Talk:Nuclear renaissance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias tag

One of the most slanted articles I've yet seen. No mention of the 26 new reactors the NRC currently expects proposals for in the U.S. (see [1]), no mention of the Economics of new nuclear power plants article, there is mention of the loan guarantees for two reactors in Georgia but no cite for that, etc. No mention of the Abu Dhabi exploration (see [2]). No mention of Africa's plans (see [3]). One wonders what research was done on this topic, as from the current article it looks as if there is no incipient Nuclear Renaissance. Simesa (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; it has serious problems with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. FellGleaming (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote the lede a bit; take a look and see what you think. FellGleaming (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Did a lot of work on the article tonight, but it still needs much more. Simesa (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel comfortable removing the Bias tag now - anyone object? Simesa (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve Kidd (WNA)

I found Steve Kidd's perspective [4] to be useful. He says "Proof of whether the mooted nuclear renaissance is merely “industry hype” as some commentators suggest or reality will come over the next decade." Johnfos (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems apropos. Go ahead and insert it. FellGleaming (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert

I found a better source for the following text:

Some commentators have estimated that in the last decade (2000-9) the nuclear industry spent, in the US only, $ 645 million lobbying Congress and the White House to pass legislation favouring the construction of new nuclear power plants.Nuclear Energy's Comeback Is Fueled By Lobbying Dollars, Not By Safer or Better Technology AlterNet, February 25, 2010.]

That ref Nuclear energy lobby working hard to win support says in the fine print on the graph "The year-by-year totals represent lobbying dollars reported to the Senate Office of Public records by members of the Nuclear Energy Institute and companies that currently own and/or operate a nuclear power plant. Among the lobbying issues listed was (various nuclear stuff)."

Apparently any lobbying dollars spent by, say, energy giants Exelon or Entergy were counted in the totals, regardless of the companies' other political concerns. And apparently unions that have any affiliation with nuclear (see IBEW) aren't allowed to make campaign contributions without it being labeled as nuclear-related. This is all patent nonsense.

This paragraph, at best, belongs in Nuclear debate where it can be refuted. Simesa (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I further downloaded NEI's list of members - which include engineering giants GE and Westinghouse. "NEI has nearly 350 members in 19 countries. They include companies that operate nuclear power plants, design and engineering firms, fuel suppliers and service companies, companies involved in nuclear medicine and nuclear industrial applications, radionuclide and radiopharmaceutical companies, universities and research laboratories, and labor unions." All of these organizations do lobbying and make campaign donations for various reasons, not just nuclear. Simesa (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear waste

Article currently reads in the lead (second paragraph, my emphasis):

At the same time, various barriers to a nuclear renaissance have been identified. These include: unfavourable economics compared to other sources of energy, slowness in addressing climate change, industrial bottlenecks and personnel shortages in nuclear sector, and the unresolved nuclear waste issue.

Many people regard the waste issue as having been resolved (even resolved some decades ago). (We might also ask exactly which other sources of energy compete with nuclear in economics). Some rephrasing is still probably in order. I'm reluctant to do it myself as I must identify myself as strongly pro-nuclear, but I don't think we have NPOV as it is. Andrewa (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. There were some serious npov, unreliable source, and weasel-wording problems in a couple of paragraphs. The lede could stand a section on criticism of the nuclear renaissance, but what was there was pretty much entirely unsalvageable. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What was this edit about? Andrewa's point above is answered by the sentence "The nuclear waste issue remains unresolved with no country currently implementing a sustainable solution" in the cited reference. To improve NPOV in a referenced way, we need to find other recent sources that say something else and so improve the wording. Deleting whole paragraphs with the comment 'see talk' under these circumstances is unnecessarily combative. Please self revert so that we can discuss the matters raised. --Nigelj (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There were four sources cited for the paragraph as a whole, of which that is one. Dr Findlay appears to be an expert on international affairs, and neither he nor the institute he heads appear to have Wikipedia articles. Perhaps if either is notable enough you might like to start them? The Centre for International Governance Innovation does, interesting. In any case, to cite him as the justification for including in the article lead the bland and controversial claim that the nuclear waste problem is unresolved isn't impressive. There are various views on this at present (surely you realise this?), and Wikipedia shouldn't promote either. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that those two whole paragraphs needed expunging from the article on those grounds, and that it is better now? --Nigelj (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on the nuclear renaissance, not the politics of nuclear power. A see-also link to a list of every accident the nuclear power industry has seen is totally out of place, as was the outrageous language that "alarming accidents" continue to occur in the US. Alarming according to an anti-nuclear group? The lede could use some language detailing concerns and criticism of whether the nuclear renaissance is a valid concept, a viable concept, or sheer hype....but trying to coatrack in every anti-nuke groups objections to nuclear power in general is clearly out of place. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I essentially agree with what Nigel has said, and concur that the article needs to be restored, as much valid sourced material was lost with this edit. I have made a couple of wording changes based on the above discussion. The statement about "alarming incidents" is now attributed:

Trevor Findlay from the Centre for International Governance Innovation contends that "alarming incidents continue to occur" even in a well regulated industry like that of the U.S.

I've also changed the "unresolved nuclear waste issue" to the "nuclear waste debate".

Hope this helps. Johnfos (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the main objections. First of all, it is a WP:SYN violation to connect nuclear safety with the nuclear renaissance. What reliable source claims the renaissance is being held up by concerns over safety? Further, the restored text in the lede is primarily sourced to an unreliable source (Trevor Findlay), who can only be used when properly attributed. I suspect that the other two sources don't specifically relate to the Nuclear renaissance either. Still further, statements like the renaissance is being held up by a "slowness in addressing climate change" is utterly nonsensical. I'm putting in a compromise statement which addresses the most serious concerns while we discuss the remainder. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Overview section

Does a series of quotes constitute an overview? This section does not read like an article, and reads instead as a back and forth of people's opinions.

The quote "In September 2011, German engineering conglomerate Siemens announced it will withdraw entirely from the nuclear industry, as a response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster.[39]" is completely out of place here, and should be deleted. A single company pulling out of nuclear operations is not indicative of the presence or absence of a renaissance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoltom (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree the collection of quotes does not provide a very good Overview, and suggest moving them to the end of the article, under the heading "Views and opinions". Please remove the specific quote you are objecting to.

But your main concern is that the article does not comply with Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, and that there are a lot of missing citations. I have already said that we don't need citations for every phrase or sentence and that the article is well sourced. Often one citation will cover several sentences. But if you are still concerned about this, please take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not take it there just yet. I will consider what you have said, and will flag lack of citations for a few of the more dubious statements. Good suggestion re. "Views and opinions" section.Ecoltom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoltom (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 September 2012‎

Missing citations and removal of sourced material

There are numerous missing citations in this article, which I have flagged several times. However, I have repeatedly experienced reversions to these edits. The initial reason given was that "we don't need citations for every phrase or sentence; article is well sourced". Wikipedia's Verifiability policy clearly states that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation". Subsequent reversions have failed to give an explanation for the reverting, and failed to provide reliable sources for the statements in question.

A cited statement of fact has also been repeatedly removed from the "Accidents and safety" section. Can the people doing the reverting please explain what is wrong with this statement?

A reminder that BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Ecoltom (Ecoltom) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Tom. You are an experienced Wikipedian who created the new account "Ecoltom" on 13 September 2012. What is your prior account name? --Trofobi (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is my first account. Have been an anonymous occasional editor for a long time.Ecoltom —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretending that you weren't able to press the "signature" button will not prevent other users from spotting that you are on a very high professional editor level, exactly knowing all the policies here[5][6][7]... --Trofobi (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Replaced old/junk references

Replaced some dated, unavailable or misleading references. The statement that RWE and E.ON will not build nuclear at Wylfa or Oldbury due to uncertainty is certainly not correct now. They are not building it because they sold the project (for a surprisingly large sum) to Hitachi. The Lovins crackpot quote was deleted in favour of something meaningful: the actual strike prices for wind/solar. Mikeflem (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article does need some updating, but WNA is a pro-nuclear partisan source and repeatedly using it is not good form. It would be a bit like using the International Solar Energy Society as a major source in the Solar energy article -- something to avoid. Better sources include more independent sources such as those by the IEA and IPCC, and refereed journal articles. Sources such as the Guardian which is subject to journalistic codes are also fine.

Please make sure that you provide full details for references, and you may find citation templates to be useful. Thanks.

-- Johnfos (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Johnfos and thank you for the suggestions - I am clearly new to wikipedia and just stumbled on an article which was clearly very outdated and had some junk. I appreciate that WNA is of course pro-nuclear, but the citations were to simple, non-controversial statements of fact (reactors in construction) and they provide the best collection of easily accessed data for these purposes. WNA is also referenced throughout wikipedia for precisely this information (see for example nuclear power in south korea, or list of nuclear reactors etc).

The other modifications were to replace the incorrect/misleading/outdated statements regarding Horizon and real data on electricity CfDs in the UK. The German utilities sold their joint venture Horizon to Hitachi, which is pursuing GDA on their ABWRs. This is all very common knowledge and the misleading references to an ancient Scotsman article suggest that Horizon isn't going ahead, while it has had substantially more investment as GE-Hitachi has focused on the UK. The Lovins quote is honestly worthless. Comparing a strike price with undefined and uncited prices for wind/solar is the sort of thing that crackpots do. The UK government has CfDs for wind, solar, geothermal, tidal etc. For example, any company which builds wind plants in the UK will get paid 95 pounds per MWh, which is a real measurement of costs for alternative low-carbon electricity (in the UK).

I will not change the article again without some positive feedback. I imagine that it would be more appropriate to write in the talk page before changing things and I will in the future. I will also complete the citations with more than the links! Any thoughts? Mikeflem (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. My humble suggestion is to use the International Energy Agency, IPCC, and UN; books by reputable publishers; and refereed journal articles, as reliable sources where possible. Don't follow what is being done in other articles, unless they have reached featured status. What do others think? Johnfos (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, John (I assume this is your name). The IEA outlooks have the same data, of course. It isn't as straight-forward reading but I get the point that WNA is not as objective and therefore not preferable. I assume that the other edits were generally fine, although I take it that you may need more convincing on the Lovins quote. I agree that getting into a debate over the fellow isn't helpful (although it didn't keep me from giving a churlish response on the UK talk page!) but the 1:7 wind:nuclear quote really must be removed. The UK government publishes what onshore wind generators get in their CfD, which is in direct contradiction to the quote. -- Mikeflem (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi gents, there is another pretty good source for nuclear power data that in my opinion is not biased; it is produced neither by a sponsor (e.g., the WNA or NEA) nor an NGO (e.g., Greenpeace or an "anti-nuke" group). It's the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, available here http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/ and I believe a comprehensive, well-researched, authoritative look at the industry, inclusive of its pros and cons.Bksovacool (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-nenergy-unviable-at-home-strategic-instrument-abroad/article5026498.ece. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nuclear renaissance

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 renaissance'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 "rev":

• From Three Mile Island accident: Daniel E Whitney (2003). "Normal Accidents by Charles Perrow" (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• From GlobeScan: A year in review - 75th anniversary. BBC. Accessed April 25, 2009.

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⚡ 14:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Update article and remove bias

This article looks like it was written in 2011 and is heavily biased. It needs improving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.124.130 (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias in what way? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear is widely misinterpreted as expensive

I found this article interesting. http://observer.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-not-electric-cars-will-change-our-world-sorry-elon/ Quote:

In twenty years nuclear power will be rapidly expanding around the world. Already in 2016 many top environmentalists are embracing nuclear as a necessary part of slowing and stopping global warming; these include James Hanson and Stewart Brand. ... Nuclear is widely misinterpreted as expensive: the cost is in construction, and in the US those construction costs are artificially inflated by regulatory delays; the cost of a nuclear power plant in South Korea is ⅓ that in the US.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting because of the way the author seems to believe one propagates ideas: Simply writing "will be", "will come", "will whatever"; never considering the contradicting evidence and known problems; never clearly distinguishing between what has actually been accomplished and what not (yes, many Gen IV designs have been drawn and even detailed over the last 15 years; but many have been dumped, heavily modified, scaled back to moderately changed variants of existing reactor designs etc.). Let's make a bet, now and here in 2018 (2,5 years after that article): Nuclear power will at most be slowly expanding (say 3..5 reactors / year) 17,5 years from now; but more probably still losing reactors. To the first dozen people who meet me at the Oktoberfest at Munich in 2030, 2031, etc.: I'll pay everyone of you (those first dozen) a beer for each "net" nuclear reactor that has been connected to the grid in that year ("net": subtracting all those that are disconnected from the grid in the same year) ... (a Maß may be 20€ by then; 5 newly connected reactors in 2030 would cost me 20 €/reactor/person * 5 reactors * 12 people = 1200€ if y'all manage to meet me then ;-) ). See you! --User:Haraldmmueller 14:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Virgil C. Summer units 2 and 3

The article says: "Locations of new US reactors and their scheduled operating dates are:... South Carolina, Virgil C Summer unit 2 operational 2019 and unit 3 operational 2020 ... it is expected a way forward to completing the plant can be agreed." Isn't this, as of today, simply wrong? --User:Haraldmmueller 11:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)