Talk:Nuclear power in Canada

requires revision

This page requires major revision. I have edited the most egregious of the errors, but the rest remains substandard both in style and content. Use at your own risk, just like the rest of Wikipedia. Whitlock 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

May 23

I can't stand it any longer. I am doing a total rewrite, --DV8 2XL 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okie doke.. But you seem to have removed some relevent information. What was wrong with it before? It wasn't complete, to be sure, but I don't think it was incorrect. TastyCakes 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

nm, I'm pretty sure you got everything in there. TastyCakes 05:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you've cut and paste some of this from here. Is there any other plagiarism we should know about? TastyCakes 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see there is: [1] TastyCakes 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SLOWPOKE

Added a paragraph about the SLOWPOKE reactor. Hugo Dufort 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically SLOWPOKE is a backronym -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym 24.84.205.71 (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article seems to have grown beyond the scope of "Nuclear Power", should it be renamed? Something like Nuclear Technology in Canada or something? That doesn't flow very well... TastyCakes 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The current name is misleading and the article deals with broader area than just nuclear power.Beagel (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased

This article seems very biased. There's no mention of any of the controversy surrounding nuclear power (including the new proposal for a reactor in Alberta). The whole thing reads like an industry brochure. "Canada’s used reactor fuel is now safely stored on an interim basis at licensed facilities located where the waste is produced." That's a pretty rosy way of saying that reactors store their waste on site because Canada has no long term disposal strategy in place. Ae491 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)ae491

Canada stores its used fuel on site because there is no need, nor rush, to create a central repository at this time. It is incorrect to say that there is no long-term strategy in place, since the recently approved strategy of "Adaptive Phased Management" represents such a strategy (as the article points out).

The article did state incorrectly that the technology for long-term management doesn't exist, so I fixed this. The technology exists to the level of a pre-siting Environmental Assessment, which was a ten-year process that concluded in 1998 that the technology was sound (but lacking public support). See summary of Canada's nuclear used fuel management at http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm#v.

As for including a discussion of the controversy, I'm not sure I understand. If it's a general discussion of the long-time controversy surrounding this technology, that might be interesting and I encourage you to submit some text on that topic. Otherwise, this article attempts to present the facts, like an encylopedia should. Whitlock 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitlock, do you know why BC is against nuclear power? Is this something the Liberals really feel, or just something to appease the NDP and environuts? ThVa (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, BC is fashionably opposed. However pretty soon it just might find itself purchasing nuclear electricity from Alberta. Whitlock (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I also see some bias in the article. Since it is titled "Nuclear Power in Canada", it seems necessary to me to put some references to the political and environmental debate going on in Canada about nuclear power. This debate is not the same as it was in the 1980s; it has evolved. Today even environmentalists are split in their opinions about nuclear energy: against the traditional "nukes will kill us" crowd is a new breed of environmental strategists who argue that nuclear energy is the best of available evils to bring Canada in line with greenhouse gas targets. This is barely alluded to in the article.

Also, would someone please re-write the last paragraph about Adaptive Phased Management? It reads like a government pamphlet! (And I wouldn't be surprised if it had been taken from one.) I'd do it myself but I'm not at all knowledgeable on this issue. Nojamus (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the information that is there is biased, it is for the most part just the facts about Canada's nuclear power use, uranium mining industry etc. That there is no criticism section could be construed as biased, but whoever finds the absence that abrasive can start one themselves. I agree the final paragraph is full of fluff, I will try and cut some of it out. TastyCakes (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (April 2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus -- Aervanath (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

---

• Propose Nuclear industry of Canada. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How is the industry separate from nuclear power? Is this referring to the fact that Canada is the sole remaining source of high grade Uranium ore? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Nuclear power in ..." appears to be the naming convention throughout wikipedia. I counted over 40 20 articles [plus 19 redirects] in the template. See also Nuclear power by country. The only exception I can find is Nuclear energy in the European Union. If there is content here that doesn't fit the title, might it be better to spin that off to a new article? Station1 (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think I would weak oppose the move. I know at the moment a lot of the article is talking about non-power related stuff (medical isotopes etc) but I think this is a case of them being in the wrong article rather than the article being named incorrectly. I think there should be a "uranium mining industry in Canada" article or something like that, but I think nuclear power in Canada is a subject broad and notable enough to have its own article. TastyCakes (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I note in hindsight my disagreement with the TastyCakes of 2007 ;) TastyCakes (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support proposal for nuclear industry, since medical isotopes are not nuclear power, and mining for uranium could be for clandestine nuclear bombs by reprocessing spent fuel originally from Canada. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That can be done anywhere. And is done everywhere. Should all the nuclear power articles be renamed just because medical isotopes are made in reactors? It seems that even though Canada has the sole remaining high grade ore mines, they export most of the Uranium rather than using it. It seems that the procurement of fuel is simply a part of the nuclear power process, and does not need to be re-named just for Canada. I see that Iran and Korea, which may have had the sole purpose of obtaining reactors the development of weapons, have their articles highly POV named Nuclear program of Country, despite being vociferously denied, with the NPOV titles Nuclear power in Country redirecting to "program of", despite the first sentence of the Iran article's hatnote being "This article is about Iran's nuclear power program." And Syria, whose nuclear power plant (under construction) was bombed by Israel on September 6, 2007, does not even have an article. I would suggest keeping them all the same, no matter what anyone thinks of them. On the other hand, if the main purpose of most reactors was to make weapons, then all the nuclear power in articles should be renamed nuclear program of, and if the main purpose of most reactors was to make medical isotopes, then they could all be changed to "Nuclear industry of/in Country". Not sure if "of" or "in" is better. Of means officially done by the government, in means licensed by the government. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment

How about we make a nuclear industry in Canada article, move all the mining, isotope and maybe CANDU reactor sales stuff there and leave only the stuff directly related to nuclear power in Canada in this article? TastyCakes (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Spin-off completed; the new article is Nuclear industry in Canada. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (June 2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. An editorial decision to split the page can be made without regard to the outcome of this move request. There appears to be significant support for splitting the page. Dekimasuよ! 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Nuclear power in Canada → Nuclear technology in Canada — The article is currently (oops - a pun!) more than about "power". — -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. If it is warranted a Nuclear power in Canada article can then be split off. See also Category:Nuclear technology by country for similar articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nom. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the previous suggestion is better Nuclear industry in Canada. Uranium mining is hardly special nuclear technology, it's more or less regular mining. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment/Question: Would splitting the article into Nuclear power (to agree with other nuclear power by country articles) and nuclear technology (containing nuclear stuff other than nuclear power) be an option? TastyCakes (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support splitting per TastyCake. As of the title of the second article, I prefer Nuclear industry in Canada per IP 70.29.208.129. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Reply that still leaves uranium mining out in the cold, since it is neither power, nor technology. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, on further thought nuclear industry is better. TastyCakes (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose because we already have a series of articles for "Nuclear power in...". As with Nuclear power in France, this covers all the fuel cycle, mining, imports, technology exports, or whatever, the whole 9 yards. I see no reason for Uranium mining not to be included under this title. Clerically, renaming this will be a headache. The only thing I can think of that wouldn't 'officially' fit here is medical isotope production (which is a significant topic in Canada), since it is characteristically not a power application of nuclear technology. My opinion would be to include it anyway and avoid unnecessary headaches. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment To use a bad title to conform when it doesn't describe what is actually covered is a bad practice. And mining for uranium is also used in bomb production, which is not nuclear power either... so I don't see why France's mining efforts should be under power when they are nuclear armed, unless you think that nuclear arms power should also be in articles about nuclear electricity power. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with 70.29 above. Further, I don't think France is a good article to compare to, since France's nuclear industry is dominated by its nuclear power plants, while Canada is the world's biggest exporter of uranium. This uranium mining is obviously notable and worthy of mention, but it is used to create power (or bombs?) in countries outside of Canada, so including it in an article called "Nuclear power in Canada" seems silly. A better comparison would probably be the Nuclear power in Australia, but this article isn't particularly well developed (certainly not as well as the France one). TastyCakes (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • I see what you're saying, but it's not like these articles were originally titled like this for no reason. To really get what you're going for, it would make most sense to say Nuclear stuff in Canada. Nuclear technology doesn't cover it, nuclear power doesn't cover it, and really nothing will because the intent of having this is to cover anything related to nuclear industries and Canada. All I mean to say is that "Nuclear technology" as a title is just as imperfect as the next option. Why change? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well I'd say the change would be beneficial because it would result in two good sized, notable articles with titles that describe each of them well: Nuclear power in Canada containing all the stuff that is comparable to the other "Nuclear power in" articles, and Nuclear industry in Canada, containing Uranium mining and medical isotopes (and perhaps sales of CANDU reactors etc). Anyway, I can understand your desire to keep it all in one article, I just think this is a situation that would be more usefully presented and easily labeled if it were split into two. TastyCakes (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• So just tell me again, why would you put Uranium mining in the 'technology' article and not the 'power' article? Uranium mining involves technology, yes, just like everything else. However, this is a matter of Canada both exporting and using a energy resource mined domestically. To me, that is a power (and maybe economic) topic, not a technology topic. I agree that medical technology would have a place in the article you propose to split, but I see nothing else fitting appropriately. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the mining part is related to nuclear power, but unlike other net importers of uranium, not all of Canada's uranium is used for power generation in Canada as the title of the article suggests. Regardless, I would think in split articles it would be best to have the uranium mining sections in both. TastyCakes (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. For consistency, all countries which have had, will have, or might have nuclear power should have a Nuclear power in Country article. Canada is no different from Australia or the United States. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that, unlike those articles, much of this article has nothing to do with power generation. TastyCakes (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Still no reason to rename the article. That is still the core of the article. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't propose to rename the article, but to split it. TastyCakes (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If so, since this is the core article, a new article should be split off, in order to maintain the page history of this article. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. TastyCakes (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Naming

There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable Accidents

I don't know why the 2009 Darlington release of faintly tritiated water is a notable accident, but I've added more details to improve it. --Energy4All (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Public opinion (perhaps rightly) seems to be that any unintended consequence at any nuclear facility is a notable accident. I think the logic might be that tolerance for accidents in each industry ought to have some form of inverse relationship to the severity of that industry's theoretical worst-case events. Nuclear energy had the misfortune of being first introduced to the general public during war in the form of highly destructive weapons, leading to a strong (and not unjustified, though perhaps overstated) perception that nuclear's worst-case events are very bad. Notability is a function of public perception, not a function of risk assessment. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

New Reactor

I read that they built a new reactor but it had a positive power growth when shut down, so they had to cancel it. The scientists had predicted a negative power growth. Is this story somewhere in the article?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Okay found it Multipurpose_Applied_Physics_Lattice_Experiment--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Generation

I don't understand the table in the Generation section of the article. The table entry for NB in 2015 shows generation of 3.3 TWh but no percentage figure. Is the 3.3 TWh figure erroneous (ie generation in NB is discontinued)? SquashEngineer (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Cost ambiguity

Are financial figures listed in Canadian or US dollars? I would presume Canadian, but it'd be useful to have explicit confirmation of this, as it's quite ambiguous at the moment. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 08:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)