Take another quiz >

Top 10 Countries in Nuclear Power Production

Guess the top 10 largest nuclear power producing countries in the world.
For the year 2016 according to Wikipedia
Quiz by skukka
Rate:
First submittedNovember 22, 2016
Last updatedFebruary 8, 2018
Times taken15,914
Rating4.86
1:30
Enter answer here
0
 / 10 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
GWh
%
Country
804,872
19.7
United States
386,452
72.2
France
197,829
3.6
China
184,054
17.1
Russia
154,306
30.3
South Korea
95,650
15.6
Canada
80,069
13.1
Germany
76,078
52.3
Ukraine
65,149
20.4
United Kingdom
60,647
40.0
Sweden
+9
level 71
Feb 8, 2018
Interesting quiz. I guess we'll see Germany fall down the table as it turns its reactors off in the next few years, and UAE come from nowhere.
+2
level 71
Jun 19, 2018
For those interested, my subsequent (non-featured) quiz: https://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/245606/countries-with-nuclear-power
+1
level 55
Aug 1, 2018
Yeah barakah nuclear power plant
+1
level 73
Feb 8, 2018
What does the % column stand for?
+2
level 63
Feb 8, 2018
Of all energy produced.
+9
level 64
Feb 8, 2018
Correction: Of all eletric power generated.
+1
level 71
Feb 11, 2018
Cool quiz, skukka! Yes, please do keep up with it, as it'll be interesting to see how the answers change over time. Thanks!
+1
level 63
Apr 26, 2018
Thanks! I'll try and keep you posted ;)
+4
level 67
Mar 28, 2018
No Japan?
+1
level 3
Jun 26, 2018
Are you not beware about the WWII? Could you imagine what kind of pain was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki then? I don´t think that japanese people are very interested in nuclear power at war. Roosa
+6
level 78
Jan 30, 2019
I would think it has more to do with fukushima. Prior to then 30% of the country's power was nuclear and they were just below 300,000 GWh. Now of their 42 reactors, only 2 are operational and according to the source, power generation is just 30,000 GWh so it doesn't make the list.
+2
level 56
Jun 6, 2019
@roosa1 NONONONONONONONONO
+12
level 66
Apr 26, 2018
Hopefully we'll see a return to nuclear in coming years. It's clean, cheap, reliable, and safe! (contrary to popular, misinformed opinion)
+13
level 45
Jun 19, 2018
Or we could go with solar, tidal and wind instead.
+11
level 49
Jun 19, 2018
And have no energy.
+4
level 45
Jun 20, 2018
Actually solar, tidal and wind power have the capacity to easily power the entire world. They also never run out and don't create nuclear waste that will still be toxic in a thousand years time. And also as Kalbahamut pointed out, what about the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. I would hardly call that safe, especially as it could have been a lot worse. In the modern day there is just no need for nuclear or coal.
+1
level 77
Jun 26, 2018
I wouldn't say "easily." Pretty far from "easily." But... with considerable difficulty... it would be possible to get off fossil fuels with some combination of decreasing power consumption, increasing power efficiency, and developing better technologies for a combination of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biofuels. If we don't use nuclear or natural gas* such an effort would require pretty drastic changes in how most of us live, but it would be possible. It would become easy if standards of living and education increase enough around the world that global population begins a rapid decline, as it has already places like Japan and Germany.

*I know natural gas is a fossil fuel.
+2
level 68
Jan 31, 2019
Any solution that requires cutting power consumption is a hopeless pipe dream of a nonstarter. You may want to cut your consumption, but very few of your neighbors do, and no one in the quickly-growing countries does. France exploded in violent protests because Macron tried to force people to decrease consumption, can't imagine it going better elsewhere.
+1
level 45
May 26, 2019
Alright, it's true it wouldn't be easy to start off with, although in my opinion, this is mostly due to government resistance. What I meant when I said easily, was that they never run out, and therefore, provided we can utilise them, there won't be any problem with supply. While this may sound hard, it isn't actually as difficult as it seems. In Germany, for example, around 80% of energy is renewable, while Sweden is making the transition to 100% by 2035, Costa Rica by 2019, and the entire EU by 2050. And difficult or not, this is something we have to do if we are to survive. If we don't, we are facing climate breakdown, and irreparable damage by 2030. This is why we must change, and change fast. It is interesting to note here that most places around the world recognise this, and are moving to change. It is just a few countries (USA, China, Australia, Canada) that are holding out, and will cause climate disaster unless they change their ways quickly.
+10
level 63
Jun 19, 2018
Ever heard of radiation? Yeah. The waste products from nuclear fission are rich in radioactive isotopes. A vat of that can kill you in minutes. Radioactive waste IS dangerous. The fact that you think otherwise just pays testament to your poor education.
+4
level 66
Jun 19, 2018
What ChaosLord says- and mind you, that waste will be toxic for tens of thousands of years, at least. Just imagine that we would still have to guard the toxic waste left by the Egyptians, Romans or Mayans... and that it would still be as toxic as when they dumped it.
+11
level 59
Jun 19, 2018
I would agree with DrWatson because although the waste from nuclear power plants certainly is a problem, I think we have some much more urgent ones (global warming) that we need the effective energy production from nuclear power to combat - otherwise there probably are no humans to guard anything in a thousand year Btw calling other people poorly educated because you disagree with them is not a very educated way of arguing
+12
level 63
Jun 19, 2018
While I support easy, cheap and clean energy I'm very worried about disasters, despite reassurances by my friend who is an actual nuclear physicist. One solutionwould be changing the culture to more sustainable one, moving away from the consumerism and stop using valuable resources and energy in throw-away products
+6
level 61
Jun 19, 2018
I agree DrWatson. Yes nuclear energy can be dangerous if not contained properly as was the case in Japane in recent years. As long as containment systems are designed properly, nuclear power could be the answer to our environmental woes. Wind and solar power technologies are great, but they aren't developed to a level that can sustain our modern world's energy needs. Until they are, nuclear energy is still a viable alternative. As long as we learn from past mistakes like the one in Chernobyl, we can develop this technology in a way that is safe.
+5
level 77
Jun 19, 2018
Having toured Chernobyl I have a hard time thinking of nuclear power as safe. Sure, maybe statistically there are relatively fewer mishaps than at a coal or oil burning plant, but when something goes wrong it has the potential to go very, very wrong. If not for the heroic actions of many Ukrainian disaster workers at Chernobyl that managed to contain the disaster there somewhat, usually at the cost of their own lives, it had the potential to wipe out half of Europe. When an oil refinery blows up it might kill a few hundred workers and poison a lake or estuary, but it's never that bad. Three Mile Island and Fukushima had the potential to be much worse than they ended up being, as well, but in each case you could say that we got lucky.
As far as it being clean... putting tons of radioactive waste into the ground probably isn't a good idea. But it might be a better idea than pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
+4
level 27
Jun 19, 2018
Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident the world has ever had, might eventually be responsible for the deaths of 60,000, though some estimate fewer. Fukushima and Three Mile Island were much smaller. How many people have died as a result of hydroelectric power? About 200,000, a big dam collapsed in the 1970s. How many people have died as a result of coal? SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND PER YEAR. You don't like radioactivity? Burning coal releases more radioactivity than nuclear power does, and it leaves mountains of toxic ash. It's why tuna isn't safe, burning coal releases mercury which ends up in tuna. Coal is consistently astoundingly bad, and yet uninformed people think nuclear is too dangerous to try. What's worse, paying $600 for sure, or maybe paying $0, maybe paying $60, you aren't sure? Each dollar represents 1000 people dying in a year. Paying $600 is coal. Usually paying $0 represents nuclear... is that too much? Nuclear power has terrible PR, but it's the right way to go.
+2
level 77
Jun 19, 2018
I'm not saying coal isn't bad. In fact I said above it is probably worse. But you are downplaying the downsides of nuclear. The clean up of Chernobyl cost 18 billion dollars. Greenpeace estimated that it might have been responsible for a quarter of a million cancer cases and 100,000 cancer deaths, in addition to thousands of birth defects (estimates are controversial and vary wildly, up to a million). But it could have been much, much worse. There was an emergency mining operation sent underground the reactor to try and cool the 185 tons of superheated radioactive material that had melted through the floor and drain the water that had accumulated beneath it. They were fortunately successful, but if they hadn't been and the material made contact with the water they suspect the resulting steam explosion could have ejected enough radioactive material to render half of Europe uninhabitable for half a million years.
+3
level 45
Jun 20, 2018
I agree nuclear power is a BAD idea. It would be far better to go with tidal, solar and wind power.
+2
level 57
Jan 31, 2019
When people say that nuclear power is safe, they mean compared to other forms of electricity generation. There are obviously cases when nuclear power goes very wrong. And this is generally worse from the point of view of humans than corresponding disasters with fossil fuels (oil spills). But I still think the overall negative impact of nuclear power is low enough for it to be "safe" - if that word can be used at all with respect to methods of electricity generation. I think the thing about Europe being uninhabitable for half a million years is probably an absolute worst-case scenario, and possibly exaggerated although I haven't been able to find a source that talks about it. I would be very surprised if this came close to happening. Disposing of radioactive material is a problem but I think there are ways being developed which could solve the problem - one idea being to build concrete around it and put it in a disused mine, the idea being that enough heat will eventually be generated
+1
level 57
Jan 31, 2019
to melt the concrete and some of the surrounding rock, forming a wall of separation between it and the outside environment. It sounds dangerous and indeed would be unless great care is taken to ensure that there is no contact with the water cycle, but there is quite a lot of radioactive material in the earth already - it is what nuclear power stations use as a fuel in the first place and is what causes geothermal hotspots.
+3
level 57
Jan 31, 2019
That said, other forms of renewable energy (in my opinion nuclear power should really be considered renewable as it will be available for a similar length of time to solar energy if used at the same rate it is now) are much better if you can find a way to make them deliver fast enough. If you had a sufficient supply of solar panels it is actually true to say that the world's energy demands could be easily satisfied, provided you could get enough land to put them on. Unfortunately this isn't really possible, although it probably is possible in theory to build enough renewable energy gathering machines to satisfy the world's energy demands. In Britain, for example, wind energy is the most efficient form of renewable energy given the climate and setting aside problems with obtaining land and to some extent concerns over airflow disruption, we probably could satisfy our energy demands with wind power.
+1
level 71
Jun 2, 2019
Chernobyl was due to Soviet incompetence. As long as the right regulations and safety precautions are followed nuclear is safer than anything else.
+1
level 63
Jun 3, 2019
Ever heard of Fukushima?
+1
level 3
Jun 26, 2018
I hope that people are brilliant enough to use nuclear power right. I doubt that.
+1
level 24
Apr 26, 2018
I didn't get uk how could I miss us idiot
+1
level 45
Jun 19, 2018
Really interesting quiz
+2
level 31
Jun 19, 2018
Damn, I keep missing South Korea in EVERY quiz! I'll start with that one from now on...
+1
level 59
Jun 19, 2018
Same for me. I also told myself "I have to start with South Korea from now on!" and still keep forgetting it. Well, at least I typed "southko" as time was up.
+4
level 43
Jun 19, 2018
only one I missed was Canada. I'm Canadian.
+1
level 54
Jun 19, 2018
Was surprised to see Sweden on the list. I didn’t bother guessing any Scandinavian countries as I assumed that they are more focused on renewable energy sources. Oh well, you learn something new everyday!
+1
level 59
Jun 20, 2018
Norway is one of the world's biggest oil suppliers. Or was, it's tailing off now that North Sea oil is dropping off.
+1
level 54
Jun 20, 2018
True but 98% of Norway’s electricity production comes from renewable sources. Between that and the North Sea oil, I would assume nuclear power was very low on their list. I stupidly assumed that would also translate to their neighbour but was once again proved wrong by jetpunk quizzes!
+1
level 59
Apr 29, 2019
I only knew Sweden because of a TV segment in Germany about a Swedish village volunteering to become place for nuclear "trash"
+3
level 49
Jun 19, 2018
This quiz is so enriching.
+2
level 42
Jun 20, 2018
Too many jetpunk quizzes are just the same 10 countries in a weird order
+1
level 8
Jun 20, 2018
0:38 left almost missed south korea and russia.
+1
level 22
Feb 1, 2019
Dang it! I forgot Ukraine... I didn’t know Ukraine had nuclear power plants or nuclear energy... What about Poland? In the news I heard Poland uses a lot of nuclear energy also...
+1
level 48
Feb 1, 2019
Never heard about Chernobyl?
+1
level 61
Jun 30, 2019
I started to type Scandinavian countries... Denmark, Norway, Finland, then I ran out of time. Only missed Sweden