Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

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

• Archive 1 (up to May 19, 2005):
• Archive 2 (May 19 to May 22, 2005):
• Archive 3 (May 23 to May 24, 2005):
• Archive 4 (May 25 to May 28, 2005):
• Archive 5 (June7 to June 13, 2005):
• Archive 6 (June 22 to August 10, 2005):
• Archive 7 (August 11 to August 31, 2005):
• Archive 8 (September 1 to December 28, 2005):

Recycling Nuclear Waste

"Unlike other countries, U.S. policy forbids recycling of used fuel and it is all treated as waste."

Why has the U.S. chosen this policy? What are the benefits?

The US has chosen this policy because of fears that reactor plutonium might fall into the wrong hands in the process of being shipped around all over the place in a substantial frequency. So they've decided to just bury it all in a final storage at Yucca Mountain, NV [1]. --213.54.178.188 16:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Risk

There are several meanings for "risk", so what is the source for "the risk of a nuclear accident in a nuclear reactor"? (SEWilco 02:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

More risk

The Nuclear industry itself has argued that the risk of a nuclear accident in a nuclear reactor is higher than for other forms of energy and unacceptable unless the government agrees to impose the risk of severe radiological event on taxpayers even if it is caused by criminal and negligent conduct. The United States government agreed to impose the costs of a nuclear event on taxpayers in the Price-Anderson act, which was recently renewed because the latest reactor designs continue to pose the unacceptable risk of a severe nuclear accident such as occured at Chernoyl.

Benjamin, are you saying that the latest American reactor designs are no better, in term of safety, than the design of the Chernobyl reactor? Anything to back up this claim? --Berkut 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If we accept that the Insurance industry is an expert on risk evaluation, and that as a consequence the cost of insurance is a rational indication of the real risk then yes, I can back up the claim. The fact is that the federal government (US centric alert) has just this month extended the provisions of the price anderson insurance act which subsidizes a huge pool of insurance for nuclear plants while suspending liability laws for nuclear reactors to cover FUTURE reactors, ie the one's currently on the drawing board. This means the current designs are STILL not safe enough for the industry to accept the risk on the same terms that it accepts risk for every other kind of energy. Coal - ordinary insurance, NG - even LNG (which has a great deal of potential for severe mishaps) are insurable, of course all renewables: Wind, wave, solar are insurable (Wave is quite expensive about 100% start-up premium BTW but no insurance subsides). So ONLY nuclear energy requires a special dispensation for liability, and what is more - even next year's plant REQUIRES the dispensation. The only rational explaination is that the insurance industry understands the risk and it is very very high - essentially unchanged - as the insurable risk is a factor of how much fuel is under the hood at a given time (3yrs worth typically). Benjamin Gatti

For the umpteenth time, we need Price-Anderson because insurable losses might exceed the $300 million maximum insurance available. That's still a far cry from the losses that happened due to Chernobyl. The insurance industry does insure nuclear, up to the maximum they insure anybody.

We have yet to see if wave power is insurable - one good hurricane takes it out.

Non-Soviet plants are far safer than Chernobyl, which was inherently unsafe, uncontained and managed by incompetents (one of which insisted on running the test that blew up the plant). As for what's under the hood, there's no graphite in BWRs and PWRs, and in our plants the hood is three feet of steel-reinforced concrete.

Simesa 05:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I take an intermediate view. The US reactor designs are generally acknowledged to be safer than the type of reactor present at Chernobyl, but they still have failure modes that are extremely dangerous though the safety record indicates they are probably extremely rare.

It's possible that some portions of the nuclear power industry could survive without subsidized insurance (and liability waivers), but I think there's good evidence that a lot of plants couldn't survive in an unsubsidized environment (several are operated IIRC by companies that are barely alive). There's no other power source with the sort of third party risk that virtually all nuclear plants have. At least with wave power, you can self-insure. For nuclear power, only governments can genuinely self-insure a nuclear reactor against the worst case accidents. -- KarlHallowell 02:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is true and untrue. Companies can afford to insure their own assets - or more importantly, their investors assets up to their net worth. This is more expensive or less expensive depending on the risk profile of their paricular enterprise. For wind, the risk of catastrophic losses are minimal, and the costs low, but for Nuclear, the risk is considerably higher, not because the probability of an event is higher but because (Probability * Potential Losses) is very high, and that formula is what actuaries care about. The question is why, as an industry - should they be allowed to compete with people who carry the full cost of their risk while having the government carry the cost of their risk? It seems inherently unfair - and I suugest a violation of equal protection - not as in (Duke v. Environmentalists) because it places an undo burden on local residents, but because it places a competative burden on cleaner - safer alternatives. Benjamin Gatti 04:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For the umpteenth response - nuclear is the ONLY energy technology that can't pay its own way on risk. Price Anderson is zip for coal, squat for wind, nien for solar, and everything for nuclear - just explain how that is a level playing field for the people Simesa. Nuclear is the bicyclist on government-issued steroids bragging about how it won the race. Benjamin Gatti

(And Hurricanes don't take out wave devices necessarily, hurricane is a surface perturbation, several designs can submerge during storms.)

If your real gripe is a level playing field, that's already covered under Subsidies. But the points you tried to push here were quite different - you want to use Price-Anderson to conclude that nuclear is unacceptably risky, which is the same as saying that because we need the FDIC we shouldn't have any banks.

And we'll probably see if wave power can survive a 38 foot storm swell like Katrina's.

Simesa 14:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The FDIC covers all banks. Price anderson only covers nuclear. Why is that? Its because nuclear is a risk of a different order of magnitude. Benjamin Gatti

The USGS covers all rocks but not corn. Why is that? It's because rocks are of a hardness of a different order of magnitude. Or perhaps hardness, or risk, is not relevant nor comparable. (SEWilco 17:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

Which is cute - but if electricity is a fungible commodity - the DOE (of energy) ought to treat a people who produce electricity as equals rather than treat some to special insurance rates - while forcing others to compete on a tilted playing field. I'm sure the average reader realizes that fact however difficult it may be for some. Benjamin Gatti

It seems to me that the consequences rather than the risk (=likelihood*consequences) is what is being addressed here, and mostly from a public relations point of view. The insurance industry does not react only to facts but also to perceptions, at least in "rare event" cases like these. The limit of exposure to insurance companies, as their shareholders perceive it, will protect their value, and the assurance to the public that the government will pick up the tab for anything else will allow reactor construction to proceed. The designs of Western nuclear reactors do not warrant the doomsday scenarios painted, so in fact the government is not committing to any real expenditure, unlike say response to natural disasters which costs real money on a frequent basis.

I also doubt that what you write is literally true; the nuclear industry is unlikely indulge in cutting its own throat. However no doubt a link would sort it out.

Cheers, Joffan 21:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that Price Anderson relieves responsability even for managerial misconduct and intentionally cutting corners where safety is affected. - How is anything here literally untrue? which factoid? Benjamin Gatti

Except that the plant is operated to Technical Specifications, which are part of the Operating License granted by the NRC and which carries the force of law. So any managerial misconduct and intentionally cutting corners might not expose the utility to civil penalties, but they would expose the people involved and the company itself to criminal penalties. Simesa 02:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Name one energy company that hasn't engaged in criminal activity in order to enhance revenues. Still thinking? No, not just Enron. But if a wind power operator were negligent, the wind power company would be fully financially responsible for any damages. See its not a level playing field - because nuclear energy is too dangerous to be competative. Benjamin Gatti

Are you really making a blanket assertion about public utilities without the slightest cite? Fine - show me when Entergy, one of the largest owners of nuclear plants in the U.S., committed "criminal activity". Simesa 19:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence, when read literally, is probably untrue. Starting with "The Nuclear industry itself has argued", it uses inflammatory language about nuclear risks. I very much doubt the industry argued in the fashion you describe. A link would sort it out. Joffan 13:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast. That sentence has been sourced (in Price anderson act). It absolutely true, Both Westinghouse and GE went to congress and stated that the dangers of nuclear energy were so severe that they couldn't risk their respective enterpizes by participating UNLESS they were given a special dispensation. They continue to this day to make the same argument - that new reactors will not be built without special indemnity. Benjamin Gatti

It's not enough to simply assert it. Give a link. Joffan 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This is from GAO - an anonymous version. more detailed accounts give the identities of the players: Westinghouse and GE, and quotes from their presidents saying much the same - we cannot afford the risk - which is high. The position continues unchanged to this day. no industry leader is saying - that was then this is now - then we needed insurance subsidies because it was risky - but it isn;t risky anymore - quite the opposite, the risk and the subsidy remain in place. Benjamin Gatti

Benjamin Gatti

You're still relying on the testimony from 50 years ago. And since then no non-Soviet plant has had a Chernobyl. Back then it was patriotism, but today Congress and the industry certainly feel confident enough to go ahead on nuclear's own merits. Simesa 19:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Benjamin. As Simesa remarks, this is nearly 50 years old. Perhaps your sentence should have started, "The fledgling nuclear industry argued ...", but even then there is way more in that sentence than was argued for. The "criminal and negligent" exclusions only apply to DOE contractors, I notice.

I know that you love using the broad word "risk" but it is "consequence(s)" (and resulting liability) that is the issue.

However it's a fascinating area and the more I look at Price-Anderson, the better it seems all round as a scheme to avoid all the money falling off the table into insurers' pockets (or the chance of the same killing the industry). I'd be interested to establish, from anyone who thinks this self-insuring nuclear club really is a subsidy, exactly how much insurance a nuclear reactor site should buy? Joffan 19:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that the same arguments are being made today, by the same companies. I think over in Price Anderson, we agreed that Cheney himself had indicated that no new plants would be build without an extension of the Price Anderson provisions (and more I might add). This has little to do with "the industry" because the industry would just as soon build safer plants, NG mostly, perhaps gasified coal, but the US is overriding the rational risk/reward market by an unbalanced subsidy. You come back and say - yeah well Price isn't a subsidy, its just a way to save money - so I respond, why if that's true, isn't it available to every other form of clean energy on an equal basis? I have taken out a patent on a wave energy device, i'll need insurance - do I get some government work-around so I can pay pennies on the dollar for insurance. Perhaps the risk of a wave energy device isn't that people will get killed in an accident, maybe it just that it won't last as long as the spreadsheet says - do I get a government bail-out on that risk? See risk is the mother's milk of investment (but you knew that) so when the government takes the risk, it is a serious subsidy - even if the risk goes unrealized. Benjamin Gatti

No one has claimed anyone is twisting industry's arm to build new nuclear plants, there is no evidence of any pressure to participate in the consortiums - your claim that industry would rather build other types of plants is apparently unfounded. And your financial dependence on wave energy is irrelevant to this article. Simesa 02:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Not financially dependant - just the logical result of extensive research into solar, wind and wave. I recall a quote by the "Oracle of Omaha" that he didn't care what kind of plant he funded, he wanted the government to set policy, and he would provide the financing. GE, and Westinghouse are deeply invested in Turbine technologies - I doubt it matters much to them what drives those turbines. The fact is that in a level playing field - Nuclear is too risky. - Are you denying that? Benjamin Gatti

Yep. Simesa 04:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you denying that in 1957, with a virgin playing field, not yet marred by subsidies, that nuclear was too risky (that has been sourced). Or are you suggesting that reality has changed and it is no longer too risky. If (b.) then could you explain why the government STILL feels it is necesssary to provide a risk subsidies (again the DOE calls it a subsidy)? Benjamin Gatti

(See first paragraph under "Risk Reality" Simesa 15:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC))

Risk Reality

The "reality" used in safety analyses has changed. We now don't rely on atom bomb fallout data applied to half a core arbitrarily thrown into the air, we have computer models of core meltdowns, containment leak rates and plume characteristics. We have Probabilistic Risk Assessments specifically for each plant - we can calculate the risks, and minimize them by addressing each problem area. Some of the new plants will be passively-safe, and also require no operator action for three days in the event of a LOCA. You really should study the field. Simesa 04:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Right - I build physics models for renewable energy plants, I understand modelling - but thanks. Note the word "some" The fact is that any new plants would still be experimental and unproven - and proven designs would still have the same risks as the older plants, and in the end none of this alters the fact that the playing field is tipped - because nuclear is far more risky. All of this fails to answer the question - if it's good for the goose - why not the gander? Why isn't there a risk subsidy for truly clean forms of fully renewable energy? The answer is because we like to kill people - we like to have a nuclear industry because it makes BOMBS that kill people, and we would rather kill people than spend the same money on solving the problem. We would spend 300 Billion dollars bombing Arabs before we would spend that kind of money building a renewable energy infrastructure so we could leave the rest of the world in peace. - but no, we CHOOSE the nuclear option - we want nuclear reactors, nuclear bombs, little tiny nukes so we can assassinate world leaders. Why not apply the risk subsidy to windmills? because they don't have a WAR DIVIDEND - they don't kill people. Its the Billions for Bombs, Pennies for Peace priority of the Radical-Religious-(Kill Hugo Chavez)-Right which is running (or not running as the events in New Orleans suggest) - this country.

The question you have not answered is why shouldn't price anderson be availble to other forms of clean energy - you won't answer it - for 3 months now, you have been asked that question and diverted the question. Benjamin Gatti

Actually, and as I've stated before, I've always held that I wouldn't mind fully subsidizing renewable energy sources. The ABWR is a proven design. The nuclear industries of most countries have nothing to do with weapons, although government organizations might. The U.S. has an Executive Order against assassinating the leaders of other countries. And you need to calm down. Simesa 15:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that government support for renewable energy is not a level playing field - because nuclear (and i do recognize that nuclear might be the option of last resort in a carbon-free energy economy) because the risk dimension is not level (ignoring for the moment that 95% of cash subsides have been for nuclear). Perhaps you would join me in recognizing that risk dimension is not level? I have scheduled a calming-down day. Benjamin Gatti

• RE:"For the umpteenth time, we need Price-Anderson because insurable losses might exceed the $300 million maximum insurance available. That's still a far cry from the losses that happened due to Chernobyl." (Simesa - ealier)

• Let's say I want to build a wave energy plant - cost is a billion dollars and there is risks identifyied in excess of 300 million, why shouldn't I be eligible for some government risk bail-out? Benjamin Gatti

For wave energy development, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Simesa 15:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The risk for my project is probably the Katrina factor. A severe weather event at the wrong time, particularly during deployment could be ugly. Several wave projects have already succumbed to storms - so I think the risk subsidy needs to completely removve that barrior to entry - as it has done for the dominant risk of its competition - because I believe that peaceful energy (ie the kind you can give Saddam Hussein and Castro, and North Korea without giving them the rope to hang you by) is worth at least as much public support as the nuk'em all option. And BTW the DOE's FIRST objective is killing people. Benjamin Gatti

Let me try to answer a couple of your questions as I see them Benjamin.

• Why shouldn't the government bail out my enterprise risk?

  They don't bail out this risk with anyone, including nuclear power providers. (Joffan)

  Well they do - read Price. Part of the enterprize risk of a nuclear plant is the litigation potential from a radiological event. That risk is fully mitigated by the feds - which I only oppose to the extent it is unequal. (Benjamin Gatti)

  That is not enterprise risk as I intended to convey it. That is accident liability risk. Joffan 05:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't Price-Anderson be available for other energy generation technologies?

  In short because insurers and government do not force any other technology to provide for failure modes with extreme third-party consequence, likely or not. Cheers, Joffan 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  Sure they do - basic tort laws requires the responsible party to make the injured party whole and to suffer punative damages where appropriate. State laws are suspended by Price - tort laws don't apply. If I have a nuclear plant, i can leak toxins with near impunity - with no bottom line impact. Benjamin Gatti

  Now Ben, you know perfectly well that nuclear plants don't generate toxins except as contained inside the fuel and possibly (not with the new higher-quality fuel) a little offgas that is carefully held up to decay before being dischgarged up a stack of regulated height, and that all the same environmental laws apply to nuclear units as to any other facility. In fact, we couldn't have a coal-fired power plant inside the fence because it would emit too much radiation. Simesa 05:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  Nuclear plants do generate toxins: in the form of lethally hot water which kills fish, the offgas as you say, as well as the spent fuel, which is highly toxic, and in a world of extremists and warmongers, the mere presence of radiological materials is a toxic threat. The point is that reactor operators are not subject to state liability laws - even if they release toxins (which Three mile Island did - and others ) Benjamin Gatti

  Re Benjamin Gattio on the subject of toxins am I right in thinking that low level discharges to environmental air and water are permitted even though they may accumulate? (See Irish and Uk dispute about the Irish Sea) As for risks many nuclear plants are on coastal sites to make use of sea water for cooling. With sea levels rising and storm frequencies and strengths probably increasing (See IPCC reports) here is a further risk to many stations that I have never seen built into risk prognostications. [User:Dleggett]

• The operative word was "extreme", such that $10 billion worth of insurance is required. Recompense is actually designed to be quicker under Price-Anderson, with fewer defences to liability allowed for plant operators. It's nonsense that leaking toxins has no financial consequences to the operator. Joffan 05:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  I could easily propose a wave energy plant which could benefit from $10 Billion dollars worth of risk compensation - why shouldn't such a plant be entitled to a level playing field. The reactor is largely shielded from liabiity under Price Anderson - completely shielded from punative damages - actual damages are capped, and state liability laws are suspended. you are suggesting that Price is "Superior" to tort law because it offers fewer defenses - so again I ask, why should a wave energy plan be provided similar access to the benefits of a "superior" program. Benjamin Gatti

  Speaking of subsidies, why does wind energy in US receives the tax relieves that make it competitive? And you can far many more examples in energy business. The problem is that in the "regulated market", i.e. when goverm\nment is in place you get all different sorts of these disproportions. So Benjamin, why are you picking only on this one? And BTW how much the US taxpeyers actually had to paid? Or anyother for that matter. In my country the state bares the risk of accident exceeding the insurance limit. Guess what, tax payers have not paid a cent... yet. Wherease on tax relieves to all different companies, not just in energy business it was a lot, a lot and again a lot. You seem to be confusing the risk in the way nuclear industry uses it and some sort of insurance risk that nobody knows how much is, because there are simply no cases from which they could learn, so the insurance copmanies just do not know. That is why.

World Nuclear Association

In the current version of the article, fully one third of the 57 external links in the body of the article go to the World Nuclear Association. I can't help thinking that relying this heavily on what is hardly a neutral source is not a good thing. Rd232 14:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Problems of Transitioning

I will agree that in order to sustain current demand for energy nuclear fission is the only viable source for the future, excluding the development of fusion power. However, this forgets to account for one major factor (aside from the complications of mass scale construction amidst the global oil crisis that will come when production fails to meet demand): most nuclear reactors (as described in the article obviously in favour of nuclear power) require the use of water to generate their power, and in cooling processes. Water - not oil, natural gas, coal, uranium or any other fuel - will be the most vital resource of the future. We need to worry about managing our water resources for the growth of human fuel for a continually growing world population, before diverted them to harness electrical fuel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.85.243 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Some water is evaporated, much is merely warmed and released. But it sounds like you should read Overpopulation. (SEWilco 19:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC))

opening up a curious matter. It seems based on EIA data, that flat populations coincides with a fairly high level of energy consumption (about 5KW sustained per person) - so it seems inevitable that at global population peak (est 2050) every person will have access to the equivelent benefit of 5KW. Can we stimulate population stability by _increasing_ energy consumption. or finally could we _lower_ future energy use by increasing near-term energy consumption? Benjamin Gatti

The most recent correlation reported is that population growth reduction is correlated with living in a city. I doubt that cities, and city societies, worldwide require the same energy usage. (SEWilco 18:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC))

Image deleted

Image File:AKW-LeibstadtCH.jpg was deleted by someone - I will ask that it be restored. Simesa 11:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that the image was deleted due to no source info being entered and thus being a possible copyvio. I tracked back to the original entry, and it was in early May by an anon user - I've left a message on their talk page. I've written to NEI for a photo we can use. Simesa 12:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

For the interim, I inserted an image from Commons. Thus image, too, may have source problems. Simesa 14:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert

The reference by user:62.47.136.241 was simply that of a model - no results were generated or reported. I surmise that 62.47.136.241 simply ran the model him/herself. I therefore reverted based on original research. Simesa 11:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

CANDU & misc.

Added CANDU to the list of reactor types, and AECL to the list of Nuclear companies at the end. Also corrected the myth of India/Pakistan having used CANDU or 'CANDU-like' reactors for their weapons programs - India used a (canadian-supplied) 40MW research reactor, and Pakistan has long had an enrichment program. Finally, added sentence about South Africa being the only country to create their own nuclear weapons and then dismantle them to Proliferation section. Maybe a good example for the rest of the Nuclear Weapons States.... Burtonpe 18:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Good additions. Simesa 21:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

in the section on fuel, would it be more accurate to say that light water reactors make "extremely" inefficient use of fuel, rather than "relatively?" after all, a LWR uses 0.7% of the total amount of natural uranium, requiring not just expensive, labor/energy intensive enrichment, but 150 times as much uranium must be mined, processed, transported, and disposed of to produce similar quantities of energy. would that not make a significant difference in the energy in/energy out ratio so as to justify mention?

"Further comments"

You know, I try to find a reasonable way to incorporate Ben's changes, but some stuff is just ranting. Simesa 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

After a quick reading I don't understand why the discussion on dams in the Economy section is warrented. It seems kind of beside the point and I'm not entirely convinced it's a valid point anyways. Decomposition doesn't add any new carbon to the biosphere, it's just a regular part of the carbon cycle, unlike fossil fuels of course. In any case if an economic comparison between nuclear and other fuel sources is desired perhaps a more thorough comparison is in order, that or I say we cut it. joelnish 21:54 Sept 29th 2005

I have wondered the same, and have not really made up my mind yet. But I'd like to note that the problem with the decomposition of organic matter isn't the carbon that is indirectly released, it is the methane, which is a semi-potent greenhouse gas. And the decomposition is stimulated by the regular flooding.

The section on dams is about the cost of nuclear power, when compared to other sources of power, including renewables. Which is interesting. But not necessarily in this article. -- Ec5618 05:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power is a must if the U.S. is to support its populous. Even our European neighbors are developing J.E.T. or joint european torus that uses nuclear fusion of hydrogen int helium and it yields much more power than fission and is 1000x cleaner (in my opinion). Take it from me, I am a genius!!!! I figured out how to turn energy into matter!!!!!. (unsigned genius)

No one has established that the price of nuclear power is less than the price of wind generated power. What has been established is that 97& of government funded research has been focused on one and only one source of energy without any evidence that it the safest, the cheapest, or the most abundant. Benjamin Gatti

A general comment from an interested reader on the NPOV dispute status this page has. I can see why, It feels slanted against Nuclear Power at present. Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to help correct this.

Interesting statement

The statement "Decommissioning cost must now be factored in to any plan for a new plant and often a Reclamation Bond needs to be posted guaranteeing that the site will be returned to Green Field status prior to a license being issued." was entered. I am unaware of any such requirement anywhere - not even to a brownfield. This needs a cite. Simesa 02:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Passage removed by the poster until proper citations can gathered. DV8 2XL 04:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Risk of stolen material

My earlier edit was rv'd by User_talk:DV8_2XL. Have reinstated it, reworded slightly, see below. If proponents say plants are well protected, sure, add details. But if opponents want to quote details of where material is stolen, or where the UN ask for plants to improve security, I can't see why it should be rv'd. Needs both sides to have a NPOV.

They quote incidents as far back as 1999, where workers were found to have stolen radioactive material and attempted to sell it on. [3]. The UN have since called upon world leaders to improve security , in order to prevent deadly radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists. [4]

I see your entry has been re-edited to reflect a neutral point-of-view. DV8 2XL 14:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Industry understands risk and seeks to avoid

The reason implied in the passage in question is conjecture. The real reasons are complex and have a great deal to do with issues unique to the U.S.. Canada and France, both with large Nuclear Power industries have never felt the need to go to such lengths. the passage in question states an opinion of the motivations of the U.S. industry not a fact. DV8 2XL 15:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the civil tort system in the US can be used to destroy industries. Obstetricians and firearms manufacturers are the target of numerous lawsuits that would be laughed out of the courts in a more sensible legal system. The protection sought by nuclear operators is not necessarily related to the risk to the public, but rather the risk they face from irrational liability lawsuits. --Youth 16:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

We can reword but we should definitely include the fact that the nuclear industry somehow managed to obtain immunity, it's a key point of criticism. zen master T 17:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you find the US system of law irrational is not reason to censor the fact that nuclear has been granted the opt-out immunity from that system, while safe clean energies must live with it - such as it is. Certainly there is room to discuss the merits of the US tort system, but the general idea that competitors should be exposed to the same rules is quite rational, and ought to apply. Benjamin Gatti

The wording is loaded to suggest that the industry tacitly accepts the fact that they are a high risk endeavour and this is not a fact.DV8 2XL 17:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme court has found that despite all research the risk of a nuclear holocaust cannot be ruled out. Industry has in fact argued that the risks of playing with nuclear fire do not justify investing in the technology, unless they receive and unequal and unfair escape from the rules which their competitors must endure. Specifically, they want the right to walk away without liability from any accident - even if its cause were criminal behavior by the corporation with the knowing consent of its senior administrators. Benjamin Gatti

Not "The Industry". The industry is a global concern, it is not limited to the United States, and in fact given that the U.S. turned it's back on this technology for many years, it cannot be claimed (or implied in this case) that it is a leader in nuclear power. This is the crux of my issue with the wording. Also it is dissemination to imply that the industry in the U.S. is concerned with the safety of the technology as much as they are concerned with the economics of paying the insurance that would be demanded for unlimited liability. And you are wrong to imply that every other energy generator must assume the same level of risk. Hydroelectric for example is permitted limited liability for a major dam break in many places, this having been written into the agreement locally and at the time. DV8 2XL 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You sound like you work for a pro nuclear industry PR firm "DV8 2XL"? Would it be ok for a critic to argue that since insurance rates for nuclear power are too high (and/or blanket immunity too irresponsible) then society should seek power sources other than nuclear? zen master T 19:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, you are begging the question. Liability rates are too high because expectations have been set higher for nuclear power in the U.S. than for any other central power generator. And the risks of a nuclear holocaust are simply too small with current technology to make it a concern. You will argue otherwise I am sure, however the statement that was put in the body of the main article implies that; the nuclear power industry, without reservation, recognizes that these risks are real and seeks, because of that, absolution of responsibility. This is just not so. It is dissemination bordering on propaganda to suggest that this is the case. DV8 2XL 19:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, now you are the one that doesn't seem to be making sense, you argue expectations for nuclear power in the U.S. are so high that we should give the industry immunity so we end up with no expectations at all? If an industry demands that checks and balances be discontinued to financially survive then that business should not survive, especially considering exponentially more sound alternatives energy sources exist. zen master T 22:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Your troll baiting is getting tiresome. Expectations are UNREASONABLY HIGH GIVEN THE LEVEL OF RISK Which even if you you don't accept still doesn't address the issue of the what the industry believes. And now I think that your avoiding answering this because the passage in dispute is worded to suggest that is the case. This is what I am complaining about, and the only issue I am going to argue here. That passage is a falsehood as it stands. DV8 2XL 23:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

So we agree the statement is true, but that it infers something else. For opponents to argue this case seems valid. If proponents want to add a clause stating why the US government underwrites all risks involved with nuclear power, then sure, go ahead. That's the beauty of wikipedia isn't it, so both sides state fact?? So long as the article sticks to the facts and doesn't get into some long-winded argument about a comparatively trivial matter, this approach seems to be valid. Or am I missing something? --Oscarthecat 00:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if you want to report on this U.S. policy issue. What I do care about is a semantically loaded statement that suggests that the nuclear industry accepts that they are a high risk. They do not. DV8 2XL 00:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court findings

[5]

• "Private industry and the AEC were confident that such a disaster would not occur..." which just makes my point. DV8 2XL 01:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Just not confident enough to be held responsible if it did.'" If I was looking for the truth, I'd follow the money - or were you suggesting we ignore the money and follow the rhetoric? Benjamin Gatti
  • I don't want to engage anyone in any debate on morality or economics. The industry doesn't believe, or has stated publicly that it believes that nuclear power is inherently dangerous. That is what is being implied in the passage. Your statement, (which typical to your type, you're pretending is a quote) is the same lie. It is not a question of confidence, and you know this. It is an issue of not being able to operate without insurance and the liability having been set so high that no underwriter can touch it. You know up here in Canada your side has lost almost all it's credibility in the last two years - defections- inability to attract young folk -failure to stop overhauls on old plants, even with public hearings, and your response is to stoop to this sort of dissemination. It's pathetic. DV8 2XL 04:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • You mean "popularity" - not credibility. Yes, I have stooped to quoting the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard testimony from the industry that there were risks, and they were too high to insure. As a matter of fact, the record here is quite different than you suggest. The record is that the industry went to congress in 1954 and said, "[this is risky stuff, and we are not going to take these risks, either give us immunity or we are not going to build you any nuclear reactors.]" Now you want to revise the past to suggest that the industry never said that? Balderdash. Benjamin Gatti
    • 1954, 1954, 1954!!! I'm killing myself here Ben. This is how you guys lost credibility and popularity. DV8 2XL 18:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Which is why personally, I was surprised to see that Congress extended the act in 2005. Apparently not much has changed with respect to the safety of nuclear reactors over 50 years. The Supreme court case was 1978 - or about halfway between then and now. Let's say I agree with you that the risk of a western reactor must be pretty low; would you agree that is odd then for congress to be indemnifying corporations even from criminal acts? Benjamin Gatti

You don't get it do you? I don't care what the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court has done or said. I am saying that the Industry doesn't consider itself high risk and the passage in question shouldn't suggest that it does. DV8 2XL 18:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think readers will notice that I am quoting uber-reliable sources such as the Supreme Court, which heard sworn testimony from industry and its experts, while "the other side" is relying on garden variety logical fallacies such as Argumentum ad populum and Ad hominem by suggesting one's side "doesn't get it", and "your side has lost almost all it's credibility in the last two years - defections- inability to attract young folk -failure to stop overhauls on old plants, even with public hearings" - none of which dismisses the fact that nuclear energy in the US doesn't pay its insurance bill, and couldn't operate today if it were forced to play by the same rules as its clean, safe competitors.

I am arguing the validity of a sentence in this article, that suggests that the nuclear industry believes that it is at high risk for accidents. I have yet to see this adderssed by a reference to a statement by the industry. I repeat: by the industy, not SCOTUS, they can have an opinion but it is their own, they cannot speak to the opinion of the industry or to the opinions of any other jurisdiction outside the U.S. All you and others have done is blow smoke about and have not addressed this one simple question, because you cannnot. The industry does not. My remarks were an asside to you about the state of the antinuclear movement, not arguments to support my stand. Now will someone please find some reference to support the wording of this passage or change it. DV8 2XL 20:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

References:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

For the record - this is the passage in question:

Consider the following statements from the 1956 and 1957 hearings on the then-proposed Price-Anderson amendment. A vice president of Westinghouse, Charles Weaver, stated: "Obviously we cannot risk the financial stability of our company for a relatively small project no matter how important it is to the country's reactor development effort, if it could result in a major liability in relation to our assets."[8]

According to the CATO ref [[10]

In further testimony Weaver indicated that even Westinghouse's suppliers were unwilling to go ahead with the contract unless Westinghouse agreed to indemnify them against risks.[9] General Electric also indicated during the hearings that it was prepared to halt its work in the nuclear industry should a limitation on liability not be passed.[10] Suppliers of reactor shields also indicated their unwillingness "to undertake contracts in this field without being relieved of uninsurable liability in some way."[11]

In 1954, Industry requested immunity as a condition of participation. In short they recognized the risk. The fact is the law has been extended - if not because the underlying facts remain - then why? In 1978, the Supreme Court found that indeed the underlying facts had not changed:

Notwithstanding comprehensive testing and study, the uniqueness of this form of energy production made it impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage. SCOTUS 1987 (ibid)

Then in 2003 - 2005, the Energy Bill, based no doubt on secret meetings between Enron and Cheney, reaffirmed the need for the immunity clause. Benjamin Gatti

• That's not the answer to the question I asked. That nuclear power industry understands that this activity is a financial risk is not the issue, show me where they have stated they believe it is a safety risk. This whole debate is about that find me some statment by the industry stating they feel they are a safety risk or change the sentence. DV8 2XL 22:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And while you are at it show me how this applies to the rest of the world. DV8 2XL 22:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • The Same way Edison's pearl street generator applies to the rest of the world; absent Price Anderson, GE, Westinghouse etc, you have no nuclear energy in France, Britain etc... Perhaps you have nuclear energy in the Soviet Union and a great effort to keep the designs away from west Europe. Hard to say what would have happened - but like WWII, it had a profound and long-lasting impact on the entire world. Benjamin Gatti

"...you have no nuclear energy in France, Britain, ect... " What planet Earth would that be Ben? France, as of 2004, 83.4% of all electric power was generated by 58 nuclear reactors, the highest share in the world. Canada builds it's own reactors too, quite a good one; many are operating in other parts of the world. Now as to the reference showing admission by the Industry that they have an inherently unsafe technology, are you going to provide one?

I believe already have. "Notwithstanding comprehensive testing and study, the uniqueness of this form of energy production made it impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage." This is not the opinion of the SCOTUS, it is their finding of fact. As to which industry expert admitted the basis for this finding - they heard from both sides, (Duke was the respondant) and they sided with Duke. Clearly they weren't biased in favor of a lucy-goosey view of the risk. (also they cite their sources). Perhaps you can explain why GE and Westinghouse refused to build without indemnity? I'll wait. Benjamin Gatti

• • No that is not an admission by the Industry, it is a statement by a court, it could even be true; it's not the point. The Industry has never publicly said, or used as an argument, a statement suggesting that THEY think nuclear energy is a technical risk. GE and Westinghouse cannot build, because they cannot be underwritten for unlimited liablity, that's just business, no one can for any large undertaking anymore, so what? I have changed the passage at any rate since you haven't come up with a reverence to support the statement. DV8 2XL 03:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm okay with the changes, difference distinction whatever. Benjamin Gatti

GHG emissions

"with fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than fossil fuel." Why not change this to no or zero emmisions? "with fewer" seems to imply that nuclear power plants do produce GHGs, merely in smaller amounts than in fossil fuels, when in fact they don't produce GHGs at all.

The argument over this was that uranium mining and decommissioning require gasoline/diesel engines, and that uranium enrichment uses power from TVA which is largely coal-powered (although they have six nuclear units). Nuclear units themselves of course only release GHGs on those rare occasions when the Emergency Diesel Generators are tested. If you view TVA as using its nuclear units to power the enrichment facilities, then fossil fuel of course emits vastly more GHGs than the nuclear industry. Simesa 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Impact of nuclear vs hydro/gas accident/attack

Other energy sources, such as hydropower plants and liquified natural gas tankers, while more vulnerable to accidents and attacks do not offer the same impact/consequences in such an event)

There's some dispute over whether hydro plants / gas trucks can cause just as much damage as a nuclear accident/attack. So my contribution above has been removed from the article. While I don't doubt that a gas explosion could wipe out a whole apartment block, surely a nuclear one could wipe out an entire town/city? --Oscarthecat 20:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Not from a loss of containment during transport, Oscar which is what the passage was about. Nuclear material is by in large solids, if say a truck tuned over and its cargo fell out the zone of contamination would be small, easy to control and clean-up. even the most dangerous radiators are subject to the inverse square law, so simple distance would serve to limit the affected area. As for LNG or propane/butane, these are heaver than air thus they tend to spread over a wide area -if this cloud finds a source of ignition not only will the flooded area be immolated, but the shock wave from the blast will cause damage far beyond ground zero. DV8 2XL 21:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Might I ask - since you mention it - at what distance an LNG terminal would be "safe" from a worst case affair? 5miles? 10, 20? At some point - it seems the spill would be defused. I suppose it depends on the volume of the spill - moderated by the ability of the weather to dissipate heavy gases. Benjamin Gatti 02:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right, there are many variables that would have to be taken into account. Were I someone who played by the anti-nukes crowds rules, I would take the biggest LNG facility planned, assume all of the inventory was released at once, also assume that it spread optimaly and diluted to a perfect molar ratio with air before it was ignited. Then working from that I would calculate the size of the blast area, and map it on New York or L.A. at rush hour to determine the number of probable casualties, then report that number as the minimun dead. But then, I don't work that way. DV8 2XL 03:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking we could hope to put the LNG out far enough to sea that the bad-case scenario would not impact the shore. Do you figure a few miles would do it?

Another thought, is there any antidote which could be released in the event of a breach which would prevent ignition? Benjamin Gatti 03:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It would depend on the size of the terminal. No, there is no agent that could be co-released to neutralize the gas. DV8 2XL 18:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

So the only way to prevent a release from reaching a populated area would be to ignite it. Hopefully, the terminal could be protected by releasing a heavy inert gas - to push the release into a donut shape, and then to ignite it - if there continues to be a threat of encroachment on populated areas. (Any better ideas?) Benjamin Gatti 23:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You asked! More nuclear powerplants DV8 2XL 00:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Something about a frying pan and a fire comes to mind - I suggest that a rather high number of small terminals - at sea - with seafloor pipes could present a fully insurable risk with virtually no risk to population centers. Benjamin Gatti

For hydropower consequences, check out Banqiao Dam. About 270,000 killed outright. Much worse than Chernobyl. pstudier 23:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear Power "Carbon Neutral"

Im no expert on the matter, but perhaps this issue needs to be adressed, as there is a common perception that nuclear power is carbon neutral, when in fact the extraction etc produces CO2.

According to some, the process chain also produces other greenhouse gases:

"'The nuclear process chain also emits other greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_IPCC_List_of_Greenhouse_Gases) besides carbon dioxide with far stronger global-warming potential such as chloro- and fluorohydrocarbons and probably SF6. These emissions are difficult to quantify from the open literature, but the total emission of carbon dioxide equivalents by a nuclear system will be significantly more than 20-40% of a gas-fired system with the same energy output.'

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/2587.jsp#one

This is clearly still under debate, but perhaps there should be some reference to this in the article, besides the usual objections such as radioactivity?

see also:

http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/

- H Thorneycroft

The issue is a red herring. There is no source of energy that doesn't require a energy input to win. Any full and complete analysis of the subject will show that nuclear comes out significantly less in total carbon output per kilowatt than any other carbon based fuel. DV8 2XL 17:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to cite any? Apart from this, I simply wish to highlight the fact that most people are unaware of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power, so perhaps this should be mentioned. The quote I gave above seems to indicate that carbon dioxide emissions are more significant than 'negligible' which is as far as the present article goes. - HT

No I'm not going to do your work for you. YOU provide a reference to a full and complete analysis that shows that nuclear power plant emits more carbon than a fossil fueled one during their life-cycle. So far you have only quoted a political site and one that says in it's itro:

"The production of electricity by nuclear reactors, as long as rich uranium ores are still available, leads to considerably less CO2-emission than does the use of fossil fuels for the purpose. In the course of time, as the rich ores become exhausted and poorer and poorer ores are perforce used, continuing use of nuclear reactors for electricity generation will finally result in the production of more CO2 than if fossil fuels were to be burned directly."

However they assume a once through cycle. 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, there's been a misunderstanding here - I admit that nuclear power does not produce more CO2, I simply wish to dispel the myth that it is completely carbon neutral. Secondly, it is not just carbon emissions the article refers to CFCs which can be up to 20 000 times more powerful. Additionally, while they may assume a once through cycle, The US at present does not allow reprocessing of waste, due to proliferation issues. In case you missed it, here is the study http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/Chap_1_CO-2_emission_of_the_nuclear_fuel_cycle.PDF which indicates that CO2 emissions for the entire cycle are 20 -40% of that of a gas fired power station depending on ores used, which is clearly far from 'negligible' - HT

At risk of repeating myself "carbon neutral" does not imply "carbon free". Actually it implies that nuclear produces nether more or less than any other source. Already given the information at hand that is hardly hiding the issue. Yes. I read that whole report, chapter by chapter. Did you miss the fact that they chose not to take into account the increased carbon burden that natural gas will pay as the easier sources of that fuel are exhausted? That you can hardly use natural gas as a comparison when it is likely to experience shortages before the uranium supply. Why wasn't the point made that if the whole worlds energy requirements had to be met starting today with gas that the lifetime of that resource would be shortened?

Do you know just what the total burden of CFCs we are taking about here? Again, as they are not part of the Natural Gas production cycle I don't doubt that the ratio is 20,000 to 1.

As for the reprocessing of spent fuel; to put this a gently as possible, the U.S. is no longer the world leader in nuclear energy policy. Other nations reprocess or are planning to reprocess, this cannot be waved off in any discussion about future supplies of uranium, nor can thorium breeding (India is in the process of building the first one BTW) be discounted ether.

I don't believe that the term "carbon neutral" is hiding anything. If clarification of the term is required, perhaps it needs an article of it's own with a link back here. DV8 2XL 16:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think to the general public, nuclear energy presents itself as carbon free because it does not appear to directly produce carbon dioxide, I simply wish to dispel this myth. - HT

Maybe rather than argue the issue here we should take the topic Carbon audit regime which exists as a stub in hand and expand it into something useful. As we have a different POV on the issue as well as being rational about the subject, I'm sure we could give this article the balanced treatment it needs. What do you think?

Oh by the way- you should get an account it's easy and its free, and you won't be just a number anymore. DV8 2XL 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Health physics

I just noticed that this stub of an article doesn't explain what a Health Physicist is. Anyone want to address it? Or I will when I have time. Simesa 03:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone started Certified Health Physicist. Simesa 02:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Lithuania

Added a line to 'Current and planned use' section about Lithuania being technically the most nuclear-dependant nation in the world, by virtue of their single 1500MW RBMK-2....not really comparable to France's fuel cycle, but apparently by the percentages Lithuania has a higher proportion of nuclear. I was recently talking to a former Lithiuanian nuclear official who made this claim and I found it interesting enough to look up.Burtonpe 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nuklear" power?

A search for "Nuklear power" will take a person to this article. However, there is also a website known as www.nuklearpower.com, which is known for hosting 8-bit Theatre. It is rather well-known due to the fact that it hosts 8-bit theatre, and therefore, I feel that a disambiguation page is necessary.

I'll make a disambig page if one isn't already up. Simesa 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. For reference, I'm the same guy who posted the above request.

Break nuclear power controversy into its own article

• • Note: I originally posted a similiar thing at talk:nuclear reactor, but think its just as fitting here and may get more people who can see and comment.

Is there anyone else out there that thinks that there should be an article devoted to the "nuclear power controversy"? This has been done with other aticles as well and really helps to clean them up by giving proponants and opponants a more appropraite soapbox to stand on. I am proposing that we do this because currently, on many nuclear powerplant related articles the same arguments for and against nuclear power are listed over and over again. Also, it reads poorly to have things like

"Currently all commercial nuclear reactors are based on nuclear fission, and are considered problematic by some for their safety and health risks. Conversely, some consider nuclear power to be a safe and pollution-free"

The above quote was from nuclear reactor but nuclear power has the third paragraph which isn't needed to describe how nuclear power works and what it is. The articles are supposed to be about nuclear power and nuclear technology, not the nuclear power controversy. By inserting the controversy for every nuclear article, we lose conciseness. I don't want to look like a nuclear proponent here (although I am), but take a look at evolution and how they introduce the controversy page.

This "problem" happens way to frequently in the nuclear articles and is messing them up, I propose we move the controversy to its own page so the articles read like an encyclopedia entry and don't read like arguments. This will also give people more of an option in adding for and against statements, and will allow for the validation of often used comments/studies. Nuclear power is a technology, and as such, it should be defined like one, let the politics have there own page. I'm not saying we ignore the nuclear opponents, this will actually give us a more standardized and, I think, fairer way of covering the arguments. Lcolson 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck - been proposed - even done before when this whole article (which really is a dispute in its entirety since all of the technology and particulars have already spun off their own pages - this really is the shell for political commentary) - was moved to the name you propose - which is now the subject in part of an Arbcom dispute - I would propose again that the name simply be changed - perhaps leaving here a shell with disambiguation; but there is little to say about nuclear without addressing Chernobyl, the risk of catastrophe, the plans for dealing with that, and the political implications - including the competitive effects on other safe, clean energies. My sense, is that there isn't much neutral ground. Are you trying to Bushify your opponents by sending them into the weeds, while encouraging an upbeat, or at best oblivious main page - with a never read sub page for others? - under the rubric of fairness? whose definition of fairness might that be? Benjamin Gatti 21:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Text

I wanted to save this text and source:

Some of the events experienced within the past 15 years include: Hurricane Andrew, a Category 4 hurricane, which passed directly over the Turkey Point nuclear power plant with sustained wind speeds of 145 miles per hour and gusts up to 175 miles per hour (August 1992); the Cooper Nuclear Station, which experienced flooding onsite from the Missouri River (July 1993); a Fujita Tornado Damage Scale F2 tornado, which directly hit the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, with winds of 113 to 157 miles per hour (June 1998); and, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which felt the shock from a Magnitude 6.5 San Simeon earthquake in Paso Robles, California (December 2003). In all these cases, the nuclear power plant functioned as they were designed, and adequate protection was maintained during and after the event. [11]

Simesa 20:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to add, in 1984, reactor number 4 of the chernobyl electrical station blew the hell up, causing more than three times the amount of damage than was gained by the use of nuclear energy in the whole of the Soviet Union. Benjamin Gatti 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The criminally-negligent Soviets built a firetrap, didn't put a containment building around it, and then ignored their own safety regulations. Comparing their program to the rest of the world's is like comparing a gasoline tanker to a Abrams tank. Simesa 00:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How would you explain damage versus something that is gained in "causing more than three times the amount of damage than was gained by the use of nuclear energy in the whole of the Soviet Union" ?

Where is "Current and Planned Use"?

The section "Development" refers to further information on planned units, but this section does not seem to be anywhere.. Anyhow, I added specific information on the Finnish reactor to this place then. If you have better place, pleace put it there. Jaakko Hyvätti.

This was blanked during vandalism on December 7 at 03:29 -- I restored the text from just before then. Simesa 00:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Section for current events

I've added a section for current events - there's a great deal happening in this field, and I believe readers want current happenings to be organized for them. Benjamin Gatti 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not noteworthy additions. Lcolson 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Your opinion that they are not noteworthy seems unsupportable. Current events are encyclopedic, and they are but a few recent events directly associated with the subject. Certainly George W Bush encompasses current events. Benjamin Gatti 22:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered Gatti, where all these people are, the ones that you claim want to read your BS? They don't seem to be breaking down the doors coming to your defence, do they? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they don't realy care about what you think, or have to say? 70.51.184.193 02:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Maxim to live by - if you want everyone to agree with you - be a follower. When Rosa Parks sat on that bus - was there any body else on the bus to defend her? - Everyone else - black and white, stood up for the status quo. Yes - some of us equate support with the status quo, and are not persuaded. Benjamin Gatti 05:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)