Talk:Nuclear power in the European Union

Nuclear reactors
As of February 2020, 13 out of 27 countries have nuclear reactors. This should be probably nuclear power plants. Poland has nuclear reactors, but not power plants Maria_reactor

Coat-track
This page is a double from all the national nuclear energy pages, and it says nothing about European nuclear energy policy, for example Euratom. I think it needs a major rewrite, or otherwise be deleted as i see it as a fork. -- Eiland (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Nuclear_energy_policy -- Eiland (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * Disagree with merger - This article is separate to the European use of nuclear energy, I think they should link to each other but stay separate, although I do agree with some kind of re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.25.4 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree with merger - we are not just talking about any old country's use of nuclear power, we're talking about France, where as the article states, nuclear dominates and in this respect is a beacon that other countries are following (the UK, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.59.92 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 October 2008
 * Disagree with merger. The article Nuclear energy in the European Union is useful as an overview. It is also useful to have separate, more in-depth country-articles. --Mikaelbook (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree with merger Nuclear energy policy Europe section into this article as the EU and Europe are different things. At the same time, I agree that country section from this article should be moved or merged with country specific nuclear energy articles and Nuclear power by country articles (current situation), and with the Nuclear energy policy article (policy and future plans).Beagel (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree on some kind of merger. Yes, this article should be merged in some way.  Nuclear_energy_policy claims essentially the same topic matter as this article, and as such we clearly have a fork, but I do not intend to offer a clear means to deal with it.  I think this article would have value to some readers in that it offers a coherent and consistent summary of the UIC, worldnuclear, and other good sources on the political state of nuclear power.  Unfortunately, that is not the objective of Wikipedia, as we're more of "throw it to the hounds" - include lots of information, however disjointed, and sacrifice linearity of reading for accuracy and attribution.  The Nuclear power by country articles clearly accomplish this purpose and this article does not.  Information that is not currently included in those should be copied.  Otherwise, I don't see much of a place for this article unless it were to be a branch of Nuclear energy policy. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of you. This page is included in the Template:Nuclear power by country, but the EU has hardly an independent nuclear policy. I think it would be worthwhile to dedicate this page to what is there on EU nuclear policy (Euratom, the Parliament, the Council, FP7, ENEF, SNE-TP, liability harmonisation, High level group on safety and waste management, DG TREN, EBRD support for decommissioning, EIB intention for financing, some waste initiatives, ECURIE, what else?).
 * There are, however, some countries, especially non-nuclear, which do not have a Nuclear power in Luxembourg-page, and the original author of this put quite a lot of effort in collecting all the data. What should we do with those? Maybe copy them into their respective county-pages? Or indeed into the ...in Europe article. -- Eiland (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that this page needs some major work, but the example here should be WP:SUMMARIZE. The article should not be deleted, just cleaned up. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that deletion is not an option. I also agree that country specific information in this article should be summarized and current country description should be moved to more appropriate places. The question is to where. This issue should be solved in complex with solving problems in the Nuclear power by country and the Nuclear energy policy. The first option is that country specific information from this article and from the Nuclear energy policy should be merged into the Nuclear power by country. The weak point of this option is that some countries (Denmark, Greece) don't have nuclear power, but definitely they have a policy banning nuclear energy. Second option is that the Nuclear power by country will only consist of information about the current nuclear power facilities and the countries' article spun-off from the Nuclear energy policy will consists of information about nuclear energy policy and future plans. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with summarize & link to main articles. Mishlai (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Merge (sort of). To quote Eiland on what to do with any country content that has no home, "Maybe copy them into their respective county-pages? Or indeed into the ...in Europe article." This article is just a list of regional data. Any sections which don't justify their own page should be merged into the ...in Europe article. Revr J (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to support Beagel in what he says, as I know he has been thinking about these issues for some time, and have the feeling that he would have time to put into making improvements. Johnfos (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, i guess it needs to go to Denmark, Austria, etc. These sections can then be linked from either this page, or Nuclear_energy_policy, although I think that page is rather POV in favor of nuclear. On 2nd thought, I think its nonsense to make a nuclear page for all countries, especially when they don't have nuclear plants. That would be like making pages on black swans, and hoping there'll be some, one day. -- eiland (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is nonsense to create a country's page about nuclear energy if there is no any. Concerning nuclear energy policy, I disagree that this is a POV. However, there are two things which may create this impression. The first reason is that country specific sections (with some exceptions) are mainly pro-nuclear. It is a logical because if you don't have any nuclear you don't need any nuclear policy (exception are countries adopted policy to ban nuclear energy). That means that countries usually adapt any nuclear policy in case they are planning to become nuclear countries. This is actually one reason I think that the country specific section should be spun-off from the article (it is also too long). The second reason is that the anti-nuclear policy section needs more information and expansion.


 * Agree with Merge. I wanted to propose that for a long time, but I have forgotten it. -- Felix König   ✉  16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

- Lets stop saying agree or disagree. I think everyone agrees that this page should basically contain EU stuff, and that the country specific info needs to be trimmed and moved to other pages. Now we still need to decide how to do that. But just to say I agree, or I disagree, isn't really helpful. -- eiland (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree: I admit Beagle absolutely right! ChNPP (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

- I say just leave the article alone. The information is accurate and a merger may lead to a loss of information.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.252.11 (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As there is no consensus, I will remove the tags. Beagel (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So what now? There is still a lot of forked info, I asked Beagle what he plans now. -- eiland (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree I was looking for information about Nuclear power in the UK, and now I want to say leave the UK article alone. Articles in particular European countries on this topic are bound to grow, with the debates about climate change and what to do about it. Keep on providing more detail for those of us who want it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, It would be more to merge down this page in to Nuclear power in the United Kingdom then the other way aorund, or do i understand you incorrectly? -- eiland (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that we are part of the Lisbon Treaty, whose aim is to create a "closer Europe" all nuclear power throughout the EU should come together under one title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.10.140 (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rephrasing of WNA and UIC
A lot of content, for example the non nuclear countries is mere rephrasing of WNA and UIC articles ("emerging" countries), and therefore seems to me -- eiland (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
 * "Germany" :

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * “Nuclear Power in Germany.” World Nuclear Association. January 2008. < http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf43.html>
 * fixed.Beagel (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

15% of total energy consumption?
The opening sentence states "The nuclear energy in the European Union accounts approximately 15% of total energy consumption." I find this rather unlikely and would like to see a source. Nuclear energy is delivered in the form of electricity. In the Netherlands, electricity accounts for 20% of energy usage. If this is the same in the EU in general, then nuclear energy would cover 75% of that. And that sounds rather unlikely. Also note the two linguistic errors in that sentence; the 'the' should be dropped and a 'for' should be added. Amrad (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference is given in the body text. However, here it is []. It is also confirmed by the statistics from Eurostat.Beagel (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The term energy is used in the referenced document, but the context clearly indicates electricity is being referred to. A quick check of the stats for individual countries will confirm this. I suppose it could be seen as a minor semantic difference, but I'll make the change. Revr J (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is for primary energy and not for electricity. According to Eurostat, in 2006 the EU27 produced 871247 thousand of toe of primary energy and 255342 thousand of toe of nuclear energy as primary energy. Final energy consumption was 1176120 thousand of toe. So, nuclear accounted 29% of primary energy production. There is no published figure, which is a nuclear energy share in final consumption, but if all nuclear energy produced in the EU was consumed in the EU, the share is 22%. So, 15% in 2002 is very realistic figure and not mistake.Beagel (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in 2005, the share of nuclear energy in the final energy consumption was 14.2% in the EU27 ad 15.1% in the EU15.Beagel (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide 437 nuclear power plants were in operation in 2006 ... covering 17% of world electricity demand and 6% of world energy demand. 144 of these power plants were located in the 27 member states of the EU with a total capacity of 131 gigawatt, covering 31% of European electricity demand." (P.2, 1st paragraph, my bold) Mishlai (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Controversy section here into Nuclear Power#Debate
Back in 2005, it was decided not to have a nuclear power controversy or nuclear power debate article. Instead, that debate is now in an extensive section in Nuclear power. It seems more appropriate to have that debate complete in that article, and reference it everywhere else, rather than have multiple separate articles with their own debates (Energy development and Anti-nuclear movement are two of the several other articles involved). I plan to eventually merge the various sections, but wanted everyone to have a chance to comment first - give it, say, 5 days so I can merge them all at once? Simesa (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So little change was involved that I just went ahead and did the merge. Most of the text was kept here. Simesa (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nuclear power in the European Union
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nuclear power in the European Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nip102": From Atomstroyexport:  From Nuclear energy policy:

 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 24 November 2009 (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) 15:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Map
Is that map up-to-date? As far as I know, at least Lithuania has a nuclear power plant in function; the infamous Ignalina, which is one of the biggest if not the biggest in Europe, providing for 80% of the country's energy. It would surprise me as well if neither of the other two Baltic states, nor Poland, Bulgaria or Romania have nuclear power plants! I was looking at this article for reference but it seems that was a bad starting point. An update would be highly appreciated. --Bjørn Clasen (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The remaining Ignalina power plant reactor was shut down on 31 December 2009, in accordance with the Treaty of Accession 2003. --Glentamara (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Romania and Bulgaria have got; Poland is the biggest European country to never have had any nuclear power plants, but they reverted their policies a few years ago and a nuclear civil program is under development. Filippo83 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased page
Sorry, but this page is totally biased toward anti-nuclearism: it completely forgets other nuclear reactors construction programs other than French EPR (you just chose the worst one, right move for your anti-nuke campaign!) and as well the fact that many countries realised an increase in nuclear-generated electricity by upgrading existing plants. Moreover, the page gives a partially wrong idea of stress tests. Sorry folks, but Europe is not all Fukushima-worried people, gas or renewable investors, or Greenpeace activists. Filippo83 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)