Talk:Nuclear power by country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured list star Nuclear power by country is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
June 21, 2006 Featured list candidate Promoted
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Could you please fix the spelling of "decomiSSion(ing)" in the text and the picture? —Nightstallion (?) 12:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh darn it...That's the tenth time I've had to reload that image... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed it in the text for you. ;)

Hey, I just noticed that this was promoted to FL. You may want to give the Philippines at least a footnote for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which was built but never put to use. Coffee 15:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the Philippines get mentioned, then so should Austria's Zwentendorf... —Nightstallion (?) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think only current, working commercial reactors should be included. I believe several other countries did likewise. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "List"

I notice that the U.S. has a link to it's section in the list of nuclear power plants, but that list contains every country, and we could certainly provide this link for all of them. If it's a matter of effort, I'll put the links in if others are in agreement. But I would eventually like to see that list of nuclear reactors get split up into a million little articles.

Anyway, congrats on the FL status, but I think it goes to show how much work the list of nuclear reactors is in need of. theanphibian 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More info available

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

The image Image:Nuclear power stations.png seems to have a lot more information in it than the article. Not sure how well sourced it is at the moment.-- Beland 00:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that map is built purely using this article, so if anything, the article contains more data than the image... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing information

Shouldn't we have a column on % reliance on nuclear power per country?--Pharos 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You can if you want, but it changes often and is probably cumbersome. That information is most available in the "Nuclear power in ..." articles, but even if you put it here I think you inherently have misconceptions due to the details. For instance, if you divide the production by nuclear power in France by the electricity consumption, you can get like 98% (depending on your numbers) which obviously doesn't make complete sense. But the trick is that they export like 15% of their power. So a fully accurate treatment would include numbers for distribution losses, electricity imports vs. exports, and all kinds of nasty stuff. Just FYI. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E.U. as "Country?"

Any reason why the European Union is listed as a separate country in the chart, while its member-state information is again listed by country (France, Germany, etc.)? Was this due to political reasoning (i.e. the inevitable European comparison of everything in the E.U. to the U.S)? I don't think such a listing is appropriate and listing both country (Netherlands) and the E.U. in the same chart is redundant, but since I'm not registered I won't change anything. What do you think? 210.20.86.85 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Jon Anderson 14 March 2007 Tokyo time

I think it should stay. The E.U. has united Europe, to a degree, as one economic force and should thus be represented the same. At the same time though, this is nuclear power by country not Unions. Where's the U.N. then? ;) --Master Bob 06:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a World total in the table --JWB 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it should stay for the sole reason that people reading will want to see it. theanphibian 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it since it's not a country and it does share its nuclear power among its nations. Joelito (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Was there a consensus on this? Am I reading the right talk page? It is of great value to see, the EU has less/more reactors than the US for instance. I disagree with this decision and think it should be put back. Is it not Wikipedia policy to default to what the original creator did when you have something like this? theanphibian 21:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is highly relevant and should stay. The EU as a whole makes many economic and nuclear decisions. Alternatively, there could be a separate table of totals by continent. --JWB 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the EU should stay per theanphibian and JWB. Beagel 17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't sum up

The Proposed column has a total of 62, but entries that only sum to 35. --JWB 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic addition of "class=FA"

A bot has added class=FA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a featured lists. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone change the map?

I have updated the information about the UK, but I can't see how to change the map. It may actually be awkward as the UK will now require to be split into different colours to reflect that whereas Scotland has nuclear power stations at present, it wants no more, but the rest of the UK has at present and is going to build more. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding POV tag

I added a list of Anti-nuclear power groups to balance the list of pro-nuclear groups, but was reverted, so have added a POV tag... Johnfos (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no NPOV dispute in the article. The article documents Nuclear power, there is no need to add anti-Nuclear activity. As per your own logic, in the article Communism, if there is no mention of Anti-communism, then the article POV, in the article Capitalism, if there is no mention of Anti-capitalism, then the article POV. It is ridiculous argument. An article documenting Nuclear power, only nuclear power should be mentioned. "Anti" has nothing to do in that article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should remove both lists (nuclear energy groups and anti-nuclear groups) from this article and link them under "See also" section. Actually the list of nuclear energy groups is far away from the FA level, so if if we would like to remain the FA status of this article, it better to be gone. At the same time we could have both lists as separate articles.Beagel (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would be happy if both lists were removed. But would the article still be comprehensive enough to qualify as a FL? Johnfos (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA status

Reading this article more carefully I discovered that there a lot of information out of date (e.g. developments with the North Korea nuclear program decommissioning, several national programs are missing, several figures of reactors under construction are out of date). Also, I think this article should be list only countries with existing nuclear reactors, otherwise you should add about 20 more countries. It should be worked parallel with the Nuclear energy policy article to avoid heavy overlapping (Nuclear energy policy article has also necessary references, which partly are missing in this article. Last thing, current references are definitely not in level of FA. Lot of references are missing and other references needs to be formatted. I hope you would assist to fix these problems, otherwise this article should be de-listed as FA.Beagel (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)