Talk:Lentis/Nuclear Meltdown: Is Nuclear Energy Socially Viable Following the 2011 Japanese Earthquake?

Do we want to start with the story of Germany as a world leader in nuclear production, and then state that they have now made an about face and are trying to phase out all nuclear power, and then ask "what happened?". This could lead into a discussion of the nuclear scare in Japan following the earthquake and then other backlashes that have resulted?


 * Cover thorium (greener, non weaponizable). Cover the need for CO2 reduction/climate change. Recent changes in Europe. France the major producer. France nuclear centrals problems. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Generalizable Lesson
(Moved from content page) Each nation reacts differently based on their strategic interests to a natural disaster

One incident can dramatically shift public opinion

2 separate stakeholders: - people - governments who have ability to make decisions

Limiting the issue to only 2 stakeholders provides a very simplistic model. There are 4 separate major stakeholders that have an impact in nuclear policy, we could even add a fifth, international organizations: - consumers (ecological and safety concerns vs low energy price) - government who have ability to make decisions (sustainability and risk management, technological know how, taxation and job creation, weaponization and energy independence) - energy producers (if not nationalized, profit) - nuclear technology owners (return of R&D and profit) --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Critique
There still is a lack of information about the individual nations energy plans in Europe that rely on old plants and require the construction of new ones, especially in the EU, this is especially important to understand the contrast of France's position and for instance why Germany can take the position to exclude the nuclear option, a good example on the economic advantages/disadvantages of out sourcing energy production (especially after the EU legislated against national energy monopolies and for a greater integration of the energy grids). It is also missing a relation about the choice to invest in a long term building of nuclear plants in the declining economic situation that we will face in the West. Also it would be interesting to mention who controls the distinct nuclear plant technologies, and its relation to the national energy plans (some work has already been put in this but in a way that does not permit the reader to connect the points). There is also a noticeable absence in the important relation between the nuclear energy, and the nuclear weapons and their important place for instance as Russia and the USA decommissions their stockpiles, this runs parallel to the missing of a mention about the reduced availability of usable sources of uranium. For instance check the difficulty China is having in securing sources for supporting the plan for creating more than 30 new plants. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous news with related information
Russia Set To Extend Life of Nuclear Reactors Past Engineered Life Span, In Nuclear Power, Size Matters there are also very interesting comments. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Greenpeace founder supports nuclear energy (Wikinews has other interesting articles) --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)