Talk:Nuclear power reconsidered: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
{{TOC}}
{{TOC|right}}
= Critique of sabotage scenarios from Dr. Al Scott - [https://www.facebook.com/groups/therationalview The Rational View] =
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 [[Nuclear power reconsidered/Debate Guide|'''Debate Guide''']] will provide a concise summary from each side of the ongoing discussion of these unsettled issues.
The sabotage scenarios are just disaster porn and should be deleted with prejudice. The arguments about terrorism are equally valid to municipal water treatment plants and hydro dams, but these are not challenged. How about a balanced discussion of the dangers of terrorism on public infrastructure? Maybe use Zaporizhzhia as an example:


There has been much hand wringing about the dangers of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant being subject to bombing, but these worries are far out of proportion to the potential risks. Certainly the bombing of expensive public infrastructure on which lives depend can be a catastrophe, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that we shouldn’t build towers just because a maniacal cult might fly airplanes into them.
== Organized comments moved to the Debate Guide tab ==
The list of curated comments formerly here has been moved to a separate tab [[Nuclear power reconsidered/Debate Guide|Debate Guide]]. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 19:13, 5 January 2023 (CST)


We have evidence it is easy to kill tens of thousands of people by sabotaging a hydro dam in Zaporizhzhia. But what would be the damage of a nuclear facility being bombed?
== Ordering of proposed reactor designs? ==
 
Chernobyl is the best example—a reactor with no containment building exploded and burned for over a week. The result? 29 immediate deaths, and the loss of 1 GW of clean high capacity factor electricity. Decades later the UNSCEAR has reviewed the available health data, and determined that there have been roughly 6,000 additional cases of thyroid cancer and 15 deaths a couple decades later, all of which could have been avoided had the Soviet government admitted the accident immediately and taken a few simple safety measures.
 
We now know from various studies that evacuations following nuclear accidents have been significantly overzealous to the detriment of the life expectancy of the evacuees, due in large part to fear and ignorance. Almost all of the evacuees from the Fukushima region would’ve been better off sheltering in place. We now know that the impact of moving from Fukushima to Tokyo and experiencing what we consider as acceptable levels of fossil fuel air pollution, for example, would have resulted in a greater loss of life expectancy than staying put following the meltdowns.
 
It becomes apparent that when it comes to nuclear reactors, the only thing to fear is fear itself.
 
= Purpose of this article =
The purpose of this article is to raise questions and establish criteria for evaluating the many nuclear reactor designs that are now being proposed as solutions to the global warming caused by our use of fossil fuels. Answers to these questions should be provided in the subpages on each reactor design. We should not, for example, go into detail on the handling of liquid waste, as that question would only apply to specific reactor designs. That is a topic that might deserve a subpage, however, since many of the new designs use liquid fuel. We want to keep this top article short and non-controversial. There will be plenty of opportunity for questions and comments from skeptics on these discussion pages.
 
The reactors included in the section "Proposed Designs" can be added or deleted as we get authors to contribute their expertise. My initial choices are just what I think are the most likely to succeed in the next few years. I have also included one gas-cooled reactor, because I am fascinated by the possibility of a really high-temperature reactor generating hydrogen with no CO2 waste. There are many other choices, liquid or solid fuel, thorium or uranium, fast or slow neutrons, breeder or burner, liquid or gaseous coolant, etc. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 23:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 
= 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.  [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
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.  [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 21:16, 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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 21:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


= A list of high profile technically expert advocates from outside the industry itself might be helpful =
== Which new designs are intended to be highlighted? ==
Some very high profile figures have recently begun to advocate for a reconsideration of nuclear power in light of looming climate change, including (for example) Bill Gates<ref>[https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/11/bill-gates-bullish-on-using-nuclear-power-to-fight-climate-change.html Bill Gates: Stop shutting down nuclear reactors and build new nuclear power plants to fight climate change] on CNBC Online Fri Jun 11, 2021, last accessed 10/13/2021</ref>.  I mention this because Gates is exactly the kind of person, with engineering expertise and deep knowledge about climate change, who has helped highlight the need to reconsider designs.  It might be helpful to include a list of high-profile, credible, technical-minded advocates such as Gates, maybe near the end of the article.  Or not.  Just an idea. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 14:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The main article has 4 "new designs" in section [[Nuclear_power_reconsidered#Proposed_Designs]], and the [[Nuclear_power_reconsidered/Related_Articles#Proposed_reactor_designs|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? [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 11:20, 11 December 2022 (CST)
: How about we put this in a Related Article? I worry that we will dilute the main article in an attempt to include everyone. I did mention Bill Gates as a notable sponsor of the Natrium reactor. I was disappointed in the CNBC article, a typical superficial review, not following up on any of the points raised by Dr. Jacobson: 1) Nuclear fission requires uranium, which is a finite resource. (Uranium and thorium are essentially unlimited on any sensible time scale.) 2) "Climate change is urgent, and new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time to build." (He doesn't seem to be aware of the new designs.  Surprising for a guy who is writing a book on the topic.) 3) "Nuclear power comes with concerns that renewables don’t have, including weapons proliferation, meltdowns, radioactive waste and uranium mining risks. (Proliferation can be made more difficult than currently available centrifuges. Meltdowns are not possible with most of the new designs. Waste is easily managed. Mining risks? compared to coal???) I'll have to get his book and see if it makes more sense than this CNBC article. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 21:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
::Sorry for the late response. Email notifications for watched pages were being sent to an old email address. I think that is now fixed.<br>
: I just downloaded the book, and read Section 3.3.2.2 Meltdown Risk. Jacobson is talking about the past. He is aware that there are new designs, but just dismisses them as "untested". (Not true.) Luckily the debate on meltdown risk does not have to end in a "he-said - she-said" standoff between experts. Anyone with common sense and a little engineering background can assure the public that a specific design cannot melt down. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
::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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 10:28, 24 December 2022 (CST)
: I just read Section 3.3.2.1 Weapons Proliferation Risk “The growth of nuclear energy has historically increased the ability of nations to obtain or harvest plutonium or enrich uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.” (Questionable, but not demonstrably false.) This carefully-worded statement describes a correlation, but implies a cause-and-effect relationship. This is clear if you substitute "public education" for "nuclear energy". The rest of Section 3.3.2.1 does not support cause-and-effect.
 
:On the pro-nuclear side, we have a more definitive statement:
== Use of "we" in writing the article ==
:https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx - good discussion of NPT, lack of linkage between power generation and weapons. From the Conclusion: “Civil nuclear power has not been the cause of or route to nuclear weapons in any country that has nuclear weapons, and no uranium traded for electricity production has ever been diverted for military use.”
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.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 11:20, 11 December 2022 (CST)
:We know how to build reactors that are safe, clean and cheap. The remaining question in my mind is - Will widespread deployment of these new reactors increase or decrease the risk of proliferation?
::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:<br>
:Getting back to Pat's suggestion of including some "credible, technical-minded advocates" I propose we move this question of proliferation to an open forum like Quora.com, which includes such experts, and not try to resolve it on this talk page. Maybe we can summarize the arguments for and against on a separate page specifically on this subtopic. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 11:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
::"In that case, regulators must consider possible scenarios ..."<br>
:I posted the question on Quora. https://www.quora.com/How-will-thousands-of-new-nuclear-reactors-increase-or-decrease-the-risk-from-nuclear-weapons-and-how-do-these-risks-compare-to-our-already-existing-risks-from-uranium-enrichment-using-centrifuges. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 19:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
::There are four other instances of 'we' in the article:<br>
::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]<br>
::3) Again, we should evaluate specific plans by considering likely scenarios.<br>
::4) In evaluating a new reactor design, we must look at the complete fuel cycle,<br>
::5) It is important that we make a distinction between spent fuel from nuclear power, and the waste from bomb production,<br>
::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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 10:58, 24 December 2022 (CST)


= Section on Cost =
== 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.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 09:41, 3 January 2023 (CST)


This also could turn into a whole separate subpage, because there is debate about the future supply of fuel. However, we are talking centuries, not decades. I would like to add the following to the last paragraph, but I will hold off until we see some resolution of the question I posed on Quora:
== uneasy with current end of 2nd paragraph ==
https://www.quora.com/How-long-will-our-supply-of-uranium-and-thorium-last-World-Nuclear-Association-says-it-is-essentially-unlimited-Anti-nukers-say-4-years<br/>
" 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. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 09:41, 3 January 2023 (CST)
Current version:<br/>
As for the cost of fuel, molten salt reactors don't require expensive fuel rods. They can burn thorium, which is three times more abundant than uranium, and some of them can even burn spent fuel from PWR's.<br/>
Proposed:<br/>
As for the cost of fuel, the World Nuclear Associations says it is essentially unlimited.<ref>https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx</ref> Some of the new reactors can burn all the uranium, not just the 0.7% now burned by PWRs, and they can even burn thorium, which is three times more abundant than uranium.<br/>


We might also want some discussion of EROI (Energy Return on Investment). The new FNR's (Fast Neutron Reactors) have orders of magnitude improvement on the current generation.  WNA has a good analysis. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 19:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
:Maybe this statement could just be removed.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 09:46, 3 January 2023 (CST)


=Notes and References=
::Agreed. It doesn't add much to the article, and it might offend some people who could make valuable contributions. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 18:48, 5 January 2023 (CST)
{{Reflist|2}}


= Inclusion of propaganda in the bibliography =
== 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. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 11:47, 12 January 2023 (CST)
::I found this image also on the IAEA website [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/photoessays/radioactive-waste-toward-sustainable-solutions 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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 12:48, 12 January 2023 (CST)


Much of the information on nuclear power goes against what scientists believe is the truth. We will include these items in our bibliography, if they are important in understanding history and public opinion, but we will make it clear with labels and comments that we consider them to be propaganda. These decisions are open to discussion and possible reversal. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 17:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
== 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. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (CDT)


= I suggest revising the first sentence NOT to include "climate change"? ==
:Wow. Looks like it has been a year since I promised to get you a list. We have plenty of expertise on the pro-nuclear side. You can see their comments in our Discussion and Debate pages. I am having difficulty getting reviewers on the anti-nuclear side. Plenty of non-experts in [https://www.facebook.com/groups/2081763568746983 FaceBook forums] but not many willing to put their name on their critiques, which I have included in sections labeled "Read it on the Internet".<br>
Why start the article with the hot button phrase "climate change"?  Instead of "The threat of climate change from fossil fuels has led to a reconsideration of", we could say instead, "Life-threatening pollution from fossil fuels, as well as the fact that their supply is finite and may not last much longer, has led to a reconsideration of". Or something. Those statements are not being so hotly contested.  If you lead with "climate change" (and no, I'm not a doubter), it's just asking for THAT debate to start up, and it will turn off people who have formed a rigid opinion about that. I say this because I worked for many years with scientists working on climate change studies, and that science is very complicated and ill understood and is, I believe, even more difficult to defend than the real target of this article. IMHO. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 11:51, 30 March 2022 (CDT)
:I have reached out to the Union of Concerned Scientists and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. From UCS I got a response from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Lyman Dr. Ed Lyman], who declined to participate. From BAS, I got a referral to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Edwards_(scientist) Dr. Gordon Edwards], who gave us an excellent rebuttal to some pro-nuke statements on [[Nuclear_proliferation/Debate_Guide#Blocking_Diversion_of_Plutonium_by_%22Spiking%22_the_Fuel|Blocking Diversion of Plutonium]].<br>
: Good suggestion. I've changed the lead to: Decades of failure to cut fossil fuels[1] has led to a reconsideration of nuclear power [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 05:47, 6 April 2022 (CDT)
:We might want to try these organizations again, now that our articles are more fully developed. They might also pay more attention to you as Editor-in-Chief. I wrote to them as Associate Editor for Engineering.<br> [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 12:07, 7 September 2024 (CDT)


= Are the 5 new designs, or 6? =
== a new article is needed to highlight the harm being caused by the mining and burning of fossil fuels ==
The [[Nuclear power reconsidered/Related Articles|/Related_Articles]] tab lists six new designs (including [[Molten chloride fast reactor]] which is not listed in the main article), but the main article only lists five. Which is it? [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 07:34, 9 April 2022 (CDT)
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. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 09:33, 19 May 2023 (CDT)
: There are dozens of new designs. I've added a link to the ARIS database on the Related Articles page. As for which ones to feature on the main page, I think we should include just the ones from companies that are willing to provide the details necessary to answer our questions in the main article. <br>
: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 [https://citizendium.org/wiki/File:What-is-the-safest-form-of-energy.png 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. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 17:57, 19 May 2023 (CDT)
:I eliminated Natrium and replaced specific model labels with theirs generic acronyms - MSR, FNR, HTGR, and PWR. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 12:22, 25 May 2022 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 11:07, 7 September 2024

This article is developed but not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Debate Guide [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  a reconsideration of nuclear power plants (using non-explosive nuclear reactions to make steam, which in turn is used to generate electricity) in light of current world factors [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Engineering, Physics and Economics [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Nuclear Engineering
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English

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)
Wow. Looks like it has been a year since I promised to get you a list. We have plenty of expertise on the pro-nuclear side. You can see their comments in our Discussion and Debate pages. I am having difficulty getting reviewers on the anti-nuclear side. Plenty of non-experts in FaceBook forums but not many willing to put their name on their critiques, which I have included in sections labeled "Read it on the Internet".
I have reached out to the Union of Concerned Scientists and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. From UCS I got a response from Dr. Ed Lyman, who declined to participate. From BAS, I got a referral to Dr. Gordon Edwards, who gave us an excellent rebuttal to some pro-nuke statements on Blocking Diversion of Plutonium.
We might want to try these organizations again, now that our articles are more fully developed. They might also pay more attention to you as Editor-in-Chief. I wrote to them as Associate Editor for Engineering.
David MacQuigg (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2024 (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)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_power_reconsidered&oldid=977598"