Talk:Nuclear energy

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Physics

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles

Energy

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles

Untitled

Just curios but what are some of the ups and downs of nuclear energy --Babit94 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be redirected (again) to Nuclear power or made into a disambiguation page

Nuclear power is not just about the comercial generation of electricity and I think covers a wide enough number of topics as to make the redirect totally approprate. Also the rudamentry discussion of e=mc^2 reads very badly. Better to make the page a DAB and just send the readers there. Dalf | Talk 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the redirect I think we should make this page a disambiguation page. I will do some thinking about how to reformat it while waiting for everyone to object. Dalf | Talk 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However poorly written, this page is about the fundamental science behind nuclear energy, the nuclear power page is about applications of nuclear power to generate electricity. 199.125.109.36 14:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---If you're not going to allow definitions of what constitutes "Nuclear Energy" in the Nuclear Power article, Then where are we going to get down to the basics of nuclear energy and nuclear power generation? WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC) nuclear energy is energy which powers everyones home. so if you waste energy then you are commiting a criminal offence![reply]

Nuclear energy conversions

The fuel most widely used by nuclear plants for nuclear fission is uranium. Uranium is nonrenewable, though it is a common metal found in rocks all over the world. Nuclear plants use a certain kind of uranium, U-235, as fuel because its atoms are easily split apart. Though uranium is quite common, about 100 times more common than silver, U-235 is relatively rare. Most U.S uranium is mined, in the Western United States. Once uranium is mined the U-235 must be extracted and processed before it can be used as a fuel.

During nuclear fission, a small particle called a neutron hits the uranium atom and splits it, releasing a great amount of energy as heat and radiation. More neutrons are also released. These neutrons go on to bombard other uranium atoms, and the process repeats itself over and over again. This is called a chain reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henggao cai (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

energy

nuclear energy is the atom of its space —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.61.94 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nuclear energy is made up of lots of enegry and little amount of fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.248.194 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.223.188.137 (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nucleons

I don't under stand what a nucleon is what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.86.132.35 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nucleon is a neutron or a proton, one of the particles in the atomic nucleus. NPguy (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nuclear power

what technology do we use to conserve nuclear energy and how can we conserve nuclear power —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.86.132.35 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "merge"

This is a short article that doesn't say anything that isn't individually in the nuclear energy section of binding energy, or the relative sections of radioactive decay, atom, stable isotope, energy and a number of other places this chart is used. Any redirect could be to any of these sections (since a redirect can GO to just a section of another wiki).

Moreover, THIS article is badly named. I expected it to be about nuclear reactor technology or nuclear power.

So I suggest it not be merged (in this cases a euphemism) but deleted, and any uses of it elsewhere in other wikis as a target, be redirected to Binding_energy#Nuclear_binding_energy_curve. S B H arris 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the earlier suggestion of making it into a disambiguation page? NPguy (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better idea, as it's a very ambiguous term, used for lots of things. Yes-- a dab is clearly the way to go. S B H arris 17:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the deed. This is now a disambiguation page. --Kvng (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power

There is an ip editor who continues to insist that fusion be included under nuclear power, even though it does not exist as a source of nuclear power at this time. He links to the wikipage on the subject which clearly states: "While fusion power is still in early stages of development, substantial sums have been and continue to be invested in research." Which proves the point that it does not exist yet. He believes that reverting incorrect edits is "edit warring". I'm not sure he completely gets the concept of facts. If there were a nuclear fusion plant providing nuclear power, then his inclusion of that as a source of nuclear power would be spot on. However, right now it is inaccurate. Onel5969 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that experiments have been carried out, means that power has been extracted from this kind of reaction. Also, there are nuclear weapons which rely on the fusion of hydrogen too. I'd also like to mention that, at the start of the Nuclear Power article, there is this following sentence ' This article is about nuclear fission and fusion power sources primarily. ' Thus, it makes sense for 'fusion' to be included under 'Nuclear Power'.

This is a dab page, not an article. The Power article clearly points out that nuclear power is through fission, not fusion at this point. Inclusion of fusion is misleading at best. Please stop attempting to insert it here. If you revert another time, you'll be in violation of the WP:3RR rule.

Well then, if the inclusion of 'fusion' is misleading, take it up with the author(s) of the Nuclear Power article. Read my earlier comments about that sentence which I pasted. Yeah, I will report you too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]