Talk:Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

message: This article currently says, "prevailing westerly winds. These would have put the Phoenix-Scottsdale metropolitan area into jeopardy in the event of a major accident." This confuses me. The plant is located far west and somewhat south of the phoenix-scottsdale area. Wouldn't EASTLY winds be more dangerous? I don't see how these statements make any sense...
(Text above by an unknown poster, I think)
My reply: The meaning of westerly is From the west, not To the west.  So a westerly wind would come from the Pacific, then over California, then over Palo Verde (picking up fallout from any disaster, should one happen) then over Phoenix.  So the article is right. Check Google using "Define: westerly"   --By the way, I am new at editing talk pages, so I hope I'm doing passable work; let me know if not.
Dwight666 (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind Direction Confusion

message: According to CNN, "checks failed to show any explosive material on the pipe", should we call it a bomb at all? F 00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading comprehension check -- Just three or so sentences after the line you mention, it says this, quite clearly -- ""MCSO bomb squad tests later determined that the capped pipe was a credible explosive device," APS said in a written statement." - Ageekgal 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The pipe "bomb"

message: People deleting cited history:
65.96.107.206
146.126.61.241
And people who've deleted information, instead of asking for citations:
Cascadia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.249 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History deleted again

message: The History section of the article seems to me to be POV (probably an explanation for the deletions by earlier editors). I don't have a copy of The Arizona Project to read up on the arguments against siting Palo Verde where it is, but this sounds like it indeed comes from an argument and isn't strictly a statement of fact. The first sentence -- "Palo Verde's selection was questionable" -- has a definite POV quality to it and could be refined. I didn't do so since it's clear from the talk page that this section has drawn some earlier attention, so I wanted to discuss it here instead.
This section isn't really a history section, but more an argument against the plant's location. It would be better to convert this into a more comprehensive section on the process of determining where Palo Verde was to be built -- covering both arguments for and against locating it away from any large bodies of water and upwind of a major metropolitan area. Maybe The Arizona Republic or The Phoenix Gazette published articles about it during the 1970s or 1980s that could help flesh out both arguments and cite multiple sources on the matter. • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example of a section that covers both sides of this sort of controversy is Diablo Canyon Power Plant#Public opposition and nuclear free movement. • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] issues 

message: Before I make any changes, I wanted to check if anyone wanted to "help" a newbie to Wikipedia. Full disclosure, I also work at Palo Verde, so I wouldn't mind a check to ensure I keep a NPOV.
I noticed that reference 11 was used twice. It is correctly used to discuss the pipe bomb. It was used incorrectly in association with the dry pipe. Two totally different topics. See below for the incorrect reference.
The finding came as the "final straw" for the NRC, after Palo Verde had several citations over safety concerns and violations over the preceding years, starting with the finding of a 'dry pipe' in the plant's emergency core-cooling system in 2004.[11]
Anyway - if anyone is watching this page, drop me a line so I can start fixing a few errors.
Fswirbul (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipe Bomb vs Dry Pipe 

message: "... and one of the largest ones on the planet" 
It's the 11th largest Nuclear Station by capacity, this phrasing makes it sound higher than that. The margin between the 5th biggest is 35% larger than Palo, and the biggest is 89 % larger (from installed capacity). Moreso China has 10 stations under construction that will exceed Palo's installed capacity when completed. 
I am not sure if my suggestion is to remove or rephrase the quote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crcrewso (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking issue with one line 

message: In the Security section, it says "Armed guards, security checkpoints with machines, and bomb sensors ..." What machines is it talking about? Mysticdan (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is referring to the X-ray machines mentioned in the previous sentence. It is unsourced information, but that is the logical conclusion. I've fixed it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. 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 https://web.archive.org/20090512065931/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-005.iv.html to https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-005.iv.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. 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 https://web.archive.org/20090512070532/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-009.iv.html to https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-009.iv.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This paragraph seems poorly sourced in terms of its numbers for Palo Verde's operating costs and the claim that its operating at a loss.  I would expect the operating costs for Palo Verde are in line or even slightly below the industry average of 2.67 c/kWh as of 2014 according to the EIA (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html)  The wholesale cost of energy changes daily and as we get into the hot summer months it is going to go up compared to when the article was written in April (the article also links the daily updated EIA page which contradicts the statements made in the paragraph depending on what the price of wholesale electricty is on that particular day).  Additionally it talks about the cost of producing power via Natural Gas without discussing the capital cost, investment in pipelines and transmission networks from a new Natural Gas plant, etc. as though the operation of Palo Verde is a costly producer of power for the local markets.  Such is not the case in all the information I've been able to gather from NEI, EIA, and various internet sources.  I believe that paragraph in particular needs some widespread edits in order to paint a more accurate picture of the true costs of Palo Verde.  I may start today, but just wanted to start a discussion on the topic.  Minawreck (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph in Description Section Concerning Costs and Wholesale Energy (added April 2016) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. 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  tag to http://www.nei.org/filefolder/economic_benefits_palo_verde.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311091239/http://www.aps.com/main/news/releases/release_429.html to http://www.aps.com/main/news/releases/release_429.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002131207/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.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) 13:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's called the Sonoran desert not the Arizona desert 2600:1011:B119:8ECE:0:4E:8E89:5F01 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonoran desert not Arizona desert 

message: I think this article is missing significant whistleblower info. Such as here: 
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/critical-6425795
Found here List of nuclear whistleblowers Czarking0 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whistleblower Info