Jump to content

Talk:List of commercial nuclear reactors/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

SEFOR

SEFOR should be added to the list, but I'm not sure where to place it. Any suggestions? —Slicing (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't belong in the "Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, Idaho" section. —Slicing (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to the map of locations of US nuclear power plants is in reality a link to such a map on a site selling iodine pills for use in a nuclear emergency. I believe that this link ought to go and that a map as lacking in detail as this one lends little to this article. Does anybody have an objection? BenBurch 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnote in Spanish

Could somebody please translate this footnote? We should have an english translation as this is an english Wiki. --BenBurch 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

http://babelfish.altavista.com/ translated it as
the financier in line - "Feasible to construct nuclear power stations of electricity in Mexico" (6/2/2006)"to the date, Mexico counts on four nuclear power plants in operation. The power station of nuclear electricity Laguna Verde ("Green Lagoon") (CNLV) that operates the CFE and reactor TRIGA MARK-III in facilities of the National Institute of Nuclear Investigations. Also, it has two subcritical joints in the Independent University of Zacatecas and Instituto Polite'cnico Nacional (IPN), that work with investigation aims."
Laguna Verde is the site of Mexico's two nuclear power reactors. But I don't see what the footnote is telling us. Simesa 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Splitting

Article is too large and should be divided into smaller parts. I think it would be better to split research reactors and nuclear power plants--91.76.108.224 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done List of nuclear power plants--VAR-loader 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would argue against this. Categorizing these reactors is a hard task, and not as simple as creating a few separated lists unless they were complete and separated by country, the key word there being complete. I think that this initial effort proves that if separated pages are created, they should be created, at least initially, in parallel with maintaining this page as to prevent confusion. The initial splitting effort was poorly documented, and lead to a lot of confusion. 157.252.163.92 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been disastrous. Instead of having one comprehensive list, the article now has bits and pieces. For example, Romania list a CANDU processing facility, but the Cernavoda plant is missing.
--Ng.j 07:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is CONSENSUS about splitting, then the most obvious choice would be to split off the US reactors into another list, which would be named List of nuclear power plants (United States)‎. The subcategory should be left with a warning and a link to the new page.

Personally, I think the list is most useful in its current format as it is comprehensive and enables quick searches.
--Ng.j 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the article

I am in the process of reinserting the information removed by a certain somebody.
--Ng.j 08:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now completed the reversion and integration project. Basically I reverted to this version [1] and worked everything else back in. Took a couple of hours, but well worth it. At least now I can read the article on the Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant.
--Ng.j 09:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for that -- one complete list of all reactors is not available elsewhere AFAIK, so very important to have it here. --mervyn 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm building stuff for the US research reactors

My current plan is that I will continue adding links to new articles here and then building them as I have done for the PULSTAR and the MIT reactor. There are a LOT of them, so I think issues are going to come up regarding putting them all in one article versus a separate article for each. But let me express that fact that I already HATE scrolling down this overcomplicated article.

In fact, if I could take the research reactor list and just delete it from here and put it in research reactor or something, I would be happy with that. Right now we HAVE all the reactors listed, but it is beyond me how any of this could possibly help anyone.

Well back to the point. I'm making those articles so keep an eye out for them, and PLEASE peer edit my work.theanphibian 18:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think mixing external links in the list is a good idea at all. It's not the accepted practice followed in other lists.

Rather, I think we should have red links in the list where the article doesn't exist, and an external links section at the end. Where an external link is relevant to only one item on the list, it should go into a stub or article for that item (a reactor or reactor site in this case). If the item doesn't justify an article, then it doesn't justify a link either. Wikipedia is not a web directory.

Unless someone objects, I'll work towards that format as time permits. Andrewa 05:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- shunt those ICJT links to the bottom and also note that ICJT doesn't list experimental reactors. One other problem is that many wikilinks which are "live" in fact only go to a general geographical place not to a reactor entry eg much of Russia and UK list. --mervyn 10:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As part of a continuing update to this page I have now removed the notice: " Some of the items in this list currently link to external sites, rather than to Wikipedia articles. See the talk page for discussion of this approach. " This page is becoming cleaner now, so it no longer seems necessary to have a special note. --mervyn 11:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with this. It's been established that any reactor is noteworthy enough to have an article, so a broad based approach to have stubs to all with an external link would be a good idea. For the U.S. research reactors we've had links to the city and the university so I'm attempting to preserve those and add links to the individual articles.
Caution must be taken for many of them though. Many research reactors don't have so much a "name" so much as kind of a model number, but then there will be a nuclear science center, or a reactor program that encompasses all of the reactors in it's history, which I think is a good approach. Have a look at some articles I've created and tell me what you think about the naming of these articles. theanphibian 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reactor Details

I was wondering about specifics of a few things, in particular this: The dates of operation I think are the dates from the first criticality to the ceasing of operation. This came up with the last one I was looking at because I was able to find dates that they began construction, and then realized that I needed to change them. Construction and decommision takes years so it makes a HUGE difference. Maybe we should consider putting a note in the article about what exactly the dates of operation and thermal output mean. theanphibian 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed or unfinished plants

I'm working on articles for Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant (Australia's proposed power reactor, tenders called twice and some site works completed but no tender accepted) and Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (Philippines, completed and fuel delivered but never loaded). Do these belong on the list? They are both fascinating stories. Andrewa 03:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, add them in -- this is conceived as a "comprehensive list". Thanks, M --mervyn 07:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
See incomplete reactors below. Andrewa 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I think the information in the separate list of reactors for Europe and CIS should be merged into this one. Without opposition I will do that on the coming rainy week-end. Sengstag 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think that it's already a repeat. See Sweden for one, the exact same table exists in both articles. And I'm really of the opinion that it would be better to break the article up into little pieces. I mean make an article for Europe, the U.S. and so on and so fourth. If there's a strong consensus on the issue I would be willing to put some time in myself to make the splits. theanphibian 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the reason for multiple lists, the current one is ready and only 61kb and it isn't as if nuclear is growing significantly. I like having one list. I think we should keep it as is. Simesa 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It just takes so long to scroll! To be honest though, I would think the same way if this was some sortable or parseable information because then you could easily find "there are this many of this, there are this many above this, but that's not the case. We also have a host of other articles of "Nuclear Power in {insert country}" which are quite good, but it seems really cumbersome to get information about them there, and get a list in the middle of another article.
It doesn't matter to me if this issue results in consolidating them or separating out more parts of the world, I would just like to see something be done about the organization of it. theanphibian 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Three separate lists of reactors (Europe and CIS, Asia and Africa, America) were split from the original one mainly because of the page size limit and for to make editing of country sections easier.--85.141.120.85 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
huh? Can you provide wikilinks? I am not aware of separate pages for all of those. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
discussion--VAR-loader 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, now I'm even more confused. That article, List of nuclear power plants got deleted and redirected here, right? But the AfD says that the decision was keep... -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why I still find this article a little frustrating

I don't want to make duplicate collections of information over and over again. If there's a list, I want there to be ONE list and never have to sync two. That said, I'm working on stuff that's all based around the Nuclear power in Japan article. I even created a map for them. Now, let's not even suggest that the map should go in this article. If something exists on Wikipedia, it should exist in one place.

Furthermore, it does seem logical to have the list of power plants in the Nuclear power in Japan article (keep in mind these articles exist for all the countries). But there's no way I'm coping the information here to there unless I can just put in a stub in this article that says "all the information is stored in Nuclear power in Japan, go there".

Granted, this works against the goals of having a comprehensive list here. Whatever. Does anyone think it would be okay to move things around like that? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering, couldn't we just move the list to the nuclear power in ... articles and just develop some technical solution where the list of power plants will still unfold into this article here? It could improve editability and understandability, while keeping all of this article intact. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Okay look, if no one responds to this in a few days, I'm moving the Japan list to Nuclear power in Japan, deleting what's here, and putting a pointer saying "the list is in this article". -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of having one complete list, but see your point. Am happy to support your move, but only in this case where there the sub-article is complete and detailed and does have an actual list. I am trying to think of an example of your suggestion where one article is automatically updated from another -- something similar is done at List of Latin phrases. --mervyn 08:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Current_events I think is another one. Heck, the Main Page is a pretty good example of what we're talking about. The only problem with such a method is that it's difficult for newbies to edit or understand. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes

If I can get that list merged out of the article, there are a few things I would change. Firstly, if the table format is kept, I would make it sortable, so comparisons of power production and that sort of thing can be seen better. Secondly, I would make 2 lists, one of power stations and one of reactors. A list of power stations would just be a repeat of the template, but with numbers for them, it would go well with the linked map we have. More work on the research reactors would also be helpful. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing it

I'm going to try this first with South Korea, I think it will look a LOT better after moved to the separate article, and given the size of the current one, adding images and improving it is probably just out of the question. We'll see how it goes. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More questions

I could start migrating the list to the respective country's article, but there are still too many things up in the air. Firstly, what about just reactors? Should research reactors be moved? They're not really nuclear energy, but then would it be better to generalize something like Nuclear power in Japan to just Nuclear technology in Japan? This would probably just confuse the issue further.

Then the other languages; many of them have lists separated by country basically. I think the current course could give good resolution to such a thing because, say the German Wikipedia has a list of reactors for every country, then we have a strong Nuclear power in Germany article. We move the reactor list there, and they translate some more prose style elaboration (or that translation could go the other way around). -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Have a look at these Category:Maps of nuclear power plants by country and please help me out if you have time. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What to do with lists of nuclear reactors and plants

The issue of keeping another list by nuclear power plant has come up with the creation of List of nuclear power plants. Honestly, by the simple fact that that article is incomplete, it should be deleted. However, I thought I would take this opportunity to call for comments on organization of the articles. We have several proposals on the table, and just read the rest of this talk page for a number of them. These ideas include:

  • Having a separate list for each country - we don't currently have this. Also, there's a separate list of Canada nuclear power plants that's redundant and needs to be deleted.
  • Having a separate list for Europe - we currently have this list which overlaps with this article. I don't know why.
  • Having a separate list of power stations - Such an article would essentially be a list form of Category:Nuclear power stations by country with some details. List of nuclear power plants is a start for this. Helpful?
  • Maps of power plants - I put some in the article. Clutter? Helpful?

And I'd like to make another proposal:

  • Make Nuclear power plant a article that clarifies nominclature, which essentially says, that "Nuclear Power Plant" can refer to a site housing multiple reactors or a single reactor, "Nuclear Power Station" refers specifically to a site with nuclear power reactors, and "Atomic Power Station" is just another way of saying the same thing in country x, y, and z.

Alright, this is mostly housekeeping work, but please go have a look, and go move things around if it makes sense. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the maps of power plants would not apply to the article and would be clutter. As for the separate lists, we could categorize them within the same article, using a TOC and headings, maybe.Bensci54 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cornell University's reactor (Ward Laboratory)

Is no longer operational. I'm guessing it went offline around 2004, but not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.148.0.27 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

names? locations?

I hear over radio all the time about the testing that will be done for the Ginna plant, and I was looking for it in this list. Putting it under Bear Creek was not particularly helpful in that sense. This is in the Rochester, NY area, and I was looking there too. What do you say instead of exact location, we list nearest major city? I know immediately that means we have to agree on what "major" means, as the Bear Creek people are going to feel belittled because their place is not considered "major enough."

Joe (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Armenia?

Isn't there a reactor in Armenia at Medzamor? Does anyone have details?

82.43.195.76 (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand Gulf (error)

The Grand Gulf reactor is listed twice: once under the heading NRC Region Two (South) as "Grand Gulf Nuclear Generating Station", and again under the heading NR Region Four (West) as "Grand Gulf".

Both entries link to the same Wikipedia page titled "Grand Gulf Nuclear Generating Station".

198.8.3.36 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing U.S. Naval on-shore reactors

The Nuclear Power School article says: "The United States Navy currently operates 103 total nuclear power plants including 73 submarines, 10 aircraft carriers (Enterprise has 8 reactors and all others have 2 each), and 4 training/research prototype plants."

I know where one is, in Ballston Spa, NY. I added it to the list. The other three are missing from *both* this article (which claims to cover land-based naval reactors) and the List Of US Navy Reactors article. Someone with the correct information should fix both articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tls (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What about fusion?

Nuclear fusion is not mentioned in the article at all! Neither is there any reference that all these listed reactor use fission. The are exactly zero commercial fusion power plants in the world, but there are a great deal of experimental ones. Should they be included? Also, the New Horizons probe just recently released to pluto is powered by nuclear decay, does that get a look in? mastodon 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that radioisotope heater units or radioisotope thermoelectric generators belong in this list (especially if we already exclude naval propulsion reactors), so New Horizons is out just as is USS Nimitz. For fusion, see Fusion reactors below. Andrewa 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't make head or tail of your comment about Nimitz. Nimitz uses two A4W fission reactors. Tls (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope of the list

The introduction presently reads List of nuclear reactors is a comprehensive annotated list of all the nuclear reactors of the world, sorted by country. This list excludes nuclear marine propulsion reactors, except those at land installations, and reactors that never achieved criticality.

This is an impressive effort, but it does not include "all the nuclear reactors of the world." For example, the list for China does not include anything other than power reactors, and there are research reactors (both operating and shut down) there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.84.254.241 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fusion reactors

Issue one: Nuclear reactors redirects to Nuclear reactor technology, which is an article about reactors that use nuclear fission chain reactors. So that excludes nuclear fusion reactors, of which there are arguably none yet anyway... even ITER will be more of a test rig than a reactor (500MWt for 10 minutes or so is the best hope). We don't call every test bench on which someone "tickled the dragon's tail" a nuclear reactor... see Louis Slotin.

But, IMO this should be made explicit in the introduction. Or, if fusion is to be included, the criteria for what constitutes a nuclear fusion reactor should be briefly described. Achieving criticality can't be a criterion of course. Achieving ignition might be, which would mean that neither ITER nor JET would qualify even as research reactors, see Lawson criterion. Andrewa 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The nuclear reactor link I think is an artifact from when those main articles (nuclear power, nuclear reactor, etc) were merged into some different organization. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Fusion experiments - such as JET, ITER, the PPPL Tokamak(s), other Tokamaks, they're very, very different from nuclear fission reactors. So, perhaps they should be on a separate page, or at least listed completely separately on this one.AWeishaupt (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete reactors

Issue two: There's already at least one reactor on the list that never achieved criticality. Some of the members of Category:uncompleted nuclear reactors were completed to the point of being ready to load the fuel, which was delivered and ready to go. Maybe these belong on this list? Or should they have their own list? I raised this once before, and there was support, but it's a fairly major change IMO and I'd like a bit more discussion... the list is already on the large side. If they're to go in, again, what should the criteria be? Site selection? Nuclear island tender acceptance (inapplicable to some countries)? Site works? Andrewa 17:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kaliningrad Nuclear Power Plant

When does the proposed Kaliningrad Nuclear Power Plant get mentioned in the article? Simesa (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

List of nuclear reactors is an annotated list of all the nuclear reactors of the world, sorted by country. This list excludes nuclear marine propulsion reactors, except those at land installations, and excludes reactors that never achieved criticality.
When it goes critical --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tags for cleanup and more sources

I can see that some editors have put a lot of work into this article, but the result is not good. A lot of cleanup and many more citations are needed. I would suggest having separate articles for research reactors and power reactors to keep things manageable. Also consider presenting more information in sortable wikitables, preferably with a column explicitly for citations. This sort of approach is used in lists such as List of solar thermal power stations and List of offshore wind farms and really works quite well. Johnfos (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hannover Medical School, Germany

In case somebody with the powers to edit cares, here is an addition to the list:

Hannover, Germany - Triga MK I research reactor at the department of nuclear medicine, Hannover Medical School (Medizinische Hochschule Hannover). 0.25 MW th, commissioned 10/1972, shut down December 31, 1996, fully dismantled 07/2007. Information from http://www.umwelt.niedersachsen.de/, looked up on March 17, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.153.11.196 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

UC Berkeley

should the former reactor at UC Berkeley be listed here? it was shut down a while ago: [2](mercurywoodrose)75.61.141.184 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

U.C. Davis dates

The U.C. Davis reactor is listed as "Operational: August 13, 1998 -", but without any citation. I googled the name of the reactor, and found this page, which says "The reactor, which began operation in 1990, is the newest research reactor in the United States". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Belgium

  • MYRRHA: Multi-purpose hybrid research reactor for high-tech applications (Planned to be ready in 2020-2022)
  • VENUS: zero-power critical facility
  • Thetis: research reactor in Ghent (fuel has been unloaded)

Are these reactor forgotten or is there some reason they can't be included in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCvarial (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Region IV (West)

River Bend Nuclear Generating Station in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana and Waterford Nuclear Generating Station in Killona, Louisiana are listed in the "Region IV (West)". I believe Louisiana would be considered "Region II (South)", would it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.84.89 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Fukushima status

I have changed the status of Fukushima 1 through 4 from "Exploded" to "Shutdown". The former is factually incorrect, as the reactors did not explode. It is also pejorative and violated NPOV. In point of fact, all four reactors had been shut down prior to the tsunami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithpickering (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sortable lists?

Why not make these lists sortable. I've tried it for the French one, seems to work. The only odd thing is that the arrows don't show up. HughesJohn (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We, Wt?

I see these units quite a lot in this list. They however are never explained. Can someone enlighten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonaowna (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We = Watts (electric) i.e. the electricity generated by a reactor, Wt = Watts (thermal), i.e. the heat produced by the reactor. Not all the heat can be converted to electricity. For example an EPR is supposed to be around 4500 MWt, but only 1650 MWe. HughesJohn (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical consistensy: "Shutdown" or "shut down" and capitalization

While reviewing this page, I'm finding a couple glaring grammatical issues that are consistently repeated on the article, and if I am not mistaken, these have not been discussed on this talk page. If it has been discussed somewhere, please inform me. According to my assessment, these are all the "status" markings that are used in the article:

  • Operational
  • Grid connected
  • Under Construction
  • Planned
  • Unfinished. Planned Restart
  • Suspended Operation
  • Unfinished
  • Unfinished. Never built
  • Finished. Never started
  • Finished. Never started.
  • Never Built
  • Cancelled
  • Shutdown
  • Exploded

Canada, Pakistan, and Sweden also have different tables whose status labels contain more specific details. They could be addressed separately or not.

The main problem is the capitalization. I think it can be agreed upon that the first letter in all of them should be capitalized—but in the case of "Under Construction", "Unfinished. Planned Restart", "Suspended Operation", and "Never Built", there is an extra capitalized letter. In my opinion, they should be lower-case (except of course for "Planned" because it is after a period), because they are not titles or proper nouns. This is just like in page and section titles where every word is not capitalized.

Further, some of these statuses have to be re-evaluated on the basis of having periods in them. As such, the next letter should always be capitalized. I think they should be replaced with semicolons so they can remain lower-case and appear as part of one sentence. For example: "Finished; never started", "Unfinished; planned restart", etc.

I should also note that the status "Finished. Never started." is an outlier, because it contains an extra period at the end which is not needed in this label. Can it be agreed that this one should be replaced with "Finished. Never started"?

What caught my attention before anything else here were two particular status labels with a similar problem. The statuses "Grid connected" and "Shutdown" are formed in the incorrect part of speech. All the rest, such as "Operational", "Planned", "Under Construction", "Unfinished", etc. are adjectives in some form, whether it be descriptive, as a participle, or as a prepositional phrase. The issue with "Grid connected" is that the two words are separate as a noun and an adjective, but a noun is not consistent with the other status labels. To solve this, it should become one adjective "Grid-connected" (hyphenated) that means that the reactor is connected to the grid. Further, the term "Shutdown" is a compound noun (such as "haircut") and is therefore inconsistent with the other labels. In this case, the words should be separated to "Shut down", wherein "Shut" is an adjective (presumably a predicate adjective as in the phrase "The Berkeley nuclear reactor is shut down"), and "down" is an adverb modifying it—as such, the whole phrase appropriately acts as an adjective phrase.

To sum up my explanations, I think that:

  • "Grid connected" should be changed to "Grid-connected"
  • "Under Construction" should be changed to "Under construction"
  • "Unfinished. Planned Restart" should be changed to "Unfinished; planned restart"
  • "Suspended Operation" should be changed to "Suspended operation"
  • "Unfinished. Never built" should be changed to "Unfinished; never built"
  • "Finished. Never started" should be changed to "Finished; never started"
  • "Finished. Never started." should be changed to "Finished; never started"
  • "Never Built" should be changed to "Never built"
  • "Shutdown" should be changed to "Shut down"

Thank you for listening! Mechanic1c (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Mechanic1c, it's funny you mentioned this. Earlier today I was browsing through and saw an article with a subheading in what I would call small caps. According to the WP:MOS, I think it's safe to say that unless it is a proper noun then there is no need for capitalization of the other letters. I'm wondering if there is actually more discussion of this on Wikipedia. Buffaboy talk 20:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone was left on Earth who understood these kinds of subtleties. I would suggest that

  • "Unfinished; planned restart" be changed to "Unfinished; restart planned"

(though, actually, I don't understand what this means -- if it's unfinished it can't ever have been started, so how can a restart be planned?) and that

  • "Suspended Operation" be changed to "Operation suspended".

EEng (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above, including EEng's suggestions. I didn't see any small caps. I did see a lot of initialisms, which are fine to leave in caps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jonesey95! EEng (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I think you're right, EEng, so I'll stick to your suggestions. I'll revise the article accordingly unless there are objections. Mechanic1c (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The The 'Working in Words' blog blog states that shutdown is the noun form, and the verb is to 'shut down', which makes the most sense grammatically, in my opinion. I've also checked my dictionary and it states the same - this is an issue I was unsure on. In terms of the capitalization of terms - I would stick with the rules for editing Wikipedia page titles - First should be capital unless it's a specific piece of literature or something of the sort that begins with a lower-case. However, in the case of the ones with full stops in the line, I would capitalize the first letter after the full stop. That said, I agree with your idea of using semicolons for separation, so no capitalization there would be needed. Thus, I agree with all your changes except the changing of shutdown to shut down - I would argue that it's not a verb in this case. - from my talk page. KieranTribe (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
No, "shut down" (two words) is correct, as in "It has been shut down", just as "under construction" is used as in "It is under construction". EEng (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have modified all the relevant reactor statuses. If you notice anything wrong or disagree, tell me—otherwise, I think this has been settled. Mechanic1c (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Good work. Let's hope no one has a meltdown over this. I have a further suggestion, however. I think "exploded" is overspecific. Right now only Chernobyl carries that status, and let's hope it stays that way, but I think "Damaged beyond repair" or something is a better way of putting it. EEng (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Your particular suggestion sounds too long in my opinion, but your point makes sense. I would even go for "Destroyed" or "Evacuated" or something preferably one-worded. You're right that it is unnecessary to refer to the event so specifically in the reactor status. (By the way, that pun you made was perfect.) Mechanic1c (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, Evacutated is certainly not what we want, and Destroyed sounds like it was reduced to rubble. Maybe Rendered inoperable? That would allow for all forms of sudden, career-ending damage, including natural disaster, sabotage, disastrous operational error, etc. But I leave it to your judgment. EEng (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC) What pun?
"Let's hope no one has a meltdown over this." Yup, that's a good suggestion. I'll take that and change it for now. Mechanic1c (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right -- that pun. EEng (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I decided I don't like "Rendered inoperable"—what first caught my attention was its length, and "rendered" also still refers to an event. I had a great idea, but now I've forgotten it. It was a single word. For example, "Operational" is one descriptive adjective that settles the whole thing; that would be an ideal way to describe it. I probably wouldn't oppose "inoperable", but I feel like there's something better. Mechanic1c (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

U.S.A.

I just finished a huge overhaul of the United States section of the list. All of the civ. power reactors, decommissioned and otherwise have been added to the list. Reactors listed without articles have been revised to [site name] Nuclear Power Station for uniformity and clarity. Plutonium Production/Research reactors were separated, and detailed slightly. Eventually, the actual units at each civ site should be listed under each site, each each of the INEL's 53 reactors should be stated on its page. All of this, of course, after i finish a page for each of the US civ power reactors.... Miros 17:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) I just updated the location of Shoreham to East Shoreham, New York, New York to East Shoreham, Long Island, New York, while not signed in, and somehow the change is red. I have not had that happen before. Is it because I was not logged in or did I do something wrong?Sallijane (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of nuclear reactors. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

UK Berkeley I

While scrolling through the list, i noticed that Berkeley I has the status "Under Construction" - and nothing more. To me it seems like something is messed up with the table. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge can fix that? 84.163.113.101 (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of nuclear reactors. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of nuclear reactors. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of nuclear reactors. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of nuclear reactors. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

General cleanup and split

I did a general cleanup of the page and split the list of research nuclear reactor in List of nuclear research reactors. The country tables can be transcluded in the relevant page like this (example with Italy):

{{trim|{{#section-h::List of nuclear reactors|Italy}}}}

Result:

Main article: Nuclear power in Italy
Plant
name 		Unit
No. 		Type Model Status Capacity
(MW) 		Begin
building 		Commercial
operation 		Closed
Caorso 1 BWR BWR-4 Mark2 Shut down/in decommissioning 860 1 Jan 1970 1 Dec 1981 1 Jul 1990
Enrico Fermi 1 PWR WH 4-loop Shut down/in decommissioning 260 1 Jul 1961 1 Jan 1965 1 Jul 1990
Garigliano 1 BWR BWR-1 Shut down/in decommissioning 150 1 Nov 1959 1 Jun 1964 1 Mar 1982
Latina 1 GCR Magnox Shut down/in decommissioning 153 1 Nov 1958 1 Jan 1964 1 Dec 1987
Alto Lazio 1 BWR Unfinished 982 1 Jul 1982 1 Jan 1988
2 BWR Unfinished 982 1 Jul 1982 1 Jul 1988
Trino 2 [IT] 1 PWR Unfinished 950 23 Dec 1987
2 PWR Unfinished 950 23 Dec 1987

Still needed is (maybe) a title for the tables and finishing the copyedit of the United States table to be consistent with the rest. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: title to tables was added for some countries. United States table is now consistent but needs work to fill in all the information. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplication?

It appears to me that this list is a partial duplication of List of nuclear power stations as this list is for commercial nuclear reactors producing power/electricity hence nuclear power stations. Why the two apparent lists? It is a huge task keeping such lists up to date and there is a risk of inconsistencies. I know as I used to keep such a list but for all power stations over 10MW for State of Western Australia. Only small power system. Just asking. Keelback (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. And List of nuclear reactors is just plain wrong for the page title. I considered moving to List of nuclear power reactors but even that is problematic... reactors are often listed in three (sometimes overlapping) groups: Plutonium production reactors (medium to large, low burnup); Research reactors (small to medium, high burnup, source of neutrons for beams and irradiation); and Power reactors (any size, source of heat, high burnup). The problem is, naval reactors are in this sense power reactors.
There's a similar problem with the term LWR which sometimes just means PWRs and BWRs (a particularly useful term when discussing fuel reprocessing) but sometimes also includes reactors such as Open-pool Australian lightwater reactor.
But List of nuclear power stations avoids any ambiguity. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggest discuss at Talk:List of nuclear power stations#Duplication? rather than here, just to centralise. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Countries missing

Saudi Arabia and Jordan are missing. Jordan has plans to build e.g. an Atmea-reactor--2A02:1206:455F:72F0:C4AF:11E7:5766:D71A (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of lists ...

and not a "List of nuclear reactors" worldwide that would be useful and could be sorted. --2003:C6:3718:CDF1:8128:913E:D5C9:2D28 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, a merged sortable list would be ideal. The problem is that some of these national lists are called (transcluded) in separate pages (such as in Nuclear power in South Korea). It is not easy to merge the lists while keeping the option for transclusion. You can find some attempts at User:Ita140188/sandbox2. --Ita140188 (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The corrections I have just made (See #Corrections made) addressed an error nothing short of deplorable. Obviously this is a sadly neglected page.
It is listed as Low importance by all three concerned WikiProjects and structured in such a way as to make the information hard to find and to maintain. Not a good combination.
I think that probably this transclusion option should be simply abandoned. It seemed like a good idea but it is high upkeep, and the maintenance is now not happening. It's a shame to throw away a lot of work in setting things like that up, but not all good ideas work out and this one hasn't. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Corrections made

I've just updated the article. I do not claim the results are perfect but that they are an improvement!

You will notice that the article previously listed two proposed VBER-300 reactors as FBRs. This is of course absolute rubbish, the VBER design is a PWR. Who writes this stuff? I guess that's in the history. It was not sourced but almost none of the "information" in this article is, and I have not added one.

See https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/kazakhstan.aspx (updated September 2020) and scroll down to Planned and proposed nuclear power reactors for my best source. But the situation seems to be somewhat confused regarding the country's plans, so it's hard to find relevant and reliable news stories on the web. Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

As stated in the lead, the information should generally be sourced from the IAEA PRIS database. There is a lot of very old information that was not checked for a long time. Inconsistencies are most likely due to shifting plans in technology over the years for planned reactors. Overall, I think the article is quite accurate and easy to maintain. We should just check the old information that was here since before few years ago, before the major restructuring. As for the transclusion, it is much easier to maintain and update information in a centralized place than in tens of different articles in addition to the list, so I think this is a positive development, not a failed experiment as you implied. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove gross capacity column

As in the title, I propose to remove the column with gross capacity. It is a very technical information, and not really relevant to the actual commercial power generation of the reactor. This information can always be found in the specific articles about the plants. I think adding this here just creates confusion and makes it harder to keep this article accurate. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

agree--Dwalin (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

District heating reactors

I have removed Gorky and Voronezh plants from the list as they only produce heat and don't match description at the top of the page.
That being said, they match the article name - List of commercial nuclear reactors, so we should go ahead with this proposal to avoid confusion.
Or alternately top description can be modified to include plants which only supply heat.
Apsrubov (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

they are listed in PRIS, so have to change only description--Dwalin (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see Gorky or Voronezh here. --Apsrubov (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
never completed, have to see in main page. voronezh is in 1983. --Dwalin (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I see. That beeing said they don't stand out in the table, ideally it would be interesting to have an additional column for heat capacity, preferably in Gcal/h. That could also be useful for plants like Leningrad which provide heat as well as electricity. I will revert removal in the mean time. --Apsrubov (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Undated maps

While the maps are useful, they do not mention the last update.
Wouldn't it be better to remove those maps and only use them in the respective main articles, which all exist?--Wickey (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would support removing the maps from this article. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal (again)

While discussions repeatedly get stuck, I still do not see the point of maintaining the incomplete List of nuclear power stations alongside this List of commercial nuclear reactors. The first excludes nuclear power stations under 1,000 MW. Separate reactors of a plant have to be added up first and are not individually recognizable any more. Much too much work to maintain that list, and why excluding power stations under 1,000 MW?

I propose to merge List of nuclear power stations into this List of commercial nuclear reactors, but under the titel List of nuclear power stations. This is because nuclear power stations List of commercial nuclear reactors is the complete list, while List of nuclear power stations is the most suitable name.
What is the purpose of the current List of nuclear power stations, to which the smaller reactors of this list are added up and copied if they count 1,000+ MW and not if it is less?

Secondly, I propose to cut the column with gross capacity.--Wickey (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I also don't see the point of the other list (especially with the bizarre 1 GW threshold), but what do you mean by "merge"? I would suggest to just redirect to this page. I also support removing the gross capacity column. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Essentially, there is no difference between merge and redirection. Both will result in keeping one list. The only difference is that with merge we will look if content of the moved list first will be put into the remaining list (in case it is missing there). With redirection, the old list will be kept unused, though part of it could also be used in the remaining list.
Added: I see in the templates that I am wrong. It is the same and the other article will only be hidden behind the redirect.--Wickey (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
<--Wickey (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I would like to see an expansion of the table at List of nuclear power stations to include those below 1 GW, even if it's merged here. I think there's a benefit in having a list that (a) combines stations so they can be sorted across all countries and (b) only lists those currently operating, without the clutter of the large number that are unfinished or shut down. Reywas92Talk 13:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Nice to have 10 separate lists or so, all having its own features, but there will likely be a problem with the maintenance. I guess, you are not going to do it. Readers will loose oversight and some lists will be outdated.
Nevertheless I prefer to keep the planned and shut downed reactors in separate tables, at least the planned, which still are not existing reactors. If so, you will have the advantage of the list of operating stations (in one table), without keeping two overlapping lists. --Wickey (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a strange strawman to say "10 separate lists or so" when this is two we're talking about. That would be quite simple to take the rows in this page, split by country, and consolidate the operational ones without a size limit. The other list also has the value of combining capcities of multiple reactors at the same site, so I'd oppose merging here: these are different things. Reywas92Talk 16:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
You don't answer. List of nuclear power stations is a (yet partial) duplication of this list and maintenance is not that simple. In its current form it makes no sense; if it includes all reactors without a size limit it does, but the total capacity per site should be given on the specific page of that site and in the main article for that specific country. No two parallel lists.--Wickey (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You didn't ask a question, what was I supposed to answer???? "I guess, you are not going to do it." Well I did it, I've added operating plants without a size limit there; there aren't many under 1000 so that was an unnecessary limit. I'm usually the biggest advocate for merging, but I don't think these are inappropriate duplicates: one is by reactor and one is by plant; one is split by country, one is a single sortable list; one is mixed with future and past, one is what's operating. That's not the same thing and it's organized differently. For country-specific articles, I think use of {{excerpt}} is a good idea, which reduces maintenance needs. I'm also resistant to removing the gross capacity column. With respect to a power station, net capacity is what's most relevant because you're looking at electricity exported to the grid; with respect to a nuclear reactor, gross capacity is also relevant because it shows how much energy the uranium itself and the turbine produces, even if some is consumed internally for operation. Reywas92Talk 15:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
The two lists + the list(s) in the main article(s) makes three parallel lists. As I said, including all reactors without a size limit makes sense. Now the limit is gone, the list is complete and the main objection is addressed. Moreover, maintenance is simpler now. I think the stations that fell under 1,000 MW can be removed from the third table (if there currently are at all).
{{excerpt}} is an interesting option.
Gross capacity is not a big thing. Needs one more column for a very technical detail. Even so, MWth versus MWe is much more relevant.
I will remove the merge templates.--Wickey (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Move to "List of commercial nuclear power reactors"

I propose to move this page to List of commercial nuclear power reactors or List of nuclear power reactors to clarify its scope. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

power ones--Dwalin (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that List of commercial nuclear power reactors is the best option here to describe the content of this page --Nuclearkatie (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed List of commercial nuclear power reactors would be better, otherwise it is confusing since commercial district heating reactors match the title, but not description. --Apsrubov (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Ågesta under Sweden illustrates one aspect of the problem. It is listed as 10 MW, but it was a 80 MW district heating reactor (with some power besides). Today, the list is indeed a list of power reactors only. Another possibility would be to keep the title and make the list true to the title. Otherwise, all commercial non-power reactors are difficult to find. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

States

I think the "United States" part of the list should be subheaded and sorted by state instead of alpha. Often, if someone is looking for a plant, they will look by state first then name.

I agree, and point out that the List of Boiling Water Reactors is already this way. There should be one list, which includes the state. rhyre (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Transclusion of tables

The tables are transcluded in the wrong direction. It is more logic to maintain them in the main articles, as there is the background info. Moreover, this overall list will be much more conveniently. --Wickey (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's fine as it is, please don't worry about it. Reywas92Talk 14:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be better if you had a substantial reply. --Wickey (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be better if you had a substantial premise. These are pretty static items that aren't updated much. Moreover, If we want them to be consistent with each other, it's much better to keep them on the same page. E.g. the recent change above to remove gross capacity could be done just here, not across two dozen articles. It creates the risk of content formatting changes on one page that inappropriately carry over here. I already had to revert your removal of the noinclude tags that screwed up another article, so just leave it. There are several country articles that don't have this section transcluded, so they could be added there. Reywas92Talk 15:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It is legitimate to ask for better arguments than the rather arrogant "It's fine as it is, please don't worry about it."
The format of the table is static, yes, as are the formats of the tables in the main articles. So, these need little maintenance. The content, on the contrary, is far from static and can better be adapted from the article, where anyhow the text should be adapted. And new sections can also pretty easily be added from other articles. --Wickey (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Before making such a huge change, you have to wait for consensus. In this case, the only comment was opposing the change, and you went ahead anyway. I also strongly oppose this, for many reasons. One is that not all articles about nuclear power in a country can have a complete list of reactors, especially when the list would be very long. Another reasons is that it is much easier to check, keep in a coherent form, and maintain this information when is in one page, rather than in 100 different pages. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Numeric info would be better held in Wikidata to reduce duplication of work across different language Wikipedias - but I cannot face the hassle of doing it Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I agree, and this is an issue that has been debated for a long time (see for example Template:Wikidata list). However, right now there is no accepted way of doing this, so for now we need to use the current approach of manually curating tables. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of boiling water reactors into List of commercial nuclear reactors

articles are mostly overlapping, target page has more entries and is more up to date Ita140188 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Why BWR separate? For the US, e.g., they are also listed in Nuclear power in the United States#Nuclear power plants and partly in List of nuclear power stations.--Wickey (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not overly familiar with these lists, but it appears that the BWR list covers COMMERCIAL reactors, and doesn't include any research reactors (however few there were)....so the merge seems good to me, especially if it makes for easier maintenance.---Avatar317(talk) 05:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It has been a few months now, is this merge still going through? I have had a breif look over the list of BWR's and its content is identical to this page and the separation of these pages is entirely redundant. North747 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Done. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sweden table reactor model naming

The reactor model section under the sweden table has an excessive amount of information for what it is, there is no need to cite the reactors model multiple times in different ways. Ive tried to change this in the past put for some reason, my edit was being reverted. Are there any opposing views to changing the models to their original simplified models as it was here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors&oldid=1136667193#Sweden

Thanks, North747 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to satisfy both desires by moving the added detail to a new column for Notes. I have also used this to try and keep the columns from becoming distended by individual cite notes - the notes column can say a lot without misshaping the table. Wizmut (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I like your idea, thanks for making this change. North747 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Misc header discussion

I've been thinking about headers. Initially I shortened the 3 date headers, but Ita140188 pointed out that the start of commercial operation is a subtle distinction. The PRIS uses "New connection to the grid"[1] and "First grid connection",[2] which is slightly more flexible. The ideal would be to have a name that is as compact as the dates themselves. Perhaps "Active on grid"?

I then moved on to making the table headers sticky - see the current state of any large country's table. This introduced a bug where the sub-headers are not sticky. I was going to revert my own change, but I noticed that the header "Reactor" is an odd thing to have. The whole list is of reactors, not of plants. And yet the "Name" column is about plants. If there are no objections, the "Name" column should be "Plant name" and the "Reactor" heading can simply be removed, with the "Type" and "Model" can be top-level headers.

I'll make these changes after about a week if nobody objects. Wizmut (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Pris also has a commercial operation date, which is the date that is used for all reactors in this page. This is the date that matters, since before that plants are in the testing phase. I agree with removing the 'Reactor' top-level header and leave only the sub-headers as top-headers. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://pris.iaea.org/pris/
  2. ^ https://pris.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=945

VVER model numbers

As it stands, some of the VVER reactors are missing model numbers (the part after the slash, VVER-1000/V-320) and the formatting is inconsistent. I found a 2013 brochure[1] by the reactor supplier which has the model numbers for all VVER reactors up until that date on page 13. They're also using the formatting with the slash (not space). I'll be adding the missing models and fixing the formatting if nobody has other suggestions. 2001:999:231:4DB2:D58B:D03:F809:EAC7 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If this results in the table distorting itself (line width doubling, for example), consider using a notes column to contain extra details. See the Sweden table. But otherwise any well-sourced details are welcome. Wizmut (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I've done the edit now. Turns out that the data is also available in PRIS, so no need for additional sources. I cross checked the data and it's consistent. I chose to use the style/formatting from the manufacturer's brochure. 2001:999:250:56EB:9D94:239D:523B:1B39 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.rosatom.ru/upload/iblock/0be/0be1220af25741375138ecd1afb18743.pdf

Netherlands

There's no new nuclear reactors planned at Borssele. I am removing this section of the table. 86.84.200.125 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors/Archive_1&oldid=1254334573"