Talk:Nuclear power in France

message: ----
I helped fill out the article a little. This should be a big entry.DavidMIA 06:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

message: DO NOT edit war about the percentage of power from nuclear power.  This is why Wikipedia exists, to clarify the details, not give a watered down figure you see everywhere else.
France produces x amount of electricity, n amount from nuclear.
France exports y amount of electricity.
ergo, n/x would not be a very representitive number.  n/(x-y) I think would be more representitive, but neither should be given without other numbers.  I suggest to abandon reporting a percentage at all. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure no edit warring is or was going on. I reverted what I thought was vandalism or a test edit, only to see the same anonymous user revert my edits. As you can see in the article's history, rather than revert his revert of my revert, I rewrote the section and included citations to back up the facts being asserted. It seems to me that the wiki process is running smoothly in this case. As for your issue with mentioning percentage of nuclear power in the article: 1) I feel like percentage is probably a useful figure, and 2) I wouldn't oppose your editing it out. I support your  being bold. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage 

message: The article is interspersed with citations from Stephanie Cooke's anti-nuclear book. I find those citations misleading, because she uses the 'magic playing field' routine to criticize nuclear power (first cite a number that makes other sources look good, then cite a completely unrelated number that makes nuclear power look bad). For example, it is said that 70% of total energy use in France was from fossil fuels. This figure is not compared with other countries at all, so the reader has no way of knowing whether it is high or low. Furthermore no hint on how a lower figure could be achieved is given. The actual source for the number is not cited either, and anti-nuclear activists are often weak on the facts or just lying (for example, Greenpeace claiming a death toll of 200 000 for Chernobyl). I would be wary to trust their numbers. I expect this figure to be upwards of 95% for countries without large renewable or nuclear capacity.
--Tweenk (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephanie Cooke 

message: ... because the use of red and blue colour is opposite between the symbol and its annotation  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSeibert (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The color of the dots is consistent.  If you mean the text color doesn't match, that's mostly because the non-active plants haven't had articles written about them and most of the operating plants have.  We can't change the text color. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map annotation is confusing 

message: There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: The article as it is now reads .
Due to the general inflexibility of modern reactor designs compared to fossil energy based power plant, to achieve this high load factor 
What is stated here as inflexibility of NPP's is clearly wrong.
NPP's are the most economic power source when available in the grid , NPP's can follow the load, but as the variable cost in generating is so low, the nuclear electricity is most  economic at full capacity , because it will always be lower in price, than any other source. The nuclear fuel cost component, is just a very small fraction of total cost, so nuclear energy is the last that will be cut of the grid in France.  In fact modern NPP's are very flexible in "load following"  , generally able to vary between 30-100% of rated capacity , but it is economically wise, not to do so. In fact Germany , forces NPP operators  to generate in  load following ,to give  the power from wind and solar priority , giving alternative sources an artificial advantage and  boosting their statistics . Work in load following mode under 100% rated capacity can give the plant some extra days between refuelling outages. The main cost for an NPP are capital costs, interest and amortisation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.176.222 (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The flexibility of load folowing of modern NPP's 

message: Articles should never use undefined acronyms, especially when an acronym is obscure.  Please define EJP (as in "the EJP France's nuclear reactors are forced to be used in load-following mode"). 199.46.200.232 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined acronym: EJP 

message: Hi, I'm new to this, so please apologize if my post has any faults/errors.
I believe the fact stated in the first sentence is wrong.
The sentence is as follows: "Nuclear power is a major source of energy in France, with a 40% share of energy consumption in 2015.[1]"
Following the source, IEA's Sankey diagram, shows a total consumption in oil equivalents of 152.2 Mtoe.
It seems to me that of this, 49.1 Mtoe (minus statistical differences, exports and own use(?)) comes from nuclear, appx. equating to (49.1/152.2)*100 ~ 32.26%. 
However, I am not really sure if this number is correct either. Electricity import is also part of the 49.1 number, making it slightly wrong. That is, my calculated percentage might be even smaller.
I believe the error of the author was looking at the pie chart of the consumption category "other", which shows the number 40%.
I hope to start a discussion trying to get to the bottom of this. -- Brillejan (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you mean this 2015 France Balance IEA Sankey diagram?  Matthead  Discuß   16:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major error in article's first sentence? 

message: I'm not super familiar with editing wikipedia, but I noticed the air pollution section makes claims that seem to directly contradict the sources cited.
Examples:
- "Taken as a whole, the country therefore has superior air quality" sites [124] which only mentions France once to say it has 4th *worst* pollution in Europe
- The graph of air pollution deaths leaves out qualifier that these are "urban" air pollution deaths, which the linked article says are mostly from vehicles. Because this qualifier from the original map undermines the argument the article is making, leaving it out to try to make the opposite point is super misleading
If this article wants to make the argument that France has improved air quality because of nuclear (which may be true, but certainly doesn't seem to follow from the cited sources), why not cite actual sources that claim this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.137.180 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird editorializing in "air pollution" section