This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
As for pris database the power is 950 for each reactor.-- Dwalin ( talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
whats going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.242.90 ( talk) 11:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
So far all that's being reported is that there was an accident at the No. 3 reactor. Since they are talking about steps to restore normal power flow and not steps to evacuate, it is most likely not a high level accident, but I cannot speculate beyond the brief alert from Reuters and a few other news agencies. 68.48.8.9 ( talk) 13:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
what's going on? Lots of reports of leaks and leaked messages. We know they are testing Westinghouse fuel assemblies and there has been problems elsewhere with these in VVERs Johnpaterson1234 ( talk) 08:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Plant operational status? 117.197.176.124 ( talk) 03:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Add the fuel type used in the reactor please, is it U235? 2001:8003:E96F:BC00:B9E0:5FFF:81:4AD1 ( talk) 05:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The location is controlled by the Russian military, but has not been annexed by Russia, as far as I know. Is it correct for the infobox to say it is in the country of "Ukraine (de jure)" and "Russia (de facto)"? Nurg ( talk) 03:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Re [1]. First my bad, I misread the edit summary - slow, methodical is in the NPR source. All the same, "slow and methodical" isn't a synonym for "cautious". Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
"On 4 March 2022, both plants were captured by Russian forces during the Battle of Enerhodar of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."
It is singular until that sentence, so what does "both plants" refer? Drsruli ( talk) 16:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The phrasing bringng Tobias Münchmeyer into attention seems to be unneeded. I'm fairly certain plenty of people have expressed concerns that the site would be shelled by artilleri and as such, it is quite uninteresting that anyone in particular did so. This seems to be placed there, to bring attention to specific people and organizations. 89.239.195.102 ( talk) 16:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
There really ought to be a section on safety systems telling what types (active, passive, etc.) and how many, especially with Russia playing with things that go "Boom". Given when it was built and by whom, I'm not optimistic that it was constructed with robust safety, but just as the U.S.' Hanford site added safety systems as time went on these plants could have as well. I'm going to pursue an avenue of information that may or may not pan out, and may or may not provide linkable source material, so I hope others will jump in with whatever is known. I suspect it has back-up generators on-site in case of plant power failure, which would probably be diesel, but it's got to have a lot more than that! Dismalscholar ( talk) 20:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I was going to add a few words to this article about the August 6, 2022 attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which struck near a dry storage facility where 174 casks with spent nuclear fuel are kept. However, the article appears to be locked from editing, making this edit impossible. Please correct this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
diff: By August 6, 2022 IAEA reported one of three reactors remaining in operation disconnected from the grid and triggered its emergency protection system as a result of shelling the previous day.
Is there any information available about who is doing said shelling? Seems like important information. The source does not mention it, but mentions Ukraine informed the IAEA that the shelling had damaged the plant’s [...]
. Is the plant back under Ukraine's control?
AdrianHObradors (
talk)
10:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Ermenrich Hello, why do you keep reverting the statement contrasting the statements of president Zelenskyy in relation to the position of Russian forces near the power plant? Reliable sources tell us that the plant was occupied by Russia in March – on 8 August, some 5 months into the Russian occupation of the plant, Zelenskyy accuses Russia of shelling the plant, then on 13 August, he revises his accusation, instead stating that Russia was "stationing their troops on the site of the plant to launch attacks on Ukrainian forces". WP:NPOV prescribes representing information "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", which, in my view, is not a principle being fully upheld when we omit a straightforward contrast of the two contradictory accusations. Thanks, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 00:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
IAEA's Mr Grossi at the UN ".. the contents of such statements are frequently contradictory" https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14996.doc.htm hope that helps. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 19:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
He went on to say that IAEA has received information from both the Russian Federation and Ukraine indicating the state of the facility, its operations, and damage assessments. However, the contents of such statements are frequently contradictory.. The only person claiming a contradiction in Zelensky's statements is the Russian ambassador to the UN, and even then we'd need a reliable source rather than the raw notes of the meeting to cite it as notable (Russia always claims everything Ukraine says is a lie).-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Suffixes are non-SI usage. Moreover, MWe is redundant as the correct usage in SI is already there in the article (to specify electrical in the prelude to the number and SI unit). Is non-SI A new Wikipedia Policy? Or does this need to be corrected? 50.43.46.94 ( talk) 06:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sources 41 and 42 cited for the paragraph about "activation of Article 5" both imply the collective West will do something or are considering something when it's just 1 member of the US House out of 435 and one member of the UK House of Commons out of 650. Source 41 says "UK, US Set Ultimatum" which is clearly false. Surely there are better sources that are more accurate about the impact of the statements. I suggest removing the sources. dhjw ( talk) 01:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Madeline (
part of me)
20:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Marginally related: I suspect that "breach" is a misnomer in the sense that you can't really breach an Article of a Treaty of which you are not a Party. It's in the tweet so, assuming I am correct an my Englih isn't failing me, putting it between quotes should do.
109.119.236.121 (
talk)
02:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
See [3]. Mentioned in The Guardian's Ukraine coverage today [4]. Jr8825 • Talk 23:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert Special:Diff/1108435446. The previous text seemed well sourced and claims were correcly attributed to their source, don't think wp:fringe really applies here, left alone the 'typical Russian bullshit' argument, if it may be called so. On the other hand I find that recent events are taking a large part of this article, so a separete article may be needed, this would be probably best left for a separete discussion. 176.247.167.36 ( talk) 00:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)`
FLEX strategies for beyond design bases mitigation might help. 100.14.217.246 ( talk) 12:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Russian sources mention a defeated Ukrainian amphibious assault in which 200 - 300 Ukranian special forces died. Is there anything known about this? Or were these stories just propaganda? 84.241.202.178 ( talk) 12:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the "Facilities" section that there are 750kV transmission lines out of the plant, and specifically that one goes north over the reservoir and another one (most recently built) "south-westward to the Kakhovska substation." But, where do the other two go? It is also worth a mention on this article about which of these lines has been disconnected from the grid during the crisis, where that disconnection is claimed to have happen, and when it happened. Criticalthinker ( talk) 08:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
"Russian troops have placed military equipment, weapons, and explosives in the turbine department of the unit four of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, according to the information from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). " [5], [6] [7] [8]. Should this be included? That seems significant, especially after the destruction of Kakhovka Dam. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what is wrong with my reference. I was adjusting the reason for the 6th reactor being in hot shut down to the IAEA reason and not the Ukrainian reason. This is a more reliable 3rd party source. You can find the statement in the bottom of this article from the IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-162-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine Liger404 ( talk) 02:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
As for pris database the power is 950 for each reactor.-- Dwalin ( talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
whats going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.242.90 ( talk) 11:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
So far all that's being reported is that there was an accident at the No. 3 reactor. Since they are talking about steps to restore normal power flow and not steps to evacuate, it is most likely not a high level accident, but I cannot speculate beyond the brief alert from Reuters and a few other news agencies. 68.48.8.9 ( talk) 13:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
what's going on? Lots of reports of leaks and leaked messages. We know they are testing Westinghouse fuel assemblies and there has been problems elsewhere with these in VVERs Johnpaterson1234 ( talk) 08:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Plant operational status? 117.197.176.124 ( talk) 03:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Add the fuel type used in the reactor please, is it U235? 2001:8003:E96F:BC00:B9E0:5FFF:81:4AD1 ( talk) 05:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The location is controlled by the Russian military, but has not been annexed by Russia, as far as I know. Is it correct for the infobox to say it is in the country of "Ukraine (de jure)" and "Russia (de facto)"? Nurg ( talk) 03:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Re [1]. First my bad, I misread the edit summary - slow, methodical is in the NPR source. All the same, "slow and methodical" isn't a synonym for "cautious". Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
"On 4 March 2022, both plants were captured by Russian forces during the Battle of Enerhodar of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."
It is singular until that sentence, so what does "both plants" refer? Drsruli ( talk) 16:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The phrasing bringng Tobias Münchmeyer into attention seems to be unneeded. I'm fairly certain plenty of people have expressed concerns that the site would be shelled by artilleri and as such, it is quite uninteresting that anyone in particular did so. This seems to be placed there, to bring attention to specific people and organizations. 89.239.195.102 ( talk) 16:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
There really ought to be a section on safety systems telling what types (active, passive, etc.) and how many, especially with Russia playing with things that go "Boom". Given when it was built and by whom, I'm not optimistic that it was constructed with robust safety, but just as the U.S.' Hanford site added safety systems as time went on these plants could have as well. I'm going to pursue an avenue of information that may or may not pan out, and may or may not provide linkable source material, so I hope others will jump in with whatever is known. I suspect it has back-up generators on-site in case of plant power failure, which would probably be diesel, but it's got to have a lot more than that! Dismalscholar ( talk) 20:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I was going to add a few words to this article about the August 6, 2022 attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which struck near a dry storage facility where 174 casks with spent nuclear fuel are kept. However, the article appears to be locked from editing, making this edit impossible. Please correct this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
diff: By August 6, 2022 IAEA reported one of three reactors remaining in operation disconnected from the grid and triggered its emergency protection system as a result of shelling the previous day.
Is there any information available about who is doing said shelling? Seems like important information. The source does not mention it, but mentions Ukraine informed the IAEA that the shelling had damaged the plant’s [...]
. Is the plant back under Ukraine's control?
AdrianHObradors (
talk)
10:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Ermenrich Hello, why do you keep reverting the statement contrasting the statements of president Zelenskyy in relation to the position of Russian forces near the power plant? Reliable sources tell us that the plant was occupied by Russia in March – on 8 August, some 5 months into the Russian occupation of the plant, Zelenskyy accuses Russia of shelling the plant, then on 13 August, he revises his accusation, instead stating that Russia was "stationing their troops on the site of the plant to launch attacks on Ukrainian forces". WP:NPOV prescribes representing information "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", which, in my view, is not a principle being fully upheld when we omit a straightforward contrast of the two contradictory accusations. Thanks, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 00:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
IAEA's Mr Grossi at the UN ".. the contents of such statements are frequently contradictory" https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14996.doc.htm hope that helps. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 19:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
He went on to say that IAEA has received information from both the Russian Federation and Ukraine indicating the state of the facility, its operations, and damage assessments. However, the contents of such statements are frequently contradictory.. The only person claiming a contradiction in Zelensky's statements is the Russian ambassador to the UN, and even then we'd need a reliable source rather than the raw notes of the meeting to cite it as notable (Russia always claims everything Ukraine says is a lie).-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Suffixes are non-SI usage. Moreover, MWe is redundant as the correct usage in SI is already there in the article (to specify electrical in the prelude to the number and SI unit). Is non-SI A new Wikipedia Policy? Or does this need to be corrected? 50.43.46.94 ( talk) 06:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sources 41 and 42 cited for the paragraph about "activation of Article 5" both imply the collective West will do something or are considering something when it's just 1 member of the US House out of 435 and one member of the UK House of Commons out of 650. Source 41 says "UK, US Set Ultimatum" which is clearly false. Surely there are better sources that are more accurate about the impact of the statements. I suggest removing the sources. dhjw ( talk) 01:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Madeline (
part of me)
20:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Marginally related: I suspect that "breach" is a misnomer in the sense that you can't really breach an Article of a Treaty of which you are not a Party. It's in the tweet so, assuming I am correct an my Englih isn't failing me, putting it between quotes should do.
109.119.236.121 (
talk)
02:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
See [3]. Mentioned in The Guardian's Ukraine coverage today [4]. Jr8825 • Talk 23:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert Special:Diff/1108435446. The previous text seemed well sourced and claims were correcly attributed to their source, don't think wp:fringe really applies here, left alone the 'typical Russian bullshit' argument, if it may be called so. On the other hand I find that recent events are taking a large part of this article, so a separete article may be needed, this would be probably best left for a separete discussion. 176.247.167.36 ( talk) 00:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)`
FLEX strategies for beyond design bases mitigation might help. 100.14.217.246 ( talk) 12:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Russian sources mention a defeated Ukrainian amphibious assault in which 200 - 300 Ukranian special forces died. Is there anything known about this? Or were these stories just propaganda? 84.241.202.178 ( talk) 12:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the "Facilities" section that there are 750kV transmission lines out of the plant, and specifically that one goes north over the reservoir and another one (most recently built) "south-westward to the Kakhovska substation." But, where do the other two go? It is also worth a mention on this article about which of these lines has been disconnected from the grid during the crisis, where that disconnection is claimed to have happen, and when it happened. Criticalthinker ( talk) 08:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
"Russian troops have placed military equipment, weapons, and explosives in the turbine department of the unit four of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, according to the information from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). " [5], [6] [7] [8]. Should this be included? That seems significant, especially after the destruction of Kakhovka Dam. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what is wrong with my reference. I was adjusting the reason for the 6th reactor being in hot shut down to the IAEA reason and not the Ukrainian reason. This is a more reliable 3rd party source. You can find the statement in the bottom of this article from the IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-162-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine Liger404 ( talk) 02:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)