Talk:Nuclear power by country

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., [1], [2], [3]. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

[4] 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"

[5][6][7] @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,[8][9] 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.[10] In recent years the representatives are the permanent secretaries from the Environment Bureau and the Security Bureau.[11][12][13] 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)

What's "U/C"

What is a "U/C" reactor?

The third column in the table of "Nuclear power by country in 2021" is "U/C", right after "Operational" both pertaining to "Reactors". It should be decoded in a note, e.g., at the end of the table.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the text, U/C is an abbreviation for "under construction," but since the term is used only once and is not widely known, the abbreviation is not needed. NPguy (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request of Italy

In the map Italy could be wrongly classified and should be changed to something like “phased out”. As far as I know there’s no active law or moratorium making the use of nuclear energy illegal. The referendums on nuclear energy only have abrogative power. This article by IAEA explains the laws and regulatory framework of nuclear energy in Italy: https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/Italy/Italy.htm 2A0E:427:E58:0:907A:81B8:E8AE:D443 (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

% Numbers For Slovenia Are Incorrect

Under "Overview - Nuclear Power by Country" it is listed that our power plant provides 42.8% of our power demands. That is incorrect as the output is equally shared between Slovenia and Croatia and the plant only covers about 20%.

https://www.nek.si/obratovanje/proizvodnja-in-vzdrzevanje#proizvodnja-elektricne-energije (source in Slovenian) https://www.nek.si/en/operation/production-and-maintenance#production-of-electrical-energy (source in English) 89.212.216.73 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)