeceintly reduced with new technology. |} User:Benjamin Gatti 01:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == An Intro Proposal by Dalf== :''See section below for comments and responses to the numbers in (())'' {| border=0 width=90% background=white align=center |Nuclear power is power, usually in the form of electircity, generated by harnesing the energy released in a controled nuclear reactions. 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 Peak Oil 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 radioactive waste, the potential for radioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the nuclear 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? User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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? User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.User: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). User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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 System 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? User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ****Re-worded to ommit mention of WWII. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User: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). User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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 NPOV. ****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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ===comments/questions=== 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Pstudier 00:51, 2005 May 25 (UTC) ***I changed the wording above to use more precise language and not the word decay. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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! User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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? User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. 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%[http://www.barcelona2004.org/eng/banco_del_conocimiento/documentos/ficha.cfm?idDoc=350 ] 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 radioactive waste, the potential forradioactive contamination, and the possibility that its use will lead to the nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is hoped that new reactor designs and underground storage schemes could prevent these problems. :Comments: :* X-Rays aren't a nuclear phenomenon. Referring to Henri Becquerel and the Maria Sklodowska-Curie 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''. :User: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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 00:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) This site [http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=10i79tmjuy0kh?tname=list-of-countries-with-nuclear-weapons&method=6&sbid=lc03b Answers]] has a few intros to compare. User:Benjamin Gatti 16:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :added disambig with Nuclear powers after reading this link. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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.User:Benjamin Gatti Do you have a source for the 2.5% figure? According to [http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm], nuclear provides 16% of the worlds electricity, and IIRC, electricity is about half of the total energy consumption. User: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. [http://www.barcelona2004.org/eng/banco_del_conocimiento/documentos/ficha.cfm?idDoc=350 Source for 2.5%] User:Benjamin Gatti 01:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Here is a source that says }6.8% of energy and 16.9% of electricity. [http://213.130.42.236/wna_pdfs/nea-overview.pdf] 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. User: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. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 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. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 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. User:Dalf | User talk:Dalf 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. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 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. User: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