Talk:Gundremmingen Nuclear Power Plant

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What type and design of BWRs[edit]

What type and design of BWR was unit A ?
Can anyone link to details of the 'Series 72' design for Units B & C ? Rod57 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unit A is a weird prototype design that does not warrant any further discussion. Units B&C are essentially identical to the modern ABWR, but without safety systems utilizing turbo-pumps. All significant technical advances of the ABWR were invented and implemented in this plant. They also have a retrofitted fourth (100%) independent cooling chain. 153.100.131.12 (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Measured emitted radioactivity in 2004 was 3 TBq airborne and 5 TBq waterborne[edit]

One TBq equals 1,000,000 MBq, but only 50 MBq are allowed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.224.162 (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gundremmingen Nuclear Power Plant. 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/20120303033852/http://www.kta-gs.de/d/regeln/3100/3104n.pdf to http://www.kta-gs.de/d/regeln/3100/3104n.pdf

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) 03:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

Article currently reads in part ...spent nuclear fuel, which requires safe containment for approximately a million years. It's unsourced and marked as that.

It's a misleading and ridiculous claim. I'm sure it can be sourced, but we should not give it undue weight even then. The crossover period, after which the stuff that we bury will be less radioactive than the stuff we dug up was, is less then three thousand years, even using the KBS-3 process with no attempt at recycling the long-lived isotopes, which are all either fissile or fertile ie fuel. Andrewa (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I corrected the sentence. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]