Talk:Environmental impact of nuclear power

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Serious POV issues. This article reinforces Nuclear Industry talking points. No mention of sustainable energy whatsoever.

There is strikingly (and tellingly) no comparison of the environmental impacts of nuclear power compared to any sustainable energy sources whatsoever. This article is currently being sourced by nuclear industry lobbyists across the internet and basically turning Wikipedia in a disinformation "think tank" via this article.

The nuclear industry lobby incessantly propagandizes to the public that the only alternative to nuclear energy is dirty coal, etc. This false dichotomy is reflected within this article and is not encyclopedic. For example, we have a fairly comprehensive comparison of environmental impacts to coal/fossil fuels in these two sections, but no mention of solar, geothermal, wind, etc. at all:

1) Comparison to coal-fired generation 2) Contrast of radioactive accident emissions with industrial emissions

The only mention of sustainable energy is this brief, carefully worded blurb of newspeak: "Other commentators have argued that there are better ways of dealing with climate change than investing in nuclear power, including the improved energy efficiency and greater reliance on decentralized and renewable energy sources." The trouble with solar origin renewable sources of energy is that they are as fickle as the weather, The most reliable solar origin energy is the snow and rain deposited on high mountains. Oddly enough, most environmentalists other than myself do not seem to imagine that the impact on flying life forms from collectors of wind energy, might be as severe per kWh of energy usefully delivered as that of hydroelectric dams upon migratory fish. However, perhaps Wikipedia should explicitly have an article in which some industrious person tabulates the actual rate of elimination of coal burning consequent, without the addition of gas turbines and the fracturing of shale, upon wind and solar farm installations. The reason that nuclear advocates hold that it is the only alternative to carbon burning is that it is true. Coal is dependable for base load response, peak loads can be well enough supplied on demand by hydro and gas turbines. Nuclear can supply these reliabilities, soalr based "renewables" cannot. And by the way, there are two classes of reactor that can breed their own fuel in a manner that eliminates "long term waste" == ,which is actually wasted potential energy, and reduce the amount of waste to less than a ton per gigawatt-year of energy produced.DaveyHume (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expect to see sustainable energy attacked at this point by nuclear industry lackeys and/or people lacking critical thinking skills to see past the nuclear industry FUD. But, we need to decide if this is going to be an encyclopedic article based upon facts and informative comparisons or will it continue to be a public relations piece for the nuclear industry? Cowicide (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I am nobody's lackey, and a serious student of actual science and engineering. The idea that energy from the sun can sustainably provide the level of energy comfort that even frugal people, the sort who bicycle to work and rake their leaves rather than blowing them with a machine, ignores the fact that the Industrial Revolution turned to filthy coal because the sun and the wind and the forests were insufficient even then. Every person's fair share of solar energy, for clean water, food, and other essentials and comforts, has been cut in half in the last fifty years.DaveyHume (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cowicide, if you feel that this article is lacking in its comparisons to renewable energy production, please be bold and edit. Please note there are comparisons to renewables (further than what you noted), such as the GHG emissions comparison. Generally, comparisons were made where they made sense (e.g. radioactive emissions for coal vs. nuclear, GHG emissions compared to renewables, no comparisons in the rad. waste section). On a personal note, please watch your tone in your comments. Your insults and failure to assume good faith is impolite, and disheartening to those who have spent considerable time on this article. SCStrikwerda (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a piece of pro nuclear power propaganda. Propaganda made in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.210.154.39 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that there is not enough information on climate goals that need to be met and the efficiencies of nuclear power to make up for the inefficiencies that make other sustainable energy sources unable to create the energy demanded. Would you say that the article must take a pro-wind and solar power lean in order for it to be less biased? As this article is simply regarding nuclear power, and does not show many reasons why it is in fact a good energy source. -- Cameronlg (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison of environmental impact with other energy sources, there is a fairly comprehensive recent analysis of lifecycle impacts here:
Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options - UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf
Page 74 has a summary of the main figures. Compared to solar, wind and fossil - the nuclear lifecycle has lower climate impacts, lower water pollution (eutrophication), lower carcinogenic effects, lower land-use, and lower use of minerals. It has higher ionizing radiation than any but coal. Water use is higher than non-thermal technologies (solar and wind). -- ColinG 81.103.24.115 (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Environmental impact of nuclear power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral

This article is missing information on positive impact due to reduction of CO2 emissions when nuclear replaces coal and such. It is written very one sidedly, representing the negative environmental impact of nuclear power, without the balancing side, and as such this represents the anti-nuclear movement side, without any nod towards the pro-nuclear movement one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second para of lead mentions it - but feel free to edit the article Chidgk1 (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Increase of ecosystem heating from release of nuclear energy that would never, or only over millions of years, naturally occur

It is necessary for a properly balanced article that the unnatural ecosystem heating from the release of nuclear energy is mentioned as an issue in this article, but my sentence on this is being immediately deleted by others. NorthDowns (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • NorthDowns, you may have noticed that editors keep saying UNSOURCED when they revert your edits. That's how Wikipedia works: by way of verified information. Also, the syntax of the edits isn't very good, and the statement itself is really incomprehensible. So, please think about what you're doing here, how you're doing it--and what we do here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a No Original Research policy here: Please read
WP:NOR. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Need clarification on quoted wordings

"As most commercial nuclear power plants are incapable of online refueling and need periodic shutdowns to exchange spent fuel elements for fresh fuel, many operators schedule this unavoidable downtime for the peak of summer when rivers tend to run lower and the issue of waste heat potentially harming the fluvial environment is most acute." The statement said "many operators schedule this unavoidable downtime for the peak of summer" and I have reservation for that. As I looked into the citation, it said "Nuclear power plants run almost all the time, and refuel only once every two years or so. Outages typically occur in the spring or autumn when electricity demand is lowest and there is little winter heating or summer air-conditioning. The interruption of nuclear’s constant stream of energy is also most easily handled by other sources during the spring such as hydroelectric." That means the unavoidable downtime usually scheduled in spring or autum when hydroelectricity is relatively abundant and there's no summer heat to jack up the electricity needs. Can anybody help clarify? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_nuclear_power&oldid=1213336711"