![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't this article missing a lot, such as:
Are all these map links really needed? This is not even a geographic entry.
-- Jdeboer 14:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah, those links are part of a spamming of all nukes. Well, they are broken for Canadian sites, so away they go. -- Jdeboer 04:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They can give very nice and detailed satellite images on US sites, unfortunately, Canada sites can hardly be seen on Google maps or Terra. -- Dubaduba 19:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I saw in the news today that the Ontario Government has committed to refurbishing and reactivating Reactors 1 and 2 -- dovm 23:09, 13 Oct 2005
Added in a bit about the ongoing refurbishment of units 1 and 2, and a like to the Bruce Power website describing the project. Burtonpe 19:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Latest debacle in updating units 1 & 2. Documents left behind in a news studio by the Minister in charge of sector.
Bruce 1 reactor 324 days late, and Bruce 2 reactor 433 days late.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090603/AECL_raitt_follow_090603/20090603/?hub=TorontoNewHome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.6.118 ( talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement "Bruce A subsequently lost this capability due to safety concerns with the booster rod system" is unsourced and I'm pretty sure it's wrong. The booster system was originally designed for this kind of extra maneuvering capability, but the safety concerns were raised during original construction. I don't think the boosters were ever completed or made operational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.176.194 ( talk) 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The booster rods were definately installed and used, but were subsequently removed due to operational difficulties with their cooling systems. They were never unsafe. This reference [1] from the AECB describes their design and use. The were removed after the publicaton was produced, but 1993 is after the commissioning of Bruce A. The parent website for this reference ( [2]) has a lot of very good CANDU-related references. Alex Rauket ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Clearly stated in the OSPE report page 7, which is and was referenced:
"The Bruce A and B stations were designed to operate through grid disturbances and were also designed to operate for at least 6 hours disconnected from the grid so they could reconnect following a load rejection or grid blackout. Unfortunately, a design decision to use booster rods to control reactor power in the Bruce A units rather than absorber rods proved to be a reactor safety concern. They were subsequently removed without installing absorber rods. Consequently, the Bruce A units can no longer operate after a load rejection or grid blackout and are currently required to shut down following those events. During the planning for the refurbishment of the Bruce A units, the capability to survive a load rejection or grid blackout was not included in the scope of the refurbishment work." [1]
So were installed, were a safety concern, were removed. And was not unsourced. Feldercarb ( talk) 22:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Feldercarb ( talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
References
What does it take to move an article beyond Start Class? Feldercarb ( talk) 00:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC) What's worse: "cheers" or "enjoy"?
okay nice lecture, can we bump its rating up? Feldercarb ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a very important distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.65.1 ( talk) 12:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the OCAA a fringe group? They are quoted in the /info/en/?search=Ontario_electricity_policy wiki article. I think I would like to have critical points of view posted/noted, and present an opposing point of view, rather than dismiss out of hand. Feldercarb ( talk) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this section is overly detailed, and could perhaps be moved to the Cobalt 60 article 207.245.235.26 ( talk) 01:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Feldercarb ( talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
From https://london.ctvnews.ca/mobile/first-steam-generator-arrives-at-bruce-power-for-13b-refurbishment-project-1.5098299 ➡️ "Bruce Power has just started a 13-year, $13-billion project to refurbish six of their eight nuclear reactors, extending the life of the Bruce Power site until 2064."
This edit [2] has been made at least 12 times by IPs (11 times by the same IP). It has been undone by various named accounts, and I agree with their edit summaries stating that "the plant suffered another PR blow" is WP:POV. I've warned the main IP for edit warring. Meters ( talk) 03:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Lakes Huron and Erie and Ontario are missing. -- Beland ( talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't this article missing a lot, such as:
Are all these map links really needed? This is not even a geographic entry.
-- Jdeboer 14:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah, those links are part of a spamming of all nukes. Well, they are broken for Canadian sites, so away they go. -- Jdeboer 04:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They can give very nice and detailed satellite images on US sites, unfortunately, Canada sites can hardly be seen on Google maps or Terra. -- Dubaduba 19:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I saw in the news today that the Ontario Government has committed to refurbishing and reactivating Reactors 1 and 2 -- dovm 23:09, 13 Oct 2005
Added in a bit about the ongoing refurbishment of units 1 and 2, and a like to the Bruce Power website describing the project. Burtonpe 19:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Latest debacle in updating units 1 & 2. Documents left behind in a news studio by the Minister in charge of sector.
Bruce 1 reactor 324 days late, and Bruce 2 reactor 433 days late.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090603/AECL_raitt_follow_090603/20090603/?hub=TorontoNewHome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.6.118 ( talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement "Bruce A subsequently lost this capability due to safety concerns with the booster rod system" is unsourced and I'm pretty sure it's wrong. The booster system was originally designed for this kind of extra maneuvering capability, but the safety concerns were raised during original construction. I don't think the boosters were ever completed or made operational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.176.194 ( talk) 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The booster rods were definately installed and used, but were subsequently removed due to operational difficulties with their cooling systems. They were never unsafe. This reference [1] from the AECB describes their design and use. The were removed after the publicaton was produced, but 1993 is after the commissioning of Bruce A. The parent website for this reference ( [2]) has a lot of very good CANDU-related references. Alex Rauket ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Clearly stated in the OSPE report page 7, which is and was referenced:
"The Bruce A and B stations were designed to operate through grid disturbances and were also designed to operate for at least 6 hours disconnected from the grid so they could reconnect following a load rejection or grid blackout. Unfortunately, a design decision to use booster rods to control reactor power in the Bruce A units rather than absorber rods proved to be a reactor safety concern. They were subsequently removed without installing absorber rods. Consequently, the Bruce A units can no longer operate after a load rejection or grid blackout and are currently required to shut down following those events. During the planning for the refurbishment of the Bruce A units, the capability to survive a load rejection or grid blackout was not included in the scope of the refurbishment work." [1]
So were installed, were a safety concern, were removed. And was not unsourced. Feldercarb ( talk) 22:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Feldercarb ( talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
References
What does it take to move an article beyond Start Class? Feldercarb ( talk) 00:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC) What's worse: "cheers" or "enjoy"?
okay nice lecture, can we bump its rating up? Feldercarb ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a very important distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.65.1 ( talk) 12:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the OCAA a fringe group? They are quoted in the /info/en/?search=Ontario_electricity_policy wiki article. I think I would like to have critical points of view posted/noted, and present an opposing point of view, rather than dismiss out of hand. Feldercarb ( talk) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this section is overly detailed, and could perhaps be moved to the Cobalt 60 article 207.245.235.26 ( talk) 01:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Feldercarb ( talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
From https://london.ctvnews.ca/mobile/first-steam-generator-arrives-at-bruce-power-for-13b-refurbishment-project-1.5098299 ➡️ "Bruce Power has just started a 13-year, $13-billion project to refurbish six of their eight nuclear reactors, extending the life of the Bruce Power site until 2064."
This edit [2] has been made at least 12 times by IPs (11 times by the same IP). It has been undone by various named accounts, and I agree with their edit summaries stating that "the plant suffered another PR blow" is WP:POV. I've warned the main IP for edit warring. Meters ( talk) 03:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Lakes Huron and Erie and Ontario are missing. -- Beland ( talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)