Template talk:Infobox nuclear power station

I made i first translation therefor i added a column. The original German has to be removed before release !!!!!!! A1000 10:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work! -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of creating the variable "Year" instead of having to use "EINSPEISUNG_JAHR"? 199.125.109.58 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked back at the code and I had put in a "for_year" parallel variable (this is the year that the electrical production refers to). I think i've already been using it and it just wasn't in the docs, but I'm not 100% on that. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are over a hundred places the template is used, most of the few I checked still used German parameters. 199.125.109.135 03:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Plant's current status: either D (decommissioned), M (mothballed), O (operating), or P (proposed).

What about a "C" for plants under construction? —WWoods (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "C" would be quite useful. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The documentation does not say if you should give Net power (MWe) or total (Gross) power (before on-site use). Or indeed design or first years output, current power, or the power output for most years of operation (after a few years when power is quite often adjusted). All these numbers can be found from the IAEA PRIS data. Can anyone clarify? Rwendland (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'll change the documentation to say we should used "Net Capacity" (power), preferably taken from the IAEA PRIS database.[1] Rwendland (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reactor Power - MWth??

What is the MW for the reactor power. It appears to be used as MWth, however the th suffix I added has been removed. If the reactor power is not given in MWth, what type of MW are they to be? --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This variable mean the electrical output of this reactor unit. So we can added MWe, but it's also wrong. The correct description of this parameter is in this case MW for Megawatts because its a electrical parameter. For more see Watt and Template:Infobox nuclear power station#Parameters for the details of the needed parameters. Best Regards ChNPP (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope - Watts is a measure of power. In the case of reactor power it is the thermal power. At the power station I work, the reactor is rated in MWth (~1320MWth) and the turbine in MWe (660MWe). There is a distinct difference - see [[2]]. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know this, but we need in this infobox the unit electrical power. Reactor power is the wrong description in this case, eventually we change the word Reactor into Unit or else, but i don't know. We need electrical parameter because the PRIS-Database of the IAEA shown not the thermal power of the unit, only the electrical Unit. And by the way, at which power plant work you? From the power output i think its a Westinghouse reactor? Best Regards ChNPP (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We should list both MWth and MWe for a plant. Reactors give only thermal power, generators give only electrical power. How many plants have two reactors for one generator, or one reactor for two generators? TGCP (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide generally has one reactor one or two steam turbines, not more. The Constallation of two reactors for one turbines is not used in the past ant is not planned for the future, because of safety. But we can summarize the independent Reactorsystems, consisting of one reactor and one or two Turbines, we can say Unit. But the thermal power is at the end of the generating process by the most plants become unimportant because we have one end product: electricity (except for some plants with district heating ans process heating output). That's the important value, the thermal power of the reactor is at the end not important. Best Regards ChNPP (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor responsible for the creation of this template; would you have some extra time to look into Infobox Power Station too? That infobox is in need of touch-ups:

• Enabling the display of coords within the infobox
• An "As at..." slot, just like this template
• Separation of "Location" and "Country"
• Everything in the "Other details" section of this template
• ...and other minor elements such as "Generators", etc.

It would be a really great improvement if this can be done. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to ask these changes on the other template talk page; therefore I copied your request also there. Beagel (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this is a notice for this infobox in regards to a current category for discussion. The category Category:Nuclear power station articles with no picture is currently nominated to be deleted. Your comments are welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 23:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This template is missing these positions found in Infobox Power Station : Status=Baseload/Load following , cooling_water=Fresh/Salt & evaporating=Yes/No. For example, some French plants are part load followers. TGCP (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have considering of nominating this template for merging with Template:Infobox power station. I have not done this yet only because of the technical problems which rose when UK power station infobox merger was approved. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will redirect this infobox to {{Infobox power station}} in a short while. Please see relevant discussion. Kind regards. Rehman 02:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Rehman 03:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)