Talk:Nuclear power

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There's uncited statements in the article including entire paragraphs.
• At over 10,000 words long, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a comment: according to WP:TOOBIG, 10,000 words does not mean it's too big necessarily: "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.". This article's large scope may justify the length, although I agree some details may be trimmed (especially in the debate section, by far the largest one). As for the uncited statements, could you add tags to them when you see them so they can be fixed? Thanks Ita140188 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ita140188 the article needs reorganising into more of a summary format linking to main articles on the different sub topics.

For example, the third paragraph of the lede, a WP:NPOV stretching polemic about nuclear safety, could be cut and handled later in the article with a shorter summary section containing a main article link to Nuclear safety and security.

In its current form, the article tends to go into too much detail in sections where there are already main articles that cover the detail. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In principle I agree. A lot of this extra content was added (or kept) in response to comments from the GA review and as a result of compromises among different points of view among editors. I can try to trim these parts and add missing references to avoid going through a full GAR if you think there is a chance. Ita140188 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with: "the article tends to go into too much detail in sections where there are already main articles that cover the detail." but overall, this subject is a HUGE subject, and so the overall article will be big.

I'm sure we could make much of it more concise, but I almost see this as a list article: "List of topics related to nuclear power" because of the number of associated articles. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ita140188 and Avatar317: It has been a while since the last major edit to the article. Are either of you, or anyone reading this, still interested in working on this article? For the comments about the page size above: I think its OK to have lots of sections with a brief introduction and a hatnote above the text where the reader can get more information. This will help with navigation and prevent this article from getting too big. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested in working on it. If you point out places where you think there are problems, I can work on improvements. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I have added citation needed tags to uncited statements in the article. I also suggest that interested editors read through the article and move information to other articles that are too detailed for a general article like this. Generally, I suggest that each heading (no matter the level) have 2-4 paragraphs underneath it. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion: "2-4 paragraphs"; I'll work on it in the next couple days. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course I'm also interested in continuing working on it. Will keep an eye on the changes and try to add references and trim the article where needed in the next few days Ita140188 (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317 and Ita140188: There are still citation needed and failed verification tags in the article. Are you still interested in working on this? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I had to pause the work as I was quite busy off-wiki recently. I will resume the revision this week. Ita140188 (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Avatar317 and Ita140188: Just following up with this: there are still some uncited statements. Are you interested in continuing to work on this? Let me know if you want me to place citation needed templates in the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm still interested. Feel free to tag any other statements you feel are not supported and I'll try to look through sources we already have and see if they support the statements. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

EBR-1 was located in Idaho not Argonne National Lab the image caption is incorrect

Just letting you know, thank you. 204.102.229.130 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The caption says Argonne-West. That's technically correct since Idaho National Laboratory used to be known as Argonne West. NPguy (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Compared to what?

There's a lot of new text on the hazards of nuclear power and nuclear waste. I don't have the time or expertise to review but want to point out a few shortcomings:

• There is an inordinate focus on the impacts of uranium mining in the United States. Very little uranium mining takes place in the United States
• The drawbacks of nuclear power are not presented in comparative terms. How do radiation dangers from nuclear energy compare to dangers from other power sources? There is a comparison with the waste volume from solar and wind power, but waste volume is not the most important thing and waste toxicity from coal is much worse.
• The section on environmental justice in particular fails to make any such comparisons.

Since energy choices are always comparisons of alternatives, presentation of these issues without such comparisons is misleading. NPguy (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

On a quick scan of those new additions, I agree with you; especially the focus on US uranium mining, which was predominantly (during the time of the social injustice issues) done for weapons, not nuclear power.

I'll try to review and probably trim for UNDUEness. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Duplicated references

I am not experienced at removing duplicated references, but I would like to solve that for this article. Can anyone help fix that or show me how? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Adding cost counter argument in debate topic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Debate:~:text=Critics%20find%20that,of%20individual%20countries.

I feel like this part ignores the issue with new regulations that may often be quite harsh on the nuclear plants and often lead to extra building time.

Here are some sources:

Source 1)

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/nuclear/regulations-hurt-economics-nuclear-power/#:~:text=Between%201970%20and%201978%2C%20overnight,to%20the%20rising%20cost%20trend.

>The American Action Forum (AAF) found the average nuclear plant bears an annual regulatory burden of around $60 million—$8.6 million in regulatory costs, $22 million in fees to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and $32.7 million for regulatory liabilities. That amount covers long-term costs associated with disposing of waste, paperwork compliance, and regulatory capital expenditures and fees paid to the federal government. Further, they found that there are at least six nuclear plants where regulatory burdens exceed profit margins, assuming only a $30 million annual regulatory burden.

Between 1970 and 1978, overnight construction costs increased by up to 200 percent, or 5 to 15 percent annually. The authors concluded that licensing, regulatory delays, and back-fit requirements were significant contributors to the rising cost trend.

Source 2) https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/08/unlocking-reductions-in-the-construction-costs-of-nuclear_2ca6777b/33ba86e1-en.pdf

There are quite a lot of mentions about regulations in this article, however, page 61 mentions: "The older U.S. LWR fleet shows a large range in cost, in part because of the significant turbulence in electricity demand, construction delays, and regulation (following the Three Mile Island accident) that characterized the late 1970s and 1980s." Page 35

Page 137 criticizes cumulative impact and mentions that inconsistent requirements may may result in under or over design of some components TheMoonLaw (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Excessive uncited and disputable/out-of-context claims.

E.g. "Nuclear power is a safe and sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions."

"Nuclear power generation results in one of the lowest levels of fatalities per unit of energy generated compared to other energy sources."

"Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material by volume than fossil-fuel based power plants. [102]" (links to random site https://web.archive.org/web/20170510092527/http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower)

Basically the entire "Reprocessing" section

Etc., etc. Puf.pinkman (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Avatar317 - I see above you were saying you were sorting through these issues last year. Where are you at with this? Do you need assistance? Puf.pinkman (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)