Talk:Bruce Nuclear Generating Station

message: Isn't this article missing a lot, such as:
* Why are the reactor buildings square/rectangular/cubical as opposed to the dome shape of Pickering?
* Function of vacuum building -- rather unique feature is it not?
* How many turbines? done
* Thermal efficiency?
* Where are wastes stored? On-site or elsewhere? Capacity? sorta done
* What about the heavy water plant? Still operating? done
* Closing of nearby Inverhuron provincial park -- and subsquent reopening
* How many people does it employ? done
* Affect on local economy
* Original cost?
* One control room per reactor or one per station or one for both A and B
* Why a "four pack" ... as opposed to the two-pack design currently touted? might be better covered on PickeringA page
* Thought there was an issue with transmission lines where there really weren't enough built. sorta done, line being upgraded
* Why Bruce was able to stay operating during the blackout, but Pickering was not? (I remember a radio interview where it was mentioned the control panel design of Bruce was different than Pickering, the operator had access to key information that let him decide to keep running)
*The operation agreement with a private company is rather unusual for Ontario is it not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldercarb (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of article??

message: Are all these map links really needed? This is not even a geographic entry.
--Jdeboer 14:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: 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)
thread_title: Refurbishment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: This is a very important distinction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.65.1 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the source it's in "dollars of the year", so presumably 1978 dollars for Bruce A and 1989 dollars for Bruce B. The cost should probably be explicitly specified as CAD if anyone gets around to firmly confirming these dates - the original source is cited in the greenpeace source but unfortunately it does not appear to be available online so someone needs to contact Bruce Power to see if they have a copy that they could scan for verification (or other citations). I'm not certain if these costs truly exclude the bruce bulk steam system and other stuff like the heavy water plant though... Garzfoth (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are construction costs in now dollars or 1977 dollars? 

message: Is the OCAA a fringe group? They are quoted in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
replies: text: It's a self-published source from a fringe advocacy group with demonstrably false claims. Citing them would give WP:UNDUE weight to a non-reliable minority source. A far better approach would be to summarize the major points of the FAO report on the refurbishment, which is an impartial third-party review from a reliable source. Maybe after that is complete we can revisit this subject and see if there are some more reliable sources representing non-minority or significant-minority opinions (both pro- and anti-refurbishment) that can be cited, but I'd like to get that FAO report summarized first (and you're more than welcome to try your hand at doing that). Garzfoth (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  OCAA Fringe? 

message: *Many of the units were shutdown for lengthy periods. I feel this to be important information, especially if you wish to assess the cost and reliability of this plant. This information has disappeared 
*also the age at closure information has disappeared - do you really want to be operating a 51 year old nuke?
*"Phase" doesn't make sense -- maybe "plant"
*since all the units are PHWR and CANDU these two columns seem doubly redundant
*"closure" -- is planned or scheduled 
*we already have an INFOBOX which lists all the units, not sure we need ANOTHER table
*I worry sometimes about endless edits that don't add information
Feldercarb (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ita, about your table 

message: This edit  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)
thread_title:  Security and safety section 

message: Lakes Huron and Erie and Ontario are missing. -- Beland (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken map