|
| small =
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Nuclear power|
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Technology|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
1=
{{WikiProject Energy|class=GA|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Environment|class=GA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Physics|class=GA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Science Policy |class=GA |importance=High |listas=Nuclear power}}
{{WikiProject Technology|class=GA|importance=high}}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass |class=GA|category=Engtech|coresup=yes|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|importance=top
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes}}
}}
{{Press |author=Williams, Eesha|title=Wikipedia Distorts Nuclear History|org=''[[Rutland Herald]]'' |url= http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/OPINION03/805010312/1039/OPINION03 |date=1 May 2008 |archiveurl= http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080924193429/http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/OPINION03/805010312/1039/OPINION03 |archivedate=24 September 2008| accessdate=2 April 2011}}
}}
== Nuclear zero-emission? ==
== Add fusion example of ITER in the lead ==
In the introduction, the article says that the USA produce "800 TWh of zero-emissions electricity per year". It is obvioulsy not zero-emission: green house gases are emitted in the process of building the plant, extracting and transporting the fuel and decomissionning the plant. [[Special:Contributions/82.147.145.235|82.147.145.235]] ([[User talk:82.147.145.235|talk]]) 05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
It would be good to link to [[ITER]] in the lead's section on fusion research. [[User:ScientistBuilder|ScientistBuilder]] ([[User talk:ScientistBuilder|talk]]) 17:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
:Fixed. --[[User:TuomoS|TuomoS]] ([[User talk:TuomoS|talk]]) 06:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::its unfortunately says no emissions again, should we fix? [[User:Rynoip|Rynoip]] ([[User talk:Rynoip|talk]]) 03:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023 ==
:Some comments: 1) I agree with a link to ITER in the lead. 2) The comments you put on my talk page concerning this article are better placed here, so that other editors can be aware of the discussions and have the opportunity to weigh in. Your statement there: "The sentence is confusing because it lists three processes for nuclear power but there are only two ways nuclear energy is released through fusion or fission." is in fact wrong. Nuclear decay releases energy; the kinetic energy of ejected particles, (as well as high energy photons) which then transfer that kinetic energy through collisions with surrounding matter into heat. As I said in my edit summary, please stick to what sources say, not what you think you know. Per [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]] it would be better to familiarize yourself with the article before attempting to change the lead. Thanks! ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 21:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Nuclear power|answered=yes}}
== Biased edits by ScientistBuilder ==
Under the section titled 'Safety' in the third paragraph 'With a death rate of 0.07 per TWh' should be changed to 'With a death rate of 0.03 per TWh'. The source is citation 199 in the nuclear power page, which is this article <ref>https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy</ref>.
This is the source cited for the original statistic, but I believe it was copied incorrectly. [[User:ThePiMaven|ThePiMaven]] ([[User talk:ThePiMaven|talk]]) 19:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:Fixed. It was not copied incorrectly, but the source has been updated in 2022, based on more recent analysis and estimates. --[[User:TuomoS|TuomoS]] ([[User talk:TuomoS|talk]]) 20:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
ScientistBuilder made several biased edits to the article that made its quality worse, which is why I reverted it back to what the article was before. The editor added several references to nuclear power advocacy groups, changed the wording to be more favourable to nuclear power, and even added a claim to the lede backed up by a Forbes contributor article (not allowed by [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|WP:RSP]]) and another source which looks like a blog. All of the edits are in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_power&action=history diffs] if you want to see what I'm talking about. [[User:X-Editor|X-Editor]] ([[User talk:X-Editor|talk]]) 04:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
:Looking back through, the graph shown at the start of the safety section uses the old statistic and also should be corrected. [[User:ThePiMaven|ThePiMaven]] ([[User talk:ThePiMaven|talk]]) 20:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
:Strongly disagree. The article was heavily slanted against nuclear prior to these balancing edits. They provided info on environmental benefits of nuclear where previously it was all negative. I've reviewed ScientistBuilder's edits and they improve the quality of the article immensely. I will look at the references and see if they can be improved. [[User:DrADScott|DrADScott]] ([[User talk:DrADScott|talk]]) 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024 ==
::I see that [[User:X-Editor|X-Editor]] has reverted edits by [[User:DrADScott|DrADScott]]. This is an over-reaction and leaves much of the material in the article outdated and inaccurate. I do think there is some merit to the complaint that edits by the latter were biased, but it's also fair to say that the article now has some bias in the opposite direction. I was tempted to undo the latest reversion, but that doesn't seem constructive. Instead, I encourage both editors to go through the article step-by-step to find a suitably neutral compromise. [[User:NPguy|NPguy]] ([[User talk:NPguy|talk]]) 01:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
:::I agree that there are some edits that are fine, like the updated description of Fukushima, which should be readded, but make sure the reference is properly formatted and not just a title. There was also one edit adding the environmental benefits of little emissions from nuclear, but this is already mentioned under the environmental impacts section. Some of the edits are good, but some are also bad. [[User:X-Editor|X-Editor]] ([[User talk:X-Editor|talk]]) 01:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Your version has biased value judgements throughout. 'Early Accidents', 'Expansion and Early Opposition', "Chernobyl and Rennaissance", hiding environmental benefits at the end. You are trying to put a negative connotation on each title right at the start where we should be careful to be neutral. I'd rather keep the politics out of the intro altogether. Putting accidents and political opposition front and center while hiding the environmental benefits in the bottom of the article is deceptive. If we put the environmental success in a subsection, then let's at least move it so that it is next to the opposition for balance. I've moved environmental benefits up in the article to a more prominent location. I've also moved the section on installed capacity upwards, as this is an important fact that people may be looking for. Following your logic I have moved 'Early Accidents' to the 'Accidents' subsection and not have repeated. [[User:DrADScott|DrADScott]] ([[User talk:DrADScott|talk]]) 02:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{re|DrADScott}} You seem to be a newish editor, based on your number of edits, so you may not be that familiar with some of Wikipedia's policies. We have a [[WP:NPOV]] policy which isn't what most people think it is, but that doesn't have much relevance here. What is relevant is that there is nothing in that policy that specifies ordering of info in an article, and generally articles should be written in logical, reasonable order, (history sections are almost always first) with criticisms and benefits throughout each section as stated in RS's.
:::::Additionally, per [[MOS:LEAD]] the lead is supposed to summarize the article; but with as complex an article as this one, which is an overview of a very vast area of knowledge, that is much harder than other articles...I say that because I think a summary of the politics of nuclear power is a very important part of the lead.
:::::Lastly, to both you and X-Editor: saying that an article or someone else's edits are biased is not that helpful, it is better to specify how you think something should be phrased based on what the sources say. You have both made good contributions in my opinion, so please remember one of Wikipedia's tenets: "Assume good faith" [[WP:AGF]]. Thanks! ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 05:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the advice. I tried that approach at first, adding environmental benefits alongside the negative political stuff to provide a balanced view, but this was removed by X-Editor. Can we agree that the tone of the page is biased negative the way it is currently laid out with negatives up front and positives hidden away at the bottom? I have attempted two solutions to balance the tone. Both have been removed. My first attempt I separated 'Early Opposition' from 'Expansion', and renamed that section to 'Expansion and Successes'. Perhaps a better title would be 'Expansion and Benefits' and bring back a brief introduction of the benefits alongside the negatives as you suggest? [[User:DrADScott|DrADScott]] ([[User talk:DrADScott|talk]]) 02:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see the article or its structure as biased.
:::::::I don't have a problem with changing the subheadings in the "History" section, but more importantly, I think that the History section should be significantly condensed. This article has prose of 67k characters, and the article length guidelines ([[WP:SIZERULE]]) suggest that an article "Probably should be divided" if it is >60k characters. There is an entire article on the [[History of nuclear power]], and we can move some info from this article to that one, ideally leaving this article with around four paragraphs of a concise history - essentially what should be the lead section in the [[History of nuclear power]] article. (unfortunately, that article's lead is currently terrible, otherwise we could simply transclude it into this article)
:::::::With soooo many articles covering this topic in great depth (which is great!), this article should be a small intro and basically a table of contents into all of those; and many sections here do properly serve that purpose. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 04:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::The article looks a lot better now. Thanks Avatar317 and others for fixing it up. [[User:X-Editor|X-Editor]] ([[User talk:X-Editor|talk]]) 06:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Nuclear power|answered=yes}}
== Environnemental impact: Uranium mining ==
[[Special:Contributions/62.253.28.177|62.253.28.177]] ([[User talk:62.253.28.177|talk]]) 10:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:Yes [[Special:Contributions/62.253.28.177|62.253.28.177]] ([[User talk:62.253.28.177|talk]]) 10:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Why isn't uranium mining environnemental impact isn't a part of the environnemental impact of energy production using uranium? The same goes for other radioactive material. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.243.254.224|142.243.254.224]] ([[User talk:142.243.254.224#top|talk]]) 13:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I suggest you add more pictures for learning
:The article lists only the most important environmental impacts, as more details are on [[Environmental impact of nuclear power#Uranium mining]] with a specific section on mining, and as well in [[Nuclear power debate#Environmental effects]]. One reason for the relatively limited impact is that the energy content of uranium is around a million times higher than in the same mass of coal, and thus only relatively small amounts need to be mined. -- [[User:Geek3|Geek3]] ([[User talk:Geek3|talk]]) 18:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 14:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
== Units for Nuclear power generation graph ==
== Lead too long tag? ==
The vertical axis is labelled in TWh which is a unit of energy not power. I guess the graph is of TWh/year which is a (weird) unit for power. 2,500 TWh/year is 290GW BTW. Does this bother anyone else? [[User:PeterGrecian|PeterGrecian]] ([[User talk:PeterGrecian|talk]]) 08:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:I don't see what's the problem. That's the energy generated each year (not the installed capacity). This is the standard way and units for displaying this information. The convention in energy engineering and energy science is to use kW and multiples for installed capacity and kWh and multiples (including TWh) for energy generated. --[[User:Ita140188|Ita140188]] ([[User talk:Ita140188|talk]]) 12:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:Ita is correct. Read other power plant articles and about things like [[nameplate capacity]] and you'll see these are the standard units used. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 23:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024 ==
{{re|Ita140188}} You tagged the article saying: "lead goes into too much detail on functioning of nuclear plants"....but there only three sentences that talk about the functioning, and then it talks about nuclear waste. The article is titled "nuclear power", and most discussion of nuclear power doesn't concern RTGs, but power plants, so it would make sense to me that we have some explanation of how they work. The sentence: "Fuel is removed when the percentage of neutron absorbing atoms becomes so large that a chain reaction can no longer be sustained, typically 3 years." is there to explain to readers why fuel is removed when 95% can still be bred into more fuel, as is explained in the reprocessing sentence(s).
{{edit semi-protected|Nuclear power|answered=yes}}
What would your suggested wording be? ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 00:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Change number of employees from 556 to 329.
I’m an employee there and this is the number listed in our Outlook directory. It is well known publicly that we had significant layoffs in 2024 (~28% in January and then ~10% more in July). [[Special:Contributions/131.150.2.197|131.150.2.197]] ([[User talk:131.150.2.197|talk]]) 15:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:I suggest this should not be in the lead. This would fit in the lead of [[Light-water reactor]], maybe. This article is about the concept of nuclear power much more broadly, not in the technicality of how the nuclear reactors produce this energy (at least not in the lead). Also this sentence without context is misleading, since it applies only to certain kinds of reactors. For example, not all reactors are light water, not all light water reactors use enriched uranium or have the same refueling periods. --[[User:Ita140188|Ita140188]] ([[User talk:Ita140188|talk]]) 08:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I think you added this to the wrong article. This is the article on nuclear power. It does not have any employee counts that I can find. [[User:Meamemg|meamemg]] ([[User talk:Meamemg|talk]]) 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::...should not be in the lead...so you think we should start right in describing nuclear waste (which is a large part of this article) without any description of how this waste is generated and why it exists? Of course there are technical exceptions to what I wrote about NPP's, but in normally teaching any subject, you start with generalizations and simplifications and then progress on to the greater detail and exceptions. Of course a short text explanation will not encompass all types of reactors.
::If you can craft a different overview of NPP's that is more technically accurate and about the same length, I would welcome that. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 21:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
:::How about - the majority of operating reactors produce "nuclear waste", however with its greatest proportion seen as still containing 95% of its starting material, it is termed "spent fuel" by countries which recycle. Allowing the re-starting of the neutron economy. You don't have to go way in depth. Just summarize. Even that last sentence is probably too much for the lede.
:::[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 13:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
==misleading graphs and low quality tabloid references==
Having done a lot of work on this article bringing it up in quality, somewhat dismayed to see an editor, has entered combative prose against a peer-reviewed scientist and injected a bunch of tabloid reference stuffing, for what we can only conclude is for the readers and editors "pleasure", of wading through.
I'll start off one by one. The first thing, this graph and title chosen by the ''world in data'' is misleading in the extreme. You simply can't compare rarely produced nuclear reactors to items in which have come off assembly lines. This is not evidence, as is suggested by the "world in data" of some kind of instructive comparison, of their acclaimed "learning by doing did not happen"...when no such effort was really made in nuclears case. Similarly the lines for offshore-wind are likely too, not as steep as onshore, simply because less of that particular thing was made, not inherent to the actual form of energy.
It is data no doubt but unfortunately ''world in data'' has put its own unqualified interpretation upon it, that does not fit with the raw data. This graph would be more demystifed by simply looking at how much got added in a given time, of which a rarw confluence of factories and infrastructure tool over to support. Something that is moreso up to public and state support for such things, rather than some kind of lack of learning occurring. What people want got cheaper, got made in factories. Other things, not made in dedicated single purpose factories did not. Is this a "learning" error or an interpretation one, on behalf of ''World in Data''? Apples vs Oranges.
I've since added some explanation on what we're actually seeing here. Things in already established factory manufacturing got cheaper...wow, wow really? [facetious]. These things occurred, For a while...right now material costs make this 2019 cutoff point very circumspect. Then someone calls it a "learning rate" as having been what was at play across the entire decade? For every energy source?...I'm not an economist but I think we can all appreciate, there are other things, factors, that go into the cost of things from factories. That have nothing to do with this acclaimed singlw factor "learning curve" but supply chains being stocked and in order. Raw materials etc. You could get better at doing something and the price could still shoot up, on the cost of the final product, due to factors outside your control. Say like the Russian mafia slowly down the Finnish EPR build, bankruptcies and lawsuits slowing down construction etc.
So I give ''World in data'' an F on this graph and their wholly unnuanced amateur-hour interpretation of the data.
I'm going with the more constrained explanation below. For now...but really if a better graph comes along, this should be quickly replaced. As costs are multi-factorial. Not shoe-horned into 1 sized fits all, pet fantasy "learning curves".
[[File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png|thumb|upright=2|A comparison of prices over time for energy from nuclear fission and from other sources. Over which presented time, thousands of wind turbines and similar were built on assembly lines in mass production resulting in an economy of scale. While nuclear remains bespoke, many first of their kind facilities added in the timeframe indicated and none are in serial production. <br><small>[[Levelized cost of energy|LCOE]] is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generating plant over its lifetime. As a metric, it remains controversial as the lifespan of units are not independent but manufacturer projections, not a demonstrated longevity.</small>]]
[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 00:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:Having looked into this dubious graph, turns out the organization recognises the data shenanigans at world in data. Where they played fast and loose with averages not the actually scientific metric of the median and similarly stay quiet about who's doing all this price reducing, slaves in concentration camps that don't get paid. Finally it doesn't even list chinese nuclear pricing. So its a cherry pick polooza. Why even make such a warped graph?
:https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
:[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 00:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
== Why edits to the lede ==
I've corrected the lede for accuracy and then undone the reversion twice. Each time my finger has slipped onto the return key while I was writing the explanation, so the reversions look unexplained or incompletely explained. Sorry for that. But among the points that needed correcting: Nuclear (actinide) material usually is not by itself "fuel" but needs to be fabricated into fuel. It is "fissionable," since neutrons of high enough energy will cause it to fission and release energy. It is that energy that reprocessing is meant to make available by recovering that nuclear material/actinides. And reprocessing is not primarily about removing neutron-absorbing materials but about recovering fissionable material by removing highly radioactive fission products. This may incidentally remove some neutron poisons, but that is not its primary purpose. Also, France and Russia are not the only countries that reprocess; Japan, India, and China do as well. [[User:NPguy|NPguy]] ([[User talk:NPguy|talk]]) 01:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
:I hope that my most recent edits addressed the issues you are talking about here. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 04:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
::Still problematic. Reprocessing is not about removing neutron poisons. It's about recovering fissionable material. Also, volume reduction of waste is controversial as a claimed benefit. As currently practiced, reprocessing has modest waste reduction benefits. [[User:NPguy|NPguy]] ([[User talk:NPguy|talk]]) 18:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:::The reason that nuclear fuel is pulled from a reactor is because it can no longer practically sustain a chain reaction. Yes, reprocessing accomplishes multiple things, like removing wastes at the same time that more U-235 is added. It didn't say that reprocessing is done ONLY to remove the poisons, that part simply connects it to the previous statements. And it re-cycles about 90% of the volume, so how does that not reduce the waste volume? ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 21:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
So we can discuss: What is your proposed sentence to properly summarize and describe the reprocessing activity? ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:Proposal. I don't get on with NPguy, we've differing views on what this article should be but we're the most competent, including Ita8088.
:I propose we lock the article to only those with a certain number of edits. As having to come back every year and deal with tabloid references, special interest groups, from unsurprisingly germany. It all gets a bit repetitive.
:While NPguy is obviously a special interest group in terms of presenting cautionary tales of nuclear proliferation, over-emphasizing the issue of reactor grade plutonium, which no one into proliferation really bothers with anymore, its all centrifuges, Pakistan, N.Korea and Iran ---> The Centrifuge gang. With the reactor route more trouble than its worth. Leading the hand-wringing over reactor diversions really outmodded in thought and concern. Centrifuge proliferation is the only proliferation that has occurred in over 30 years.
:Anyway we can edit together, Ita8088 too. There are few else have contributed heavily or stayed around to note their competence and subject matter familiarity.
:Can we lock this article and get the [[WP:CONTENTIOUS]] suggestions out of the lede? With civilian reactor plutonium allegedly prefered bomb fuel? Eh no, it isn't, the US have spent billions trying to study and stabilize their near ivory grade stuff. It's horrendous to deal with voids of helium forming, then especially when getting into ''fuel'' and not least [[Reactor grade plutonium]] and MOX grade. Which no one does, no one ever has used and the suggestion a primary could be made out of it alone, highly contentious, especially the latter MOX grade. For fizzles are not bombs or nuclear weapons in the minds of most readers.
:Therefore the lede is utter junk at the moment. Say plutonium has historically had proliferation concerns, which is true, we can write that and leave it there, anything more than that is [[WP:POV]] and contentious.
:Moreover another thing about the lede, not "all reactors produce plutonium" fast ''burner'' reactors don't. Of which the [[BN-800]] is reportedly. The US was supposed to do this too but pulled out. There are other reactor designs that ''burn'' that is reduce overall plutonium content, they while not operational are they too "all reactors" that the lede suggests, make plutonium?
:Honestly who has been letting this article slide in quality? It reads like amateur hour from an anti-nuclear pamphlet now, written by people oblivious to being bothered to check what they are even writing. I wouldn't mind a pamphlet that knew what it was talking about, this one though...its slipping into laughable terrority.
:[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 01:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:: To do this without forming a prohibited sort of [[WP:CABAL]] you would need to establish grounds for some level of [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]], however claims of expertise to establish [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] isn't usually considered a good reason.[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 01:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
::1) I think Wikipedia explicitly does not lock articles other than to prevent vandalism, and has a goal of having editing as open as possible, and I've never seen any articles where only certain editors are allowed.
::2) I added the "All reactors breed some Plutonium-239, which is found in the spent fuel,..." statement because I was attempting to summarize this very complex and large area of knowledge for a layperson to come to and be introduced to. (I felt the lead was a poor summary of this subject.) This article is about "nuclear power"...meaning electricity generation, and we currently have (other than research reactors) ONE fast reactor on the planet. When you teach a subject, you invariably summarize so much that you are not 100% correct in all cases, because you first give generalities, before going into the many exceptions and complexities.
::How would you word a better explanation of the proliferation concerns? -after all that's why Carter disallowed reprocessing in the US. - if centrifuging is the proliferation risk now, and spent fuel diversion is no longer considered a risk, then let's source that for a "proliferation" section and then change the lead.
::3) If the OurWorldinData graph is so poor, why don't we just remove it? [[WP:RSP]] doesn't list that site, and an archive search at [[WP:RSN]] doesn't show any discussion about OurWorldinData. It seems to me that your sources point to that not being particularly reliable. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
| 