![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It is my understanding that while the AP1000 has advanced passive features, it is not a fully passively-safe design in that some operator action is necessary to shut it down safely. However I do not have a source for this, and Westinghouse did not respond to my inquiry.
Westinghouse Electric Company 4350 Northern Pike Monroeville, PA 15146-2887 http://www.westinghousenuclear.com 412-374-4111
Simesa 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss this in Talk:Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor
I should have seen that this article had been created. My apologies for the confusion. Now, do we keep both articles but cross-reference, or do we merge?
Also, what about the European Pressurized Reactor? Shouldn't we discuss how it is or isn't "advanced"?
Simesa 19:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well Mitsubishi also has a reactor called the APWR. Maybe I'll write an article about that one which should help add to the confusion.
wagsbags 16:30, 28 July 2006 (EST)
I think the Mitsubishi reactor you mention is the Mitsubishi/GE ABWR. DMWard 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, Mitsubishi US-APWR. It is mentioned here http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
wagsbags 16:30, 23 April 2007 (EST)
Alright, my edits aren't incredible, but you really needed something more about this one. I think it's looking pretty good, next I would say go for pictures and then an actual description of the plant features. theanphibian 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The section describing fewer pumps, fewer moving parts does not qualify the comparison. The AP1000 design has 35% fewer pumps, THAN WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndytheSE ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Many common sources refer to the AP1000 as passively safe, yet I have heard differently. See
[1] section 7.4 (page 7-48 etc.). The limiting event for a PWR typically is Station Blackout, and it appears the AP1000 isn't passively safe in this event (see 7.4.2 first paragraph). I will continue to research this.
Simesa 06:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
To my expert knowledge, the AP1000 meets or exceeds all requirements set out by the NRC's Nuclear Power 2010 Program which will make it a Generation III+ reactor along with GE's ESBWR. I believe, though am not absolutely certain, that the NRC requirement for Generation III+ designs mandates complete and total passive safety systems (i.e. the plant shall be maintained in a safe-state by solely passive means in the event of design basis events). That leaves the open question of "what is a design basis event?" which probably has an extremely complicated answer. I AM certain however, that a loss of off-site power (the correct industry term) IS a design basis event. In the event of a loss of off-site power, the dedicated safety control system engages automatically from battery backup. This so-called safety system (which is quadruply redundant per NRC regulation) automatically takes the necessary control action to put the plant into the safe state. No pumps are required to maintain safe state. Any valves that must be opened are squib valves (exploding) that are deployed by the safety system. Any safety related valves that must be closed, which I do not think there are any, would have dedicated battery backup power. This should be investigated further, and the public NRC documents regarding the AP1000 (of which there are many volumes) should be sourced to provide an accurate yet neutral article. I am 100% confidant that the AP1000 meets or exceeds all NRC requirements for passive safety--this is publicly documented in the 2005 Final Design Certification documentation. Lwnf360 06:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to imply that only Westinghouse designs qualify as "Advanced PWRs" which isn't really fair. It can certainly be argued that Westinghouse's designs are the only new PWRs that are passive but it seems like Mitsubishi's APWR and Areva's EPR would both be considered "Advanced" PWRs. I recommend that this article be modified to discuss APWRs in general and a separate article can be made for the AP1000 and AP600. The overall topic of passive nuclear safety is covered in the article "passive nuclear safety" which contains a list of passive reactors.
wagsbags 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, if you call Areva's EPR an "Adanced PWR" you have to call the AP1000 one as well. Areva's design is the same for their EPR as the Westinghouse AP1000. In fact Westinghouse for agreement reasons had to supply Areva with the AP1000 designs. Areva is incapable of putting any foot forward on this design though, and they are several years further behind than AP1000 currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.94 ( talk) 23:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable (and neutral) source on that issue, or is this just the Areva-vs-Westinghous thing? Both designs are Generation III+ (or at least: considered as being so by their supplier) and present a huge effort in avoiding a core meltdown, or at least limiting the effect on the plant itself.
I can't realy tell you which is the better approch, but as you do so, it would be nice to have a source. Or at least some more specific information.
-- Glovetrotter ( talk) 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Having worked a little on the AP1000, here is a little insight. The AP1000 has fewer safety related components then a Westinghouse generation II design. Passive means there are no active components (pumps) are required to move the water through the core, water movement is by natural convection processes, i.e., heat rises and cold descends. There are components that must actuate, a few valves, to initiate the passive safety functions. The initiation does not require any operator actions and once initiated, the passive system will maintain cooling to the core with no operator actions indefinately.
The passive cooling systems do not actuate unless there is a a reactor trip AND failure of all AC power sources, i.e., if the on-site diesel generator fail to start in a station black out, then the passive systems start automatically. Otherwise, the normal shutdown cooling, using pumps, is used to cool the core. So, in an loss of all AC power event like Japan, the core integrity will be maintained passively with no power sources needed except for instrumentation used to monitor the plant which are powered by separate, smaller diesel generators and batteries.
Also, the water tank on top of the shield building does not cool the reactor, it cools the containment vessel to redure the pressure excursion in the containment vessel. There is another huge water tank inside the containment vessel that provides cooling water for the reactor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSuschena ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Most scientific experts in the field of core meltdown simulations are of the opinion that the AP1000 is anything but safe.
The cornerstone of the AP1000's safety is the claim that natural convection cooling is good enough to prevent a breakout of corium out of the reactor vessel after a meltdown. Due to this, Westinghouse did a lot of handwaving since a core meltdown is now "safe". Unlike the EPR, their design did not go the extra leg to prevent a core melt at all costs.
For static cases, the numbers look good and the steel vessel should be cooled sufficiently so that the pressure vessel can't rupture. BUT, there are multiple problems once one starts looking at the dynamic mechanics of a core meltdown. One issue for example is so called "iron rain" puncturing the colder corium crust and causing much hotter liquid corium to burn through the reactor vessel.
Since a rupturing of the pressure vessel is "impossible", the conrete foundations of the AP1000 are unusually weak for a PWR. Hence the results of a corium leak would be much more catastrophic than in a current nuclear power plant. -- Dio1982 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this statement:
Examples include Westinghouse's AP600 and AP1000, Areva's EPR and Mitsubishi's US-APWR.
Seems a little American-centric, you know, considering that there is simply an APWR in existance? I'll work a little on this. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is the Westinghouse APWR, but it was only built in Japan and never licensed in the US. So, using the same basic design, they renamed it the US-APWR for licensing in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSuschena ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This article should be renamed to AP1000. Separate articles exist for the Mitsubishi APWR, Areva EPR and GE ESBWR designs. This article should be on Westinghosue's AP1000 as it does not have its own article yet. Overview of so-called nuclear renaissance (Generation III+ designs) in the US can be found at the Nuclear Power 2010 Program page. Information regarding "advanced" or Generation IV designs as the industry calls them, can be found at Generation IV reactor. Lwnf360 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the AP600 information to the AP600 page. I have added some information about the AP1000, but not as much as I would like. I have also removed non-AP1000 content and requested an administrator to move this page to AP1000 so that the history and talk page can be preserved. Lwnf360 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
See [2]. And they're referring to the MHI design, so we should probably point this there. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is strange to see that this $8 billion is the biggest contract ever... Look at the EPR page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor#China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.186.14 ( talk) 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
When it is said that the AP1000 has X% fewer widgets, in comparison to what? A SNUPPS plant, an average PWR like Waterford, Fermi, AP600 design? I'm not denying the claim at all, I just don't know what they're referencing. By the way, I'm at a PWR right now, so I can't login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.34.196.40 ( talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone care to explain why most of this article reads like it has been written by Westinghouse's PR department? The technical problems, including the general fragility of the plant compared to others, which are delaying planning permission for building the AP1000 in parts of Europe aren't even touched upon. 94.173.0.226 ( talk) 14:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've split the PCCS into its own section because a "passive" system that only works if active systems work deserves a bit more explaining, as does the reason why it's needed at all. If you've questions or concerns please read the AP1000 Pre-Construction Safety Report [4] first, since it discusses this in much detail. The main, understandable, gap is in discussion of vulnerability to paramilitary and asymmetric actions, to which the design appears vulnerable unless they have somehow made pipes that can't be cut by explosive cutting charges but which remain readily available for inspection. Jamesday ( talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Not quite sure what your statment is. There are many systems associated with the AP1000, like 100 or so. But there are only a couple "passive cooling" systems, most all others are active systems. So, here's a little info. There are 2 primary active systems that control the AP1000, a protection and safety system and a balance or plant control system. These are "active" systems with 2 or 4 separate and independant trains. Either one by itself with actuate the passive cooling system and block operating of the normal cooling systems.
This link is to a traing video that provides some of the basic functions of two passive cooling systems, Passive Core Cooling System and Passive Containment Cooling System. http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_imeo.html Enjoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.109.35.51 ( talk) 15:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
99.190.86.5 ( talk) 04:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There are plans to build two ap1000 at V.C.Summer, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station, aren't they? ` a5b ( talk) 21:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
AP1000. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on AP1000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on AP1000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
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 AP1000'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 "world-nuclear.org":
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 ⚡ 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It is my understanding that while the AP1000 has advanced passive features, it is not a fully passively-safe design in that some operator action is necessary to shut it down safely. However I do not have a source for this, and Westinghouse did not respond to my inquiry.
Westinghouse Electric Company 4350 Northern Pike Monroeville, PA 15146-2887 http://www.westinghousenuclear.com 412-374-4111
Simesa 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss this in Talk:Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor
I should have seen that this article had been created. My apologies for the confusion. Now, do we keep both articles but cross-reference, or do we merge?
Also, what about the European Pressurized Reactor? Shouldn't we discuss how it is or isn't "advanced"?
Simesa 19:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well Mitsubishi also has a reactor called the APWR. Maybe I'll write an article about that one which should help add to the confusion.
wagsbags 16:30, 28 July 2006 (EST)
I think the Mitsubishi reactor you mention is the Mitsubishi/GE ABWR. DMWard 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, Mitsubishi US-APWR. It is mentioned here http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
wagsbags 16:30, 23 April 2007 (EST)
Alright, my edits aren't incredible, but you really needed something more about this one. I think it's looking pretty good, next I would say go for pictures and then an actual description of the plant features. theanphibian 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The section describing fewer pumps, fewer moving parts does not qualify the comparison. The AP1000 design has 35% fewer pumps, THAN WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndytheSE ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Many common sources refer to the AP1000 as passively safe, yet I have heard differently. See
[1] section 7.4 (page 7-48 etc.). The limiting event for a PWR typically is Station Blackout, and it appears the AP1000 isn't passively safe in this event (see 7.4.2 first paragraph). I will continue to research this.
Simesa 06:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
To my expert knowledge, the AP1000 meets or exceeds all requirements set out by the NRC's Nuclear Power 2010 Program which will make it a Generation III+ reactor along with GE's ESBWR. I believe, though am not absolutely certain, that the NRC requirement for Generation III+ designs mandates complete and total passive safety systems (i.e. the plant shall be maintained in a safe-state by solely passive means in the event of design basis events). That leaves the open question of "what is a design basis event?" which probably has an extremely complicated answer. I AM certain however, that a loss of off-site power (the correct industry term) IS a design basis event. In the event of a loss of off-site power, the dedicated safety control system engages automatically from battery backup. This so-called safety system (which is quadruply redundant per NRC regulation) automatically takes the necessary control action to put the plant into the safe state. No pumps are required to maintain safe state. Any valves that must be opened are squib valves (exploding) that are deployed by the safety system. Any safety related valves that must be closed, which I do not think there are any, would have dedicated battery backup power. This should be investigated further, and the public NRC documents regarding the AP1000 (of which there are many volumes) should be sourced to provide an accurate yet neutral article. I am 100% confidant that the AP1000 meets or exceeds all NRC requirements for passive safety--this is publicly documented in the 2005 Final Design Certification documentation. Lwnf360 06:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to imply that only Westinghouse designs qualify as "Advanced PWRs" which isn't really fair. It can certainly be argued that Westinghouse's designs are the only new PWRs that are passive but it seems like Mitsubishi's APWR and Areva's EPR would both be considered "Advanced" PWRs. I recommend that this article be modified to discuss APWRs in general and a separate article can be made for the AP1000 and AP600. The overall topic of passive nuclear safety is covered in the article "passive nuclear safety" which contains a list of passive reactors.
wagsbags 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, if you call Areva's EPR an "Adanced PWR" you have to call the AP1000 one as well. Areva's design is the same for their EPR as the Westinghouse AP1000. In fact Westinghouse for agreement reasons had to supply Areva with the AP1000 designs. Areva is incapable of putting any foot forward on this design though, and they are several years further behind than AP1000 currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.94 ( talk) 23:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable (and neutral) source on that issue, or is this just the Areva-vs-Westinghous thing? Both designs are Generation III+ (or at least: considered as being so by their supplier) and present a huge effort in avoiding a core meltdown, or at least limiting the effect on the plant itself.
I can't realy tell you which is the better approch, but as you do so, it would be nice to have a source. Or at least some more specific information.
-- Glovetrotter ( talk) 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Having worked a little on the AP1000, here is a little insight. The AP1000 has fewer safety related components then a Westinghouse generation II design. Passive means there are no active components (pumps) are required to move the water through the core, water movement is by natural convection processes, i.e., heat rises and cold descends. There are components that must actuate, a few valves, to initiate the passive safety functions. The initiation does not require any operator actions and once initiated, the passive system will maintain cooling to the core with no operator actions indefinately.
The passive cooling systems do not actuate unless there is a a reactor trip AND failure of all AC power sources, i.e., if the on-site diesel generator fail to start in a station black out, then the passive systems start automatically. Otherwise, the normal shutdown cooling, using pumps, is used to cool the core. So, in an loss of all AC power event like Japan, the core integrity will be maintained passively with no power sources needed except for instrumentation used to monitor the plant which are powered by separate, smaller diesel generators and batteries.
Also, the water tank on top of the shield building does not cool the reactor, it cools the containment vessel to redure the pressure excursion in the containment vessel. There is another huge water tank inside the containment vessel that provides cooling water for the reactor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSuschena ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Most scientific experts in the field of core meltdown simulations are of the opinion that the AP1000 is anything but safe.
The cornerstone of the AP1000's safety is the claim that natural convection cooling is good enough to prevent a breakout of corium out of the reactor vessel after a meltdown. Due to this, Westinghouse did a lot of handwaving since a core meltdown is now "safe". Unlike the EPR, their design did not go the extra leg to prevent a core melt at all costs.
For static cases, the numbers look good and the steel vessel should be cooled sufficiently so that the pressure vessel can't rupture. BUT, there are multiple problems once one starts looking at the dynamic mechanics of a core meltdown. One issue for example is so called "iron rain" puncturing the colder corium crust and causing much hotter liquid corium to burn through the reactor vessel.
Since a rupturing of the pressure vessel is "impossible", the conrete foundations of the AP1000 are unusually weak for a PWR. Hence the results of a corium leak would be much more catastrophic than in a current nuclear power plant. -- Dio1982 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this statement:
Examples include Westinghouse's AP600 and AP1000, Areva's EPR and Mitsubishi's US-APWR.
Seems a little American-centric, you know, considering that there is simply an APWR in existance? I'll work a little on this. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is the Westinghouse APWR, but it was only built in Japan and never licensed in the US. So, using the same basic design, they renamed it the US-APWR for licensing in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSuschena ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This article should be renamed to AP1000. Separate articles exist for the Mitsubishi APWR, Areva EPR and GE ESBWR designs. This article should be on Westinghosue's AP1000 as it does not have its own article yet. Overview of so-called nuclear renaissance (Generation III+ designs) in the US can be found at the Nuclear Power 2010 Program page. Information regarding "advanced" or Generation IV designs as the industry calls them, can be found at Generation IV reactor. Lwnf360 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the AP600 information to the AP600 page. I have added some information about the AP1000, but not as much as I would like. I have also removed non-AP1000 content and requested an administrator to move this page to AP1000 so that the history and talk page can be preserved. Lwnf360 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
See [2]. And they're referring to the MHI design, so we should probably point this there. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is strange to see that this $8 billion is the biggest contract ever... Look at the EPR page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor#China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.186.14 ( talk) 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
When it is said that the AP1000 has X% fewer widgets, in comparison to what? A SNUPPS plant, an average PWR like Waterford, Fermi, AP600 design? I'm not denying the claim at all, I just don't know what they're referencing. By the way, I'm at a PWR right now, so I can't login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.34.196.40 ( talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone care to explain why most of this article reads like it has been written by Westinghouse's PR department? The technical problems, including the general fragility of the plant compared to others, which are delaying planning permission for building the AP1000 in parts of Europe aren't even touched upon. 94.173.0.226 ( talk) 14:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've split the PCCS into its own section because a "passive" system that only works if active systems work deserves a bit more explaining, as does the reason why it's needed at all. If you've questions or concerns please read the AP1000 Pre-Construction Safety Report [4] first, since it discusses this in much detail. The main, understandable, gap is in discussion of vulnerability to paramilitary and asymmetric actions, to which the design appears vulnerable unless they have somehow made pipes that can't be cut by explosive cutting charges but which remain readily available for inspection. Jamesday ( talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Not quite sure what your statment is. There are many systems associated with the AP1000, like 100 or so. But there are only a couple "passive cooling" systems, most all others are active systems. So, here's a little info. There are 2 primary active systems that control the AP1000, a protection and safety system and a balance or plant control system. These are "active" systems with 2 or 4 separate and independant trains. Either one by itself with actuate the passive cooling system and block operating of the normal cooling systems.
This link is to a traing video that provides some of the basic functions of two passive cooling systems, Passive Core Cooling System and Passive Containment Cooling System. http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_imeo.html Enjoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.109.35.51 ( talk) 15:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
99.190.86.5 ( talk) 04:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There are plans to build two ap1000 at V.C.Summer, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station, aren't they? ` a5b ( talk) 21:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
AP1000. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on AP1000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on AP1000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
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 AP1000'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 "world-nuclear.org":
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 ⚡ 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)