Talk:List of nuclear power stations

Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant

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)

External link

Perhaps add this as an external link: [1]. 62.176.111.71 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cost of building and running power plants

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:

• Areva construction in Finnland "OLK3" [2]
• EPSA paper (citing "cost increases" but not actual costs) [3]

More coming... 76.28.192.150 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs a built date column

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)

Built date of first or last reactor? Date of connection or commercial operation? I do not see that as priority, if column added i would like to see number of reactors column like better. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Capacity

Capacity must be described better. I have two concers about it:

• net or gross, i prefer net
• time factor (current, historic, under construction), i prefer current capacity. Info about historic 1000+ plants (currently closed or 1000-) or under construction (new, currently 1000- of 1000+ expansions) may be interesting for readers, but too confusing in main table with current capacity. If adding them i prefer to separate them into new table (so for example 1000+ expansiong will be there twice, first in main table with current capacity and second in under construction table with new capacity). --78.108.106.253 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed a bit. Any better? Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Net vs. gross clarified. But time factor is still there. If there is consensus about it i can crate under construction and historic tables, and verify that only current capacity is in main table. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Capacity"? MWe or MWt?

"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)

Official/Unofficial names

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 Nuclear Station missing

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)

Added to this list. I also removed Gentilly in Canada, which is well below the 1000MWE threshold. --Dschwen 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lemoniz not working, Garoña yes

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)

Curious

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:

• It's woefully misleading. It quite simply makes it difficult for the reader to find the information they are after.
• It doesn't do Wikipedia's reputation any good.
• It doesn't even do the anti nuclear movement any good. Long term, people are going to see this deception for what it is, and accurate and important things that people associated with the movement say will be discredited and ignored simply by association.

Hoping someone without an axe to grind might take this up. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading between lines, rubbish ? I don't get it. When i started editing the list, there was 1,000 MW therhold and operating and u/c power stations mixed in one table. I created separated u/c (and shut down) tables later. Soon disputable cases come (like Three Mile or Beloyarsk), bud i decided to prefer current capacity against past or future capacity and use notes in these cases. I do not think that is misleading, have any impact on WP reputation or it is associated with anti nuclear movement. It was just editor desicion and it is undisputed for more than 3 months. --Jklamo (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not for one minute accusing you personally of bias, I assume your good faith and competence. But look at the result. TMI is not shut down, and that is not disputable . Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is absurd and misleading having TMI in the shut down list.--Andynct (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Shut Down or Still Running???

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)

Ginna Plat Missing

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)

This is a list for power plants with a total capacity of 1 GW or higher. Gianna is 0.6 GW, so, it should not go on the list. Jim1138 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Only 1000MWs? And other misc items I object too!

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)

Country: European Union?

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)

Reverted. --Jklamo (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

1000 MWe Limit?

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)

In the immortal words of Richard Branson, screw it, let's do it! I am going to be bold!--Graham Proud (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted 1000 MW limit change, as it was not properly done. It is possible to lower the limit, but then ALL stations appropriate to the new limit must be added, not only some randomly selected. --Jklamo (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

On Hold stations

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)

Vermont Yankee / Connecticut Yankee

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)

Check the lead of the article, there is 1000 MW threshold. --Jklamo (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{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)

Fixed. Article is not protected, you can fix the error directly next time. --Jklamo (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019200719/http://www.brucepower.com/6926/news/bruce-power%E2%80%99s-unit-2-sends-electricity-to-ontario-grid-for-first-time-in-17-years/ to http://www.brucepower.com/6926/news/bruce-power%E2%80%99s-unit-2-sends-electricity-to-ontario-grid-for-first-time-in-17-years/

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) 13:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Three Swiss nuclear power plants are missing.

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)

Please check the first sentence of the article.--Jklamo (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Three Mile Island Shutdown?

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)

Duplication?

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)

Yes, I agree, this is a duplicate. I think we should only keep the List of nuclear reactors. This list appears arbitrary, since a lot of reactors are just below the 1000 MW capacity (like 950 MW or so), so it excludes a lot of plants for no apparent reason. It is also much more difficult to maintain, since each time there is a change in the operational status of a reactor in a plant the total capacity need to be recalculated. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The scope of List of nuclear reactors is similar, but different. It is focused on reactor level and it included experimental reactors, unfinished reactors, planned reactors etc. That may be useful for some readers, but confusing for some other readers (and it is pretty hard to keep it up-to-date). For example, you are not able to sort plants (or even reactors) by capacity.

The scope of this list is narrower, it is listing power plants only (not every reactor) and using threshold. The threshold is arbitrary, but it keeps the list in reasonable size (easier to maintain) and it is consistent with other lists of power stations, like List of conventional hydroelectric power stations, List of coal power stations, List of offshore wind farms, etc.--Jklamo (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jklamo: Nuclear power plants are different from other energy generating plants. For example, most hydro plants are very small, so it makes sense to have a threshold. But there are almost no small nuclear power plants. Most reactor designs (especially newer ones) are right at the 1 GW level, and in many countries (such as the US) most plants have only 1 reactor. This cuts many plants just for a few MW, even though they are almost the same capacity as other plants which are listed. If this list should be kept, the threshold should be removed, or changed to a higher level (like 2+ GW). As it is now, the choice of threshold does not make much sense. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There are the small power reactors of the Army Nuclear Power Program, and proposals for small modular units, but good point. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, it could make sense to expand List_of_largest_power_stations#Nuclear instead of keeping this list if the interest is to rank the largest nuclear power plants. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:06, 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)

I strongly disagree. List of nuclear reactors is already there, and it's more exhaustive, complete, and easier to keep than this page. It is also used by many articles to list nuclear reactors in each country page with transclusion (see for example Nuclear power in South Korea). The objection in the linked comment is not really relevant: the page specifies that it is about commercial reactors used to generate electricity for the grid. Naval reactors and other niche applications do not fit this description. For clarity the article can be moved to List of commercial nuclear power reactors. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:19, 25 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:

1. Change this article's threshold from 1000MW back to 100MW (or remove it entirely)
2. Merge content from List of nuclear reactors to this article, so that all information is on this page. The table structure needs to be changed.
3. Perhaps divide the table per continent, rather than having one gigantic table, or a hundred smaller ones for each country. I can help with the table (I like tables)
4. Rename List of nuclear reactors to something like List of non-commercial nuclear reactors, and only include non-power station reactors.

Comments? Kind regards, Rehman 09:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, I absolutely disagree with removing List of nuclear reactors or "merging" it into here. It is a very useful article by itself that has been kept up to date and accurate for a long time. Its tables are also transcluded in many other articles. If you think this article about nuclear power plants is useful, then it can be improved, but not at the cost of another high quality article. My suggestions on how to improve this article include removing the threshold, and deciding a coherent way to treat closed reactors/partial power plant closures (should the historical total power rating be included? What if it changed several times?) --Ita140188 (talk) 09:30, 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).

Sample table (if List of nuclear power stations and List of nuclear reactors were merged).

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	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	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)

Thank you for your comment. I misunderstood your intentions. Ok for me to add information to the list. Also, I was trying to have the best of both worlds by merging all the country tables in one while keeping the option for transclusion, see User:Ita140188/sandbox2#one_table_alt, but there are several problems to be solved still (like the huge font for the country when sorting). --Ita140188 (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Another option for transclusions with one table would be using labeled sections: mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion --Ita140188 (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries :-) For my clarity and others reading, do you in that case also agree with #2 and #4? If so, I guess then this should be pretty straightforward. Regarding the trials on your user subpage, there is another option but it is not quite friendly to non-tech users:

Adding <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)

Yes, that is what I was referring to. It may be a bit counter intuitive for most editors though. As for point #2 and #4, it depends on the implementation. I propose to first decide what to do about the country tables in List of nuclear reactors, then add the missing content (combined power capacity and coordinates) and then have another discussion on naming of the articles. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Another comment: we will need to develop a convention on how to deal with under construction/planned/partially operational plants. An option would be:

Sample table (if List of nuclear power stations and List of nuclear reactors were merged).

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	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	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

--Ita140188 (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice! I like the colour idea. We may also need to mention how we got the nameplate capacity somewhere (for accessibility reasons), but that's a simple task so we can worry about it later. Country column can be dropped altogether IMO, as the table would be under different country subsections as with the current reactor list anyway (right?). Don't worry too much about naming, it could easily be moved if concerns are raised in the future. For now, if we all here are okay with 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)

Another comment, when sorting the table the rows referring to the combined plant get repeated for as many reactors there are in the plant. Unfortunately I think there is no solution for this, and it may be annoying if trying to sort by plant capacity. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah so it doesn't work. In that case shall we leave the tables unsortable (until a workable solution is found, at least)? Rehman 12:57, 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)

Considering that the reactor list also currently has the problem of repeating rowspan cells (see name column), I'd say we keep the sortable feature as it is for now (enabled). Upon first visit, the reader can see the table in it's default correct state. It's only after a user fully understood the table, that they would attempt sorting it. So even though the cells are duplicated, it is very much understandable to the reader (apart from being a bit ugly, it is not misleading or incorrect). Plus, as the tables will be separated by country, they are often small and manageable. Rehman 13:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Under construction

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)

Please check the definition, it is not a list of reactors under construction.Jklamo (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal (again)

See: Talk:List of commercial nuclear reactors#Merge proposal (again). --Wickey (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Beznau 1 and 2 missing

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)

Numerous Missing Facilities

This list is missing quite a number of both operational and decommissioned plants with seemingly no reason for their exclusion (e.g. Obninsk, Shippingport, Oyster Creek, Marcoule) I don’t see any reason for this but there are many more stations missing from this list. Does this require a redefinition of the article’s standards for inclusion, or simply the addition of the many missing facilities to the list? Cap8Rob9 (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)