Talk:Dounreay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe Dounreay is also a castle (grid reference NC983670) with a much longer history than the UKAEA establishment. Perhaps Dounreay should be a disambiguation page. Laurel Bush 5 July 2005 11:32 (UTC).

HMS Vulcan[edit]

The reactors described as on the Dounreay site, are actually merely adjacent to it. Lianachan

This has now been made obvious. There may be a good argument for putting Vulcan on separate page to avoid confusion. I have tidied up the local history. Dougsim (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dounreay" Etymology[edit]

Because it sounds unlikely, I'll put this in here in case anybody is tempted to revert. I cannot confirm 195.92.145.73's anecdote about a map maker and a local, but I can confirm that the doun~ element of the place name Dounreay does indeed come not from the Gaelic dún, as a reference to the castle, but from down. I can also confirm that the Post Office near the site did indeed have a "Down Reay" sign until comparitively recently (1970's?). I discussed this with two Caithness historian friends this afternoon - one of them says his father had always pronunced the name as two distinct words - and they say that locally the area has "always" been known as "down reay". Even if the map maker/local encounter is true, it is clear that the name was already in use since that was what the map maker was told was the name. I can't help but wonder if the name originally was a reference to the castle, the dún at Reay which then became corrupted into meaning "down reay" purely as a result of the similarity of the two local pronunciations. I'll consult Watson's "Celtic Placename Of Scotland" and see if it mentions anything relevant. Lianachan 18:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon's map of Caithness, dated 1642, depicts Dounrae as a castle. This is the earliest depiction of a castle on the site that I can find, although I'm reasonably sure that one of Pont's maps (from before 1590) depicts it also. Certainly, the name seems to be at the very least half a millenium old (and probably pre-dates the castle). Lianachan 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watson's The Celtic Place-names of Scotland gives the origin as Dúnrath, and suggests that it may be a reference to a broch. It's looking more and more like the Down Reay origin is something that's evolved relatively recently. Lianachan 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me Down Reay is propbably a post office invention, representing a local pronounciation/spelling of doun/dún. Laurel Bush 17:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dounreay Fast Reactor coolant[edit]

There seems some disagreement as to the coolant used at DFR. Image:DFR reactor schematic.png shows primary and secondary sodium loops. However, the Monju website clearly states DFR was an unusual design in several respects; its fuel subassemblies were rhomboidal in cross-section (three together made a hexagon) and the reactor was cooled with NaK, a mixture of sodium and potassium, pumped downwards through the core. Several other authoritative sites also claim that the primary coolant was NaK.

I have spoken to a friend (a nuclear engineer) who visited DFR while it was operating, and he clearly remembers trace-heating along all the coolant plumbing. That means sodium; You don't need it with NaK.

However that would only be the secondary coolant plumbing he saw; He didn't of course go inside the shield! Is it perhaps possible that the primary loop was NaK? That would explain things, but it seems a little strange. Potassium is fine in lab tests, but its neutron activation products are a lot nastier than sodium-24, so you wouldn't take the step of cooling an actual reactor core with it lightly. I admit I'm guessing.

Anyway, the mystery will be solved, and accuracy restored to all. This is a job for... Wikiman! Andrewa 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Dounreay_Nuclear_Power_Station is another vote for NaK. Andrewa 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.uic.com.au/nip98.htm is another that says NaK. Andrewa 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ukaea.org.uk/reports/dpdf/dounreay_fast_reactor.pdf (PDF, 185KB) is another vote for NaK. Andrewa 23:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ukaea.org.uk/downloads/dounreay/epri.pdf (PDF) also is another vote for NaK. I made the DFR diagram, and I am happy to change the annotation to NaK rather than Na if everyone is agreed about this. Just drop me another message on my talkboard Emoscopes 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see whether anyone else comments. Can you remember where you got the idea that the coolant was sodium? You're certainly not the only one who thinks that! Andrewa 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also emailed the UKAEA to see what they say about the secondary circuits. It seems to me clear that the primary was NaK. Andrewa 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the link you give above (unlike anything I found) specifically says that NaK was used in both primary and secondary coolant curcuits. That's good enough for me. I suggest we make the changes! Andrewa 05:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UKAEA confirm that both primary and secondary were NaK. Andrewa 20:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timescale for decommissioning?[edit]

Decommissioning of Dounreay is planned to bring the site to an interim care and surveillance state by 2036, and as a brownfield site by 2336, at a total cost of £2.9 billion.

Is that date correct?

If it's really going to take 319 years to get it back to brownfield, I would imagine the £2.9 billion budget is the least of their worries. What a legacy to leave to our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren. :-) 217.34.39.123 12:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I guess the extra 300 years is "waiting time" to allow 10 half-lives to elapse for the Caesium-137 (half-life 30 years). Caesium-137 is the main radionuclide that is found in the infamous beach particles. After 10 half-lives it would effectively have decayed to nothing. Colin 22:27, 3 Jun 2007 (UTC)

The reactor decommissioning plan (2008 - http://www.dounreay.com/UserFiles/File/Lifetime%20Plan%20etc/2008_Dounreay_TBURD_free_release_issue_1_25_9_08.pdf) - indicates that decommissioning to an 'industrial brownfield site" will be achieved by 2025. I will modify the article accordingly, as no source is provided for the brownfield claim that is currently on the page. --Neurosciguy1 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagiarism?[edit]

"50 years ago a remote farming and fishing community on Scotland's north coast was chosen to be the site for the most advanced nuclear reactor in the world. Dr Alice Roberts visits the site of Dounreay to look at the past, present and most importantly the future of this historic plant. In the 1950s the location was chosen precisely because of its isolated position, perched right on the edge of the British Isles. This was to be the world's first electricity-producing fast breeder reactor and would pioneer the development of fast breeder technology. The community was keen for the employment and investment the station would bring, and the population subsequently boomed from 3,000 to 9,000. But as the years passed, the optimism of the post-cold-war era faded and was replaced with concerns about the plant's safety. The programme's aim of generating electricity that was too cheap to be metered was never attained. Now the funding for the fast breeder reactor programme has been withdrawn and the massive decommissioning programme has begun. The site and the community that surrounds it now finds itself pioneering decommissioning of a nuclear research site. It will take 30 years and around £2.7 billion to make the Dounreay site safe again."

The above section reads like a TV programme synopsis - I know a TV programme about the history of the plant was aired in the UK not that long ago (I watched it). It doesn't really fit in with the article to my mind, especially not in the location it currently occupies. Also, if as I suspect it has been copied wholesale from a TV listing (the line "Dr Alice Roberts visits" definitely gives that impression) then surely it is not in keeping with the Wiki guidelines on copyright? WelshMatt (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes copyvio of the BBC - see [1]. I've removed it. Rwendland (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link 'The threat of Dounreay' it seems to be an 12 year old webpage with out of date information.--Russhayley (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on PFR please[edit]

Is there only one source for the PFR ? Why did it only run for 20 years ? What were its goals and did it achieve them ? What was learnt ? What problems did it find ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found this Dec 1995 45 page report NKS-95-RAK2-TR-C1.pdf by Jensen and Olgaard on PFR (also at [2] )
and BBC 9 Feb 1966 says £30m project awarded in 1966.
Used this Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status p73-88 covers DFR and the delays and problems of PFR. Most other sources seem to need IEEE subscription. - Rod57 (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dounreay. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dounreay. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies and outdated information[edit]

This Wiki page has several inaccuracies. The page seems to be about Dounreay the nuclear facility rather than an "area." Vulcan is not part of Dounreay so there is no need for it to be part of the page. This is confusing for any person not familiar with both sites. Alongside this the decommissioning date is now going to be as early as 2030-33, not 2025 as the article states (Extremely outdated info yet again). User Rwendland refuses to allow new or updated information to be added to the page. Is there a way this can be resolved? If the user wants the page to remain the same can he please update it with information from the Dounreay website [1], rather than inaccurate or outdated articles. The website is the best and most reliable place for updated information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.9.81 (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been sorting this out, a long way to go yet. Dougsim (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://dounreay.com/

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dounreay. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dounreay&oldid=1201353271"