Talk:Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

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

I question that reference, as the PDF it links to comes from the operating company and is hosted on a website dedicated to the site itself. IE. I doubt its neutrality. 68.39.174.238 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the License extension section, it reads "We are committed to clean, safe and reliable operation for an additional 20 years.", which is obviously copied from something produced by the operating company. This should be replaced with free content generated by someone other than the operator of the article's subject. --Tom (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environment Section sounds a bit too much like PR[edit]

Subject says it all.

These paragraphs are a little strange: from "New Jersey..." to "...performance" it sounds like a press release. Needs citations and changes in format to reflect Wikipedia guidelines.

I see nothing new here since June last year. Unless another editor objects, I will remove the neutrality dispute tag. FellGleaming (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure why the tag was removed, I would remove the complete section with the stupid PR from the church of nucelar power. TheBug (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this section lacks neutrality. --72.68.105.187 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments[edit]

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

Much of this article reads as it was written by the owners. Propaganda, not factual information.

For example: "Until Oyster Creek can be replaced with in-kind new nuclear generation, its continued operation is critical to achieving New Jersey's greenhouse gas emissions reduction objectives." Misleading: continued operation of a nuclear plant will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since the plant has been operating since the 1960's.

For example: "As a part of Exelon Corporation, Oyster Creek follows the corporation's clear environmental policy. It is the company's commitment to constantly improve its environmental performance ..." Misleading: The plant causes huge losses of marine life because of the "once through" cooling system.

For example: "The plant emits none of the EPA-defined criteria pollutants (including ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate, and lead) as well as zero mercury (emitted by coal fired power plants)." Not true, just the Diesel generators at the site have substantial emissions. Aside from that, there is no mention of the radioactive emissions.

This is one of the most biased Wikipedia articles I've seen.

Alan Muller

You cite no evidence or sources for any of your claims, and most of them hold no weight whatsoever. For instance, are you actually claiming that backup diesel generators on site emit non-negligible amounts of air pollution? These generators don't provide hundreds of megawatts like an actual power plant, but rather a few tens of kilowatts to run backup systems. Furthermore, they don't run constantly, but only during an emergency. Their air quality footprint is essentially zero. Even more off target is the belief that operating the plant does not reduce CO2 emissions. If the plant were to shut down, its power would need to be replaced by some alternative which does produce CO2. This is a rather basic point. FellGleaming (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tainted nuke plant water reaches major NJ aquifer[edit]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37022728/ns/us_news-environment/
Radioactive water that leaked from the nation's oldest nuclear power plant has now reached a major underground aquifer that supplies drinking water to much of southern New Jersey, the state's environmental chief said Friday.
--91.15.215.56 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental information incorrect[edit]

The information that replacing the plant would result in 7.5Mt of CO2 emissions is obviously incorrect. The worst type of coal used in power plants generates 1.2tCO2/MWh. For the stated output of Oyster Creek this would result in 6Mt CO2 assuming that the plant would be of that least desirable type.

Since this easily verifiable part of the environmental information is obviously POV I would recommend a detailed verification of the rest of the environmental information as well. TheBug (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt it was "POV"; I assume whoever originally inserted it used a figure for older, less efficient coal plants. Current figures appear to be around 1t/MWh CO2. I added a reference for same, and adjusted the figures to reflect the lower value.

BTW, the type of coal has nothing to do with CO2 production. What matters is the operating temperature / efficiency of the plant itself. Fell Gleaming(talk) 23:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct, the type of coal does influence the efficiency of the power plant and consequently the CO2 output. Lignite does lose power for the sulfur removal from the combustion gas. And a replacement does not necessarily use the worst grade of coal or coal at all. So the assertion alone that replacing Oyster Creek results in additional CO2 output is POV, correct would be to offer a comparison how much CO2 would be produced by other plant types for the same output (i.e. wind power: None).

There is no mentioning of the CO2 released in the production of uranium, let alone expenses for waste storage. TheBug (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong on several counts. First of all, lignite typically has less sulfur than harder (older) forms of coal. Secondly, flue gas desulfurization doesn't appreciably impact the CO2 output of a plant. Third, while lignite does tend to burn cooler (and thus less efficiently) than other forms of coal, this is a temperature issue (as I stated above) and one that can be addressed by design.
Finally, while there are secondary sources of carbon emissions in nuclear, the same is true for coal mining, as well as solar and wind power as well. You seem to be wanting desperately to do original research here, in an attempt to knock nuclear power. The proper place for those arguments is in any of the "debate over ...." articles on nuclear vs. other energy sources, not in an entry on the Oyster River plant. Fell Gleaming(talk) 00:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong on several counts. Lignite usually has a higher sulfur content than hard coal. The exhaust scrubbers require energy that reduces the efficiency of the plant. And the typical numbers for CO2 from hard coal plants are about 800g/kWh versus about 1100g/kWh for lignite burning plants. These figures contain the typical secondary emissions, the zero figure for nuclear power does not include secondary emissions.
What I am trying to do here is to get rid of pro-nuclear POV in this article. More than half the article is just PR. This stuff could be posted in a discussion or in the article about nuclear power, but it does not belong here, or in any other article about an individual plant (see Salem and Hope Creek for comparison). TheBug (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you've failed to do is state what exactly you believe is inaccurate in the article -- yet you've restored the factual inaccuracy tag. The plant does displace CO2 emissions, and even though you WP:IDONTLIKEIT|you may not like it]], it is accurate, and verifiable. You cannot simply randomly insert tags in articles without a basis for doing so. Fell Gleaming(talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still disputing the correctness of these figures and in addition I dispute the appropriateness of this kind of information in this kind of article. The topic of CO2 emissions is too complex to be included in this article and it is not specific or exclusive to this particular power plant. TheBug (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are you possibly disputing "the figures", when there's a source given that cites an average value of 1.0 MT CO2 per GWh. Do you dispute the plant actually produces 5GWh per year? As for your belief this information is "unappropriate" for the article, that's a separate issue that has no justification for placing a factual accuracy tag on the section. Fell Gleaming(talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The zero figure for nuclear power excludes non-local emissions, the 1Mt per 1GWh includes the non-local emissions. You are citing a reference that uses averaged and very coarse data to preset a totally different concept. I can add a redundancy tag for your convenience.
The statement that the CO2 emission of the state would increase by 15% is not likely true. Maybe this would be the increase in CO2 generated in generation of electricity.TheBug (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "non local emissions", you mean charges for mining and transporting the coal and similar charges, you are quite incorrect. As for the CO2 emissions increase, the value is calculated from a baseline of total emissions, not simply electric generation emissions. The source is very clear on this. Furthermore, you are now reverting changes that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, some of those changes you yourself requested as part of your justificating for tagging in the first place. Please self-revert your last change, or I will be forced to seek arbitration for this article.

Further, your use of phrases like "the church of nuclear power" clearly indicate your assumption of an advocacy position here, rather than the neutral non-biased POV required of editors. Fell Gleaming(talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only reinstalled the dispute tag, no other changes were made in that revert.
Where is the source that provides the CO2 data? All the information I could find points to a total CO2 emission in excess of 100Mt, so 15% of that is not exactly 5Mt.
The link to the "no air pollution" is not working, seems like that server is offline. TheBug (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were quite a few other changes that you rolled back in that revert. See this diff [1].
Regarding the total CO2 output compared to the state, I agree that information is extraneous to the article. I axed the entire section. Fell Gleaming(talk) 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry must have been an editing mistake.
Reference 18 - Emissions, does not work.
Reference 19 is about CO2 sequestering and has nothing to do with the topic.
The first paragraph of the section does not add any information that is special to this plant, it should be removed, equivalent information can be found in the nuclear power article.
The last two paragraphs of the "License Extension" section should be moved to the Environment section. TheBug (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on your last point. Ref 19, however, does verify the figure...if you read the text, it gives an average emissions estimate of 1Mt/GWh CO2 for electric generation. As for Ref 18, that fact is implicit in the definition of nuclear power. Fell Gleaming(talk) 23:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 19 gives an average over all types of coal power plants, though actually the CO2 output ranges from about 800g/kWh to 1200g/kWh depending on the type of coal. In any case the figure given in this article is based on the assumption that a replacement plant would be using coal, though in reality it more likely would be run on natural gas or be a regenerative source with no CO2 emission (as per the same logic as for zero emission by nuclear power).
But the main factor is that the stated CO2 and emission qualities are nothing special for this plant and these topics are a lot more complicated than what can be properly communicated in a few sentences. There are other articles in Wikipedia which discuss these issues with more background. I am for removing these statements and optionally link to an article about CO2 offset. TheBug (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural gas is not a baseload power source; producing 5GW of baseload power with NG would be extremely expensive. As for a replacement source that doesn't produce CO2, there is no such option, period. Nondispatchable sources such as solar and wind cannot supply the grid percentages required here.

As for the suitability of these remarks, this is the proper place. Just as we have articles on nuclear safety and accidents, the safety and any accidents of this plant are discussed in this article. Similarly, the benefits of this plant belong here as well. Radiation exposure is an extraordinarily complex subject as well, and nowhere in this article does it discuss that the linear exposure model used to rate tritium exposure is much more pessimistic than required, or that a resident would get a larger radiation dose from eating bananas than they are likely to from this tritium leak. Does that mean we should excise all mention of the leak itself? Fell Gleaming(talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember reading any prediction of additional cancer cases due to the tritium leak, there is just a report of the fact that it happened.
That there is no option to produce base load without CO2 is just a straw man. Just the same as the claim that nuclear power does not generate CO2. TheBug (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man? More like the cold hard facts of physics. With current technology, you cannot supply baseload power with intermittent sources. Once you get above 10% or so, you start having serious problems matching supply to demand. Even Denmark, the world leader in wind power, can't get above 20% ... and it's only gotten there by selling half of its wind power to the EU grid, then buying back more expensive dispatchable power. (Note that Denmark has the most expensive electric rates in Europe, a rate nearly 3X the US average for electricity). Fell Gleaming(talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. The more you spread the sources the higher the base load capability, Denmark is not that much larger than the USA... But that is not the main issue, the main issue is still that the "information" about the reduced CO2 emission due to this nuclear power plant is POV since it just depicts the worst case szenario and neglects non-local CO2 emissions. And as I said before this is not in the scope of this article, other articles about nuclear power plants do not have such comparisons. TheBug (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several corrections:

  • Denmark is not that much larger than the USA -- No, Denmark is considerably smaller than the US.
  • The more you spread the sources the higher the base load capability, -- that's a claim wind proponents like to make. In practice, however, we're not seeing it, and it's meaningless in any case here. We don't have grid capacity to carry wind power cross-country today, nor will we in the foreseeable future.
  • Other articles about nuclear power plants do not have such comparisons. -- See WP:WAX for why this is meaningless. Oyster Creek is in the middle of a debate about being shut down. The results of that decision are highly relevant to the article.
  • it just depicts the worst case szenario... -- No, it depicts the average scenario, as you have already admitted. The source is very clear.
  • ...and neglects non-local CO2 emissions. -- Non-local emissions are not germane to the discussion. All sources have them, and they're impossible to precisely calculate. What we can verifiably put in the article are the emissions generated from operation, compared to a traditional source.

Fell Gleaming(talk) 22:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No, Denmark is considerably smaller than the US." Right! And as such the USA has fewer problems tapping into more sources. Rotten grid is a different topic and by far not unique to the USA.
Worst case szenario. There are other options, even good grade hard coal or oil would be below 800g/kWh. And you get totally different figures when going to cogeneration. The type of possible replacement is hypothetic and this is a Wikipedia article, not a horoscope page.
Maybe you can verifiably put here what you get from a document covering a different topic, presenting an average for one type of technology. But as I said before you can not present the complexity of the whole issue in a few words. The claim that a replacement will put out 1kg CO2 / kWh is as simplistic as my statement that you can have 0 CO2. There are articles that cover these issues and this article here could link to them, but not provide inaccurate and reduandant information.
Wikipedia is not the place that decides the result of the debate over the shut down. If you want to have the CO2 issue in the article, then change it into a neutral form and identify it as an opinion in that debate, clearly marking the CO2 figures as being based on a hypothetical replacement by a mediocre coal plant. TheBug (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Popcorn, anyone?[edit]

This article is so sad it makes me laugh again. Homer and Burns come to mind. It is just another episode of this feeling that USamericans live in a totally different world but sadly still on and off the same planet. It is also another testament to the failure of NPOV watch mechanisms on english language WP. Rigorous cleanup of this white- and greenwashing please. --Echosmoke (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRC: "Japan is no reason to de-license Oyster Creek"[edit]

[2] (April 5, 2011)

Almost unbelievable ... but imo worth mentioning in the article. I'm no native speaker; therefore I hope that someone takes pity on that information ... --[3] (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling Towers[edit]

There is a mention in the article that the plant operator will close it down ten years before its license expires and no cooling towers will need to be built. What does this mean? Nothing else about this is written in the article! Q43 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oyster_Creek_Nuclear_Generating_Station&oldid=1199245702"