Talk:Nuclear power plant/Archive 1

Archive 1

long term

long-term much of the material from nuclear reactor really belongs here, but I'm not in a great hurry to move it. I'd like this to stay readable.

I hope it's reasonably NPOV. It's certainly a controversial topic! Some would say there are no advantages, but people are still building them. This list attempts to list their reasons. Others are not building them despite looming energy shortages, and the list of disadvantages attempts in turn to summarise their reasons.

I didn't put the question of waste management onto either list, although some would put it at the top of one list, and others at the top of the other! So it gets a paragraph of its own.

Interested to see how it develops. Andrewa 20:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Number of reactors

Regarding this edit [1] I am not sure if the new number 443 is actually correct. According to this link [2] which says it was updated on the 4th of Jan of this year there are only 441 with several offline, 24 under construction, 41 planned, 113 proposed. I think the diffrence is that the 441 number is the number that are currently online and 443 is the number which are fully licened and could come back online, can someon verify this? Dalf | Talk 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done a bit of research: one of the two "extra" reactors is in the US, the other is in Japan. The one in the United States (Browns Ferry 1) is not operational: it has been shut in 1985 but it is still fully licensed [3]. The one in Japan is Monju, which operated from 1994 to 1995, then was shut down due to a sodium leak in 1996 and is currently "awaiting restart" [4]. Both reactors are scheduled to resume operation sometime in 2007/8. Your assumption is correct: they are in the official IAEA list because they are licensed, so they could be legally turned on, while all other shut down reactors are unlicensed. So the numbers are both correct. I have updated the article to reflect this. Mushroom 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks, I thought that was the case I had read about Browns Ferry in a footnote in that second link I posted, but was not sure about the other one. Dalf | Talk 03:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Regulatory Delays

What killed the U.S. nuclear industry was a horrendous surge in regulations, each of which had to be applied to plants already under construction. At one point the NRC was issuing a regulation a day. This started before Three Mile Island, but apparently accelerated after it. Constructions times stretched to 13 years and beyond, at a time of high interest rates. No wonder in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 there's a $2 billion provision to reimburse utilities for future regulatory delays. Simesa 16:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Springfield Nuclear Power Plant

As much as Homer's antics make me cringe, a mention of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant does seem appropriate for this article. Simesa 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not it's not, triva sections are - in general - pointless, see WP:NOT - an indiscriminate collection of information. While it may make sense to link this article from Homer Sumposn, his inclusion here is entirely unnecessary.--Peta 04:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture references do not always equal trivia, particularly when refering to one of the longest running and most popular TV shows in history. Like it or not, Homer has affected a generations perception of this topic. I do not advocate listing every movie, tv show, or song that mentions nuclear power...but I believe a powerful argument can be made for including select references. Give Peace A Chance 05:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an actual plant called Springfield Power Plant run by BNFL in Preston, Great Britain. King Konger, 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Accident indemnification

Currently the article reads... "However states with a majority of the world's nuclear power plants, including the U.S., Russia, China and Japan, are not party to international nuclear liability conventions."

This is very misleading. China should not be included in the list. China is is not among the countries with a majority of the world's nuclear power plants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tekkyy (talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Length of Time SNF Is Dangerously Radioactive

The chart in indefinitely showing long half-lives is a little disingenuous; a long half-life generally implies that an isotope is more stable. Iodine-129, which emits a beta [5], in particular is not much of a problem unless ingested (the real fear is Iodine-131, with a half-life of 8 days).

I suggest a better, and unbiased, summary is in Congressional Research Service Report: "Spent nuclear fuel. Fuel rods that have been permanently withdrawn from a nuclear reactor because they can no longer efficiently sustain a nuclear chain reaction (although they contain uranium and plutonium that could be extracted through reprocessing to make new fuel). By far the most radioactive type of civilian nuclear waste, spent fuel contains extremely hot but relatively short-lived fission products (fragments of uranium and other fissile elements) as well as long-lived radionuclides such as plutonium, which remains dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years."

I will place the "tens of thousands of years" in the article. Simesa 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian Floating Nuclear Power Plant

I have some very nasty words to say about the Russians right now, but I won't here. Does anyone know what kind of containment structure these scows will have? What is the missile shield like? I will write to the IAEA for comment. Meanwhile, we need an article on this turkey. Simesa 10:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

As previously discussed in Nuclear power, this subject is confusingly similar to Nuclear power and Nuclear reactor. As such, I propose that the little info in the article be merged with the other two.Ultramarine 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am down with that. This one is just a collection of see alsos and some useless pop culture trivia. --Chuck Sirloin 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the contents of this article should largely go into nuclear reactor, but this title link to nuclear power. Simesa 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unmerged it, the article is actually a top level article about a collection of subsystems, and while it will doubtless be mostly a collection of pointers out to those subsystems, there's also overall information about how those subsystems work together, which have implications, like where nuclear plants are located and why, the cost of nuclear plants, and stuff to do with personnel and so on, which are plant rather than nuclear reactor related.Rememberway (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Disadvantages

Another disadvantage is thermal pollution. I work at a nuclear plant on the east coast and the water used for cooling the condensers is pumped out into the ocean. It does, however, travel about 10 miles before it is released.

Thermal pollution is common to all power plants which generate heat. However nuclear power plants have done damage through thermal pollution (fish kills for instance) and mentioning this would be appropriate in my opinion because it is a significant disadvantage of nuclear power (and other thermal power plants). 173.8.132.62 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Any numbers on actual power output of plants??

Hello,

I just came to this page to look up some numbers on the typical power output of a nuclear plant. Surprisingly, I did not find any, except one number in the very last section on future plants.

I do realize the discussions about safety etc. are important, but one would think this is elementary information about any type of power plant. Maybe someone can add those numbers?

Best regards, Florian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.154.29 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point; a few, typical numbers added. I've tucked them away in "Economics". --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

proximity - fukushima

The article says "This proximity triggered the parallel, chain-reaction accidents that led to hydrogen explosions". The proximity of the units to each other was not the cause of the "parallel, chain-reaction accidents". If you wish to say that each plant should be place far away from any other plant, please say how far away you have in mind, and cite a reference, preferably one that says why. ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC))

constant power output

Baseload is usually thought to be the expected minimum load for a period, meaning that the utility has to be capable of providing this level of energy at all times. Other load, variable load, will come on and off during the operating cycle creating "peaks". "Baseload" is a statistical construct, and does not correspond to devices that are constantly drawing power. Utilities similarly divide their generating units into baseload (constant) and variable load (or demand-following and peaker), where the baseload generating units are scheduled to be always on. The reason those units are selected is because of their low marginal cost of operation; that is, there is little to be save by running them at less than full capacity. Other units could and sometimes do operate continuously; they just cost more. When a nuclear unit is brought down for refueling or repair, some coal plant(s) will generate around the clock to step in for the nuclear unit that is out of service. It is not the capability for a unit to be run continuously that makes it baseload, it is the decision by utility management to assign it that role, based on the generating units in the utility's portfolio. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

Safety

It says "Historically these decisions were often made in private by scientists, regulators and engineers". It sounds like the kind of decision that would be made by the Utility management, after the various models were designed by the vendors. I don't believe that the utility could modify the design of the reactor. In addition, after Fukushima, don't we see that passive safety measures work only on smaller reactors, and larger reactors require active cooling, which is subject to failure. So "informed consent and morality" is a little mysterious. What is the moral issue? That we are hiding that there is a chance that we might ruin a large swath of the countryside? And after we learn that, we are supposed to give informed consent? I don't get it. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC))

I'd say citation needed for "who made the decisions", but you'd say, watch "A is for Atom". Even if they say it in that show, I still find that unbelievable - that company management played no essential role other than possibly to rubber stamp the selection made by the techs. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC))

The footnote of A is for Atom, as described in the article, contradicts the assertion made in this paragraph. It says "The documentary ends with the points that the forms of the reactors were chosen only for business reasons. There are very broad range (sic) of scientific and engineering options which were not explored. " ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

== Advantages / Disadvantages List == syrel hyacinth m. vicentino I edited the advantages/disadvantages list because it seemed to me to be far too pro-nuclear. No new nuclear plant has been started in the US since the Carter presidency. There is a serious political debate. There is a basic breakdown in trust here and I don't think that the traditional nuclear industry can rebuild it. The problem that is getting overlooked here is that the existing nuclear plants are getting old and if we are not carefull we will end up either running them well past their safe design life or worse build new ones to the old obsolete designs.

Should probably add a section on pebble bed reactors here. The new wave nuclear reactors are dramatically safer than the old and have much better answers to the problems of nuclear waste etc.

---

Three new nuclear plants are on the verge of being ordered in the U.S., probably depending on how the current Energy Bill does in Congress. At least one will be an ABWR, of which three are already operating in Japan. ABWRs are about 100 times safer than the previous generation of BWRs largely because they have the recirculation pumps inside the reactor vessel and hence have no external recirculation piping. The passively-safe ESBWR and the AP1000 are even safer.

There are several locales (not among the above three) desiring new nuclear units - Oswego, NY and Port Gibson, MS for two.

I disagree with editing advantage/disadvantage lists just because they seem to be "too pro-nuclear" - each advantage/disadvantage should stand on its own merit, not someone's politics. Simesa 18:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Nuclear Power will Destroy the world someday" sounds pretty opinionated. I don't think it's very necessary to the article, nor do I think it's appropriate.

I would argue there are no advantages to using nuclear fission to boil water. Specifically, the advantages section ignores the true cost of the total fuel cycle from mining to waste "disposal". There has been no decision on the waste problem. The industry is heavily subsidized by the public. Catastrophic loss would be suffered by the public and then paid for by the public. There is no insurance company willing or able to cover such a loss. The pollution from the fuel cycle include tailings from mining and milling the ore, chemicals from processing, radioactive gases from accidents and normal venting, and all the energy and fuels to produce the energy to bring the fissionable material and power plant to the point of producing electricity. {Sametime 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)}

This issue is probably better discussed in Nuclear power. The cost of disposal in the United States is already paid by the utilities by a surcharge on power generated, and a repository in a truly bleak area is under construction. Catastrophic loss is insured under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and will be evaluated under the now-underway successor study to NUREG-1150. The energy needed to prodce nuclear fuel is largely nuclear-generated, by the Tennessee Valley Authority's own nuclear power plants. Venting and tailings are covered under national law - Canada's and Australia's, as there are no longer any operating mines in the US. And one certain advantage is that nuclear power, including construction, fuel production, operation and decommissioning produces immensely fewer Greenhouse Gases than coal-fired production does - not the least because there is far more coal mining going on. There are two sides to this discussion, and both should be presented. Simesa 22:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Advantages/Disadvantages" list seemed to downplay some of the negative aspects of nuclear power generation. Edited (mainly reworded) for clarity, tone, and balance. Ailahusky 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)AilaHusky

---

On the contrary. The "Advantages/Disadvantages" list seems to overplay the negative aspects of nuclear power generation. Particularly surprising to me is the assertion that nuclear plants have "energy inputs during construction equivalent to ~7 years power output". Is someone really suggesting that the construction of a nuclear reactor requires 61,362,000 MWeH = 220 PJ (petajoules) (for 1 1000MW reactor)? I'd like to see a source. There are some sources to the contrary, however:

My simple calculation: 1000MWH * 1e6 (WH) * 3600 (MJ / s) * 24 (J / Day) * 365.24 (J / Year) * 7 years (J) = 220PJ. For the 40 year conventional lifetime of nuclear reactors, the total energy output would be 1,262 PJ.

• http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html is cited by the excellent nuclear power article. This paper, from the World Nuclear Association, gives the energy cost of construction as 4PJ. But why stop there? It quantifies the total energy inputs for nuclear generation in terms of fuel mining, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning, and waste management. The key table is entitled "On basis of PJ (thermal) per 1000 MWe the input figures are". For a 40 year plant lifetime, the energy input terms sum to 43.4 PJ. My math suggests this is 3.4% of the nominal (1000MW) energy output, but the WNA, using actual numbers from the Forsmark station in Sweden, says this is 1.35% of the energy output for nuclear power, which is less than carbon fuel or renewable alternatives.
• http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2323 appears to be written by a nuclear power advocate, since it completely ignores the energy cost of Uranium enrichment. Nonetheless, it basically confirms the WNA paper's numbers (1 PJ for mining/acquisition, 4 for construction/decommissioning, 4 for waste disposal).
• http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/presentations/sww_energy_ctr.pdf, slide 8 gives an "energy payback ratio" of 16 for nuclear fission, suggesting that 1/16 = 6.25% of energy output is required as an energy input. For a 40 year lifetime, this means "2.5 years" of energy are required for generation. While vastly higher than the WPA estimate, it's still 1/3 of the "7 years" number, and includes all lifecycle costs. No background to back up this number, though.

Unless someone finds a credible contradictory source, I'll remove this item from the Advantages/disadvantages list. Actually, high lifecycle energy efficiency could be added to the 'advantages' list, though I welcome feedback. Asmendel 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

---

This article is a bit misleading in the Advantages/Disadvantages section. It says that nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases, which is incorrect. They actually release water vapour, one of the more potent greenhouse gases. Perhaps this article should be modified to say that nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas usually emitted from burning fossil fuels. Or something like that. brabblebrex 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Water is the most common greenhouse gas, up to 1% of the atmosphere, and is the fourth largest fraction of the atmosphere after nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. But this is not to say that adding more water vapor is worse than adding more carbon-dioxide, or adding more methane. I suspect that there is no effort underway, or under consideration, to limit water vapor production. It does not persist in the atmosphere, and its precipitation does not pollute. It is an interesting question as to what the effect would be on temperature if all water were removed from the atmosphere. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

April 2007 edits

I removed all the unsourced items in this section since it has been tagged since 2006 and many of the items were pretty suspect especially with out citations. In addition, most of this material related to nuclear power itself and not the power plants and is covered in the main article. I left only what was sourced and seemed to relate to the power plants themselves. Feel free to add more items about power plant construction/design issues with citations. --Chuck Sirloin 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this article really neutral?

I react to this sentence "Nuclear power plants are some of the most sophisticated and complex energy systems ever designed.[12] Any complex system, no matter how well it is designed and engineered, cannot be deemed failure-proof.[13]". The problem I see is the following : 1. No proof that they are complex 2. If they are complex, is this because that the reactor is complex or is this because there is a lot of system in place for other reasons(such as safety)? Source 13 seems to supports the idea that the complexity is due to safety reasons. One of the other sources in this sections(12) seems to be against nuclear power. So is this article really NPOV and shouldn't a warning be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.71.219.253 (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Myth of Absolute Safety Section is highly POV

It's pretty obvious when you read it that this section was written by an anti-nuclear activist and violates the NPOV policy. 67.116.253.221 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It also has elements of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that call for a serious rewrite. --Yaush (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the section down because it needs to be re-written. I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to discussing absolute safety mythology (it exists, in my opinion) but it needs to be in keeping with the neutral tone of a Wikipedia article. 173.8.132.62 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The section is back up now. How do other people feel about it? I'm not going to take it down again without further discussion. 67.116.253.221 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The section is supported by four very reliable sources, nothing that is remotely anti-nuclear. Maybe the wording could be improved, or some counter-arguments added, if there are any. But generally it is ok. Johnfos (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some unsupported generalization from Japan to the world in general. I've requested verification of paywalled citation. I suspect this is also focused on Japan and if not shown otherwise by someone with access to the source, I'll come back and edit it to avoid overreaching. The fundamental premise of the section is, however, well supported by the Economist citation. I've added a quote to the citation to make that clear.

Anyone else that sees the need for changes to the safety section should be advised that you need to edit Template:Nuclear power plant safety, not this article. --Kvng (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read this section just now and thought it worth bringing up on the talk page. The general premise (believing in 'infallible' technology) is valid, but I think the tone is still POV. Wogone (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This formulation ("But such an extended loss of power contributed to the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear facilities."), is part of the coverup, in that it fails to point out that it was loss of power to the pumps, and not loss of power to the station, that was the problem. The plants power distribution network was underwater, and this cause the need to rely on the diesel generators, which also relied on the now underwater power distribution network. "Loss of power" hides the fact that it was a basic design flaw (putting the distribution network in tunnels subject to flooding) that was the power problem. One assumes that the pumps themselves survived adequately, since I believe that they were used subsequently, once new power cables and controls were installed. The grid was fine and was used at Fukushima 2 that evening for cooling.( Martin | talk • contribs 19:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

Also, one should not rely on the truth of all assertions made on the opinion page of the NYTimes. (last fn in paragraph, footnote 45)( Martin | talk •contribs 19:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

I have merged these points from the bottom of the talk page into this section Wogone (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Flexibility - "not an ideal economic situation"

NPOV? The paragraph on flexibility omitted the notion, in two different citations, that cast some doubt on the assertion that nuclear plants can be flexible. The nuclear plant owners like the plants to run at 100%, since the fuel costs are fixed, and there is no cost benefit to running at 70% of nameplate. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Prompt Criticality

"It is impossible for a commercial nuclear reactor to explode like a nuclear bomb since the fuel is never sufficiently enriched for this to occur.[20]"

I assume that this sentence means that a prompt criticality accident is not possible due to the low enrichment of the fuel. However, the reference given does not mention this.

This statement is often made but is incorrect. It is true that if all the fuel in the reactor, if removed, would not be of sufficient enrichment to have a critical mass. However, in the reactor it is moderated and therefore prompt criticality is possible. For example Chernobyl suffered a prompt criticality accident despite it having a lower enrichment than most PWRs.

The reason why a reactor will not give a high yeild nuclear explosion is that it will disassemble before sufficient fission has taken place to give a high yield resulting in a 'fizzle' rather than an explosion.

I suggest that this statement is either removed of re-written since at the moment it is misleadingPlunk502 (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

ahsan razaq 03009118634 ceal nomber i am pakistani city name faisalabad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.177.217 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, "explode like a bomb" is different from prompt criticality, I think. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Modern plant construction time

There seems some disagreement on what a reasonable estimate for plant construction time (from start of site work to commercial operation). I think we are all agreed this has a large effect on economics, as financing costs are highly significant. If someone knows of a balanced report on this, it would be good to reference it. For now, here are a few data points:

• Finnish EPR under construction: 5 years (4 year build + 1 year commisioning) [6]
• Proposed U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR): 6 years (21 months site work, 6 months fuel load and commisioning, rest construction) [7]
• General Electric ABWR built in Japan: "just over 3 years to construct" [8], but 4 to 4.5 years to commercial operation [9]. [10] (I think BWR may be quicker to build than PWR).
• 2004 University of Chicago report (funded by US DOE) assumes between 5 and 7 years [11]

Rwendland 17:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - but none of these are long construction times compared to lengths as high as 19 years [12]. One source I saw said that a three-year delay added $1 billion to the cost of the Seabrook plant, and I was at Nine Mile Point 2 when after many years of delays it came in at $6.4 billion. I suggest we compromise by spelling out the number of years it takes to build a modern plant. Simesa 00:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Roughly five-year completion period" seems a fair current estimate, a good compromise. I'm surprised it is so hard to find a decent report on this as a source, it must be of great policy interest. From what I've seen the records/estimates are a bit inconsistant on recording preliminary site work, so a proper study would be useful. Weren't quite a lot of the historical delays in the U.S. often due to regulatory tightening-up, and objections, relating to design issues recognised post-Three Mile Island? Rwendland 13:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Found a great source. See Economics of new nuclear power plants/ Simesa 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear waste produced is dangerous for thousands of years

I'm no expert but I'm not sure that nuclear waste remains dangerous for 1000s of years. Maybe slightly radioactive but dangerourous? It's just my BS radar is sounding when I read that. Apartmento 11:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of years is actually correct for this type of waste. See Yucca Mountain. Give Peace A Chance 17:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Spent nuclear fuel that has not been reprocessed to reuse the remaining uranium and plutonium is significantly radioactive for thousands of years. Waste from fuel that has been reprocessed cools much faster. Simesa 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be better to say that nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. Whether something is dangerous depends on how it is contained as well as a number of other issues. You can say that radioactive waste can be dangerous for thousands of years if not properly stored..., but I think that that would be quickly rectified once the dangerous issue is identified. Or perhaps radioactive waste can present a hazard for thousands of years.Lcolson 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Plutonium-239 (a product of uranium-235) has a half-life of approximately 24,000 years. so yes, its radioactive for a very long time. Ledgero2 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This omits the idea that a long half-life is less dangerous than a short half-life, for any exposure, since you get less radiation per second, by definition. If you had a ton of material, in your back yard, it would be better if it had a jillion year half-life than if it had a 10 year half-life, assuming that both materials degraded by emitting the same particle. No? ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Benjamin Sovacool and the MIT Study

Hi all, I realize the MIT study is long and complex. But this claim is clearly wrong: “the MIT study Benjamin Sovacool references does not state this.” The report clearly says this, as readers can judge for themselves, on p. 48: “With regard to implementation of the global growth scenario during the period 2005-2055, both the historical and the PRA data show an unacceptable accident frequency. The expected number of core damage accidents during the scenario with current technology would be 4.” Then, in footnote 8 on p. 51, the report says this: ““The number of core damage accidents expected is the product of the CDF and the reactor-years of experience. We assume a CDF of 10-4 and 40,000 reactor-years experience during the period of 2005 to 2055: the product is 4 accidents.”

We can of course disagree about the meaning of this and the assumptions underlying the assessment, but whether the report stated it (it did), and whether I was accurate in saying the report stated it (I am), is not an issue of opinion, but a statement of fact.

Furthermore, the MIT report never fully “endorses” nuclear power nor is it as optimistic about it as this page reports. As the report says, on p. 9, to achieve better safety will require a ten fold increase in safety measures: “This standard implies a ten-fold reduction in the expected frequency of serious reactor core accidents.” The report also concedes that “We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle” (p. ix) and “The potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure and the link to nuclear explosives technology are unique to nuclear energy among energy supply options. These characteristics and the fact that nuclear is more costly, make it impossible today to make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power” (p. 22).

I realize many editors of this page may disagree with my stance on nuclear power, but let’s get the facts right when we reference material and attempt to criticize others.Bksovacool (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Prof Sovacool, for your clarification. You are quite correct in what you say, and I have altered to article accordingly. regards, Johnfos (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

{{請注意：請在這行文字底下進行您的測試，請不要刪除或變更這行文字以及這行文字以上的部份。}} {{请注意：请在这行文字底下进行您的测试，请不要删除或变更这行文字以及这行文字以上的部分。}}

I don`t understand any chinese but could use an automatic translater. Looks like I was on wrong side not transrapid only transrapid collision. This collision was because of unbelievable stupid driver on test range accelerating the train also he could see at start the working unit and only about 30m before collison using the brakes but the train did not derail and kayrapid security extensions are making same accident impossible. Can you transfer to right place ? I forgot how much japanese must pay for own vactrain project but it was extreme much standing anywhere in WP !

I`m adding know many by myself kayuweboehm(at)yapoo.de extended english technology articles about atomic power, coal power plant&air pollution etc. China HTR-PM also recoomended but only with minimal SiC burning protection layer on pebbles also for buying other coutiees like Thailand. With THOR He-c11B15N pebble bed VHTR absolute no risk placed at Fukushima up to quakes >12 tsunami >100m and qalso ODIN VHTR fully secure. Japan governement part did ask only for 3.12m (why 0.12 ?) tsunami protection wall 5.6m build but 10m high doors not closed well main mistake. German reactors have been secured for highest quake all 100 000 years and high water all 10 000years with 4 additionally fully different 2-4 generators fully bunkered and filtered outlet for overpressure or H2 and construction inside seperated so that H2 cannot go to over a block. Letting out later the overpresure was right and japan was lucky with not to much contamination see also table like many picture/charts by myself inside english WP Fukushima Daichii Nuclear Accident and subarticle comparision with Chernobyl with 3 tables added there also question in talk if a picture is really showing an anti-atom rally near Meji shrine with just children ballons but no anti atom signs but always WP edit wars ? Of course japan and rest of world are needing urgently much secure and cheap atomic power after world fossil energy maximum about 2020-2025. Monju fast breeder accident was not really critical and should be continued with adding in new version stoppsand core cathcer system like for ODIN 7Li/Li pebbles pillar VHTR see inside articles. Also china does have much coal power plants and should add centrifugal filter system etc. and of course no nonsense new kayturbines up to 100% efficiency using CO2 and centrifugal compressors instead water and huge condensors etc. If the fast breeding SiC/U/Si pebbles are working more secure than extended Monju or ODIN with Na/Li and ODIN likely up to 10GWe cheapest !

Diagrams Needed

This article needs a cross section of a power plant such as http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/pressurized.gif 168.209.97.34 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More information

see edits here by 91.10.72.27 (talk) Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"nuclear plants inflexible"

They are inflexible in the sense that there is little money saved by running at less than nameplate capacity. You save more on fuel by cutting back the coal or gas fired plants. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

Requested move 19 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the proposal. Number 57 22:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Nuclear power plant → Nuclear power station – Nuclear power station is more standard than Nuclear power plant, see Fossil-fuel power station. Thank you. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose no proof given. To me, the current terminology seems more natural. And "fossil-fuel power station" is unusual, since we usually talk about "coal power plants" or "oil-fired power plants" or "gas-fired power plant" instead. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, evidence should be provided first.--174.91.184.226 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edidence

• "Nuclear power plant" gets "About 12,600 results" in Scholar

"Nuclear power station" gets "About 2,110 results" in Scholar.

Thus according to the evidence (including proof that I cannot type)

• Oppose GregKaye 15:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose seems to me to be WP:COMMONNAME, which combined with WP:CONCISE is enough to beat WP:CONSISTENCY Red Slash 21:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment i think this was discussed at power station and i guess some people think it is ENGVAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nuclear power plant is the common name within academic literature. Mbcap (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

gas cooled reactors?

I think that in the introduction, gas cooled reactor types should be included. There are 145 (?) reactors of this type running in the UK at the moment. (AGR, improved MAGNOX design) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.90.139 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Decommissioning

The paragraph on warranty period of 30 years being influenced by radiation effects on structural materials is an important one, and should be expanded. It was written in January 2014 by Vyacheslav84 with citations to a Russian language article, and it is evident that the statements are factual (Google translated and about 1/3 the way down). An English language reference would be better, but all I can find are NASA papers on radiation effects on insulators but not for metal or concrete. Bert490 (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendment: the reference to radiation wear was already in Wikipedia, so the article now links to an English reference. Bert490 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

The number of operational plants

This article states it's 446. Should the current article be changed accordingly?--Adûnâi (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nuclear power plant

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nuclear power plant's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DIAZMAURIN2011":

• From Nuclear safety and security: Diaz Maurin, François (26 March 2011). "Fukushima: Consequences of Systemic Problems in Nuclear Plant Design". Economic & Political Weekly. 46 (13): 10–12.
• From Nuclear power phase-out: Diaz Maurin, François (26 March 2011). "Fukushima: Consequences of Systemic Problems in Nuclear Plant Design" (PDF). Economic & Political Weekly (Mumbai). 46 (13): 10–12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nuclear power plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111212195417/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653 to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722213838/http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/NukesSocialAlternativesMD.pdf to http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/NukesSocialAlternativesMD.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://213.198.118.156/info/inf29.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116084833/http://spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf to http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100511035607/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2053355 to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2053355

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Flexibility

Does the "lower fuel costs" include the costs of the government to keep nuclear energy save? Does ist include costs to take care of the used fuel? Does it include costs of research done by the government or other public institutions?

If the costs would be different, would a nuclear power plant be able to run up and down in hours like other power plants? Or the the real reason that it provides base level power, that it is simply impossible to provide peak power?

--Amin Negm-Awad (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear – the safest energy source

Every article I can find, even the Wiki page on deaths/unit energy, peg nuclear as the safest energy source yet there is no mention of this in the article. It does, however, talk about risks and dangers without going into how trivial they really are. This must be addressed. 95.49.20.195 (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Quite so! See for instance the study by James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha comparing the non-failures of fossil carbon with "failures and all" of civilian nuclear. For instance https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html

Прямо восхищён как правильно пишете ..

"Термальные" - !

Где-то на далёкой Камчатке тоже есть термальные станции. Работают от тепла вулканов. Вулканы не взрываютца. И станции не взрываютца. Не торопятца. Не спешат. Работают спокойно. Без истерии и ужасов ..

Што мешает работать не так !?

Ограничить температуру 300°C при max загрузке и max нагрузке. Ништо не расплавится. Понаставить кольцом как БАК. Вторичным контуром гонять паровозные двигатели.

Двухцилиндровые. Двухтактные. Я об их конструкции неоднократно объяснсл в "Сети Интернет". "К.п.д." - такой же какой коэффициент других "ДВС". Преобразователи постоянного тока в переменный. 3-хфазотронированный. Понавключали последовательно - и погнали на килокилометры. Конешно если так надо. Если нет - тогда не очень. Только и всего.

Я думаю .. вроде ничего .. страшного. ? Здесь пишу. Раз там не надо.

176.59.201.92 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)