Talk:List of nuclear power stations

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant 

message: Perhaps add this as an external link: . 62.176.111.71 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: 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" 
* EPSA paper (citing "cost increases" but not actual costs) 
More coming... 76.28.192.150 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of building and running power plants 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Needs a built date column 

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Capacity"?  MWe or MWt? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Official/Unofficial names 

message: 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)
replies: text: Added to this list. I also removed Gentilly in Canada, which is well below the 1000MWE threshold. --Dschwen 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  McGuire Nuclear Station missing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lemoniz not working, Garoña yes 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Shut Down or Still Running???

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ginna Plat Missing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Only 1000MWs? And other misc items I object too! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Reverted. --Jklamo (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country: European Union? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1000 MWe Limit? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Power Stations to add 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On Hold stations 

message: 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)
replies: text: Check the lead of the article, there is 1000 MW threshold. --Jklamo (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vermont Yankee / Connecticut Yankee 

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please check the first sentence of the article.--Jklamo (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Swiss nuclear power plants are missing. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Three Mile Island Shutdown? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beznau 1 and 2 missing