File talk:Nuclear power station.svg

Germany

I believe that there are really a lot of wrong labeled countries displayed in this map: In Germany we currently also have the status of being a "country with reactors, but no plans for expansion or phase-out"

Fixed. --Tweenk (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

Sweden should be marked as "Operating reactors, stable" or "Operating reactors, planning new build", not "No reactors, planning new build". The first reactor in Sweden started 56 years ago and the first commersial reactor in Sweden started 46 years ago! Today Sweden has ten commersial reactors producing about half of the electricity produced in Sweden. In 1980 there was a referendum, which resulted in a slow phase down of nuclear power in Sweden. Only two och the twelve reactors were however shut down (Barsebäck 1 and 2 in 1999 and 2005). The current centre-right government wants to make it possible to replace the current ten reactors with new ones when needed. There is however unclear if the proposition will pass in parliament and it will certainly not pass if we get a leftwing government after the election in September 2010. A leftwing government will however not resume the phase down of nuclear power. So "Operating reactors, stable" is perhaps most correct alternative when it comes to nuclear power in Sweden. 20:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.46.46 (talk)

Sweden should be marked as "countries with reactors, but no plans for expansion or phase-out". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.164.180 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This map is now incorrect. It indicates that Australia has previously had a commercial reactor when, as per the notes below the map, it never has. Would this map please be corrected or else removed. It is always incorrect!

Keelback (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand is a nuclear free country and has never had any nuclear reactors.

121.72.23.24 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct, New Zealand is not "nuclear free". Legislation prohibits nuclear weapons and nuclear powered ships. It does not prohibit nuclear power on land. The 1977 Royal Commission on Nuclear Energy recommended nuclear power for New Zealand. Although that recommendation has not been followed (yet), there was never any official decision to prohibit nuclear power, the matter has never been put to the public, and it would not be illegal. Incidentally NZ is far from nuclear free- there are nuclear isotopes and other radiation sources all over the country.JohnC (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed now. --Tweenk (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and missing data

Following countries are missing or incorrect:

In Africa: Ghana, Namibia, Nigeria - considering first NPP.[1]
Albania - considering first NPP.[2], [3]
Belarus is still considering, construction did not start yet. (see Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant)
Tunisia - considering first NPP.[4]
Azerbaijan doesn't have any NPP yet, so it should be marked as considering first, not as considering new.[5]
Mongolia - considering the first NPP, not building yet.[6]
Venezuela - considering first NPP.[7]
Bangladesh - considering first NPP.[8], [9]
Thailand - considering first NPP.[10]
Estonia - considering first NPP.[11]
Denmark - never had any nuclear power reactor, only research reactor. Should be marked as nuclear-free. [12]
Austria - build a NPP, but never launched it. Should be marked as nuclear-free. [13] Beagel (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea - has made two nuclear tests [[14]]. [[15]], and shouldn't therefore be marked as a "country declared itself free of nuclear power and weapons". --82.181.19.157 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those should be corrected now. --Tweenk (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not colorblind-friendly

Colors resemble each other too much for the color blind people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.83.222 (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even for non-colour blind people like me, the colours for "planning/considering new reactors" and "formerly had commercial reactors, but which have all been phased out" in particular are near indistinguishable. The colours should be brighter and have better contrast. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy & Sweden

Should Italy & Sweden be updated to "considering" new reactors? I would do it myself, but I don't know how to edit the files. Cf. the links below:

"Even Italy and Sweden, which once banned nuclear reactor development, now say they will build more." (2009) http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2905740

"Italy embraces nuclear power" (2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/world/europe/23nuke.html

"Italy & France sign nuclear deal" (2009) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7908434.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.29.6.2 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Italy to "No operating reactors, planning new build". Sweden will need another reference, because as far as I know WNA materials don't say anything about there being plans. --Tweenk (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy has voted against, so it should be updated to "Civil nuclear power is illegal" or at least "No nuclear reactors, thank you. --JoeJoe11 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Italy "No nuclear reactors" is wrong! Italy shutdown the historical 4 nuclear power plants but still have 4 experimental reactors: two of them are from the Centro ricerche Casaccia dell'ENEA in Roma, 1 Triga Mark II da 250 kW at LENA in Pavia and one at Legnaro by INFN. Please change Italy from "No nuclear reactors" => "Civil nuclear power is illegal". [Mattia, dec. 2012] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.184.30 (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone changed Sweden from "Stable" to "Planning to build new", and I think that's an exaggeration. The state has recently gone from planning phase out to opening up the possibility of new reactors, and the state owned power compnay Vattenfall wants to do so, but there are no concrete plans at all. It has been said that we're probably 10 years from even reaching a decision to build a new reactor. Further, the state still only allows for replacement of old reactors and only at the sites of the old ones. So the most accurate thing would probably be a new category "Planning to replace old reactors" if not keeping the old "Stable" category.

Obviously its not easy to put all these countries in categories, the politics and issues are different in every one of them. But in order to be in the "planning to build new" category, there needs to be something like a plan for funding, drawings, a decision on what type of reactor, a chosen site or similar. Otherwise, any country which has not outright outlawed building new reactors could be considered planning new ones, since I'm sure you could always find someone who has been thinking about it.130.243.207.18 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia

Considering by 2015

THis only says that no nuclear plants will be built until 2015, and nothing about what happens later. --Tweenk (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please paint Antarctica in black

--MathFacts (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica is not nuclear power free, it is nuclear weapons free - same as for New Zealand. --Tweenk (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any nuclear power is prohibited there.--MathFacts (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

Is actually building two reactors right now. See nuclear power in Romania. Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building nuclear power plants in America?

Where exactly are we building nuclear plants in America? I'm in the industry and all we know is that we are still in the "planning to build one" stage. Pushing paperwork between utilities and the NRC does not constitute building a nuclear power plant. Gilawson (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colors in world map of nuclear power

We should really consider to change the world maps to a map with different colors like this one: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Nuclear_power_worldwide-2009.svg&filetimestamp=20110322012350 The colors should give the visitor an intuitive idea of how big the nuclear power influence is in the different countries. Most people in the world agree that nuclear power is dangerous and such the red color is justified. In the current map, countries which will get rid of nuclear power look worse (red) than countries which don't plan to do that (blue). Thats really confusing. --Sidespin (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "most people in the world agree that nuclear power is dangerous". Unless you provide a reference for this claim, I disagree with your proposal, which would be POV pushing. Red is a typical colour to symbolize "stop" or something forbidden, so it is an appropriate colour for countries stopping/forbidding nuclear power. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, the statement "most people in the world agree that nuclear power is dangerous" is not a fact (also the opposite is not) and even if it would be this should not define the colors to use for visualizing the data. I do not like the underlying point of views in this map as well as in the map on the german article. Why not use neutral colors or other techniques like hatching? I am not an expert in visualisation so I do not know the best way to do this without putting to much judgment into it. Any ideas? --Maestro alubia (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan

South Sudan has just become an indipendant country.

Switzerland...

...should now be coloured red, see info in Anti-nuclear movement in Switzerland. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt

How can this even be accepted on the commons? Egypt certainly is not even at the experimental stage, never mind building one.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updates needed

At 2022, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astravets_Nuclear_Power_Plant in Belarus is operational, so Belarus now should be blue. Also Bangladesh should be checked, because its first reactor was scheduled for 2021 Floydpig (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]