File talk:Nuclear power station.svg

deletion proposal

I would like to ask you to delete the whole map if you know how. It is not correct because of the following reasons:

1.It was created by WNA (http://world-nuclear.org), which is a famous lobby of the nuclear power with a proven incorrect behavior. What can you say about that, the share of the electricity production of the nuclear power dropped from 16% in 2003 to 11% in 2012 (you can see it even on their web site) but they have no shame to talk about such a funny forecast http://world-nuclear.org/WNA/Publications/WNA-Reports/nco/Nuclear-Century-Outlook-Data/ - 1,350GW power in 2030 from 367GW in 2012 and 11,046GW in 2100, when many countries will close their nuclear power stations till 2040

2.Let's take a look how the map is created and the wrong impression it would leave at almost everyone on purpose. All the reliable data for the map are here http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx. No one in the world can build a reactor without informing IAEA. However, because IAEA are also nuclear specialist, they don't want you to see at once that the nuclear power is in a deep depression and you should check clicking with the mouse couple of times when the construction of a nuclear reactor was started. Let's look at USA for 2009, when the map was created and why US in that dark blue color giving you impression that US are building many many nuclear reactors. Surprise. In 2009 there was only one reactor in construction WATTS BAR-2 started in 1972! What about Argentina? The nice dark blue color represent one nuclear reactor ATUCHA-2 started in 1981 - 32 years ago. If you still believe those crooks check when the reactors in Slovak Republic, Ukraine and the other countries were started. Can you see what is the share of the nuclear power in China from the map? No, because they don't want you to know it and they created the map in such a way. You can see it here http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=CN, if you know where to look - it is 1.99%. Is it normal if somebody, mentioned somewhere in Africa that he wants to build a new nuclear reactor, such a "serious" to present that in green colour? So, please delete the map if you know how to do it. Many people reading Wikipedia get the wrong impression that nuclear power is still very cheap and with famous future. --Orehche (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think having a map like this is relevant no matter who created it in the first place. Since its original creation, this file has been modified many times (I have changed the color of ~10 countries and I have no conflict of interest with nuclear industry), based on multiple sources. The proportion of electricity from nuclear power is interesting data also, and has its own map, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country. However, I think a map like this one is still valuable information precisely because it gives information about the future of nuclear power: which countries are phasing out, which are continuing, which are starting.

The notion of "building new reactors" I think is quite objective, are nuclear power plants being built in the country? Even if the US are only building one reactor at this time, the construction is not canceled and is still going on. So it is indeed building a new reactor. The notion of "planning new build" should be based on clear planned builds, no some vague declaration like "we should use nuclear power". Maybe you are right that many light-green countries should be recolored as grey (many countries might have been planning builds before Fukushima and may have changed plans), please tell me which I can then change the color. --Almacha (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Almacha. I would like to ask you to go deeper into the issue. It does matter who created the map. Unfortunately, the nuclear power debate has lots of political and economical issues. I am from Bulgaria, the debate is pretty ugly at the moment because of the NPP Belene. There is too much money in just one NPP and people can not remain neutral. People like to use world-nuclear.org as a "reliable" source and it takes time to convince them that the nuclear power lobby there deal just with false advertising.

OK. There was one nuclear reactor "under construction" in 2009 (now there are two more with plenty of problems) and nobody can say "No". Do you think it is normal to be marked as "under construction" for more then 40 years? Can you see from the map that US have 100 reactors, and just one is too little to say "US build new NPPs? Can you see that the last nuclear reactor in US was connected to the grid in 1996 or you get impression that US "build lots of new NPPs"? Sorry, but you said "it gives information about the future of nuclear power". Those crooks achieved their purpose once again - they gave you the wrong impression with this map and propably 95% of the people looking at the map will get the same impression about the geat future of the nuclear power, if they don't spent a liitle more time to check the data over which the map was built. They use the same "trick" not only about US, they use it about many other countries ... Actually there is significant construction of new NPPs only in Asia at the moment and even there it is not so much compared to the other energy sources. Please, check again. I am waiting for your commnents. --Orehche (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Other people also think that WNA is not a reliable source and should be blocked from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_power#Is_World-nuclear.org_an_RS.3F --Orehche (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Almacha, we have some new discussions here . WNA is all over in Wikipedia and the discussions can not be kept at one place.

The deletion would be probably difficult because of all the references pointing to the map, but maybe it could be replaced or some major changes could be done if you agree.

1. If you "recolor the light-green countries as grey" I think that would be a big improvement. I don't see why Egypt is dark green as well. You can see all the countries with a license for construction at IAEA site. You can trust it 100%.

2. Austria is the only one country where nuclear power is forbidden at constitutional level, but there are other countries which have laws against building new NPPs and should be in black color - Spain since 1983, Denmark since 1985 and Italy since May 26th 2011. 95% of the people who voted at the last referendum said that law should not be touched ref

3. I can not agree that if a county has been building one reactor for more then 30 years and that is very insignificant for its power grid should be described as "building new reactors". We can discuss it more later and maybe we can find another solution.

If you need more information from me or any help, please tell me. I am willing to cooperate in any way. --Orehche (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I see only today the debate going on here. I don't "own" this map in any way, so feel free to update it. Actually I got involved in this because I saw a comment "Italy should be orange" so I just thought "let's do it" since I knew how to do it. But I'm not officially responsible for this map or anything. In fact this is very simple, you just download the map, change the colors of the countries with the Inkscape software (which is free) and upload the new version. I understand that the notion of "planning new build" might not be objective, or even really important (political declarations are always fuzzy...). I think the most valuable information is whether there are reactors or not, and whether new reactors are being built or not. So perhaps light blue and light green could be removed. Perhaps also black is not really useful either, grey is enough for "no nuclear at all". --Almacha (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

update needed

1. pakistan: must be light blue, completed only under construction reactor, considering others
2. nederland: considering new buolding ad borselle nuclear power plant
3. brazil: construction angra 3 is ON
4. sweden: considering new building to replace old ones in old sites
5. belgium: situation is now stable, decision postponed by new mayority in parlament

--95.249.52.71 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these hints. If you can find reliable sources for the updated information you have (like I provided for my last change), you can go ahead and change the image. It would be nice of you to get a user account for that!

If you don't know how to change the image, I am ready to do it for you, if you can present sources for your information. --MichaelBueker (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I did the above changes. --Almacha (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Japan in orange, according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zuanzuanfuwa?uselang=it#japan_phase_out.3F_either_switzerland.3F --Almacha (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Россия

В России новые блоки строятся, например, 5 и 6 на Балаковской АЭС. --Спиридонов Илья (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Update required (UZ)

A nuclear power station is planned to be built in Uzbekistan (the latest news on the topic). Therefore the country should be light green (like Kazakhstan) in the map. Виталий Болбас (留言) 20:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant

 

is Belarus

The Astravets Nuclear Power Plant (Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant or Ostrovets Nuclear Power Plant) is a nuclear power plant located in the Astravyets District, Grodno Regionin north-western Belarus. --178.165.55.68 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)