Talk:AP1000

Passivity

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)[reply]

No operator action is required but some valves must move before the emergency cooling design becomes passive. I've expanded this description. Jamesday (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Please discuss this in Talk:Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor

I vote no to the merge. The AP1000 has been cited in hundreds of articles, and deserves its own article.

Future of artices

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)[reply]

Well Mitsubishi also has a reactor called the APWR. Maybe I'll write an article about that one which should help add to the confusion.

wagsbags 16:30, 28 July 2006 (EST)

I think the Mitsubishi reactor you mention is the Mitsubishi/GE ABWR. DMWard 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Mitsubishi US-APWR. It is mentioned here http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html

wagsbags 16:30, 23 April 2007 (EST)

AP600

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)[reply]

Passively Safe?

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)[reply]

Many common sources refer to the AP1000 as passively safe, yet I have heard differently. See [1] section 7.4 (page 7-48 etc.). The limiting event for a PWR typically is Station Blackout, and it appears the AP1000 isn't passively safe in this event (see 7.4.2 first paragraph). I will continue to research this. Simesa 06:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To my expert knowledge, the AP1000 meets or exceeds all requirements set out by the NRC's Nuclear Power 2010 Program which will make it a Generation III+ reactor along with GE's ESBWR. I believe, though am not absolutely certain, that the NRC requirement for Generation III+ designs mandates complete and total passive safety systems (i.e. the plant shall be maintained in a safe-state by solely passive means in the event of design basis events). That leaves the open question of "what is a design basis event?" which probably has an extremely complicated answer. I AM certain however, that a loss of off-site power (the correct industry term) IS a design basis event. In the event of a loss of off-site power, the dedicated safety control system engages automatically from battery backup. This so-called safety system (which is quadruply redundant per NRC regulation) automatically takes the necessary control action to put the plant into the safe state. No pumps are required to maintain safe state. Any valves that must be opened are squib valves (exploding) that are deployed by the safety system. Any safety related valves that must be closed, which I do not think there are any, would have dedicated battery backup power. This should be investigated further, and the public NRC documents regarding the AP1000 (of which there are many volumes) should be sourced to provide an accurate yet neutral article. I am 100% confidant that the AP1000 meets or exceeds all NRC requirements for passive safety--this is publicly documented in the 2005 Final Design Certification documentation. Lwnf360 06:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article Organization

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To be fair, if you call Areva's EPR an "Adanced PWR" you have to call the AP1000 one as well. Areva's design is the same for their EPR as the Westinghouse AP1000. In fact Westinghouse for agreement reasons had to supply Areva with the AP1000 designs. Areva is incapable of putting any foot forward on this design though, and they are several years further behind than AP1000 currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.94 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable (and neutral) source on that issue, or is this just the Areva-vs-Westinghous thing? Both designs are Generation III+ (or at least: considered as being so by their supplier) and present a huge effort in avoiding a core meltdown, or at least limiting the effect on the plant itself.

Westinghouse does so in putting much effort in engineering the plant such, that no active systems are needed, which allows them to do without large numbers of redundant safety systems, physical seperations, emergency diesels and so on. Thus, they only relay on the integrity of their condensation sourfaces and water pools that are located on high positions in the reactor building.
Contrary to that, Areva does so by putting much effort in designing their active safety systems such, that a combined failure of all of these systems is practically impossible. These systems allow to react very flexible to any kind of emergency situation, espcially when structures and components are partially destroyed. However, the risk of having a combined failure of all motor driven systems might be extremely low, but never absolutely impossible.

I can't realy tell you which is the better approch, but as you do so, it would be nice to have a source. Or at least some more specific information.

--Glovetrotter (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked a little on the AP1000, here is a little insight. The AP1000 has fewer safety related components then a Westinghouse generation II design. Passive means there are no active components (pumps) are required to move the water through the core, water movement is by natural convection processes, i.e., heat rises and cold descends. There are components that must actuate, a few valves, to initiate the passive safety functions. The initiation does not require any operator actions and once initiated, the passive system will maintain cooling to the core with no operator actions indefinately.

The passive cooling systems do not actuate unless there is a a reactor trip AND failure of all AC power sources, i.e., if the on-site diesel generator fail to start in a station black out, then the passive systems start automatically. Otherwise, the normal shutdown cooling, using pumps, is used to cool the core. So, in an loss of all AC power event like Japan, the core integrity will be maintained passively with no power sources needed except for instrumentation used to monitor the plant which are powered by separate, smaller diesel generators and batteries.

Also, the water tank on top of the shield building does not cool the reactor, it cools the containment vessel to redure the pressure excursion in the containment vessel. There is another huge water tank inside the containment vessel that provides cooling water for the reactor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSuschena (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Concerns

Most scientific experts in the field of core meltdown simulations are of the opinion that the AP1000 is anything but safe.

The cornerstone of the AP1000's safety is the claim that natural convection cooling is good enough to prevent a breakout of corium out of the reactor vessel after a meltdown. Due to this, Westinghouse did a lot of handwaving since a core meltdown is now "safe". Unlike the EPR, their design did not go the extra leg to prevent a core melt at all costs.

For static cases, the numbers look good and the steel vessel should be cooled sufficiently so that the pressure vessel can't rupture. BUT, there are multiple problems once one starts looking at the dynamic mechanics of a core meltdown. One issue for example is so called "iron rain" puncturing the colder corium crust and causing much hotter liquid corium to burn through the reactor vessel.

Since a rupturing of the pressure vessel is "impossible", the conrete foundations of the AP1000 are unusually weak for a PWR. Hence the results of a corium leak would be much more catastrophic than in a current nuclear power plant. --Dio1982 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading, but you don't mention a single source and it doesn't fit reality as I've been reading it. I've never seen any claim by either Westinghouse or Areva that a vessel rupture is impossible. No existing U.S. plant has a foundation designed to be a "core catcher". I'm going to have to research these claims now - if I find something from a reputable source, I'll change the article. Simesa 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you won't find any scientific papers on this subject proving that Westinghouse is talking bollocks. Something about not biting the hand that feeds you. I can give you names of professors involved in meltdown simulations, who will repeat my opinion. You can also browse topics on core meltdown mechanics in [Nuclear Engineering and Design]. The principal Editor btw, and most of the editing board share the same opinion about the safety of the AP1000. IMHO, try contacting the principal editor. He is a very chatty and nice guy and might even be able to give you proper references. Also, unlike me, he is an expert on that area. --Dio1982 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:

Yeah, no US reactor has their foundations designed as a core catcher, BUT in a lot of cases of a core meltdown, thier foundations are strong enough to not let the corium melt completely through. In other cases, it will melt through... --Dio1982 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I find your ideas to be facinating, though mostly unsourced. To say that the information we have on the next generation of reactors is one-sided would be an understatement. You really don't have much of a basis to compare two things until someone has sufficiently criticized them, and in this case there just hasn't been enough time for that to come out yet I think.

Still, I have a good idea of what they're shooting for with the PRA. You kind of have a list of things that can go wrong and probabilities associated with them, so you investigate the case where one thing goes wrong and then go through the list again, looking for double failures and evaluate the severity of each along with the cumulative probability (which I'm sure is all done by throwing it in a simulation), then you'll get a CDF and some other numbers. Then you tweak the design until the number goes down. I've heard people talk about this process with the International Reactor Innovative and Secure, which is another Westinghouse (mostly) project.

Everyone accepts the CDF as a paper number. What you're talking about above is different though, meltdown is WAY beyond core damage. I don't think the companies spend much time on that scenario because they hope it never happens. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous. The claim made by Westinghouse is that the reactor can be maintained in the safe state through the use of only passive systems. The safe state is defined as:

1) reactor tripped (shut down);

2) core cooled adequately to prevent damage to the fuel assemblies;

This is what Westinghouse did the “handwaving [sic]” about. No one has ever maintained that a core meltdown is either safe or “impossible”.

What you refer to is a “beyond design basis accident” (a meltdown). Westinghouse has engineered safety features to mitigate beyond design basis accidents, but makes no guarantees. Westinghouse has separate PRA analysis and calculations regarding beyond design basis accidents. Westinghouse’s primary goal with beyond design basis accidents is “in-vessel retention” of molten core material (corium is a term fabricated by the anti-nuclear movement and is only used by Areva SA within the industry…gives me a hint as to whom you might work for and why your tone is overtly anti-Westinghouse).

In-vessel retention is exactly what it sounds like; molten core material is to be kept inside the reactor vessel. Westinghouse has demonstrated mathematically via PRA that in-vessel retention of molten core debris is extraordinarily likely for the AP1000. Three Mile Island provides an excellent empirical example of how commercial reactor cores behave in meltdown scenarios. The molten core material at TMI was retained in-vessel (which was not specifically designed with in-vessel retention in mind). Further, the accident barely damaged the liner of the reactor vessel let alone coming anywhere close to melting through it. See this excellent (content, not video quality) video of the TMI defueling for irrefutable proof of TMI’s in-vessel retention and an excellent look at how uncatastrophic the damage really was: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tmi/video/. Basically, as vividly illustrated by TMI, if you keep the core covered with water, it will not melt.

Even taking the worst-case scenario of Chernobyl where the molten core material was not contained by its housing (RBMK reactors do not have the thick steel reactor vessels found in PWR and BWR designs) it only melted its way down into the basement before dissipating to the point of sub-critically. The necessity of specialized foundational features for the dispersion of molten core material has been disproved by the counter-examples of both TMI and Chernobyl. The EPR’s “corium spreader” underneath the reactor vessel adds no real safety benefit to the plant’s design as the molten core debris will have escaped into containment (rendering it forever useless and uninhabitable) and would have effectively dissipated on its own as evidenced by Chernobyl. The so-called corium spreader is an unneeded marketing gimmick, and a very poor one at that. Areva would do better to focus design efforts on in-vessel retention for its EPR.

Further, the foundations of the certified AP1000 design fully meet the NRC’s E1 qualification (which is essentially earthquake proofing). It is laughable to suggest that they are unsound. They meet or exceed the current NRC requirements which are more stringent than they were when existing plants were built.

Your tone indicates that you are either an anti-nuclear proponent, (in which case your opinions on nuclear power can be expressed in the Anti-nuclear movement article or best, in a forum other than Wikipedia) or an Areva SA employee/proponent attempting to discredit the claims made by Westinghouse regarding the AP1000 (in which case, you are violating the NPOV policy). Either way, your comments are unhelpful, unsourced, and inadmissible for this article. Lwnf360 08:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American-ness

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)[reply]

I believe it is the Westinghouse APWR, but it was only built in Japan and never licensed in the US. So, using the same basic design, they renamed it the US-APWR for licensing in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSuschena (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Renaming

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be renamed to AP1000. Separate articles exist for the Mitsubishi APWR, Areva EPR and GE ESBWR designs. This article should be on Westinghosue's AP1000 as it does not have its own article yet. Overview of so-called nuclear renaissance (Generation III+ designs) in the US can be found at the Nuclear Power 2010 Program page. Information regarding "advanced" or Generation IV designs as the industry calls them, can be found at Generation IV reactor. Lwnf360 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with this. Still, there is some information general for the APWR concept. I believe that Japan has even made moving to "Advanced" a policy, meaning using ABWR and APWR (Mitsubishi type). Looking at it this way, I think that the advanced LWR concept is more of a subset of the Generation III reactor subject. As such, I would propose distributing this information into:

The AP600 article would be short, but it's still an attonomous concept and there shouldn't be an issue with it, as far as I can tell. I would also like to create a System 80 article, making a fairly well developed set of Westinghouse designs. I also propose to redirect this article to Generation III reactor when the merging is done. How does that sound? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the AP600 information to the AP600 page. I have added some information about the AP1000, but not as much as I would like. I have also removed non-AP1000 content and requested an administrator to move this page to AP1000 so that the history and talk page can be preserved. Lwnf360 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I concur with the moving of this page to AP1000, and recommend considering this Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor name for a disambig page or a short article that covers the concept. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose revert to the old APWR article, and fork it, or this to create an AP1000 and an APWR page. The Gen3 page is rather light, so the APWR article could be merged there, and then redirected. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor as it stands now is all about the AP1000 design. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The US government links here

See [2]. And they're referring to the MHI design, so we should probably point this there. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest contract

It is strange to see that this $8 billion is the biggest contract ever... Look at the EPR page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor#China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.186.14 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That statement was probably added right after it happened in Spring 2007. The Areva-China contract was signed in November 2007 (a serious bribery scandal is involved with that by the way: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/08/08/2003450656). Lwnf360 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In comparison to what?

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)[reply]

That is a good question. I'm not sure if it comes from the US DOE Nuclear_Power_2010_Program or NUREG-1150 or if it is an internal Westinghouse number. If it is a Westinghouse number, then it is surely the Westinghouse 4-loop plant with the greatest number of components (SNUPPS would be a good approximation).Lwnf360 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's compared to a Westinghouse generation II design[3] and I've updated the article to say so. Jamesday (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Language and Technical Criticism

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)[reply]

Most of the content of this article is a paraphrase of Westinghouse brochure which is referenced http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/docs/AP1000_brochure.pdf. Feel free to add any information available about the technical (licensing) problems which are in the news in the UK. Feel free to add any information at all--that's the point of the wiki. Lwnf360 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passive Core Cooling System

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[4] 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)[reply]

Not quite sure what your statment is. There are many systems associated with the AP1000, like 100 or so. But there are only a couple "passive cooling" systems, most all others are active systems. So, here's a little info. There are 2 primary active systems that control the AP1000, a protection and safety system and a balance or plant control system. These are "active" systems with 2 or 4 separate and independant trains. Either one by itself with actuate the passive cooling system and block operating of the normal cooling systems.

This link is to a traing video that provides some of the basic functions of two passive cooling systems, Passive Core Cooling System and Passive Containment Cooling System. http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_imeo.html Enjoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.109.35.51 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resources

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)[reply]

V.C.Summer

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AP1000. 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:

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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in AP1000

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":

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)[reply]