This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I could really use a peer edit on my contribution. The sources seemed to be contradictory at first, but I think what I'm discovering is that all of these three:
Are all names for the same organization (covered in another section), even though the say 3 clearly different things.
I also want someone to have a look at this from the article in the top of the France section:
Ecologist organisations from the Sortir du nucléaire network sued the french operator EDF to invalidate the construction permit. [13]
I am finding this very hard to verify since the website itself is in French and I can't find anything online for it. I believe it comes down to the fact that the same group that launched the protests against the EPR is the group that had a failed lawsuit, and this needs to be clearly written in the article, but I can't verify the details of the lawsuit. I don't even know if the lawsuit was entertained by the court with the simple language of "sued" and no sources I can read on it. Was it ever entertained by a court or was it just filed once and thrown out? Details people, we need details. theanphibian 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I removed that text, I just couldn't verify the information at all, but believe me, it's not from lack of trying. This is some translated text from the source that was given:
The Network “To leave the nuclear power” and Crilan attack in justice allowed it to build EPR
By request which will be deposited with the administrative Court of Caen on Tuesday August 22, 2006, the CRILAN and the Network To leave the Nuclear power will submit the permit building delivered at EDF by the prefect of Handle on August 4 relating to the preliminary works of the EPR, in Flamanville (Handle).
Associations dispute the conditions of installation of the new engine (section n°3 beside two sections 1 and 2 already existing) in violation of the law of January 3, 1986 relating to the protection of the littoral.
They deplore in addition that the impact study produced by EDF at the time of its request for permit building was not placed at the disposal of the public [1] as well as the “saucissonnage” of the file [2].
They point out in any event their determination to prevent by all means the takeover by force of the government and EDF to impose the EPR on Flamanville:
- whereas France does not need this engine, its nuclear capacity being usable until at least 2025,
- whereas the premature realization of the EPR is justified by purely commercial reasons in order to make it possible SIEMENS-FRAMATOME-AREVA to try to sell the EPR abroad,
- whereas important electoral expiries intervene in 2007 and that it is urgent to finally await a true change of energy policy.
I can't read French, but this seems almost conclusive to say that the reference doesn't give information on a lawsuit. It sound more like the builders wrapped up a standard legal preceding. theanphibian 07:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to see more of the politics since this has gotten significant news attention recently. Ségolène Royal is a figure who has made a strong policy statement for new nuclear plants, and was even featured on CBS 60 minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2661956n Which I imagine has to do with the new construction and rallies. The current material in this article relating to politics is very narrow, with so much more than should be in there. We'll see. theanphibian 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The following phrases were removed for the following reasons:
For some environmental groups like the Regional Collective of Normandy and West of France "EPR, no thanks, neither somewhere else, nor here! " and the french Network Sortir du nucléaire, EPR is a wrong decision from those aspects :
- Energy : France doesn’t need a big centralized electrical production capacity for the next decades. Nuclear energy represents only 15% of French final energy consumption and 3% of the world’s. It is not a solution to reverse climate change either.
- Economy : this extremely expensive project (billions of euros) will delay the necessary redeployment of the French industry without addressing its difficulties.
- Social aspects : the increasing demand for renewable energy will help create many more jobs (up to 5 times more) and will be more adapted to the future than nuclear energy. For the same investment, a wind power program would lead to twice the amount of electricity production, for instance.
- Environment : EPR is not providing any response to the safety, security and waste management problems which will burden future generations.
Those groups have lauched an International Call to NGOs, groups, personalities, trade unions and political parties against the 'new' generation of nuclear European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville : No to nuclear reactor EPR , Yes to energy alternatives.
Simesa 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The following phrases were removed for the following reasons:
A first EPR reactor in France should be built in Flamanville in the Manche département and be operational in 2012. There is a bidding in process to build four new EPR reactors to China, and an intent to market EPRs in the US with Constellation Energy.
-- Enr-v 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
216.203.27.99 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)dwaltersMIA
Is the name really spelled with a 'z'? Using American English for a European project is rather odd. What is the official spelling? DirkvdM 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The strength of the concrete containment of the EPR was designed to withstand a Steam explosion containing 5% of the energy contained in the corium of a complete core meltdown. This is a safety factor of more than 2 since experiments have shown that the energy released in such an event can only be 2% as a worst case.
That the building is capable to withstant any airplane crash is just an implied result of the above safety concern. -- Dio1982 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The title of this article is different from the phrase used in the first sentence which uses "Evolutionary Power Reactor". I think that either the first sentence should be changed to "European Pressurized Reactor" and then have a note saying that it's also called "Evolutionary Power Reactor", or the title of the article should be changed to "European Pressurized Reactor". I know nothing about this topic but when I first started reading the intro I thought a vandal had changed the first sentence, until I read the whole thing. Something should be changed to reduce confusion. -- Wizard191 ( talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as AREVA is properly expressed in all-caps, EPRTM is properly expressed with a little superscript TM, for trademark. [1]. Ratherthanlater ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe AmerenUE has put their reactor plans on hold due to the state of Missouri not allowing pre-construction rate increases.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.6.118 ( talk) 00:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The contruction site at Taishan has seen activity for months and the working at the site was officialy announced at the 21st dec 2009. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6849430.html
This might be a good time to update the article to include Taishan 1+2 in the same manner as Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.19.26 ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
European Pressurized Reactor → European Pressurised Reactor — UK spelling would be more appropiate than US. -- Mtaylor848 ( talk) 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that Areva has been using EPR (tm) as the name for this reactor for many years, since 2005 or earlier, I propose we rename this article "EPR (nuclear reactor)". Areva has entirely purged names like "European Pressurized Reactor" from use, eg see [4]. This seems broadly in line with the views in the previous move discussion. Rwendland ( talk) 11:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Right now the "future plans" is a mix of confirmed construction plans(UK), Blocked construction plans(US) and MoUs resulting in no orders(UAE), and MoUs that has resultet in firm contracts(India)
We need to find a way to filter out MoUs or include the all. There is Finland, Poland and so on who has MoUs.
I Suggest moving the UAE-case to its own section or simply removing it. It is not future. The remaining cases I would list by relevance. The most firm plans first and loose MoUs last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaarrss ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
John Quiggin edited my elaboration on the Italian referendum. I believe this is cutting away valuable information. Im all for better information. So how do we keep the information but remove the "speculative" part?
Personally I dont se it as speculative. Berlusconi himself recommended "not to vote", just as any italian law maker does when they want to avoid the risk of oosing a referendum. By just leaving the result of 94% in favour of banning nuclear power is misleading and can misinterpreted as 94% of all Italians are against nuclear power. Which is clearly NOT the case! I suggest reverting John Quiggins editions. Llaarrss ( talk) 17:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Dont trust me. Trust Wikipedia! Follow wikipedias link for berlusconi and read the parts about his sex scandals. The most recent one I mention are the one about Ruby. Ruby also has her own wiki-page. Go read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Rubacuori Otherwise let me quote: "The Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, is being accused of paying Moroccan nightclub dancer Karima El Mahroug – also known by the stage name Ruby Rubacuori (Italian for "Ruby Heartstealer") – for sexual services between February and May 2010 when she was under the age of 18" It is all documented at wikipedia!
This is very relevant information and it need to included since the 94% against vote can be misinterpreted. And we dont want that. Right?
I acknowledge the new for more qutes and links. And I will add this. But leaving valuable information out on the voting strategy for italian referendums are just silly and causes misinterpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:European_Pressurized_Reactor&action=edit§ion=14# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaarrss ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Article claims : "On November 4th 2009, the nuclear power regulatory authorities in France, Finland and the United Kingdom issued a joint letter to Areva, citing serious problems with the EPR's digital Instrumentation and Control systems (I&C)" but there is no indication of how Areva responded. What can we say ? - Rod57 ( talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32365888
"In a joint statement, Areva and EDF said new tests were under way on the "reactor vessel head and bottom".
It said this followed initial tests which had shown "greater than average carbon content" - something French regulators said caused "lower than expected mechanical toughness" in the steel."
81.156.186.154 (
talk)
20:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
EPR (nuclear reactor). 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EPR (nuclear reactor). 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on EPR (nuclear reactor). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/23/amerenue-pulls-plug-callaway-2/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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on EPR (nuclear reactor). 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
French newspaper Le Monde made a nice info-graphic [5] about the evolution of the evolution cost of the cost of the French EPR plant in Flamanville. The last update is € 19.1 billion and an expected completion date of 2025. I tried to put this info in the article but it was quickly edited out. warpozio ( talk) 11:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't edited out, but I added the source to the first paragraph of the Flamanville-section. Information on the way the €19.1 billion was calculated could already be found there. Buxtehude ( talk) 17:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There's this section claiming that decay heat after shutdown lasts for 1 to 3 years, shouldn't it be days?
"each providing the required cooling of the decay heat that continues for 1 to 3 years after the reactor's initial shutdown" 178.237.140.27 ( talk) 08:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I could really use a peer edit on my contribution. The sources seemed to be contradictory at first, but I think what I'm discovering is that all of these three:
Are all names for the same organization (covered in another section), even though the say 3 clearly different things.
I also want someone to have a look at this from the article in the top of the France section:
Ecologist organisations from the Sortir du nucléaire network sued the french operator EDF to invalidate the construction permit. [13]
I am finding this very hard to verify since the website itself is in French and I can't find anything online for it. I believe it comes down to the fact that the same group that launched the protests against the EPR is the group that had a failed lawsuit, and this needs to be clearly written in the article, but I can't verify the details of the lawsuit. I don't even know if the lawsuit was entertained by the court with the simple language of "sued" and no sources I can read on it. Was it ever entertained by a court or was it just filed once and thrown out? Details people, we need details. theanphibian 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I removed that text, I just couldn't verify the information at all, but believe me, it's not from lack of trying. This is some translated text from the source that was given:
The Network “To leave the nuclear power” and Crilan attack in justice allowed it to build EPR
By request which will be deposited with the administrative Court of Caen on Tuesday August 22, 2006, the CRILAN and the Network To leave the Nuclear power will submit the permit building delivered at EDF by the prefect of Handle on August 4 relating to the preliminary works of the EPR, in Flamanville (Handle).
Associations dispute the conditions of installation of the new engine (section n°3 beside two sections 1 and 2 already existing) in violation of the law of January 3, 1986 relating to the protection of the littoral.
They deplore in addition that the impact study produced by EDF at the time of its request for permit building was not placed at the disposal of the public [1] as well as the “saucissonnage” of the file [2].
They point out in any event their determination to prevent by all means the takeover by force of the government and EDF to impose the EPR on Flamanville:
- whereas France does not need this engine, its nuclear capacity being usable until at least 2025,
- whereas the premature realization of the EPR is justified by purely commercial reasons in order to make it possible SIEMENS-FRAMATOME-AREVA to try to sell the EPR abroad,
- whereas important electoral expiries intervene in 2007 and that it is urgent to finally await a true change of energy policy.
I can't read French, but this seems almost conclusive to say that the reference doesn't give information on a lawsuit. It sound more like the builders wrapped up a standard legal preceding. theanphibian 07:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to see more of the politics since this has gotten significant news attention recently. Ségolène Royal is a figure who has made a strong policy statement for new nuclear plants, and was even featured on CBS 60 minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2661956n Which I imagine has to do with the new construction and rallies. The current material in this article relating to politics is very narrow, with so much more than should be in there. We'll see. theanphibian 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The following phrases were removed for the following reasons:
For some environmental groups like the Regional Collective of Normandy and West of France "EPR, no thanks, neither somewhere else, nor here! " and the french Network Sortir du nucléaire, EPR is a wrong decision from those aspects :
- Energy : France doesn’t need a big centralized electrical production capacity for the next decades. Nuclear energy represents only 15% of French final energy consumption and 3% of the world’s. It is not a solution to reverse climate change either.
- Economy : this extremely expensive project (billions of euros) will delay the necessary redeployment of the French industry without addressing its difficulties.
- Social aspects : the increasing demand for renewable energy will help create many more jobs (up to 5 times more) and will be more adapted to the future than nuclear energy. For the same investment, a wind power program would lead to twice the amount of electricity production, for instance.
- Environment : EPR is not providing any response to the safety, security and waste management problems which will burden future generations.
Those groups have lauched an International Call to NGOs, groups, personalities, trade unions and political parties against the 'new' generation of nuclear European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville : No to nuclear reactor EPR , Yes to energy alternatives.
Simesa 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The following phrases were removed for the following reasons:
A first EPR reactor in France should be built in Flamanville in the Manche département and be operational in 2012. There is a bidding in process to build four new EPR reactors to China, and an intent to market EPRs in the US with Constellation Energy.
-- Enr-v 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
216.203.27.99 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)dwaltersMIA
Is the name really spelled with a 'z'? Using American English for a European project is rather odd. What is the official spelling? DirkvdM 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The strength of the concrete containment of the EPR was designed to withstand a Steam explosion containing 5% of the energy contained in the corium of a complete core meltdown. This is a safety factor of more than 2 since experiments have shown that the energy released in such an event can only be 2% as a worst case.
That the building is capable to withstant any airplane crash is just an implied result of the above safety concern. -- Dio1982 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The title of this article is different from the phrase used in the first sentence which uses "Evolutionary Power Reactor". I think that either the first sentence should be changed to "European Pressurized Reactor" and then have a note saying that it's also called "Evolutionary Power Reactor", or the title of the article should be changed to "European Pressurized Reactor". I know nothing about this topic but when I first started reading the intro I thought a vandal had changed the first sentence, until I read the whole thing. Something should be changed to reduce confusion. -- Wizard191 ( talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as AREVA is properly expressed in all-caps, EPRTM is properly expressed with a little superscript TM, for trademark. [1]. Ratherthanlater ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe AmerenUE has put their reactor plans on hold due to the state of Missouri not allowing pre-construction rate increases.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.6.118 ( talk) 00:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The contruction site at Taishan has seen activity for months and the working at the site was officialy announced at the 21st dec 2009. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6849430.html
This might be a good time to update the article to include Taishan 1+2 in the same manner as Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.19.26 ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
European Pressurized Reactor → European Pressurised Reactor — UK spelling would be more appropiate than US. -- Mtaylor848 ( talk) 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that Areva has been using EPR (tm) as the name for this reactor for many years, since 2005 or earlier, I propose we rename this article "EPR (nuclear reactor)". Areva has entirely purged names like "European Pressurized Reactor" from use, eg see [4]. This seems broadly in line with the views in the previous move discussion. Rwendland ( talk) 11:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Right now the "future plans" is a mix of confirmed construction plans(UK), Blocked construction plans(US) and MoUs resulting in no orders(UAE), and MoUs that has resultet in firm contracts(India)
We need to find a way to filter out MoUs or include the all. There is Finland, Poland and so on who has MoUs.
I Suggest moving the UAE-case to its own section or simply removing it. It is not future. The remaining cases I would list by relevance. The most firm plans first and loose MoUs last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaarrss ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
John Quiggin edited my elaboration on the Italian referendum. I believe this is cutting away valuable information. Im all for better information. So how do we keep the information but remove the "speculative" part?
Personally I dont se it as speculative. Berlusconi himself recommended "not to vote", just as any italian law maker does when they want to avoid the risk of oosing a referendum. By just leaving the result of 94% in favour of banning nuclear power is misleading and can misinterpreted as 94% of all Italians are against nuclear power. Which is clearly NOT the case! I suggest reverting John Quiggins editions. Llaarrss ( talk) 17:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Dont trust me. Trust Wikipedia! Follow wikipedias link for berlusconi and read the parts about his sex scandals. The most recent one I mention are the one about Ruby. Ruby also has her own wiki-page. Go read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Rubacuori Otherwise let me quote: "The Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, is being accused of paying Moroccan nightclub dancer Karima El Mahroug – also known by the stage name Ruby Rubacuori (Italian for "Ruby Heartstealer") – for sexual services between February and May 2010 when she was under the age of 18" It is all documented at wikipedia!
This is very relevant information and it need to included since the 94% against vote can be misinterpreted. And we dont want that. Right?
I acknowledge the new for more qutes and links. And I will add this. But leaving valuable information out on the voting strategy for italian referendums are just silly and causes misinterpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:European_Pressurized_Reactor&action=edit§ion=14# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaarrss ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Article claims : "On November 4th 2009, the nuclear power regulatory authorities in France, Finland and the United Kingdom issued a joint letter to Areva, citing serious problems with the EPR's digital Instrumentation and Control systems (I&C)" but there is no indication of how Areva responded. What can we say ? - Rod57 ( talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32365888
"In a joint statement, Areva and EDF said new tests were under way on the "reactor vessel head and bottom".
It said this followed initial tests which had shown "greater than average carbon content" - something French regulators said caused "lower than expected mechanical toughness" in the steel."
81.156.186.154 (
talk)
20:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
EPR (nuclear reactor). 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EPR (nuclear reactor). 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on EPR (nuclear reactor). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/23/amerenue-pulls-plug-callaway-2/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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on EPR (nuclear reactor). 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
French newspaper Le Monde made a nice info-graphic [5] about the evolution of the evolution cost of the cost of the French EPR plant in Flamanville. The last update is € 19.1 billion and an expected completion date of 2025. I tried to put this info in the article but it was quickly edited out. warpozio ( talk) 11:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't edited out, but I added the source to the first paragraph of the Flamanville-section. Information on the way the €19.1 billion was calculated could already be found there. Buxtehude ( talk) 17:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There's this section claiming that decay heat after shutdown lasts for 1 to 3 years, shouldn't it be days?
"each providing the required cooling of the decay heat that continues for 1 to 3 years after the reactor's initial shutdown" 178.237.140.27 ( talk) 08:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)