Talk:Nuclear power reconsidered

Nuclear power is a controversial topic, and some of the controversies remain unsettled, even after the facts in the article are agreed on. The tab Debate Guide will provide a concise summary from each side of the ongoing discussion of these unsettled issues.

Organized comments moved to the Debate Guide tab

The list of curated comments formerly here has been moved to a separate tab Debate Guide. David MacQuigg (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2023 (CST)

Ordering of proposed reactor designs?

Is there a reason (such as priority of interest) in the ordering of the proposed reactor designs? If no particular reason for the current order, might we please alphabetize them? That is what I did over on the Related Articles tab, for now. Pat Palmer (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was just the order that I encountered them, and spent more time developing the articles. There are dozens of these new designs, so perhaps to put them on an even footing, we should move them all to the Related Articles tab. That would also be the place to list dozens of subtopics, which we don't consider worthy of mention in the main article, topics like the world supply of nuclear fuel (unlimited on any timescale we need to worry about). But back to the question of what to highlight in the main article, I would say let's pick the ones our editorial council finds most interesting. That could be 1) Furthest along in providing a near-term climate solution (ThorCon) or 2) Some unique and worthy feature, like ability to burn old bomb cores (MSCFR, Natrium) promise of generating zero-carbon hydrogen fuel (VHTR) or closest to existing reactor technology and thereby maybe more acceptable to regulators with thousands of pages of existing standards (NuScale). Perhaps we should make this ordering a reward to authors who will do a really good job in developing a citable version of an article on their favorite design. For now, we could move the undeveloped articles off the main page. David MacQuigg (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Which new designs are intended to be highlighted?

The main article has 4 "new designs" in section Nuclear_power_reconsidered#Proposed_Designs, and the Related Articles tab lists 7 new designs. I wish, perhaps futilely, for consistency. Should the main article perhaps just point over to this section on the Related Articles tab? Pat Palmer (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2022 (CST)

Sorry for the late response. Email notifications for watched pages were being sent to an old email address. I think that is now fixed.

My plan was to make the Related Articles tab include any new designs that anyone cares to write about. This will be too much for the main article, but a single link with no comment on specific designs will be too little. We can still change the list of highlighted designs, but what I have now is a representative design from each of four important categories. Perhaps I should clarify what is important about each category. I would very much like to get more detail on an FNR and an HTGR, but the companies pursuing these designs are keeping them proprietary. ThorCon has been a shining example of transparency in detailing their design, and in answering followup questions. David MacQuigg (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2022 (CST)

Use of "we" in writing the article

I haven't groused about this yet because it's only a stylistic technicality, but I think it's probably a good idea to avoid using "we" in these articles, lest it be mistaken for advocacy. So in the Safety section, the sentence "In that case, we must consider possible scenarios and what the operator response would need to be" should be revised, in my opinion. I'll leave it up to you.Pat Palmer (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2022 (CST)

Agreed. WE want to avoid even the appearance of advocacy. My intent was that WE refer to the public in general. I can change it to:

"In that case, regulators must consider possible scenarios ..."

There are four other instances of 'we' in the article:

2) Even if we look only at radioactivity released to the environment,[15] watt-for-watt nuclear power is 100 times less than coal.[16]

3) Again, we should evaluate specific plans by considering likely scenarios.

4) In evaluating a new reactor design, we must look at the complete fuel cycle,

5) It is important that we make a distinction between spent fuel from nuclear power, and the waste from bomb production,

I can change 'we' to 'regulators' in (3) and (4) for the same reason. (2) and (5) seem harmless, and 'we' provides a better flow. David MacQuigg (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2022 (CST)

Linking from the 2nd paragraph to other articles in this group

I have made another stab at organizing the opening statement, and I think now that we need to find a way, in the second paragraph, to link directly to the other articles such as Fear of radiation and Nuclear waste management, right there in the second paragraph. But that paragraph would need some reworking to make that possible.Pat Palmer (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2023 (CST)

uneasy with current end of 2nd paragraph

" It is important that all arguments for and against these new reactor designs be published for public comment. Scrutiny from people who have engineering experience, but are not connected to the nuclear industry or any political advocacy group, would be particularly useful." (2nd paragraph). Sounds too much like advocacy. I understand the sentiment, but a reword is needed. I can't think how to do it right now. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2023 (CST)

Maybe this statement could just be removed.Pat Palmer (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2023 (CST)

Agreed. It doesn't add much to the article, and it might offend some people who could make valuable contributions. David MacQuigg (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2023 (CST)

image copyright concerns

"Nuclear fuel transport in Japan". It looks like we got this photo from the World Nuclear Association, but their article marks it as belonging to Nuclear Fuel Transport Ltd. Thus, we do not have a license or right to display this image. Please try to get permission for the image (in writing, via email, which we can put on a /Permission subpage), or find a different image, or this image may have to be removed. Also, for File:SMR_temperature.png, unsure if we can legally use that image either. Pat Palmer (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2023 (CST)

We might be able to argue that we are using these informatively for the public good. And then remove them if anyone complains.Pat Palmer (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2023 (CST)

Yes, I think that is the best way to handle it. Domain name registrars have the same problem. They get lots of complaints about domain names that infringe someone else's rights, and no way to adjudicate the issue themselves, so they suspend the domain name until there is an agreement between the parties, or a judgement by a court. They don't take sides, so they can't be held liable. David MacQuigg (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2023 (CST)

I found this image also on the IAEA website radioactive-waste-toward-sustainable-solutions (Photo Credit: World Nuclear Transport Institute) so it is not clear who actually owns the image. I'll keep the source link we have now, and if someone complains, correct it then. David MacQuigg (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2023 (CST)

peer review

David, it looks like time to seek peer review for this article and its associated articles. Would you be willing to reach out to reviewers with nuclear expertise, including some prominent anti-nukers? It would be ideal to document here which people we have asked. Pat Palmer (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2023 (CST)

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I will get a list organized so you can conduct the review. David MacQuigg (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2023 (CST)

I haven't forgotten this. We keep making significant improvements to this article, and I want to be confident we have a fairly stable version before moving it to citable status. David MacQuigg (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (CDT)

a new article is needed to highlight the harm being caused by the mining and burning of fossil fuels

David had suggested that maybe energy policy and global warming would be a place to highlight the harm currently being caused by fossil fuels, but I don't like it. I do not see any benefit for this article in dredging up the baggage of the irrational global warming debate. Instead, I think we need a new article is needed that addresses the many health problems and even deaths being caused by air pollution, the environmental harm by mining and transport of fossil fuels, the fact that they are going to run out, and the struggle for control of sources of fossil fuels in various wars. This new article should refrain from mentioning global warming, not because we don't believe in it, but because any discussion of global warming is a rabbit hole that will distract from what is being attempted here. Such an article needs (in my opinion) to be created and then to be highlighted very near the top of this article right below the first paragraph. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2023 (CDT)

I like this proposal for a separate article focusing on the problems with fossil fuel consumption. I would start with the data on death rates from Our World in Data. I think most people will be as surprised as I was to learn the huge difference between fossil fuels and other sources. Maybe we can get some interest from people concerned about global warming, without getting into the renewables vs nuclear debate. David MacQuigg (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2023 (CDT)