Talk:Nuclear energy policy by country

Too long and fork

This page is too long - 108 kb, and it is a fork of the nuclear power in ... pages. Of course there is a slight difference between nuclear power and policy, but that doesnt warrant this huge page. -- eiland (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If a country has a link on this page to a Main Article about its nuclear power, it should not also have a paragraph. Deleting such redundant paragraphs would likely shrink this page by 1/2. Vgy7ujm (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that User:Beagel has been doing some cleanup on articles related to nuclear power, so perhaps he could have some input here. But generally speaking we need to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) where both a summary of, and a link to the sub-article, are provided. Otherwise this article would become a mere collection of links, and that is not encyclopedic. Johnfos (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that we should avoid POV fork with Nuclear power in X articles. This article was created by moving country specific (policy) information from two other articles and some cleanup is still needed. At the same time, the nuclear policy is different from nuclear power in X concept as you may have a policy without having any existing nuclear power facilities, e.g. Australia, Australia, Denmark etc have banned construction of nuclear plants. As a rule, generating capacities should not to be added here and should be moved to Nuclear power in X articles and this article should deal only with the policy issues. Of course, plans to build a new plant is also a policy issue so some overlapping still exist. I support what was said by Johnfos that if separate article exists, only one paragraph summary should be added here (but we still need this one paragraph). Cleaning up this article we should also update the relevant Nuclear power in X articles. Beagel (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I pruned Spain, Sweden and the UK. Most info was overlapping with the ne in ... articles. Left short summary paragraphs. -- eiland (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the Dimona Research Reactor in Israel be listed in this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.44.186 (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No. The article is about power reactors, not research reactors. Vgy7ujm (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article

This article is about the nuclear energy policy of countries and not about the existing reactors/nuclear installations in place, which belongs to Nuclear ower in X series and to the Nuclear power by country article. I propose to keep in this article only information about the nuclear policy (decision about nuclear developments/nuclear decommissioning, nuclear free zones etc) and to remove information about existing reactors if not to related policy options. At the same time I don't think that the mass blanking of country sections is the best way forward. Beagel (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The page is out of date. Split content to per country articles. Give overview in tabular format, so people can fast see what the policy in each country is. Also currently it is incomplete, lots of countries are not listed, and if they are added in sections, esp. big as the Germany section, then the page will be far too big. As a by country article it could give a summary and link to country specific articles. Let's create articles for all countries, not only sections for some specific countries as it is now. This is biased. Let's unbias. NuclearEnergy (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please specify which countries which have nuclear policy are not listed here? Also, giving summary only for some big countries (e.g. Germany) while blanking sections of some other countries (e.g. Slovenia) is biased. Beagel (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with blanking all. @"Could you please specify which countries which have nuclear policy are not listed here?" - No. I am not aware such countries exist. NuclearEnergy (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't aware such countries exist, in this case why you wrote "Also currently it is incomplete, lots of countries are not listed ..."?

Because there are more countries in the world and absence in the article can be due to omission. Recently someone added Hong Kong to the table, a country that uses nuclear energy. This is an example of omission. NuclearEnergy (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, NuclearEnergy; now that most of the European countries have their own articles on nuclear power, should we start blanking the Europe section of this article and replacing the entries for each country with links to the relevant main article? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power in X deals with existing and planned reactors. This article here should summarize countries' policies (if any nuclear policy is existing, of course). If there is no adopted policy, no need to add the country here or create country article. Although cleanup is needed, blanking sections is not the solution. Beagel (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Nuclear energy in X" can also deal with "Nuclear energy policy in X". It can talk about installations, about plans of installation and about laws prohibiting installation. NuclearEnergy (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Article quality

There is an edit updating Ghana, but that section seems to contradict the intro of the main article.

I suggest we merge all text sections into the main article, and keep only a listing in the by-country article. NuclearEnergy (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain how it contradicts the main article? The only contradiction I see is that the section is this article says 'research reactor' (singular) while the main article says 'several nuclear research reactors' (plural). However, the references in this article confirms 'a small Chinese research reactor' while the reference in the main article does not mention research reactors at all. I really don't understand how merging into the main article will solve the problem with unsourced and inaccurate claims in the main article. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from singular/plural, "it has operated" could be mistaken as past only, not presently anymore. NuclearEnergy (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

red/green

Why is the yes colored red and the no green? Would it not be more logical if those proceeding with nuclear power was green, while thoes that stop, uses the red color? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.177.215.32 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the use of red and green suggests that the author is biased. Not everyone agrees that the use of nuclear power is bad. It causes less air polution for example. 189.91.88.53 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming

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) 15:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ireland

Ireland is marked "yes" in the "plans to build" section. This isn't true. An article in The Economist says that Ireland is "strongly anti-nuclear". I can assure you that sentiment in the country is exactly this. In the past, there was some (very little!) talk of building a nuclear reactor in Ireland but such plans were quickly quashed because of public opposition. As of now, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the Government of Ireland are considering nuclear power. I am changing the Ireland section thus, but if anyone opposes me here, please post here. I am open to discussion. Bonzostar (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging Information About Planned Reactors from Nuclear power by country

The article Nuclear power by country contains a table of nuclear reactors under construction and planned for construction as well. The information about planned reactors fits well with the existing content of this article but not so well with that one and so should probably be moved into the existing list here. I plan on making this change sometime in the near future if nobody objects, but ideas about how best to accomplish this are certainly welcome.

CaptainTickles (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria

I am surprised like the guy from Ireland that Bulgaria is marked "yes" in the "plans to build" section. NPP Belene in Bulgaria was canceled officially because its electricity would be too expensive like that of every new NPP. There is no private financing and most of people do not want it. It is not "under construction" anymore ref IAEA . I am surprised to see the same for Lithuania, where Ignalina NPP was rejected by 65% of voters at referendum and Romania where the new projects about Cernavoda NPP were also officially canceled ref. It looks from the table we should expect quite soon plenty of new NPPs in Armenia, Bangladesh Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Vietnam and so on. I am not surprised that the major "reliable source" is WNA. Thay say here "The WNA secretariat maintains this analysis through an on-going dialogue with the WNA’s worldwide industry membership and with experts in leading energy organizations..." How did it happened that when the share of nuclear power dropped the last decade from 16% to 11% they made such a forecast?! Did anybody from Bulgaria phoned them and told them "we want to build 20 new nuclear reactors in the next 20 years"? Do they keep the record of that phone call? This is ridiculous. This column "Planning to Construct Reactors" should be just deleted. I wrote proposal already here and here WNA which are given as reliable source all over in Wikipedia to be deleted and blocked.

If we look at the column "Actively Constructing Reactors" we can see the same story. The reactor ATUCHA-2 in Argentina is "under construction" since 14 Jul, 1981 for more then 32 years. How can you say "country actively constructing" in case like that or for 1 or 2 reactors in some big countries which would contribute almost nothing as a percentage in their electricity mix? Can you see from the information form WNA that in whole Europe and America there are only 4-5 nuclear reactors under "real construction"? Even those 4-5 reactors (in France, Finland, Brazil and US) have plenty of problems and the electricity which they would produce if they would be ever completed and connected to the grid would be insignificant? That is just pure "false advertising". What should such people do at so many pages in Wikipedia? --Orehche (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That is true that the Belene project was cancelled but at the same time it was decided to build a new unit at the Kozloduy NPP. Concerning Visaginas (name of the new plant in Lithuania), that is true that the referendum resulted with majority against. However, the referendum was not binding and the government has not cancelled the project officially. Some decision concerning the future of this project is expected in this autumn. Construction of Atucha II was re-activated in 2006 and it was expected to start commercial operations this year (don't know what s the current state of play). Beagel (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you telling me that if one person from any country says anywhere "we will build a new reactor" one has the right to place the country in the column "Planning to Construct Reactors" and spread that information just like that all over the world? There is no doubt that WNA is trying to present every talk or debate as "a plan" or even "an active construction". The purpose of this aproach is obviousely people to get confused and not to be able to see the truth in the second column, that there are no more then 5 nuclear reactors "under real construction" in whole America and Europe. WNA should be happy even if you only delete the third column, because nobody can see from the table that those couple of reactors are built for decades and they are couple of times over the budjet. WNA should rather hide them instead of using them for advertising. When people accept the WNA "facts" about "actively construction of NPPs" all over the world, the second goal of the nuclear spesialists is to go some to countries like in the case of Flamanville-3 and Olkiluoto-3 and explain how a nuclear reactor will cost 3 time less then it would actually cost. People pay later billions for nothing because of such "presentative information" and couple of billions is a lot for some countries like Bulgaria.

Who said that there are "plans" about a new reactor in Kozloduy NPP? There is some talk because of some piece of metal which we don't need her, but which we have because we have paid already. Do you know that nobody is ready to pay 1 cent more for that reactor? Do you know that Russia filed already some funny claims in the court to put pressure to complete here any new reactor, but nobody wants to invest anymore in so expensive and useless electricity. I know that the referendum in Lithuania was not binding, but that is just because the law was in that way. Do you believe any government would continue with the project in that case? What kind of "new decisions" some people there dream of?

I am glad to hear that Atucha II was re-activated and to stay again and again in the column "Constructing it Actively" and to promote the nuclear power for more then 32 years. They should not finish it. It would be a big loss for the nuclear power lobby to find another reactor like that. Only Watts Bar-2 in US can beat it. What about Slovakia where Mochovce-3 & 4 were started in 1985 & 1987? Is there any active construction going on there or they have just a license for construction?

Let's look at that in another way. At the moment 2 nuclear reactors with capacity 1005MW provide 4.71% of the power in Argentina, so ATUCHA-2 (745MWe) will provide no more then 2-3% ref. Is it normal if a country builds for 32 years nuclear power which would provide 2-3% of its power to say "Actively Constructing Reactor"? That is less then 0.1% share per year. The label of the column should say maybe something like "building any nuclear power" or "having a license to build". The word "actively" is very wrong, misleading and it is there on purpose after all - just to achieve the goal of a "false advertising". That can not be the purpose of Wikipedia.

Maybe you can explain to me how Bangladesh, Canada and Iran "are constructing reactors actively" without giving information to IAEA ref ? Can you define also please, the status "research" in two of the columns - research on existing reactors and reactors in "active" construction. It gives me impression of some nuclear activity, but I don't know what.

Please, note as well for the last column that in Spain there is a law against building new nuclear reactors since 1983 and in Italy at the last referendum 95% of people who voted said "NO" to a change of an existing law against NPPs since May 26th 2011 ref

--Orehche (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is any incorrect information, please correct it. Of course, the information should be attributed with reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V, and original research should be avoided per WP:OR. The latest news saying that Atucha II will start commercial operations this year, is here. For Kozloduy there is this news. If there is later information contradicting this, please provide source for this. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no rights to change the article at the moment, so somebody should do it for me. There is too much money in the nuclear power involved and no one has a problem to find any article in a newspaper if one is looking for sources like that. Because I think the whole article is far away from the truth already, I have a proposal for major changes and I think it is reasonable everything to be discussed at first with more people. I think the whole column about "NPPs plans" should be deleted, because there is no way to collect a reliable information for that. Nuclear power is too expensive already and with all its well known other problems is in a really though situation ref. The purpose of WNA and the article is obvious in such a situation. By the way, we have in Bulgaria a new russian nuclear reactor for sale for people talking and "planning" new NPPs. --Orehche (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

While the whole article needs updating and vetting, I disagree with removal of this column. This is not our purpose to argue if the nuclear energy is too expensive or not. If there is a reliable source confirming that the government of country X is preparing/has decided to build a new reactor, the information should be included. If there is no such kind of reliable source, it should be not. The same applies to all other columns, e.g. phase-out and forbidding nuclear energy. If there is a question if the source Y is reliable or not, the relevant venue to discuss this is WP:RSN. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not argue if the nuclear energy is too expensive or not at all and you should not present my words in that way. The purpose of that table, built in such incorrect way, is to hide and not to discuss such a problem, giving impression to the people that everybody on the world wants to build and have a nuclear reactor. OK, let's do what you said. Can you show at least one row in this table with "a reliable source confirming that the government of country X is preparing/has decided to build a new reactor" ? Do you make any difference between "a plan" and just "a talk" or "a debate", "government" and "somebody from the government"? What about if the majority of the people is against a new NPP? Do you think Italy should be in that column because Silvio Berlusconi said at one moment "YES" and 95% of the people said "NO" ? Do you think such important and relevant notes should be hidden from the table? I will go further and discuss it in WP:RSN. We should make the nuclear power lobby from WNA not to resent the facts in such a way - this is 100% pure "false advertising". --Orehche (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have got permissions to edit and I will make some changes. I will not delete the 3rd column, because I can not do it in this situation. Maybe you can think more about that or more people will join the discussions. I will put only "hard" facts but more in favor of the opposite opinion so I can make that promotional article more balanced. I can tell you that if I get some sources from the renewable power lobby which are very much like that of WNA the things will go ugly. I will not do things like that and I will try to be neutral. You can check all my changes and comment them. --Orehche (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I started discussions here --Orehche (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Austria

Some comments regarding my nuclear-shy homecountry. Oddly enough, we have a constitutional law called something like "Act for an atom-free austria" which I always considered hard to achive even for the most enthusiastic government.

Still I don't think the wording "Law= Nuclear reactions forbidden" is very well chosen. Its confusing and not really true one or the other way since we still host a experimental reactor in Vienna.

http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Erv/ERV_1999_1_149/ERV_1999_1_149.pdf [Constitutional law against nuclear, also in english and quite funny]

Just as a thought to improve the article,

BR M. 31/10/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.5.6.223 (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.power-technology.com/projects/bushehr-nuclear/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear energy policy by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927145913/http://www.mint.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=85 to http://www.mint.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=85

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)