Talk:Nuclear power in Finland

Planning
The source cited in this section does not support the statements there at all. Not even remotely. The planning section states that renewables are not being developed due to monopoly conditions. The PDF cites environmental concerns, a lack of capacity for hydro-electric power and local opposition to wind mills! As such I've changed the planning section to reflect this. If someone wants to revert it, then they need to find an impartial source. I suspect whoever added this in was anti-nuclear and was simply hoping no one would actually check the source. I've also added the page number for future reference, if anyone would like to read it. Hvatum (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments
This page seems to be side-tracked with poorly spelled bits about a lack of renewable energy; such items should be in a different article, perhaps 'renewable engergy politics in Finland' or something along those lines. Joezasada (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has multiple problems; tagged accordingly. Aside from those noted above,


 * 1) It appears to have been written by a non-native English speaker. Corrections & rewrite needed. (Started)


 * 2) NPOV problem, especially in the "Under construction" section. Pretty serious issue here. (Fixed by heavy pruning)


 * 3) Pie-chart overlaps text. (Sort-of fixed)


 * 4) I moved the under construction section, and hacked away some of the irrelevancies. Still needs more work. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Added info, cleaned up, removed tag. Still could use more work... Pete Tillman (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2008 (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) 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference to incorrect information
I am disturbed with reference n.3:

Mycle Schneider (9 September 2011). "Fukushima crisis: Can Japan be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift?"

where I read:

"A staggering 94 percent of Italians voted in a June referendum not to re-launch a nuclear program, ..."

With 50,594,868 italian voters and 25,643,652 votes against a nuclear re-launch, how is it that 94% of "Italians" voted against ? It looks to me more like a 50.68% And I, would add, under the full emotional Fukushima News effect, but that is another story.

--Robertiki (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Greenpeace activity
Is there really any need for an image of what Greenpeace thinks of nuclear power? We all know what they stand for, something they have made perfectly clear.

If images relating to support/opposition must be added, then both sides should be represented. A single big image on a small page not only looks overly biased, and that the article or the section talks about it, but also gives the impression that it is a closed matter. Since most Finns (according to the article) are for nuclear power, then it doesn't make much sense to have a lone large image depicting the oppositional views of a fringe group. It would have made a lot more sense if it was the actions of one of the political parties.

If I erect a monument to the benefits of Finnish nuclear power and take a picture of it, will you add that here as well? What a about tweets, blog entries, news articles? Or does it have to be a big rock (gravestone)? DukeTwicep (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ownership in foreign plants
The following was part of Electricity sector in Finland before I replaced the nuclear power section with an excerpt. I couldn't figure out a way to incorporate it in a natural way here. Perhaps someone else can --2001:14BA:84A6:DE00:E105:F2FF:A57B:1EC1 (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Finnish company Fortum owns 45.5% of Oskarshamn Nuclear Power Plant and 22% Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden. In 2004, Fortum produced 17.9% of Swedish nuclear electricity (13.4 TWh / 75 TWh).

Fortum owns 25.7% of the Russian nuclear power company Polyarnye Zori as a partner of TGK-1.