This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
@Ita140188: You tagged the article saying: "lead goes into too much detail on functioning of nuclear plants"....but there only three sentences that talk about the functioning, and then it talks about nuclear waste. The article is titled "nuclear power", and most discussion of nuclear power doesn't concern RTGs, but power plants, so it would make sense to me that we have some explanation of how they work. The sentence: "Fuel is removed when the percentage of neutron absorbing atoms becomes so large that a chain reaction can no longer be sustained, typically 3 years." is there to explain to readers why fuel is removed when 95% can still be bred into more fuel, as is explained in the reprocessing sentence(s).
I suggest this should not be in the lead. This would fit in the lead of Light-water reactor, maybe. This article is about the concept of nuclear power much more broadly, not in the technicality of how the nuclear reactors produce this energy (at least not in the lead). Also this sentence without context is misleading, since it applies only to certain kinds of reactors. For example, not all reactors are light water, not all light water reactors use enriched uranium or have the same refueling periods. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...should not be in the lead...so you think we should start right in describing nuclear waste (which is a large part of this article) without any description of how this waste is generated and why it exists? Of course there are technical exceptions to what I wrote about NPP's, but in normally teaching any subject, you start with generalizations and simplifications and then progress on to the greater detail and exceptions. Of course a short text explanation will not encompass all types of reactors.
If you can craft a different overview of NPP's that is more technically accurate and about the same length, I would welcome that. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about - the majority of operating reactors produce "nuclear waste", however with its greatest proportion seen as still containing 95% of its starting material, it is termed "spent fuel" by countries which recycle. Allowing the re-starting of the neutron economy. You don't have to go way in depth. Just summarize. Even that last sentence is probably too much for the lede.
I've corrected the lede for accuracy and then undone the reversion twice. Each time my finger has slipped onto the return key while I was writing the explanation, so the reversions look unexplained or incompletely explained. Sorry for that. But among the points that needed correcting: Nuclear (actinide) material usually is not by itself "fuel" but needs to be fabricated into fuel. It is "fissionable," since neutrons of high enough energy will cause it to fission and release energy. It is that energy that reprocessing is meant to make available by recovering that nuclear material/actinides. And reprocessing is not primarily about removing neutron-absorbing materials but about recovering fissionable material by removing highly radioactive fission products. This may incidentally remove some neutron poisons, but that is not its primary purpose. Also, France and Russia are not the only countries that reprocess; Japan, India, and China do as well. NPguy (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope that my most recent edits addressed the issues you are talking about here. ---Avatar317(talk) 04:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still problematic. Reprocessing is not about removing neutron poisons. It's about recovering fissionable material. Also, volume reduction of waste is controversial as a claimed benefit. As currently practiced, reprocessing has modest waste reduction benefits. NPguy (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason that nuclear fuel is pulled from a reactor is because it can no longer practically sustain a chain reaction. Yes, reprocessing accomplishes multiple things, like removing wastes at the same time that more U-235 is added. It didn't say that reprocessing is done ONLY to remove the poisons, that part simply connects it to the previous statements. And it re-cycles about 90% of the volume, so how does that not reduce the waste volume? ---Avatar317(talk) 21:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we can discuss: What is your proposed sentence to properly summarize and describe the reprocessing activity? ---Avatar317(talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposal. I don't get on with NPguy, we've differing views on what this article should be but we're the most competent, including Ita8088.
I propose we lock the article to only those with a certain number of edits. As having to come back every year and deal with tabloid references, special interest groups, from unsurprisingly germany. It all gets a bit repetitive.
While NPguy is obviously a special interest group in terms of presenting cautionary tales of nuclear proliferation, over-emphasizing the issue of reactor grade plutonium, which no one into proliferation really bothers with anymore, its all centrifuges, Pakistan, N.Korea and Iran ---> The Centrifuge gang. With the reactor route more trouble than its worth. Leading the hand-wringing over reactor diversions really outmodded in thought and concern. Centrifuge proliferation is the only proliferation that has occurred in over 30 years.
Anyway we can edit together, Ita8088 too. There are few else have contributed heavily or stayed around to note their competence and subject matter familiarity.
Can we lock this article and get the WP:CONTENTIOUS suggestions out of the lede? With civilian reactor plutonium allegedly prefered bomb fuel? Eh no, it isn't, the US have spent billions trying to study and stabilize their near ivory grade stuff. It's horrendous to deal with voids of helium forming, then especially when getting into fuel and not least Reactor grade plutonium and MOX grade. Which no one does, no one ever has used and the suggestion a primary could be made out of it alone, highly contentious, especially the latter MOX grade. For fizzles are not bombs or nuclear weapons in the minds of most readers.
Therefore the lede is utter junk at the moment. Say plutonium has historically had proliferation concerns, which is true, we can write that and leave it there, anything more than that is WP:POV and contentious.
Moreover another thing about the lede, not "all reactors produce plutonium" fast burner reactors don't. Of which the BN-800 is reportedly. The US was supposed to do this too but pulled out. There are other reactor designs that burn that is reduce overall plutonium content, they while not operational are they too "all reactors" that the lede suggests, make plutonium?
Honestly who has been letting this article slide in quality? It reads like amateur hour from an anti-nuclear pamphlet now, written by people oblivious to being bothered to check what they are even writing. I wouldn't mind a pamphlet that knew what it was talking about, this one though...its slipping into laughable terrority.
To do this without forming a prohibited sort of WP:CABAL you would need to establish grounds for some level of page protection, however claims of expertise to establish WP:OWNERSHIP isn't usually considered a good reason.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) I think Wikipedia explicitly does not lock articles other than to prevent vandalism, and has a goal of having editing as open as possible, and I've never seen any articles where only certain editors are allowed.
2) I added the "All reactors breed some Plutonium-239, which is found in the spent fuel,..." statement because I was attempting to summarize this very complex and large area of knowledge for a layperson to come to and be introduced to. (I felt the lead was a poor summary of this subject.) This article is about "nuclear power"...meaning electricity generation, and we currently have (other than research reactors) ONE fast reactor on the planet. When you teach a subject, you invariably summarize so much that you are not 100% correct in all cases, because you first give generalities, before going into the many exceptions and complexities.
How would you word a better explanation of the proliferation concerns? -after all that's why Carter disallowed reprocessing in the US. - if centrifuging is the proliferation risk now, and spent fuel diversion is no longer considered a risk, then let's source that for a "proliferation" section and then change the lead.
3) If the OurWorldinData graph is so poor, why don't we just remove it? WP:RSP doesn't list that site, and an archive search at WP:RSN doesn't show any discussion about OurWorldinData. It seems to me that your sources point to that not being particularly reliable. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't been on for a bit over a week, but I just want to respond to the discussion of reprocessing and plutonium above. It is simply not true that plutonium and reprocessing are merely historical proliferation concerns. I can't believe I have to say that. NPguy (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviewing earlier edits by a now blocked user (BL)?[edit]
I'm just repeating something that I had written here earlier to make anyone watching this page aware: "I noticed that the user User:Boundarylayer who is now blocked had done quite a bit of work on the nuclear power article in the past. I don't have enough knowledge or bandwidth regarding the nuclear power article but I would recommend that anyone who has an interest in that article takes a closer look at those earlier edits just to check if there were any WP:NPV issues there." NewsAndEventsGuy subsequently pointed out that the user in question had said that "PV solar is uneconomical compared to nuclear power [3] and then says choosing allegedly "uneconomical" and "intermittent" alternatives (like solar) over nuclear makes one an "accessory to murder"". - So therefore, it would be worth re-checking over the last few months' edits of this user BL here on nuclear power. Some/many of the edits might well be perfectly fine, I am not able to assess that - just saying to please check someone who knows more about this topic than I do. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Emsmile for notifying. I have just looked through a number of his edits here, and there are indeed quite a few. Apparently, User:Boundarylayer has earned ″The Half Million Award″ for bringing this article to the "Good Article" status, and I can confirm that at least the majority of his edits have decent quality and add valuable information to the article. The samples I checked are well complying with WP:NPV. Other than the "China slave labour" part, the edited texts seem to fit specifically to this article. --Geek3 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EMsmile and Geek3: I was the editor that actually brought this article to GA, not sure why BL also got the award. I had to actually remove or rewrite a lot of the material BL had added. I made sure to remove all POV material. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to know about nuclear Energy Regarding to the current situation of "loadshedding" 41.113.181.188 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the keepers of this article, there seems to be a pretty interesting overview of the latest reactor designs at Nuclear power reconsidered. Some of that information might be useful in the Research section of this article. They've gone more deeply into it.Harborsparrow (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
