Top 10 Countries in Nuclear Power Production

Guess the top 10 largest nuclear power producing countries in the world.
For the year 2020 according to Wikipedia
% = the percent of the country's total electricity generation which comes from nuclear
Quiz by skukka
Rate:
Last updated: September 14, 2021
First submittedNovember 22, 2016
Times taken41,445
Average score80.0%
Rating4.90
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
789,919
19.7
United States
344,748
4.9
China
338,671
70.6
France
201,821
20.6
Russia
152,583
29.6
South Korea
GWh
%
Country
92,166
14.6
Canada
71,550
51.2
Ukraine
60,918
11.3
Germany
55,825
22.2
Spain
47,362
29.8
Sweden
+17
Level 77
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 77
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 88
Feb 8, 2018
What does the % column stand for?
+4
Level 62
Feb 8, 2018
Of all energy produced.
+18
Level 68
Feb 8, 2018
Correction: Of all eletric power generated.
+2
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 62
Apr 26, 2018
Thanks! I'll try and keep you posted ;)
+7
Level 68
Mar 28, 2018
No Japan?
+1
Level 4
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

+49
Level 88
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.
+11
Level 75
Jun 6, 2019
@roosa1 NONONONONONONONONO
+1
Level 26
Aug 4, 2020
lol
+38
Level 71
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)
+20
Level 50
Jun 19, 2018
Or we could go with solar, tidal and wind instead.
+36
Level 60
Jun 19, 2018
And have no energy.
+6
Level 50
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.
+9
Level 83
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.

+12
Level 69
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.
+2
Level 50
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.
+2
Level 55
Jan 15, 2020
There would be some serious problems to overcome before that is possible. For example, with oil- and gas-powered stations, as well as traditional hydropower, we are able to regulate amounts of electric energy produced every moment, allowing to produce more during rush hour, when it is needed, and less when it is not needed. With wind and solar energy we would have no control over output whatsoever without some MASSIVE batteries, while tidal energy requires impressive amounts of infrastructure, especially for inland facilities. Though a pre-project for Penzhina TPP exists, and that'd be some extraordinary project with all the necessary infrastructure.
+4
Level 62
Jan 15, 2020
@1MoloT1xD: There was also a time when computers were the size of a house and had less capacity than the phone you have. So we should strive for development and evolution, not just being content with what we currently have.
+5
Level 75
Sep 15, 2021
Not sure where CaoMaru gets the 80% figure for Germany? It's more in the range of 40%. As well, Germany is re-opening coal-power plants to compensate for closing nuclear power plants. What is cleaner coal or nuclear? I would say nuclear by a large margin!
+2
Level 56
Sep 15, 2021
@skukka I don’t see any reason that we should need to reduce consumption if we can switch to nuclear or other renewable energies. Meeting energy demands is the best long-term solution.
+1
Level 63
Sep 17, 2021
For all of those 3 you need massive amounts of space and in a lot of countries you don't have that.
+13
Level 71
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.
+6
Level 71
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.
+27
Level 65
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

+14
Level 62
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
+9
Level 67
May 2, 2021
@ChaosLord, nuclear power has killed fewer people per unit of power produced than EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOURCE OF POWER IN THE WORLD. Nuclear energy is not only incredibly safe with the right precautions, but it is ridiculously efficient.
+3
Level 71
Sep 15, 2021
Nuclear power plants are the airplanes of the power industry. By far the most safe statistically, but if it goes wrong many people suffer
+3
Level 56
Sep 15, 2021
@ChaosLord There are several things incorrect yo said. Nuclear production really doesn’t make that much waste, and we could store it deep underground, where it can harm no one, in somewhere like Yucca Mountain if politics allowed it to happen. There are also breeder reactors which can reuse nuclear waste, making even less nuclear waste.
+2
Level 68
Sep 17, 2021
No one else mentioned it, but attacking a person's education as part of your argument indicates that you are either wrong or kind of a jerk. "Pays testament to your poor education" is just a pretentious way of calling someone stupid. If your argument is valid, then you really shouldn't have to be acidic and rude.
+1
Level ∞
Sep 17, 2021
@Dimby. Agree 100%.

Educated people can be very stupid indeed.

The problem with using education as a proxy for intelligence is that, like almost all other proxies, it is easily gamed. The standards required to earn an advanced degree are shockingly low in many fields.

+1
Level 43
Nov 19, 2021
More people has died from coal than from nuclear power.
+7
Level 65
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.
+7
Level 83
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.

+25
Level 26
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.

+4
Level 83
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.
+5
Level 50
Jun 20, 2018
I agree nuclear power is a BAD idea. It would be far better to go with tidal, solar and wind power.
+4
Level 66
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
+2
Level 66
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.
+4
Level 66
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.
+5
Level 77
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.
+3
Level 62
Jun 3, 2019
Ever heard of Fukushima?
+2
Level 56
Sep 15, 2021
Thankfully only a few Chernobyl-type reactors still exist. Most have already been phased out, and these will too in the coming decades. Newer models (especially thorium molten-salt reactors, which are meltdown-resistant) are much safer than those and Fukushima-type reactors and should continue to be built.
+1
Level 83
Sep 18, 2021
I know the statistics, and that based on them nuclear is actually far, far, far less deadly than coal (especially), oil, natural gas, or even solar power believe it or not. I just take the view that looking at it this way, by past statistics, is sort of like saying on September 10th, 2001, that Islamic terrorism in the United States isn't a threat because statistically it kills fewer people than horse kicks and bee stings. Well... just wait...

That said, if it's an important part of getting us off of fossil fuels in a nearer future, we should go for it.

+1
Level 4
Jun 26, 2018
I hope that people are brilliant enough to use nuclear power right. I doubt that.
+3
Level 74
Aug 24, 2021
Like most problems, there is no single "silver bullet" solution to replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear is and should remain a part of the mix that will include wind, thermal, hydro, tidal and solar technologies. Like everything, it should be subject to ongoing research and development with regards to safety and efficiency, and it will not be suited to every situation. Historically the risk/reward ratio compares favourably with most other tech on a net basis.

Radioactive materials already exist in the natural environment; it would be irresponsible to ignore their potential benefits due to uninformed scaremongering

+1
Level 37
Apr 26, 2018
I didn't get uk how could I miss us idiot
+1
Level 50
Jun 19, 2018
Really interesting quiz
+2
Level 30
Jun 19, 2018
Damn, I keep missing South Korea in EVERY quiz! I'll start with that one from now on...
+1
Level 62
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 41
Jun 19, 2018
only one I missed was Canada. I'm Canadian.
+1
Level 68
Sep 17, 2021
Crazy to think we have that much power by nuclear, when power plants only exist in Quebec, Ontario and NB.
+2
Level 57
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 61
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.
+2
Level 57
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 61
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"
+1
Level 81
Sep 17, 2021
Same, I expected countries like India and Japan. Sweden is by far the smallest country on this list.
+1
Level 61
Sep 17, 2021
In terms of population yes, but in terms of area Sweden is actually larger than Germany and Japan and much larger than South Korea.
+4
Level 51
Jun 19, 2018
This quiz is so enriching.
+3
Level 51
Jun 20, 2018
Too many jetpunk quizzes are just the same 10 countries in a weird order
+1
Level 26
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...
+4
Level 48
Feb 1, 2019
Never heard about Chernobyl?
+1
Level 36
Mar 10, 2021
Fake news. I'm polish and we do not have one nuclear power plant. Poles are very scared because of nearby Chernobyl and massively uneducated in this fields, so inrational fear wins every single debate about it. What's more depressing, our current government is slowly restricting wind power plants and we became Europe's biggest coal engine, poisoning environment even outside our borders :(
+2
Level 66
Jun 30, 2019
I started to type Scandinavian countries... Denmark, Norway, Finland, then I ran out of time. Only missed Sweden
+1
Level 61
Jun 2, 2021
I'd like 'Top 9 Countries in Nuclear Power Production',because I missed Sweden!
+2
Level 77
Sep 14, 2021
Spain's about to shut down three nuclear power plants, so this might need another revision very soon.
+5
Level ∞
Sep 14, 2021
Guess those Paris Accords don't mean much to them.
+1
Level 65
Sep 15, 2021
5 seconds left haha
+1
Level 55
Sep 17, 2021
Got them all right. Guessed Sweden and Ukraine tho
+1
Level 48
Sep 17, 2021
Nuclear power? I confused it to nuclear bomb and tried north korea lol
+1
Level 27
Sep 17, 2021
I didn't get Russia and South Korea first time, got em all the second time tho :))
+1
Level 28
Sep 17, 2021
sweden?