Talk:Nuclear power debate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Move

Moved text here from Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power Simesa (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel bank

Nuclear fuel bank looks like it should be deleted. Comments? Simesa (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This stub is a valuable topic and could possibly be expanded into a meaningful article. I would suggest for now that it ought to be merged into another article, or referenced from one and expanded. Mishlai (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of books about nuclear issues

List of books about nuclear issues may be biased. Comments? Simesa (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear exclusion clause

Nuclear exclusion clause looks very odd. Comments? Simesa (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Should probably make mention of Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act in the U.S. Mishlai (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shutdown (nuclear reactor)

Shutdown (nuclear reactor) seems incomplete. Comments? Simesa (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems very "glossary" to me. Perhaps this could be merged with Nuclear Reactor Technology, or placed into a larger article of such terms? Mishlai (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste News

Nuclear Waste News looks like an advertisement. Comments? Simesa (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, i agree. eiland (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmhmmm. Speedy delete candidate. Mishlai (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion. Mishlai (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

Interesting initiative. I think the article could use a paragraph on Gender-issues and nuclear. -- eiland (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the possible labelling of belief in (technological progress, Positivism for pro-nuclear, and progress pessimism for anti nuclear a usefull addition?

Health para's

I've removed the following sections;

Workers in the nuclear industry from the 1980s were found to be slightly more likely (2 extra deaths per year in the group of 65,000) to die from heart disease if they were exposed to high levels of radiation. It is unclear if radiation, or other issues such as stress, level of education, etc. are the cause of this increased mortality. However, the report also said "the study of nearly 65,000 nuclear workers shows that they are healthier overall than the general population, even after taking into account the extra health risks resulting from exposure to radiation in the workplace."

The strikedthrough section is not relevant. It might well be that all workers at large high-tech companies are on average more healthy than the "average population", which includes elderly, soldiers, drug-addicts, etc. This issue was just a side reference to the research, and should, in my opinion, not be used in WP to requalify the core finding of the research of the increasing occurrence of circulatory disease in irradiated workplaces.

Mining (including coal mining) at 28.3 fatalities per 100,000 workers is the second most dangerous occupation in the United States after Agriculture (Utilities overall come in fifth at 6.1 per 100,000).

This unrelated to health effects on population near nuclear plants and workers. -- eiland (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Economics: Lock-in

I think the paragraph about lock-in within the Economics section uses flawed logic and should be deleted. It seems the basic argument is: a) Conserving energy is important. b) Nuclear power produces abundant cheap electricity. c) This demotivates users from conserving energy. d) Therefore, nuclear power is bad. A simpler example of the same logic error would be: a) Cutting people is a crime. b) Surgeons cut people. c) Therefore, surgeons are criminals. The point that is being missed is that cutting people is a crime unless you are doing it for their benefit. Likewise, conserving energy is important unless it is cheap and abundant (See Fallacy of accident).

Nuclear power is not "bad" because it disincentives energy efficiency, but it is a downside of nuclear that it doesn, and therefore anti-nuclear people use the argument in the NP debate, and therefore it should be in the page. -- eiland (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See "A few things" below... —Megiddo1013 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the term "Lock-in" implies that it is bad that the "market has adapted" to be dependant on cheap and abundant electricity. If someone said that we will become dependant on Acme widgets because they are so much cheaper than XYZ widgets, this would only be a bad thing if there is some other reason why Acme widgets are bad. Since this article is a debate on nuclear power, we can not make an argument with the assumption that nuclear power is bad.

This paragraph does nothing to show that nuclear power is bad, it is only relevent if we have already concluded that nuclear power is bad. --Megiddo1013 (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.

1) The argument is nonsense to begin with. Efficiency is desirable but that is not an indictment of inexpensive power.

2) Lock-in does not apply here. It would be difficult to argue that an industry dominated by one power source (coal) has been locked-in by another (nuclear). Additionally, efficiency measures are already economically feasible in the absence of carbon credits, frequently returning invested capital in 3 years or less.

3) The reference does not mention "lock-in" at all.

4) The reference is a discussion of how nuclear power isn't cheap, and cites specifically that it's more expensive than gas. Mishlai (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The lock-in argument is used in the anti-nuclear movement, so if you don't agree with it, i suggest you debunk it in the debate article, instead of deleting it. -- eiland (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, but it needs to be verifiable, and the source cited does not verify it. I removed it because I am "challenging" it per wikipedia policy, and it is up to the adding editor to provide a WP:RS Mishlai (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A few things:

a) I used the term "bad" just to keep things simple; you can replace it with "has a downside" wherever I used it.

b) My whole point is that it is not a downside that nuclear power disincentivizes energy efficiency. Just like it is not a downside that surgeons cut people, even if NGOs say that not cutting people is important. The article would need to say why NGOs think conserving energy is important. Maybe you can answer this question here, eiland.

c) Another way of stating it is "If electricity is abundant, why do we need to bother conserving?" —Megiddo1013 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with most of your points here, but this isn't a forum for arguing and it doesn't matter, because we both agree that the passage should be removed and it has been. Mishlai (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, nuclear power creates nuclear waste, has a proliferation risk, risk of accidents. A surgeon, in contrast, normally tries to make its patients better. So if a nuke locks consumers into their energy option, green NGOS see it as a downside, as their will be more of the aformentioned. -- eiland (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Who'se points -- eiland (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Megiddo1013's points. I moved part of your response down here to clarify things. It's really disruptive to have a reply in the middle of short responses like that. Makes things confusing. Mishlai (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so here is what I am getting at. I happen to believe lock-in of nuclear power is a good thing because I believe nuclear power is superior than the alternatives. So since we disagree, we need to debate the reasons we disagree instead of saying that you don't want people to get used to nuclear power. This article is a place where we discuss the reasons you mentioned: nuclear waste, proliferation, accidents, etc.

Saying you don't want people to get used to nuclear power (a.k.a. lock-in) does not help the debate. Saying the reasons why you don't want nuclear power in the first place does help the debate.

By the way Mishlai, your deletion was reverted. —Megiddo1013 02:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just re-deleted. And I'm saying that there isn't a lock-in, and more importantly that there isn't a reliable source saying there is one. As far as efficiency vs cheap energy... Not using a kilowatt is always superior in every way to any possible method of producing it, but the article isn't about that, so w/e. Mishlai (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're making me crazy. First, here's your text:

"Environmental organisations also point to the issue of Lock-in: Nuclear power plants provide large quantities of cheap and abundant electricity. Over time, the market has adapted to "like" this resources, and in several places, nuclear power plants and energy intensive industries such as refineries, aluminium smelters or paper mills, in fact have become neighbours. For the energy intensive industry it is a very unfavourable outlook if the nuclear option would disappear, as the entire process of the company is not aimed at reducing energy demand. The availability of nuclear power effectively removes the incentive for these energy intensive firms to reduce their energy consumption, eg seek alternatives for electrical boilers, etc., an effort which is needed throughout entire society, according to NGOs and research institutes[15][16][17]."

Let's go through the references you provided:

Reference 15 is a power point from the Sierra Club. Far from complaining that the "cheap and abundant electricity" from nuclear power "removes the incentive for these energy intensive firms to reduce their energy consumption" this power point lists "Nuclear power is cheap." as being Myth #1. It quotes the Economist calling nuclear power "too costly to matter", and further states that "nuclear power is getting its but kicked by wind, solar, cogeneration and efficiency; only massive subsidies will save it."

Reference 16 is a Salon article discussing the importance of efficiency. It makes the following points regarding nuclear power & efficiency:

1. Efficiency is cheaper than nuclear power
2. Nuclear power is receiving subsidies.

No argument that nuclear is too cheap there, either. Nuclear can't possibly be an economic disincentive to efficiency if efficiency is cheaper, even when nuclear is subsidized.

It goes on to make a 3rd point - that Utilities have a profit incentive to build power plants and charge for power (even if the plants are expensive) rather than reducing usage because they get to charge customers for power produced. This has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of power being produced, and is a criticism of power generation generally that is neutral to how the power is being generated. Zero to do with nuclear, and zero to do with this article.

Reference 17 doesn't have a single thing to do with the nuclear power being too cheap, it simply advocates for efficiency and argues against nuclear power in general terms.

So, again, your references do not back up the text that you've added to the article. I believe that the reason you're having difficulty finding a reference for a statement that Environmental NGO's think that nuclear power is too cheap and abundant is because Environmental NGO's are not making that argument. I would be stunned if they were. Even if it were true, and it's not, the argument that "the problem with nuclear power is that it's too cheap" wouldn't get much traction and wouldn't be used.

If you do manage to find someone making that argument, then by all means add their argument to the article, but add it as being a statement from that group rather than trying to assign it to "Environmental organizations" generally. If you wish to make a point about efficiency being a better option than nuclear, then by all means do that. I couldn't possibly be more enthusiastic about efficiency, but that's not what's being discussed. This lock-in thing needs to be removed, again. Thank you. Mishlai (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the above three references were replaced with the following two, which also do not support the text. Eiland's edit summary actually states the inherent problem with these sources, "heres the lock in effect, but w/o details". Both references only mention lock-in once, and only in passing.

Reference 15 contains a list of aspects that play a role in the nuclear power debate. The last element on the list is: "Lock in effects (impact on the development of non nuclear energy options)." This is the entirety of the text that deals with lock-in.

Reference 16 does not mention lock-in within the body of the document but it does mention it once in the preface, written by a different author: "Investing in nuclear energy carries not only considerable health, financial and security risks, it may also prove to be a dangerous lock-in and dead end." There is no further discussion of lock-in within this document.

These source texts are not concerned with the topic of lock-in and say almost nothing about it. Seeing as how the paragraph in dispute is five times longer than entirety of the source text dealing with lock-in, there must be a considerable amount of original research being done here.

The Wikipedia:Verifiability page describes the policy that is relevent to our disagreement (wp:Proveit). Specifically it states (italics mine):

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. (Footnote: When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.) ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Please provide a source that substantiates the paragraph or else we will need to delete it, per Wikipedia policy. In the meantime, I am restoring the citation tag. The has the beneficial effect of alerting other editors to the problem and gives them the opportunity to help you by finding sources. I ask, as a courtesy, that you not remove the citation tag unless we reach a consensus that the paragraph has been properly supported. Otherwise, we are in danger of having an edit war, which nobody wants. —Megiddo1013 09:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate it if the next time you post a source if you would quote, here on the talk page, the relevant text that you believe supports your paragraph and describe where it can be found in the source. I wouldn't normally ask for this, but you've now made this entry on 4 separate occasions and provided multiple sources, some of which are long, which ultimately did not have anything to do with your edits. I don't mind reading for myself, but I also don't like having my time wasted.

Further, every statement in your paragraph needs to be supported. The sources you've provided don't do that. The cheap and abundant wording is particularly egregious because it's untrue, unverified, and is the exact opposite of what environmental organizations are saying about nuclear power. I think you're adding that as an explanation of what you understand the "lock-in" wording to mean, but what you've done constitutes WP:OR and doesn't really make any sense either for reasons already cited above.

The references to "lock-in" are far too vague to draw any meaning from. I would suggest, if anything, that among the available zero-carbon technologies that could be used on a large scale, that nuclear might be the cheapest (we're ignoring coal, gas, etc. here) and that this combined with it's ability to provide continuous power could create barriers to implementing other (renewable) zero-carbon power sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, etc. This would be a more reasonable take on the matter. I'm unclear on the economics of wind vs nuclear, wind may actually have an advantage there. The deep problem with wide-scale wind & solar, as I see it, is continuity or storage of power. We don't have good scalable options there. I'm also unclear on the extent to which nuclear waste management is subsidized, so it may be that any cost advantage that nuclear has is due to externalities.

I would support something along those lines, if properly sourced, but the text as written now is not acceptable. It's taking great restraint on my part to resist deleting it again. Mishlai (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. The lock in was explained to me by a German anti nuclear activist. My German is not so good, so i cant locate proper German references, complementing the English ones I referenced in the article. But this was what he told me. Note that the Heinrich Böll Foundation's report is originally in German institute [1]. Somehow you cant have "personal communication" as a reference. -- eiland (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Having had more time to review both of your new sources:

Reference 16, the Heinrich Boll Foundation report, is useless for reasons already described by Megiddo1013.

Reference 15, the summary report prepared by the Energy research Council of the Netherlands (ECN) for the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands, has more value. It still doesn't support your paragraph, but it does support something. Here is some of the relevant text, taken from the last page of the report:

"Even when the electricity is produced with renewable sources (without CO2 emissions), expansion with nuclear energy will prove advantageous to the higher initial cost of renewable energy technology. On the other hand, when expanding nuclear energy there may be fewer investments in new technologies as a result of lesser benefits of positive economic effects that are related to the development and implementation of innovative technology."

"Expansion of nuclear energy in the Netherlands is expected to stimulate nuclear research in the Netherlands, especially in research institutes and universities. Research of other innovative electricity generation options (e.g. renewable energy, CO2 capture and storage, etc) will be continued by the extent of this energy research may be affected."

Further, on page 9 there is a list of "aspects" that play a role in the consideration of nuclear power.

• Lock in effects (impact on the development of non-nuclear energy options).

is the last item on the list. I think it's clear from these passages that the ECN has expressed some concern that is similar in spirit to your paragraph.

I propose something like the following:

In a study conducted for The Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands, the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) expressed concern that the expansion of Dutch nuclear energy might reduce investment in renewable energy technologies through lock-in effects.

(end of text)

Note that ECN is not an environmental organization (nor is it "some organizations" or any other weasel word, that they have not called nuclear energy cheap and abundant, nor made any reference to nuclear power's industrial neighbors. They haven't said that nuclear power "effectively removes incentives" for anything, and they haven't said that it impacts efficiency efforts - which, by the way, are demonstrably more cost effective than any known method of generating power. Mishlai (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah we're here at the same time. I did the following. The lock in references i moved to the lock in term. I added/cleared out two references of nuclear power plants being adjacent to energy intensive indutries, and added a reference of WWF were they say we need to reduce our energy consumption, for example recycle aluminimum. I think tat would build the whole argument well? -- eiland (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does, no. The WWF article discusses efficiency, which is fine, but that has nothing to do with nuclear power. Providing power to an adjacent customer doesn't really tell us anything... the same could be done with any power plant, and it has no relevance to the article. The paragraph continues to have huge amounts of WP:OR, so I've replaced it with what I proposed. Please work from there and please quote from your sources in support.

The main problem here is that you have a position, given to you verbally, that you want to add to the article and you're searching for anyway to support it. Start instead with your reliable sources and then make the article reflect their content. Personal communication is indeed not a WP:RS. Mishlai (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see wikipedia policy on wp:Synthesis

Mishlai (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to WP:Synthesis. —Megiddo1013 04:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your being pety. A lock in is a well described phenomenon, and it would be nice if the effect would be illustrated in this article. And it aint rocket science. After reading lock in again, i think its probably even so obvious that its hardly not explicitly mentioned. If big nukes are in place, it will give, per definition a lock in effect, obstructing the introduction of new renewables and efficiency measures. How much references do you need? By your (by now by me amended) proposal, you make it sound as if some wee dutch people think this might be the case, and thats plain silly. -- eiland (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being petty at all. In fact I've gone to great lengths to salvage some verifiable piece of the point that you've tried to make and have been unwilling to substantiate. You've added a paragraph on four separate occasions that is at best a synthesis, and at worst a (poorly) contrived POV. You've attributed statements to the "Environmental organizations" without citing a single one making the statements, and indeed your environmental reference have unanimously and directly contradicted your main points. High energy aluminum foundries etc. were never mentioned. No one called nuclear power cheap and abundant, the notion of an industry "liking" a "kind of power" is unsubstantiated and ridiculous, etc. and throughout all of this you've refused to alter the offending phrases and have reverted the deletes, which were well justified. Here's Jimmy Wales on the matter:

On aluminium, see Borssele nuclear power plant#History, reference deleted by you. --eiland (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Despite this, I left your random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' edit in place for days to avoid an edit war and to give you an opportunity to find a source for statements that you seem to sincerely believe are true. I've been more than fair, and if you think that the article now gives the impression that it's only one Dutch and one German organization who hold this viewpoint, then that's because your references will not support saying anything beyond that.

You're trying to expand the point far beyond what is being said in the referenced sources. You can't do that. If the definition of lock-in is obvious enough to you, then it will have to be obvious enough to the reader as well. Citing two organizations claiming the possiblity of lock-in and then expanding that to a certainty held by many is a grotesque violation of WP:NPOV. If this is a widely held belief, then you should have no difficulty whatsoever finding publications by other organizations who have the same point of view. If you can't, then might I suggest that you're assuming that this view is in wider circulation than it really is. Mishlai (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Only when you're reading the lock in article, you'll understand why it applies to nuclear. Thats why it needs elaboration in this article. Everytime were talking about gravity and a stone falling, do we need to refer it to a proper source backing that a stone really falls due to gravity? -- eiland (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. The lock-in article goes on for a page describing proprietary mechanisms to prevent people from using different products. Most of these center around the use of some proprietary accessory that's incompatible with products from other manufacturers. Software for operating systems, sim cards for cameras, cell phones and service providers, razor and blade or printer & ink cartridge business models, and so on. Nuclear is none of these. Power is a commodity, no one cares where it comes from, they only care how much they're paying for it. Providing the same service for less isn't "lock-in", it's beating the competition. The point you wish to make is not made by the lock-in article or the sources we're citing for the statement.

The precise reason that you can't inject your own interpretation of what you think they mean by "lock-in" is because you may be wrong. Look again at the text of the reference

"there may be fewer investments in new technologies as a result of lesser benefits of positive economic effects that are related to the development and implementation of innovative technology."

Now understand that "positive economic effects" is vague. What does that mean? It's more profitable? It creates more employment? Understand that this is a report written for policy makers in a government of the Netherlands, which is more socialist in it's approach than the U.S. (if that's where you're from). They have higher taxes and more government involvement in decision making for investments, etc. so we can't assume that what is being said is "nuclear is cheaper, so free market will shun other options." He could be saying that, I'm just not sure. (and this, by the way, is why the context of "Dutch" nuclear power was important, but I've let that pass as a compromise)

So here's what I'm saying: your point is not obvious. It's only obvious to you because you were already making it before you had any sources. I think you're reading what you want to see, instead of what's really there.

Here are some quotes from wp:nor:

Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research

Your particular definition of lock-in is not directly and explicitly supported by the source, nor by the vendor lock-in article.

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research

Further, your synthesis is of the source material and a definition of lock-in that is your own. I have not yet seen a definition of lock-in that is merely "providing the same product for less" - all the definitions include anti-competitive practices as described above.

A more valid concern is in externalities which are unknowingly subsidized by the tax payer. Specifically liability costs, waste disposal costs, and decommissioning costs. This article is need of a lot of love in areas outside of this very narrow lock-in concern, perhaps we could work on something else?

If it's of any comfort to you, I'm not strongly pro or anti-nuclear, I'm here to make sure that nuclear articles reflect accurate information so that the reader can have the facts to make an informed judgment about what I believe to be a very complex issue. I'm not opposing your edit because I want to slant the article, but because I sincerely oppose the edit on the grounds I have described. Mishlai (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that "lock-in effects" as used in the source could, and probably does, mean "effects similar to lock-in" - implying the reduced usage of one technology in favor of another, even if lock-in as traditionally described is not the cause. The parenthetical definition is "(impact on the development of non-nuclear energy options)". The author's need to explain what is meant by "lock-in effects" is telling. Mishlai (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Eiland, you are taking an improper role as an editor. You say, "Only when you're reading the lock in article, you'll understand why it applies to nuclear. Thats why it needs elaboration in this article." You can not do this as a Wikipedia editor. You can never elaborate, not in any circumstance. Wikipedia is a summary of published knowledge, not a place where you put that knowledge together to come to new conclusions. This is called synthesis and is specifically prohibited on Wikipedia.

Also, I quoted the following once but I will do it again (from WP:PROVEIT): "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference." You have added several disputed sources so far and now there is a 50 page source (Böll) that you say "warned" of the lock-in effect, yet the source does not contain the term "lock-in". It is a waste of our time to read these sources, only to find nothing. This is getting ridiculous, please provide direct quotes from this source that specifically come to the conclusion that nuclear power causes lock-in effects. —Megiddo1013 23:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede the the Boll report does mention lock-in in the preface, which was written by a member of the Heinrich Boll Foundation. It can be said from this that the Heinrich Boll Foundation has warned of lock-in. It's weak, but I don't really have a problem with it. Thanks for your efforts to help me reign in this insanity. Mishlai (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm overlooking something but I can't find the preface in the Böll report (reference 16), just an "About the author" section in German. What page is it on? Does it really mention "lock-in" because doing a text search of "lock" comes up with nothing. —Megiddo1013 08:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. He replaced the first Heinrich Boll Foundation reference 16 with something else. I was referring to the one that did have a preface (by a different author) and briefly mentioned lock-in... the one we both discussed above as being useless. I was willing to let it pass as a second mention in light of the more substantial treatment by the Dutch piece.

I don't have the patience to read this new source right now, Eiland hasn't seen fit to help us find the relevant text, and a search doesn't pull up any hits, as you said... I suspect I read his sources more carefully than he does. I'm going to bed. Mishlai (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, this is the same source, it's just a different version. I grabbed the old link from the history and it's gone down. This new one includes "not the views of Heinrich Boll foundation" verbage which would invalidate any attribution to them even if the main text said anything about lock-in, which it does not. I already read this entire thing the last time it was posted. Removing Boll from article now. Mishlai (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, im not from the US of A, but actually im satisfied with the line as it is right now. I mean, it could use more substantiation - what does exactly this lock-in entail - but you dont let me, and i understand your reasons, although i dont agree. But its general about nuclear power now, not just the Dutch situation. Oh, and im anti nuclear :) -- eiland (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. I'm also happy with the text as it is. And yes, your anti-nuclear stance is quite clear. Mishlai (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a para on the costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants referencing the BBC and a UK parliamentary commission. These costs have rocketed to the point where they are similar to the initial build costs! Maxhotty (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Different anti nuclear arguments?

The starting summary of nuclear opponents in this article is:

Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and declining[2] energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production.

I've been arguing against nuclear power plants for a long time. i would re-write this paragraph to something like this:

Critics of nuclear power believe it is unfair in that current generations receive the benefit and future generations suffer from the waste stream which is dangerous, difficult to handle and expensive for thousands of years. They claim nuclear power is not a solution to the climate change problem because it is very expensive and risky to build, with hundreds of projects canceled or closed early world wide and a long history of delays and overruns. Attempting to use nuclear to solve climate change is counter productive because it is so economically inefficient it pulls resources out that should be going to more effective solutions. They point to the fact that no long term high level waste facility is operating in any of the 30+ countries which have nuclear power programs, despite decades of research. That decommissioning costs have been consistently underestimated. And that the entire industry relies on state subsidy for construction and especially of insurance of catastrophic accidents. Private capital is uninterested in nuclear power. That nuclear power fails error-friendly principals and that real renewables and efficiency can replace the need for nuclear power at lower costs and greater safety.

i recognize that this is longer than the initial pro nuclear entry, but since many people interested in this debate will only read these first two paragraphs, i would happily offer more room for pro nuclear arguments in their first paragraph to expand ours.

To me it is quite telling that there is nothing about decommissioning costs in this article. Or about the technical problems that have prevented long term high level waste solutions. Or state sponsored insurance. Or the fact that private capital is completely uninterested in nuclear power. Where is the history of US cost over runs and delays? Also no serious critic would start with the argument that a key failing of nuclear is that it is declining - because this can be changed simply by building more of them. If you want to talk about peak uranium (which is not a great argument) that is a different thing.

It is also telling that the only thing this entry about fast breeders is that some Stanford study says they can produce fuel basically forever. When in fact the real breeder program world wide has been a total joke, with multiple accidents disabling most of the capacity and no significant quantity of usable fuel being produced anywhere in the world. It only takes some money to get some nuclear engineers at Stanford to say that nuclear is the perfect solution, but the billions that have been spent so far speak very loudly otherwise. Next you will be telling me that reprocessing is going to help the nuclear waste problem - when in fact what it does is amplify it and make it worse (it does produce reasonable quantities of very expensive reactor fuel - unlike breeders, i will give it that).

There is also this huge unmentioned problem of the NRC and some other regulators basically abdicating their responsibility to regulate the safety of these plants to the operators. A kind of "the capitalists know best" thinking which has recently proved so spectacularly wrong with derivatives and sub-prime mortgages. Only with nuclear we get Davis Bessie or worse.

This article has the feel of being written mostly (not exclusively) by advocates of nuclear power, who are trying not quite hard enuf to represent their critics views.

Also there seems to be some quite illusory talk about nuclear being cheap in this discussion session. No one who has spent much time doing nuclear cost analysis - who is not paid to think otherwise - believes this. Here is the latest from Lester Brown referencing Amory Lovins:

In an excellent recent analysis, The Nuclear Illusion Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14¢ per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7¢ per kilowatt hour. This comparison includes the costs of fuel, capital, operations and maintenance, and transmission and distribution. It does not include the additional costs for nuclear of disposing of waste, insuring plants against an accident, and decommissioning the plants when they wear out. Given this huge gap, the so-called nuclear revival can succeed only by unloading these costs onto taxpayers. If all the costs of generating nuclear electricity are included in the price to consumers, nuclear power is dead in the water.:

AND i know the wikipedia solution is to get in there and make edits, which i am willing to start doing. But i thought i would start here in the discussion section and hear what folx have to say.

This is a funny uncharted turf for wikipedia i think (i would love to hear otherwise). WP is supposed to be NPOV but this debate filled with POV. So if you work for Exelon and i say this is what the opponents to nuclear power ways and you say "no it is not", but i am one of these speaking nuclear opponents, how do we resolve?

i look forward to our lively conversation.

--Paxuscalta (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, your POV on this is a bit stronger than my own but I agree with the inclusion of those basic points. Just try to work hard to remain neutral in doing so. Your proposed summary leaves out proliferation, by the way, and that certainly needs to be included. I would suggest the UCS and MIT reports as excellent starting points by organizations who are neither strongly pro or anti-nuclear, and appear to have given the matter a fair and detailed treatment. They speak to many of the specific concerns you have raised and give some numbers as well. Both essentially conclude that nuclear has serious problems but should be kept on the table as an possible option for the future. The MIT study is entirely about economics, whereas the UCS report focuses on safety, waste, and proliferation concerns. Mishlai (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)