Talk:Nuclear power in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Consistency

In the 'energy policy of the united kingdom' article, nuclear is stated as producing 8% of the UK's energy, here it is one fifth. Which is it?? 81.77.82.25 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It could perhaps be expressed more clearly, however both are correct. The 19% figure relates only to electricity generation, the 8% figure relates to all primary energy fuels - i.e. including petrol for use in cars, gas for central heating, etc. Gralo 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics

I take exception to the following statement (under 'Economics'):

"However there are several reasons to expect significant improvement if new nuclear power stations are built"

and the subsequent argument.

New nuclear build will be subject to exactly the same factors that have made existing capacity such a colossal waste of money, with the added risk from the use of relatively new technology (EPR reactors), and the decreasing availability over time of high grade uranium ore. Current experience with the only new nuclear power scheme under construction in Europe (the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland) shows no improvement a history which has seen NO nuclear power station ever built anywhere, ever, come in on budget or to deadline. As of December 2006, construction of Olkiluoto 3 was reported to be 18-24 months behind schedule, and this isn't even 18months into the work, originally scheduled to take around four years - see http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20061204&ID=6245665

This delay alone has cost one of the principle partners in the project (Areva of France) E500m in fines, and "Areva admitted in July that the problems at the Olkiluoto 3 site will have a major impact on the company's full year results". Other cost overruns on the project are causing Areva problems, with the Financial Times reporting that they are "also facing growing problems and costs in Finland where it is building with its German partner Siemens the first of its new generation EPR reactors" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fd47a13a-8f04-11db-a7b2-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=415f2042-300f-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html)

There are also a number of credible studies which have concluded that nuclear power is an expensive and dangerous distraction from the business of tackling climate change and moving our energy system towards a more sustainable footing - see for example:

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/14-2.pdf

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html#nuclearpubs

http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?PID=209

http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea_p.aspx?id=374

http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/nscoverstory.htm

http://www.newstatesman.com/200605290008

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/fullnuclearreprotwwf.pdf

http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/ilex_report.pdf

http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/Nuclear-tax-bombshell.pdf

As such, in my view, it would be more valid to state, in place of the assertion currently set out, that:

"Whilst the nuclear industry asserts that a new generation of nuclear power stations would avoid many of the acute problems which have dogged the construction and operation of all previous plants, this remains to be substantiated, and in the meantime, many other studies have concluded that nuclear power remains at best an expensive non-solution to the pressing problems of moving our energy systems onto a sustainable footing and tackling climate change"

with some links to the references I have cited.

I'd be interested in any comments on this.

Regards

4ndy8 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)4ndy8

That statement is actually taken from one of the "credible studies" you cite: page 3, of paper 4 ("The Economics of Nuclear Power"), of the Sustainable Development Commission's "Is nuclear the answer?" report, see [1]. I thought it encapsulated the hopes of the pro-nuclear lobby pretty well, and included it to represent their views for a balanced article section (I also put in the rarely noted fact that even the newest Sizewell B is hopelessly uneconomic). Personally I doubt their hopes will be fully realised, as the Finnish EPR saga is beginning to show. But I did think it a reasonable portrayal of their views/hopes, and costs should indeed go down to a degree for those reasons. Adding evidence showing it is not working out in Europe would be great, so are not being substantiated. But if it is an accurate portrayal of their argument, as the SDC suggest, it should be left I think. Rwendland 15:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The majority of links that you cite are from anti-nuclear organisations. They oppose nuclear power on principle, based on concerns about the possible health and environmental effects. As these concerns have not been realised over many years of safe nuclear operation, these organisations have constructed a number of false arguments about nuclear power - one of which being that it is necessarily expensive (others being that it produces too much CO2; or that the Uranium will run out soon). They don't even try to make economically sensible assumptions about nuclear power, and given their principal aims, I wouldn't expect them to.

To balance your anti-nuclear bias, here is what the World Nuclear organisation says http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Perhaps more directly relevant to this wiki article is the relevant section of the UK govts Energy Review which shows that nuclear is cost-competitive with fossil fuel, much cheaper than wind, and generally one of the better options when carbon is taken into account. http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file32014.pdf

Furthermore, the DTI provides this cost-benefit analysis for nuclear compared to gas generation (which is the default cheapest alternative). In most scenarios nuclear is competetive. http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file31938.pdf

18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Colin ___

Thanks for feedback.

Colin, I can see now that what is written under the Economics section is based very squarely on parts of the SD report as you state. As an aside, perhaps a direct reference would be in order?

You also write "I thought it encapsulated the hopes of the pro-nuclear lobby pretty well, and included it to represent their views for a balanced article section." I think you are right - it does exactly that. However, my query stems from the fact that the article does not make it clear that these are the views of the nuclear industry, rather it reads as though they are framed as objective commentary. Your summary of this section of the SD report omits many of the balancing counterarguments and the overall conclusion of the SD, which is far less optimistic. Hence my request to reframe the section along the lines of "Whilst the nuclear industry asserts..." - I still maintain that this would more accurately reflect the nature of the section and the reality of the situation.

Not sure who the second comment is from, but you state "these concerns [of 'anti nuclear' organisations] have not been realised over many years of safe nuclear operation."

I am not sure how you would seek to define "many years of safe nuclear operation." If you look at just one high profile UK site - Sellafield - then you will presumably be shocked to discover that "Between 1950 and 2000 there have been 21 serious incidents or accidents involving some off-site radiological releases that merited a rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, one at level 5, 5 at level 4 and 15 at level 3. Additionally during the 1950s and 1960s there were protracted periods of known, non accidental, discharges to the atmosphere of plutonium and irradiated uranium oxide particulates.[18] These frequent incidents, together with the large 2005 Thorp plant leak which was not detected for nine months, have led some to doubt the effectiveness of the managerial processes and safety culture on the site over the years."

This is from Answers.com - not known to be an anti nuclear campaigning organisation (nor, I would contend, are IEER/Science for Democratic Action or the SD Commission or Feasta or NEF or the New Statesman or the Lib Dems - none of these can accurately be described as 'anti nuclear organisations').

This is a little beside the point, however - it is the merits of the case which are at stake, and as you say many of these organisations do oppose nuclear power on the balance of the arguments for and against. You also state that such anti nuclear organisations "don't even try to make economically sensible assumptions about nuclear power." I would contend that this is exactly what many of them do - for example the NEF report, pp.34-41 which undertakes a detailed analysis of the economics of nuclear power. Also worth analysing is the Rocky Mountain Institute report on the competitive economics and climate saving potential of nuclear power compared to similar investment in other technologies, principally efficiency measures. The conclusion is that for the same money, you get more energy and more climate improvement from efficiency and renewables, so the opportunity cost of nuclear power (even ignoring health, accidents, terrorists, and insurmountable waste problems) is a poor investment if your intention is to cost effectively provide for the energy requirements of the human race in a socially, environmentally and economically optimal way.

4ndy8 16:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)4ndy8

____

First 4ndy8, apologies for the confusion - it was I (Colin) who posted the second reply - I put the attribution at the start instead of the end. I've shifted this.

Second, I don't necessarily want to descend into an argument defending nuclear power's safety record, but I will illustrate what I mean using your own facts. You cite Sellafield as a typical example (though it happens to be the oldest civil nuclear site) stating that it has had 1 level 5 accident, 5 level 4 incidents etc. Looking at the INES scale you will see that only level 5 and above represent offsite risk. The particular level 5 incident at Sellafield was the Windscale fire of fifty years ago. So there has only been one serious accident, that was fifty years ago, and even this incident did not occur in a nuclear power station - it was a nuclear pile, which had the sole purpose of making plutonium for weapons. Since that time all western nuclear power stations have included containment buildings that have been 100% effective in preventing such large releases of radioactive material even in the event of a core melt. Even though Three Mile Island was a level 5 event, it did not result in significant offsite risk and nobody was harmed because of the containment building. The only other incident at a civil nuclear power station that has ever resulted in a release like this was Chernobyl, which was an unsafe design and did not incorporate a containment building.

• Nobody has ever been killed by radiation from the UK civil nuclear industry.
• Apart from Chernobyl, no member of the public anywhere in the world has been killed by radiation from the civil nuclear industry.
• In the last 20 years (since Chernobyl) there hasn't been a level 5 or higher release of radiation from a civil nuclear power station anywhere in the world.

Hopefully this makes it clear what I meant by "many years of safe operation". Every industry has accidents. The nuclear industry causes fewer deaths than any other major source of electricity production. Far fewer.

It is exactly this absence of deaths, or in fact any evidence of harm from nuclear power, that has forced the anti-nuclear lobby to construct other arguments to bolster their cause (e.g. that it is supposedly too expensive).

I would still contend that most of the organisations you cite (with the exception of the New Statesman) are anti-nuclear. They are, as a matter of policy, opposed to nuclear power on ethical grounds (mistakenly, IMHO). They construct their economic arguments to support their anti-nuclear "ethical" stance. They don't try to make an economic case for nuclear power.

Simple observation of energy policies around the world shows, over and over, that countries will chose nuclear power as the next most cost-effective option if they do not have an abundance of cheap fossil fuel or hydro sites.

I agree that energy efficiency measures offer greater savings per £ than any method of electricity production, but assuming we are going to continue to build replacement/new sources of production, nuclear is among the most cost-effective. In general renewables, other than hydro, are not, at present.

19:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Colin

____

Thanks Colin

I'm pushed for time, so I will focus for now on a couple of points you raise, and a couple of assertions.

You restate your contention that nuclear power is safe, and has a record of "many years of safe operation", with reference to the documented accident events i previously cited. in your view, the fact that only one event has been reported at above level 5 demonstrates this safety. i could quibble about your interpretation of 'offsite risk' here - clearly, as the scale states, events at below level 5 can and do have both on- and offsite implications, and this does not translate as "there [having] only been one serious accident, that was fifty years ago". i will not delve into the details of other interpretations than yours of the three mile island disaster here, but [2] for example has some interesting quotes from those close to the incident.

if you are happy for many events at, say, level 4 and below to regularly occur, i would contend that each of these represents loss of control and failure of safety systems at nuclear installations, and that any number of these may have had the potential to escalate further and be more damaging. the fact that we have been relatively lucky should not be used to eulogise the safety of these inherently very hazardous installations, and the potential consequnces from the inevitable breaches of normal operating conditions which we will inevitably continue to face as long as we use these technologies will be subject to the same laws of chance which gives this traditional incident severity pyramid, which is the same as in other areas of industrial risk (ie relatively few very serious events at the top, large numbers of more minor events further down the pyramid). risk assessment shows that low probability of very serious incidents still equates to very serious risks, and this is what we live with, increasing this risk with every additional nuclear installation. we are also here focusing solely on the uk industry. what chernobyl showed was that, like global warming, nuclear incidents are no respectors of national boundaries, and the uk remains at risk from reactors elsewhere.

of more major concern, in my view, are events not covered by this scale - so called 'normal releases' of radioactive materials, and leaks, spills and other releases from power plants and related sites. again, sellafield and dounraey are cases in point - the recent revelations that leaks of serious quantities of highly radioactive materials from containment vessels at sellafield continued for months - months! - without detection caused widespread condemnation and outrage. you can surely understand why the governments of Ireland and Norway are so concerned about these installations that they have been petitioning the European Commission and others to get them closed down for many years. similarly, the revelations from Dounraey, in September 2006 that the operators were "fined £2 million for spilling radioactive waste(2). Last year, its regulators reported that 250 safety failures had taken place since 1999(3). Among them was Dounreay’s generous gift to the community of containers used to store low-level radioactive waste. They were to be turned into a Santa’s grotto for local children(4). Another report showed that fissile waste was being stored in paint tins or simply left where it had been found(5). One former employee claimed that samples from Dounreay’s radioactive effluent tanks were collected for analysis with a wellington boot on a piece of string, as the proper equipment had rusted up(6) A Catalogue of Idiocy Also worth a read is Decaying and dangerous, the legacy of a flawed nuclear vision. Similar stories emerge around the world.

It is, however, not leaks, but the radioactivity released in 'normal operations', particularly from reprocessing, is perhaps the biggest single danger to environmental and human health (assuming you accept that radioactive emissions are inherently hazardous, and that we are bound by the epidemiological principle and dose-effect relationship that there are no 'safe' levels of these substances). The Joint Letter of the Nordic Environment Ministers to the British Minister for the Environment highlights this issue in terms of discharges from Sellafield. see also [3] and countless other sources.

i won't go into leukaemia clusters etc, but i think we have ample cause for concern here, and that your blanket assertions that

"Nobody has ever been killed by radiation from the UK civil nuclear industry" and "Apart from Chernobyl, no member of the public anywhere in the world has been killed by radiation from the civil nuclear industry."

are simply not true, or at the very least, not verifiable, and therefore invalid. there have been many accounts over the years of much higher radioactivity levels around nuclear power plants (see for example Japan, where it was found to be 10 000 times higher than normal. do you contend that such increased levels of radiation have no health effects? Many reports - for example this report, "raise[s] the spectre of health damage from radiation exposures thought to be entirely safe."

also, there is the issue, which you do not mention, of the whole life cycle for nuclear fuel, from mining to waste. do you argue that mining uranium, in other countries, does not cause deaths?

add in the colossal problem and expense (and energy requirement, over the years, which will almost certainly exceed the useful energy we extract from the fuel in our nuclear power stations) of nuclear waste management (lets not pretend there is any 'disposal' option) and the moral issue of committing many future generations (some further away from us in the future than stone age man is in the past) to managing our nuclear waste legacy, and attempting to 'keep it safe'; the fact that there is a demonstrable link between 'civilian' nuclear power and nuclear weapons production and proliferation, and the bottom line that, if we invested the same amounts of money in other technologies (primarily simple ones concerned with improving aspects of energy efficiency) we would get greater energy and carbon saving returns, then i don't see a credible argument for a new generation of nuclear power stations - in the uk or elsewhere.

4ndy8 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)4ndy8

_____

4ndy8, amongst all your suggestion and innuendo of matters you "won't go into" you haven't actually identified anybody who has been killed by radiation from civil nuclear power stations apart from Chernobyl. My statement regarding the UK nuclear industry's "many years of safe operation" still stands.

As the main article states, the COMARE report found no evidence to link leukaemia with nuclear power stations. There have been no accidental deaths from radiation from any civil nuclear power station apart from Chernobyl. None of the headline grabbing stories that you mention (Dounreay et al) have actually caused any observed harm. The burden of proof is upon you if wish to assert that harm has been caused.

I find it irksome that you suggest that I might be "happy" to accept many level 4 events. I never said any such thing. In fact there have only been a handful of level 4 events in the whole history of nuclear power worldwide, and by definition none of them harmed anybody off-site.

Regarding "normal operations", average public exposure from normal operation of the nuclear industry in the UK is approximately 0.0009 mSv per year. If you wish to assert that this has caused any deaths then the burden of proof is again on you. You should be aware that average natural background radiation worldwide is around 2.4mSv per year. This varies considerably across the globe. In some parts of the world natural background radiation rises up to a hundred times the normal background level (that is, more than 200,000 times the level of exposure from the nuclear industry in the UK) yet there is no empirical evidence of any increased cancer risk in such areas.

23:15, March 16 2007 (UTC) Colin

This article has a very POV attitude. Something should be done about it, especially considering that a lot of the data applied, and subsequent conclusions, are spurious. For instance, and just to begin with, the statement that Sizewell B has a 6p/kWh cost, while very possibly true, does not take into account that even the Sustainable Development Commission has come out with data showing that nuclear power, for reactors brought online around 2020, will cost 2.5p - 3p/kWh, which works out cheaper than their assessments of natural gas (and inline with the cost of offshore and onshore wind). Similarly, Sizewell B was an extremely delayed project (it was originally suppose to be an AGR) and thus the 'cost', in lifecycle terms, is exaggerated compared to a possible future reactors, especially if built as a series (as the Government has proposed). Also, given that an EPR has a 60-year life assessment (compared to 40 on existing PWRs) and that 80% of the cost of nuclear power is in the construction of the plant, this argument loses yet more weight (if they extend Sizewell B beyond 40-years, for instance, the economics change). The point is, we're using POV arguments which either need explaining or need to be removed, so that NPOV is met. Roche-Kerr 11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Government loses nuclear power case!

That'll teach 'em :) [4]

Right, because this is completely an us-versus-them matter. Thank you for polarizing this issue further, just what the world and the rate payers need. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Location Map

Everyone PLEASE tell me what you think of the map (this is me being short on feedback). Normally I like to have it in there with some 'reactor overview' section, but this article is developed enough that I don't want to be so presumptuous as to make one. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

good addition to the article - sbandrews (t) 07:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added the other stations - operational and non-operational - to the list. Cannot not help at present with the GEODATA. Cullam (in Oxfordshire) is added as the Fusion (cf fission) process is used. --Stewart 10:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Google Earth I have revised the co-ordinates for the Scottish and Welsh sites. Also Winfrith. --Stewart 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good improvement, but just so you know, I haven't been that sensitive to position myself. In many cases I've dropped some decimal places on the coordinates just to make it easy on myself. it's a big map, and it has to be a pretty significant change in location to be significant. Regarding some of the other plants that were added, I can't even find anywhere on the internet or on Google maps. I'll leave those to the experts.

It's good to see this well received. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please recalibrate the map? Dungeness is not in France!80.4.6.192 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to work properly if I put the whole formula in, so that's what have done, otherwise the markers are about a centimetre too low...80.4.6.192 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

More up to date data?

I don't have the time or wherewithal to edit the actual article, but, page 15 of [5] on [6] states that in 2008 nuclear power only contributed 12.5% to UK electricity. A note about imports via the HVDC link from France doubling may be worth adding too..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim0n (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Government/Parliament has 'made it clear' ??

It seems to me that the saying a Government/Parliament 'has made it clear' that 'no nuclear power stations will be built' is strangely empty thing to put here: has the Scottish Executive / Parliament actually passed a law to this effect ? If so we need a citation on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monowiki (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical Chart

It's already more than 5 years ago I created this article as a stub as a part of a series of articles on nuclear power policy and it feels great to see this article made so much progress. Kudos to everybody who contributed. What I miss though, is a chart that illustrates the history of nuclear power production, similar to the one in the article about France. Ben ^T/_C 12:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes proposed by Rangoon11

I have undone today's changes by Rangoon11 so that they can be discussed here first. Mtking (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of wholly bad-faith editing, having never edited on this article or any even slightly relevant topic before Mtking has come here and undone my edits purely out of spite, with absolutely no argument given as to why they disagree with them. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of background here: User_talk:Rangoon11#Talk Page consensus and here User_talk:Rangoon11#Levitt Bernstein.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not a bad faith edit - you made a large edit to this page without discussing it. Mtking (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as well as WP:HOUND. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have, maybe you should - you are missing the "discuss cycle" part and I came across this page independently of you. Mtking (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk page of Rangoon11:

That's not how Wikipedia works and not what is required by policy. Although it may be advisable to seek to discuss edits prior to making them if they are of an obviously highly controversial manner and highly likely to be reverted, it is not acutually a requirement even then. To seek consensus prior to making edits would be impractical. Standard process is clear: Wikipedia:Be bold, and if others disagree with the edits they can then easily revert and the issues of disagreement can be discussed on the Talk page.

There are obvious practical reasons for this. Firstly, the easiest way to show others what you intend is to actually make the changes, and they can then do a compare. Secondly, seeking consensus prior to making edits would greatly slow down the process of editing. Thirdly, most edits are not controversial. And fourthly, it is an exceptionally easy and quick process to revert edits. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You have clearly reverted just in an attempt to make a WP:POINT (despite actually having an incorrect understanding of policy). At no point have you stated why you feel the edits were not an improvement to the article in question. The edits were of an uncontentious nature: the addition of photos when there were none previously, the correction of content and moving some to a more logical place. The onus is on you to state what was you disagree with about the changes. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I simply don't believe that, it's clear from your whole focus both in this discussion, on the article Talk page and in your edit summaries that your purpose in reverting my edits was to attempt to prove a point about my editing style, and had nothing to do with the edits themselves. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose seeking a Wikipedia:Third opinion on this matter.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not rearrage/edit this discussion to present a misleading impression of its flow, as you just did. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion not moving forward

I have attempted to make non-contentious improving edits to this article - the addition of uncontroversial photos where there were none before, moving the map and a navigation template to more appropriate places, and moving some histroical narrative to the History section.

The totality of these edits are being bulk reverted by User talk:Mtking, who has repeatedly failed to describe their issue with these edits. The good faith improvement of this article is being prevented.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is you that is the roadblock Mtking (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits by Rangoon11 seem sensible to me and help to make the article more readable and have improved the layout. It is the reversions and unconstructive comments by Mtking that appear to be the roadblock by not accepting someones else's edit. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 19:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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) 15:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Map position

Whilst checking current against older page versions, I found the map, which until that point I had not got to in the current page. My immediate reaction was - "heh - something fundamental and visual - why is this not (prominent) on the current page?" OK, I may be a more visual editor than some, but I think the journalistic page-layout principal of having an important and interesting image early in the page flow is equally valid here.

The layout I am critical of is perturbed by a semantic issue. The section entitled simply "Power stations" and hence given very low priority down the bottom of the page is actually a "List summarising nuclear power stations in the UK" or a "Summary of nuclear power stations in the UK". Considered as such, this would fit better immediately under the Lead section.

The map, which is ***too wide to fit to the side of the summary tables*** on many screens, and hence has a massive whitespace beside it (accompanied by similar disjointed screenspace beside the tables) could, then float up to beside the long, expanded "Contents" box, ALSO creating a massive whitespace in the page flow.

I'll make the page adjustment and revert it, so it's easy for you to test what I'm suggesting, by toggling it in the page history. Perhaps substantial contributers to this page might then like to comment.

The history link to toggle to it: [7]

Trev M  ~  14:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view the current layout is better, it is standard to have the history section first in WP articles, and the map should in my view be together with the information on current plants. The map is far from an ideal image format however, being too large and too inflexible. Ideally the map should be reworked into a better format e.g. jpg. List-style sections, which the plant information is, are generally placed towards the end of articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You're watching this page, Rangoon! Created an edit conflict as I was just about to add this link fo easy comparison of suggestion.

I'm happy to watch for a while see what others think; but would agree something needs some work - maybe map and tables if not whole page Trev M  ~  14:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes sorry I jumped in so quickly, it's a bad habit of mine. I completely agree that the map and table need work, although I don't think that the solution is changing the section order. As a short term fix, how about putting the map above the tables but still within the section?Rangoon11 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is what I currently see. [Screenshot]. Trev M  ~  15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not up to date, Wylfa.

Wylfa will stop in 2014, not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.207.35 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Windscale in Accidents section

I think their should be a note pointing out that Windscale Unit 1 was a reactor designed to produce weapon grade nuclear material and not a power reactor, Including it under Nuclear Power Accidents is a bit misleading. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 22:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edits and updates

Spazturtle is correct in this - Windscale was not connected to the grid and was not a power reactor. Natural uranium was pushed through quickly to produce high quality plutonium and no electricity was generated. The minimal edit would be to change "Nuclear power accidents" to "Nuclear accidents"

The last sentence in "2011 to present" should be deleted now that an agreement (on that issue) has been made.

The Lovins quote is misleading at best. There is no citation to costs of different technologies and Lovins is well known for making unsubstantiated claims. The UK DECC has published strike prices for CfDs available to those who build new wind/solar/geothermal/etc and this is a meaningful method for comparing costs. I think it is important to keep comments on the alternative low-carbon generation options and their costs, so this should be replaced by a paragraph regarding the current strike prices (or some other verifiable cost comparison for the UK). An encyclopedia should not be a loudspeaker for crackpots. -- Mikeflem (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to get into a debate on Amory Lovins, but interested editors may wish to read his 2011 book Reinventing Fire, with forewords by John W. Rowe, CEO of Exelon, and Marvin Odum from Shell Oil. Johnfos (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of his work and those who have read RF can tell the difference between it and a more serious treatment in something like SEWTHA. I would prefer my information to come from the CSA to DECC (and Cambridge Regius prof) instead of, well... it is difficult to describe Lovins but I think the quote helps identify him. While the Hinkley C deal may be 'economically daft', claiming that onshore wind can generate at 1/7 is either dishonest or an indication that he doesn't understand the concepts (which I would not believe). As I've tried to point out, the UK already pays onshore generators more with an analogous derivative. There are of course other ways that the government arguably assists nuclear (liability, complex waste deals, etc) and renewables are certainly coming down in cost, but the quote is the stuff of crackpots (or worse). -- Mikeflem (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's the first I've seen that quote from Lovins and it did make me strike a smile. I've found Lovins to be more reliable than not (that is, he is right more often than wrong, though he does make some unsubstantiated claims now and then). However, perhaps the key is his use of the word "unsubsidized." Depending on how he calculated that wind or solar could very well be much, much cheaper. You also have other analysts independent from Amory making the claim that, today, solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear (not for the UK, just in general). See here http://www.deccanherald.com/content/85883/myth-reality-nuclear-energy-costlier.html and here http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/07/myths-and-facts-about-nuclear-power/196793 for a sample. So the argument, while it does seem extreme, may have some sound data behind it. Mike, I have found that if you take the time to write to Amory directly, he will sometimes respond. Maybe send him a note and ask him for the data behind his claim? We can all debate his intentions here on Wikipedia endlessly but perhaps its best to just go to the source itself.Bksovacool (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Heysham/Hartlepool shutdown

is it worth some text to discuss the shutdowns on Heysham 1 and Hartlepool for problems in the heat exchangers?

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/hartlepool-s-nuclear-power-station-shut-down-for-two-months-after-defect-found-1-6780599 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Windscale Fire

I've removed the Windscale Fire section from the accidents list as this is a page on nuclear power. Windscale never produced electricity, it solely was used for manufacturing Pu239. Kylesenior (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed from History - supercomputers and jellyfish

Removed this from History :

Supercomputers are used to predict and mitigate the impact of jellyfish in the intake cooling systems, which bothered Torness in 2011.

It didn't seem to belong there, or anywhere else in this article. - Rod57 (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

One year UCF table misleading - should be removed

The one year UCF (unit capability factor) table is misleading as it has haphazard results over 1 year, as refueling outages occur about every 18 months and the 1 year period is hit and miss on if a refuel occurs in that year. So two identical dualled reactors run by the same staff in a station have such different results essentially randomly: Torness-2 70.8%, Torness-1 95.1%. Our claim "An important indicator" (not from a cite) is not true for the 1 year table we have. Unless there is an objection or someone changing it to say 5 years, I will remove the table and associated text. Rwendland (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)