Talk:List of nuclear reactors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


  • 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 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing U.S. Naval on-shore reactors[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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 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)


Reference to the little known slowpoke at tunney's pasture

Grand Gulf (error)[edit]

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". (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Lucie plant[edit]

What happened to the St. Lucie NPP? [1] I will research it and add it in. 16:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone will still have to modify the NRC Region 2 template. 17:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed or unfinished plants[edit]

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)


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)

What about fusion?[edit]

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)

Linkspam in External Links section[edit]

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[edit]

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) 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)


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-- 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. 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[edit]

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 [2] 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[edit]

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 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.-- 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
huh? Can you provide wikilinks? I am not aware of separate pages for all of those. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the list[edit]

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 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fusion reactors[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

Why I still find this article a little frustrating[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing it[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More questions[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


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

What to do with lists of nuclear reactors and plants[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)[edit]

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

names? locations?[edit]

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)


Isn't there a reactor in Armenia at Medzamor? Does anyone have details? (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaliningrad Nuclear Power Plant[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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, looked up on March 17, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

UC Berkeley[edit]

should the former reactor at UC Berkeley be listed here? it was shut down a while ago: [3](mercurywoodrose) (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

U.C. Davis dates[edit]

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 (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We, Wt?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Region IV (West)[edit]

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 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)