Talk:Nuclear decommissioning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

There is a confusingly similar article called "Decommissioning nuclear facilities". 217.41.240.15 12:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the problem was fixed. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the first few links are totally not up to date. Whats WP's policy of reomving links? -- 85.125.140.110 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture showing a containment in deconstruction is likely wrong. I believe it shows a containment in construction, evident by the rebarb that is visible. If it had been in contact with concrete, it would not be possible to remove the concrete so tidily and the rebarb would look twisted in places, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.47.44 (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experience[edit]

No mention of the Experience of Trojan, Connectict Yankee and Maine Yankee? Simesa (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for United Kingdon - Windscale under "Nuclear decommissioning in Western Europe" is incorrect, WAGR did not suffer core damage and partial fuel meltdown, it was Windscale Pile 1. 81.144.241.196 (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose to merge Nuclear entombment into this article as one option of decommissioning. Beagel (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to have attracted any attention. Should also merge in SAFSTOR - these are 2 K or 3K long each, and wouldn't make this article unmanageably long. Or is it useful to separate the "nuts and bolts" of different decommissioning methods from a general discussion of decommissioning issues? It was previously tagged for 2 years with no merge, so it's not a hot issue with editors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Untagged, no-one has talked about this for a while. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windscale[edit]

The "Windscale" entry in the Nuclear decommissioning in Western Europe table seems to confuse two different reactors, the Winscale Advanced Gas Reactor (WAGR), a prototype Advanced gas-cooled reactor and the Windscale pile no. 1 which burned in the Windscale fire. HughesJohn (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Country: Location: Reactor type: Operative Life: Decommissioning
phase: 		Dismantling
cost:
United Kingdom Sellafield-Windscale
(Note: Windscale: Britain’s Biggest Nuclear Disaster) 		Windscale Advanced Gas Reactor
WAGR
(32 MWe) 		18 years
(1963–1981)
Fire of graphite in moderation bars inside the reactor
partial meltdown of fuel [1] 		Remotion of reactor in 2009 -
pilot project
(cutting with remote controlled robots, UV lasers) [2][3],[4][5] 		Bigger than $2600/kWe
(WNI estimates)
Until now
E. 117 Million
  1. ^ NUCLEARTOURIST: Partial Fuel Meltdown Events
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference eu-decom.be was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ UKAEA - Case Studies - Decommissioning - Windscale Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor
  4. ^ WAGR decommissioning : preparation, removal and disposal of the WAGR heat exchangers
  5. ^ Summary of Responses to Discussion Letter on Future of Windscale

Dead liinks[edit]

This page appears to be where links go to die. HughesJohn (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Also many poor quality links of dubious sources. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Reactors[edit]

This is not a very complete list. What reactors are missing? There is a much much longer list of reactors decommissioned then this.... Where are all the early research reactors? Daini is not decommissioned or slated for decommissioning.
EBR-1
Fermi 1
Zeep, Astra, NRX, WR-1
SuperPhénix
Phénix

Ottawakismet (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland: KKW Mühleberg : Decomissioning started in 2022
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:21B4:8A2B:8300:90A:6973:61D0:FE66 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.power-technology.com/projects/maine
    Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separate list for Japanese reactors?[edit]

Why there are 2 separate lists for Japanese decommisioned reactors? All other countries are grouped into macroregions. I think Japanese tables should be merged into the Asia table. Moreover, I would prefer a unified table listing all reactors, sortable by country, type, year etc. This would greatly help in the reading. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ita140188 -- Similarly, I wonder why Chelyabinsk is in the Europe list. It is east of the Urals, therefore it's in Asia. Rhadow (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: I think the continent is just based on the country, in this case Russia. However I agree that the division by continent is not very helpful and I still think the article would look better if merged in one list. --Ita140188 (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ita140188: -- I agree. To segregate the list geographically is arbitrary. It expresses an implicit bias against nations of the former Soviet Union, which may or may not be deserved where nuclear power plants are concerned. Rhadow (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear decommissioning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Standardizing costs[edit]

The costs of decommissioning are shown in various currencies and time periods - annual, total, weekly, etc. Would it not make sense to standardize this? Netherzone (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good, but not easy to do, specially because many currencies tend to fluctuate a lot!87.12.202.62 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copy right issue World Nuclear Association[edit]

I see that a lot of text is directly copied from and not attributed to the World Nuclear Association website about that topic at http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this text? If it is a text from US government, or a UN resource, it must be considered in the Public domain. If it's a text from an author, it can be quoted to the extend of 200 words. Would be helpful if you try to put the references whenever possible. Several requests of references were simply absurd, since many facts are clearly explained in further parts of the same article. Others are known facts of the nuclear industry. --80.117.227.24 (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased the part that was copied (the "Options" section). The article is not problematic anymore. This is the copyvio check: [1]

Does this include disarming weapons?[edit]

The article doesn't make it clear whether or not "nuclear decommissioning" includes arms reduction. NeonMerlin 09:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How Long Will It take to decommission of the various proccess?[edit]

I don't see any links to the duration of nuclear decommission, how long will it take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.29.7 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Decommissioning: There is an error in your list-table of decommissioning of nuclear reactors.[edit]

Your list of decommissioning of nuclear reactors does not include Windscale 1 and 2, in Britain. On 10 October 1957 Windscale #1 caught fire. The core used graphite bricks and the graphite caught fire sending clouds of radioactive smoke across the north of England and Scandinavia. I suggest this event is included in your list and marked as a red. Many people died of cancer and it was as dangerous as 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire I was 13 years old and living nearby. 2001:44B8:2182:FC00:9572:35A0:D855:E883 (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_decommissioning&oldid=1204359310"