This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of nuclear power stations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | List of nuclear power stations is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
How the blinding HECK does the Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant (Australia) get included when it's only ever been PROPOSED?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.25.30 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps add this as an external link: [1]. 62.176.111.71 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am gathering information on the cost of building and running power plants. Is there anyone out there that can recommend an article or report from a serious source that would provide an overview on the topic? Using Google and tips from others I have only found sparse reference to power plant costs including these articles:
More coming... 76.28.192.150 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This would make it easier to see when nuclear planets were made. (Also a decommissioned date if this list includes them). 69.214.5.27 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Capacity must be described better. I have two concers about it:
"Capacity" is ambiguous, which leads to inconsistent values in this column.
I suggest that "Capacity" be changed to "Electric Capacity MWe." If thermal output is meant, then I suggest using "Thermal Output MWt." In the industry, thermal power including pump heat is referred to as "NSSS Power" with units of MWt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gac0000 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Should use "official" names. E.g., "Callaway Plant," not "Callaway Nuclear Generating Station" (see http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/call.html and http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/source/Callaway/Pages/home.aspx). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gac0000 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
McGuire is missing from this list as well as the one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors
I'm not comfortable editing Wikipedia, but the main page for the McGuire Nuclear Station is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuire_Nuclear_Station if someone else cares to add this to both lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.3.130 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Lemoniz Nuclear P.P., in Spain, is not working, was cancelled. Santa María de Garoña Nuclear Power Plant is working in de province of Burgos in Spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.142.57 (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station is listed as shut down. In fact and as our article shows, in 2009 its license was extended by 20 years.
But our list doesn't actually tell any lies. The notes on the tables explain why an operating 852MWe power station is listed as shut down.
And reading between the lines, anyone can guess why this rubbish is in Wikipedia. See anti nuclear movement.
I'm not going to fix it on COI grounds, but I suggest it should be fixed, for three reasons:
Hoping someone without an axe to grind might take this up. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure but I beleive that Isar Nuclear Power Plant and Philippsburg Nuclear Power Plant are shut down, I dont want to delete it if they are not if someone could confirm and deltete as appropriate. Guyb123321 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginna_Nuclear_Generating_Station — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.23.200.122 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Folks, first, it is entirely dumb to include only 1000MW reactors and above! What is wrong with you? Yes, most (not all) new ones are going in as plus 1000MWs. But the installed base of under 1000 is easily half of ALL working reactors! These need to be included. If you don't, I will add them. The ONLY criteria is if they are online and providing power to the grid. No military reactors (WND R&D reactors or navy propulsion ones), University R&D reactors and other non-commercial reactors needn't been included.
Also, it's silly to use just "plant" when it details nothing about the number and capacity of the reactors themselves! It's only a gross output into the grid (or perhaps capacity).
On capacity, ALL reactors (and thus plants) are rated by the industry for gross electrical output. That's what MWe means (the 'e' is for 'effective' but it can also stand for 'electric'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tialsedov (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the European Union is listed as the country for all the nuclear reactors in the European Union? It's not a country... I'd much prefer to see the actual country. For example, the first one (Almaraz Nuclear Power Plant) is in Spain. Metoule (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is absurd. Edit was done by Valodzka. They seem to have gone around and wrecked a number of pages with a misguided enthusiasm to replace all the individual countries in the EU with just the EU. If I knew a quick and easy way to revert their unfortunate contributions while keeping later changes I would... Jeff Power (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering, why the 1000 limit. Clearly some parameters have to be placed on which reactors to include but setting the limit so high means that over half of the worlds Nuclear Power Stations aren't included on this list. Would anyone object to gradually reducing the limit to around the 500 MWe Limit? Guyb123321 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
List of Nuclear Power Stations that need to be added to the main list
Propose to delete this section; all previous entries are already in wikipedia, including USA and China. Bert490 (talk) 14:20, 27 Mar 2016 (EDT)
Guyb123321 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
2 stations under construction, presently 'on hold' are not shown anywhere (Kaliningrad and Lungmen). They have been display-disabled by an addition to the underlying table data of '!-- on-hold'. I think it is better to show the table entries and have a visible note that they are on hold. Bert490 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Where are the New England Yankee plants? I was expecting to at least find Vermont Yankee in the "Shut down" list, and perhaps Connecticut as well (if "shut down" doesn't include "fully decommissioned").
Fordi (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
((geodata-check))
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
Blayais (France) is on the Gironde, and should be 0° 41′ 35″ W, not 0° 41′ 35″ E
—Iznik99 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of nuclear power stations. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Switzerland, there are 4 NPPs in Switzerland but only 1 is listed. Please update the list. Grgeorgiev (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is TMI listed as shutdown? There is still one unit operational, so while Unit 2 may have experienced a slight loss of coolable geometry, Unit 1 is still up and kicking. This should be moved to the operating units section. Polypmaster (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It appears to me that this list is a partial duplication of List of nuclear reactors 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) 08:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we should concentrate on a List of nuclear power stations with suitable redirects and hatnotes, covering all sizes and both current and previous plants. See here for my reasoning. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The threshhold was changed from 100MW to 1000MW by me more than 9 years ago. I apologize for that. Most of the lists were a mess back then, and some sort of control was needed. Of course, things are much different now. My two cents based on the above comments:
Comments? Kind regards, Rehman 09:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
We don't have to do it "at the cost of another article". The table could be modified to something such as below (for example), and as you can see, it is only the coordinates and the net capacity that makes the tables different. Merging it here doesn't necessarily mean we would lose quality. Also regarding transclusions, it can easly be adjusted (there aren't that many anyway).
Name | Location | Unit | Reactor | Status | Capacity in MW | Construction start | Commercial operation | Closure | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type | Model | Net | Gross | Nameplate | |||||||
Atucha | 33°58′3″S 59°12′18″W / 33.96750°S 59.20500°W | 1 | PHWR | PHWR KWU | Operational | 335 | 362 | 1,827 | 1 June 1968 | 24 June 1974 | |
2 | PHWR | PHWR KWU | Operational | 692 | 745 | 14 July 1981 | 27 June 2014 | ||||
3 | PHWR | CANDU-6 | Planned | 800 | January 2018 | 2025 | |||||
5th Plant | 1 | PWR | Hualong-1 | Planned | 1,000 | 1,000 | 2020 | 2026 | |||
Embalse | 32°13′55″S 64°26′34″W / 32.23194°S 64.44278°W | 1 | PHWR | CANDU-6 | Operational | 600 | 648 | 600 | 1 April 1974 | 20 January 1984 | |
CAREM | 1 | PWR | CAREM25 | Under const. | 25 | 29 | 25 | 8 February 2014 |
To support transclusions, I changed my mind on the separation of tables, and would agree having tables for each country (I've struck my comment above). Not every country has a nuclear reactor either. This is my preference; of course, open to further discussions. Keelback is right regarding the lists having significant overlap, hence one of the articles will have to be cut down significantly at one point in time. Rehman 10:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
<section begin=Argentina />
and <section end=Argentina />
in the relevant section of the table, and thus being able to transclude elsewhere by using ((#section:List of nuclear reactors|Argentina))
. Not sure if it works here on Wikipedia, but it surely works well on Meta. Rehman 11:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Name | Location | Unit | Reactor | Status | Capacity in MW | Construction start | Commercial operation | Closure | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type | Model | Net | Gross | Nameplate | |||||||
Atucha | 33°58′3″S 59°12′18″W / 33.96750°S 59.20500°W | 1 | PHWR | PHWR KWU | Operational | 335 | 362 | 1,027 | 1 June 1968 | 24 June 1974 | |
2 | PHWR | PHWR KWU | Operational | 692 | 745 | 14 July 1981 | 27 June 2014 | ||||
3 | PHWR | CANDU-6 | Planned | 800 | January 2018 | 2025 | |||||
5th Plant | 1 | PWR | Hualong-1 | Planned | 1,000 | 1,000 | 2020 | 2026 | |||
Embalse | 32°13′55″S 64°26′34″W / 32.23194°S 64.44278°W | 1 | PHWR | CANDU-6 | Operational | 600 | 648 | 600 | 1 April 1974 | 20 January 1984 | |
CAREM | 1 | PWR | CAREM25 | Under const. | 25 | 29 | 25 | 8 February 2014 |
List of nuclear power stations
and List of non-commercial nuclear reactors
, I'd say we just go ahead with it. Rehman 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think any workaround can be found. This is a fundamental limitation of tables in Wiki (I am not sure why this hasn't been solved already, it seems quite straightforward to put the option of keeping rowspan together when sorting by that key). If that solution is not acceptable, rather than not allowing sorting (which is very helpful), in my opinion the only clean option is to have two articles: one for the reactors divided by country, and one for the power plants in one table (they can be updated together). --Ita140188 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There are much more units above 1000 MWel under construction, mainly in China and India. See the article List of nuclear reactors--2A02:1206:4577:9700:94E9:4F23:E73D:D993 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
See: Talk:List of commercial nuclear reactors#Merge proposal (again). --Wickey (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The oldest Swiss nuclear power station Beznau Nuclear Power Plant is missing in the "In service" list. Tobvie (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)