Talk:Nuclear power by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Issues

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)

"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)

More info available

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)

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)

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)

It is has no reason for being in this list, if you why not add the African Union, and NAFTA to the list. When it comes to this those unions have just as much impact as the EU. Its also extremly useless when you consider the fact you are repeating information in a table by have all the nations from the EU also included. Its one thing to do that in an article, but a table is meant to break the information down, not repeat it

Perhaps it would be useful to add regions (Europe, North America, Australasia, etc.) in italics (like is done with World)?--Lengau (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Automatic addition of "class=FL"

A bot has added class=FL 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)

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)

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)

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)

No real progress to solve these problems. I think that probably we could wait two more weeks. If there is no progress during this time, on 28 August I will make a proposal for the FA de-listing. Beagel (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DRC

I think it should be made clear this list is not comprehensive. The Democratic Republic of Congo has a reactor (and uranium mines) and so does Ghana - and South Africa is marked on the map but not listed even though it has, I think, four reactors... I'm worried that this article has quite a lot of holes in it, rather than the odd bit that needs amendment. Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.111.90 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This list is about existing nuclear power reactors, not about the research reactors or plans to build reactors. This is also not about the uranium mining.Beagel (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The DRC and Ghana both have functioning nuclear power stations - and so does South Africa. Jim

Please give a reference saying they have existing nuclear power stations. I am afraid you can't find reliable source saying that. It least, I think we could trust the information from World Nuclear Association.[1] I think that in case of Ghana, you confused research reactor and nuclear power station; there is a research reactor since 1994. South Africa is mentioned in the list.Beagel (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey is listed here as being Middle East, but in Template:Countries of Europe it is listed as being in Europe. I realize it has "dual status", but how should we list it? Simesa (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also in Template:Countries of Asia.

My logic is that the EU forms one category, and that Switzerland which is well integrated with and surrounded by EU though not actually a member also belongs in this category. The EU makes some nuclear policy that affects all members. --JWB (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map says that Sweden is considering new Power plants, but the article doesn't. Fix anyone? 217.21.232.230 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweden took a referendum in 1980, the two most popular votes where "No more reactors than the 12 we have" and "Decommission all plants ASAP". Also Barsebäck NUclear Power Plant has decommissioned both it's reactors (in 1999 and 2005 respectively) so "Stable" probably isn't the best status for Sweden. The new government (as of 2006) wants to consider replacing the current 10 reactors if needed, so actively decommissioning isn't true either. Unknown/undecided would be most truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.12.102 (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is more incorrect or missing data. You could discuss it here Beagel (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Could anybody update the map? The request was made several month ago. If not updated, it should be removed. Beagel (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To be decommissioned

The data in this column appears to be based on the referenced BBC article which actually lists reactors already decommissioned. While we could change the column title to "Already decommissioned", this info does not seem that relevant for power. --JWB (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to at least change the title to "Decommissioned" for now which is more accurate for the BBC data. I would still like to discuss removing or modifying the column. --JWB (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Map

There are several errors in the map. Canada and Switzerland are brown, but they do produce electricity with nuclear power plants. Germany is phasing out, but most power plants are still in service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.16.131 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand Austria has never put their one and only plant in Zwentrndorf into production. They even put paragraph into constitution that declares nuclear power illegal.-----<(kaimartin)>--- (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus african countries that may consider or plan Nuclear power plants but are far from beeing technologically prepared to this task (Uganda ...). The mediterranean african countries are increasingly less likely to actually build nuclear power plants as plans for solar power get real (see the Desertec project). Countries on the arabian peninsula are either too poor (Yemen) or sitting on enough oil to not consider nuclear electricity a vialble energy option. To them talking about nuclear power is a political game that aims at nuclear weapons. It is a means to remind the remaining super power that they could if they would.-----<(kaimartin)>--- (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of regional information in table

The region column was removed and countries alphabetized removing the ordering by region. I do not agree with this and would like to reverse it. Comments? --JWB (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Planned and Proposed

I recommend that the columns in the table for planned and proposed nuclear power stations be removed. It is nice to have that information however from my time as a senior engineer in Australian power industry I know that information changes frequently and at times can be highly speculative so I don’t think it is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopaedia,. Comments? --Keelback (talk) 11:15 20 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Keep the "planned" and eliminate the "proposed" the latter is less concrete, but if there is a signed agreement or definitive plan, like the "four by 2025" on Egypt's part, keep that. The distinction between planned and proposed is not so clear to readers and "proposed" is a bit vague (by whom? high level official? lower level? etc) and means less. Official agreements/cooperations for building a plant (or for building so and so many plants) by such and such a year, should be kept. Harel (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Countries without nuclear power plants

In the interests of NPOV and comprehensiveness, shouldn't there be a section on countries without nuclear power plants and who have no plans to introduce nuclear power. Johnfos (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I should mention how Nuclear energy policy spells in extremely specific detail what you're talking about. If you're talking about listing nations that have banned nuclear power, then we've already done that. If you're talking about nations that haven't banned it and don't have any, then I'll have to ask what distinguishes those nations (if anything) from those listed as simply "no reactors" for the moment. In regard to giving a specific mention to nations that have either shunned or intentionally never pursued nuclear power - well that's just about the only thing that the short narrative accompanying the article accomplishes. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has a section entitled "Countries with nuclear power plants" and I would have thought the complementary section to accompany this should be "Countries without nuclear power plants". Some of these countries without plants would have plans and proposals and some wouldn't. It is this approach which would give a comprehensive and neutral overview of the situation. Johnfos (talk)

Along the same lines, why the table with so many lines of zeroes? If this is about countries with nuclear power plants, I recommend deleting all those blank lines. NPguy (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about nuclear power by country, not countries with nuclear power plants. There is a difference. For a neutral presentation the full table of the situation in each country must be presented. The lines of zeroes impart useful information. Johnfos (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The blank lines take up a lot of spacer conveying information that could be conveyed much more simply. A simple declarative sentence that, of the 193 recognized sovereign states, roughly 30 (plus Taiwan) have nuclear power plants. The rest do not. That would eliminate 160+ uninformative lines. NPguy (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think our efforts here should concentrate on filling in the many blank spaces associated with planned or proposed reactors. Given the nuclear renaissance, I would have thought that plenty of countries would be getting into nuclear power now. Johnfos (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Croatia

Croatia partly owns a nuclear power plant in Slovenia. So Croatia itself should be not on the list, I take? Just like any state owned company which runs a nuclear power plant abroad - for example French EDF ownes british British Energy which runs a bunch of old npps in the UK - doesn't add to the numbers of France. -- ~~ ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiland (talk • contribs) 08:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

List of countries by nuclear power should be merged here. It consists of a single list which should be merged with the first list in this article. This will reduce duplication and ensure that data is more likely to be updated. Ng.j (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a straightforward case of having two duplicate articles about the same subject. Enchanter (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Feel free to go forward. Beagel (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone merged the pages together? If not, I would like to try my hand at merging the charts. Fancykiller65 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've merged the chart to this article however, I'm sure i can add it to a existing chart, or even if it should be done, I noticed that some info here is outdated, and I'll try and go ahead to update the info later.Fancykiller65 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of new table "nuke plant and population"

I would like to see how many people are living under the risk of radiation with each plant. In FUKUSHIMA's case initially 20km was evacuation zone and 30 km was stay inside zone, later evacuation zone expanded beyond 30km.

example of fields in the table

country, location, nuke plant, as of date, population within 30 km radius (or 20 miles), the distance from Ele Co's HQ.

I have only one data of the plant under construction in Japan. 190,000 living withing 30km radius. --Masaqui (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this information belongs to here. However, if necessary, it could be added to the individual plants articles. Beagel (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I drop this proposal. It is not right place nor right time. --Masaqui (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

After merger the article needs cleanup. First of all, two tables (under Overview and Nuclear Power Output in Megawatts sections) have to be merged. As it was mentioned above, the latter is outdated and consists of some incorrect information (e.g. in case of Kazakhstan). Even more important, the title 'Nuclear power by country' refers clearly to existing nuclear power facilities as also mentioned above. Beagel (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The numbers are clearly outdated too. See [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.89.98 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland

The press is describing this (not building new plants) as a phase-out, but this is actually incorrect, as no proposals to close the plants prematurely have been made. Given the path of license extensions taken in other countries, I think it's highly unlikely any of the Swiss reactors will be closed any time soon. --Tweenk (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. Switzerland has declared its phase-out until 2034 when their youngest NPP will reached the maximum life time of 50 years. --134.176.205.208 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

List sorting errors

In the "List of nuclear reactors by country" section, sorting by "planned" yields a list sorted by first character. this means that "6" wrongly comes before "51" and "4" before "11" etc. The fast fix is to make all numbers two digits, "11", "06", "04", etc. But I am certain there is a more precise/acceptable way to do it. Does anyone know how to fix this the right way? Thanks! --174.22.38.33 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that did it. —WWoods (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Update map

Currently one of the maps shows Netherlands as red, indicating "phase out under discussion". This should be changed to "stable", given the cancellation of plans to close Borssele. Ordinary Person (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with "List of Nuclear Reactors by Country"

There are a few problems with the section "List of Nuclear Reactors by Country," not the least of which is the name; it's a list of countries by number of reactors. Also, it seems like the IAEA source ([[3]]) for most of the data in the table excludes a lot of the countries on the list despite the notice in the preceding paragraph describing purpose of the table. Perhaps this section should be split into two sections: "List of Countries by Number of Nuclear Reactors" and "List of Countries by Number of Planned Reactors" or something like that.

I'll start making these changes at some point in the next several weeks if nobody objects.

CaptainTickles (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. This has been discussed several times but somehow no clear progress. In addition, there is some overlapping with Nuclear energy policy by country, so I think when that maybe information about planned reactors should go there. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that planned reactors belong in Nuclear energy policy by country; maybe that table could use some help as well. I think a good course of action would be to move the information into that article and just have a sentence with a link explaining where to find it. I'll make a note on that article's talk page and see if anyone has any good ideas on how to structure the new information. CaptainTickles (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the "planned reactors" information to Nuclear energy policy by country and also removed from the table any rows where there were no operating reactors, no reactors under construction, no citations, and no entry in the IAEA source.

CaptainTickles (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) In the list of countries, Japan seems to have an error. They are listed as having 1.7% of their electricity by nuclear power, but the amount of energy they produce is inconsistent with 1.7%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.76 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no error. There's a big difference between capacity and actual generation. Most of Japan's reactors are idle. NPguy (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong info about japan

In the list of "nuclear reactors by country" it says about japan "After Fukushima, Japan shut down all of its 54 nuclear reactors, but has since restarted 48 reactors". That's absolutely false. Only two reactors at the OI where restarted at july 2013 and shutdown again at september 2013. No other reactors have been restarted in Japan since Fukushima disaster till february 2015. All 48 reactors are idle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober2D2 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

image layout messed up

It was messed up before I fixed it, but it's still messed up. I updated the table and it looks ok with a narrow browser window but with a wide browser window the images try to move to the right of the table, but they overlap it incorrectly. Maybe someone can fix it. GangofOne (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I already fixed it. GangofOne (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

China and Taiwan

This article now refers to "China Mainland" and the "Republic of China." Isn't the standard usage (reflecting how they are generally recognized) to say simply "China" and "Taiwan." NPguy (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Diagram anomaly errors

The diagram "Global status of nuclear deployment as of June 2020 (source: see file description)" is incorrect. It can be saved by bringing it to June 2020 status, or by reverting it to the date that it actually depicts. All data sources refer to 2009, NOT 2020. I tried to explain why I reverted it to 2009, but was reverted without so much as an explanation comment by some non-verbal editor stuck in a time anomaly. It seems that the reverting editor does not want this article to be correct. Instead I shall leave these errors and explain a few of the errors. The most striking errors are in a few of the countries coloured "Operating reactors, considering phase-out". Clearly and correctly in the chart "Nuclear power by country", this chart attributes "2022 Phase-out" for Germany, "Phase-out planned" for Belgium, "Gradual Phase-out planned" for Switzerland. Sweden is coloured as "planning new build". This may have been the case in 2009, but it is not the case in 2020. No new plants are planned at the moment. A few plants were recently scrapped, a few more will be scrapped 2022, and a few were recently upgraded, but no new ones were built, nor are any new ones planned. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@DanielDemaret: My revert did have an explanation: "image was last updated in June 2020". If you click on the image you can check the most recent edits. Unfortunately editors put the relevant references in the edit summaries instead of updating the file description. This can be easily fixed by adding/updating the references in the description. As for the inaccuracies, if you have more recent sources please update the articles and image. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clear answer. I was aware of the image updates, but felt that the updates did not reflect 2020. Just making partial updates to an otherwise uncertain image seems to me to be too optimistic. I see a few ways forward. 1) One could trust the table as being fully correct, adjust the diagram to the table, but would have to adjust the labels in the diagram to fit the table, since the diagrams says things about the state of building that the table does not. 2) One could make a total research of the political situation of each country in respect of the current labels. This is certainly too much effort for me, but perhaps someone else prefer to do this? Perhaps you? 3) One can delete the image. This would of course be a bit sad, since it is mostly correct.

Your input @Ita140188 ?

Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps one could widen the table to include a "planned" column, although I have not found any comprehensive list for "planned" reactors yet. And perhaps it should include how many are slated by date to be scrapped soon for completeness? Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have made a limited update, only changing the colour of Sweden from "planning new reactors" to "stable". One could argue that it is a phase-out, but although we expect a phase-out, no reactors are scrapped by central decree, but simply left to the operators of the reactors what they prefer to do with them. Hence, reactors are now being scrapped by the operators when they become unprofitable.

Nuclear power station status by 2021-12-31

I am leaving it up to you @Ita140188 to choose or not to choose to include this version in the current article, since I think you are probably more interested in the subject than I am. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Table Errors

Sadly, the table does not correspond exactly to the source given. I only noticed this discrepancy when someone changed the number of reactors in China from 52 to 53, while the source for 2020 is 50. Wikipedia is a source of references. There are a few ways of correcting this. If one finds a new source for all, replace all. If one finds a newer source just for China and still wants to use it, one could note the new reference in the notes section. Or one could revert to the number 50. I am not going to do either, since there are editors who make changes without any comment to these changes, and so these editors do not seem to care enough about the integrity of the article. I certainly do not want to start an edit war over a trifle. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is how Wikipedia work. If you look at the edit history, you will note how many times I reverted edits changing numbers without updating references. Some of these edits get through though. This is the price to pay for a work that is editable by everyone. These kind of discrepancies are to be expected, and editors should fix them when they spot them. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

China has the fastest growing nuclear power program with 20 new reactors under construction ,not 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:C040:4A3:10D8:D0AB:8D44:49C3 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That may be true, but you need to find a source that supports it. NPguy (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You can just check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#China

China has the fastest growing nuclear power program with 19 new reactors under construction , Hongyanhe 6 had already start operation. 2001:B011:C040:447:10D8:D0AB:8D44:49C3 (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. You need to provide the original (preferably secondary) sources. NPguy (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

Change "France with about 75%" to "France with about 70%" 70.114.201.105 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Country

In response to NPguy's remarks: Country is not a word entirely synonymous with the meaning of sovereign state. Please take a look at, e.g., [4], [5], [6]. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

[7] NPGuy is right. Well said NPGuy. 183.178.23.126 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Taiwan is just another province of us. And Hong Kong the southern one third of one of our thousands of counties. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you guys know what the word country means in the English language? The meaning of an English word is not something to be defined by your government. 45.64.240.158 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Our government defines it in the same way as everyone on Earth does. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Obey the law of the county where you reside. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The law? 45.64.240.158 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it isn't legal for people in Hong Kong to call Hong Kong a country. 101.78.152.74 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

What? 45.64.240.237 (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

"Have"

[8][9][10] @Ita140188: May I know what do you mean by "have"? Geographical location or stake/ownership/control? 45.64.240.158 (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear reactors supplying energy to Hong Kong are already counted as part of China. Also, Hong Kong itself is part of China, so no reason to include it. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What would your comment be in the case of Krško? Already counted in Slovenia's entry? 45.64.240.158 (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed Croatia, as the reactor is in Slovenia. The fact that is co-owned has nothing to do with the location of the plant. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The Krsko Nuclear Power Plant is different. It is owned and operated jointly by Croatia and Slovenia, both of which are countries. Not reverting at the moment, pending further discussion, but I do think Croatia should be kept on the list for this reason. But not Hong Kong. NPguy (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

... both of which are countries This is the POV of Beijing. It certainly isn't NPOV to suggest that only sovereign states are countries. Read how the mainstream press and academic journals use the word country. You cannot just present only one party/​government's POV and disregard the mainstream POVs.  It is owned and operated jointly by ... In the case of Daya Bay the reactors are also jointly owned by and serve both sides of the border (in the case of Krško 50% of the output goes to Croatia; in the case of Daya Bay it's 80% to Hong Kong - not to mention an open border-to-be versus a fortified one). 45.64.240.158 (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting that Hong Kong is a "country" in spite of the "one country, two systems" slogan that held even before Hong Kong's autonomy was squelched by the new national security law. As far as I am aware, Hong Kong has never been considered a "country," either when it was a British territory or when after it returned to Chinese control. NPguy (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you refer to that rough translation of the slogan illustrates exactly the non-neutral POV you've been trying to make into the table in the article. The character kuo²/guó or gwok is equivalent to sovereign state(s) in modern times. The word country isn't.  Hong Kong has never been considered a "country," either when it was a British territory or when after it returned to Chinese control.The English-language press don't seem to be doing it like this. Nor is it the case in academic journals. 45.64.240.158 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You keep complaining of bias, but have not articulated a specific objection. You criticize my use of "one country, two systems" without indicating what the problem might be. In English, "country" is not quite synonymous with "state," but they're close. NPguy (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting the two are not quite synonymous. Yes they are close but it's exactly the difference between them which made some entities which aren't sovereign states to be considered countries. 45.64.243.79 (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ita140188: Slovenia's figures got to be clarified and verified. It isn't known whether those were Slovenia's own figures, or the total of both Slovenia and Croatia. Before the edits concerned the same figures were given for both of them. Meanwhile the location of the plant what's your take in cases like Cointrin Airport or even EuroAirport Basel? 45.64.240.158 (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Slovenia figures are correct as of now. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So it was incorrect to use those figures for Croatia? 45.64.240.158 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ita140188. 45.64.243.79 (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was incorrect for Croatia if the same figures were used Ita140188 (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. 45.64.243.79 (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Back to the question of "have", yes it's common for electricity to be traded across borders. E.g. Canada (specifically Ontario) sells their nuclear power to the US, and France to Germany and other neighbours. But then is the Krško and Daya Bay arrangement (ownership, and certain percentage of output) common? It doesn't seem so. 45.64.240.237 (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Haven't found a third example comparable to Krško and Daya Bay. (CLP got stake in Yangjiang but the reactors there don't reserve/supply a specific portion to CLP's zone within Hong Kong. In the case of Daya Bay there are separate wire lines that feed directly across the border.) 45.64.243.11 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In trying to parse out the question of how much of Krsko belongs to Croatia, I found this article. It says ownership is split equally. Much of the responsibility is shared under an intergovernmental agreement. There are some signs that point to the plant being Slovenian, both its location (albeit near the border) and regulatory oversight (though I suspect there is an underlying Croatian role). In any case, the electricity it produces should be listed only once. NPguy (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Output shared equally as well in the case of Krško,[11][12] which isn't the case for Daya Bay. (though I suspect there is an underlying Croatian role So you don't suspect any whatever role played by the HKNIC or their parent company CLP power? albeit near the border How near is near?) 45.64.240.158 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What I was speculating about was a role of the Croatian government in regulatory oversight of Krsko. Formal responsibility lies with the Slovenian regulator, but I would guess that there's an agreement or understanding that provides a role for the Croatian government/regulator, or a mechanism for Croatia to support the Slovenian regulator, or both. Whatever the role of HKNIC, it is not a governmental entity so it is not comparable. Being near the border is not a key factor, but I would observe that when the plant was built there was no international border, as both republics were part of Yugoslavia. NPguy (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

[T]hough I suspect there is an underlying Croatian role.  What I was speculating about was... Alright.., suspect, speculate. The fact is that while Hong Kong is known for their limited government and non-interventionism representatives of the government sit in the board of directors of the HKNIC. In the 1980s they were the Secretary for Economic Services and the Secretary for Monetary Affairs.[13] In recent years the representatives are the permanent secretaries from the Environment Bureau and the Security Bureau.[14][15][16] 45.64.243.79 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

​[B]ut I would observe that when the plant was built there was no international border, as both republics were part of Yugoslavia. In the case of Daya Bay there has always been a barbwired and heavily guarded border since some years before the reactors were built. 45.64.243.79 (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)