Talk:APR-1400

Energy Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs updating

As of the writing of this note, the article needs to be brought up to date with the status of the global APR-1400 fleet. At the very least, Shin Kori 4 has come into commercial operation. But the pipeline of reactors under construction has likely changed in other ways (e.g., construction starts or cancellations). Vigormaster (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was US NRC approval needed

Why was US NRC approval needed for the design ? Was it to allow sales in US ? required by an international non-proliferation agreement, or to allow purchase from US of some required components ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is because smaller countries rely on designer's own country and/or NRC technical appraisal & approval (or possibly UK GDA approval) as the technical basis for their own approval. Without one of these already (expensively) done it has hardly any chance these days of approval elsewhere. But I don't have a cite to hand for this, but recall reading about this. Rwendland (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UK Section seems irrelevant?

The UK section talks about plans for a different reactor to the APR1400. Should it be removed or updated? 90.240.122.75 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a brief explanation of the relevance: Kepco would have built two APR1400s at Moorside instead of the originally planned three AP1000s. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]