Talk:AP1000

message: 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)
thread_title: Passivity

message: 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)
thread_title:  Future of artices 

message: 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)
thread_title: AP600

message: 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)
replies: text: BrucePower Open House Appendix B2 has a Westinghouse flyer that says "AP1000 is an advanced reactor incorporating passive safety systems and a simplified plant design." and "Safety systems use only natural forces .... IN MOST CASES, these valves are fail-safe, that is, they require power to remain in their normal, closed position.  No safety support systems such as AC power, HVAC, or cooling water are necessary."  So Westinghouse doesn't claim that the AP1000 is fully passively-safe, and in the event of a Station Blackout some valves won't operate. I still don't regard this as conclusive.  I'll cahnge the text to say "incorporates passive safety features". Simesa 06:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: After some later research, it turns out that the issue is one of semantics.  "Station Blackout" inside the U.S. is not what the usual international definition is (which is complete plant blackout, which is loss of all electrical sources of any kind).  "Station Blackout" (SBO) inside the U.S. is actually defined as "Loss of all AC power" (LOAC) (except for BWR5/6s, for which one EDG is assumed to power up).  LOAC assumes that all offsite power is lost and no Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) start up - but batteries and Uninterruptable Power Supplies (UPSs) are assumed to still function as designed.  The AP1000 requires either batteries or the Class 1E electrical system to remain powered during an LOAC event in order to correctly position valves that don't fail-safe.  Thus, the AP1000 meets U.S. LOAC requirements and so inside the U.S. would be termed fully passively-safe. Simesa (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Passively Safe?

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed in a way.  The "Advanced PWR" (APWR) is a proprietary (possibly trademarked) design by Mitsubishi, not a description of technology. This article is to be about the Westinghouse AP1000 which is NOT an APWR--they are in-fact competing designs.  Your edits to this article to include information regarding the APWR should (and will) be moved to a separate page about the APWR. Overview of "advanced" (as understood by the industry) reactor designs is available at the Generation IV reactor page.  The Westinghosue AP1000, and GE ESBWR reactors are Generation III+ designs as part of the Nuclear Power 2010 Program.  I do not know, and neither does the NRC, weather or not the Mitsubishi APWR will satisfy the necessary NRC criteria to be a Generation III+ design.  Lwnf360 07:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Organization 

message: 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)
thread_title: American-ness

message: See .  And they're referring to the MHI design, so we should probably point this there. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The US government links here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biggest contract 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In comparison to what? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unusual Language and Technical Criticism

message: 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 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)
thread_title: Passive Core Cooling System

message: *Approval of Reactor Design Clears Path for New Plants by Matthew L. Wald published New York Times December 22, 2011 (page B6 in print)
*NRC Grants Design Certification To Westinghouse AP1000® December 22, 2011, 11:28 A.M. ET PRNewswire via Wall Street Journal 
*U.S. Clears Reactor Design; Approval of Toshiba's AP1000 Sets Up Possible Nuclear-Power Revival by Rebecca Smith Wall Street Journal (page B2 in print 23.December.2011)
99.190.86.5 (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  V.C.Summer 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AP1000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080314035319/http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com:80/index.html to http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/public_safety_licensing.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613090943/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2056229 to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2056229
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008134656/http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com:80/index.php?s=43&item=294 to http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=294
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/09/ap4870687.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807115318/http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/public_safety_licensing.shtm to http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/public_safety_licensing.shtm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nuclearinst.com/uploads/Branch%20Presentations/The%20AP1000%20-%20A%20Bull%20-%2016th%20Nov%2010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717145503/https://www.ukap1000application.com/PDFDocs/Safety/UKP-GW-GL-732%20Rev%201.pdf to https://www.ukap1000application.com/PDFDocs/Safety/UKP-GW-GL-732%20Rev%201.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019154350/http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_nui_ic_Vogtle.html to http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_nui_ic_Vogtle.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019154347/http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_nui_ic_VCSummer.html to http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_nui_ic_VCSummer.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721061354/http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html to http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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":
From Nuclear energy in Turkey: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/Turkey/
From Breeder reactor: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:AP1000]]