Talk:Wylfa nuclear power station

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.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 21 October 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Wylfa Nuclear Power Station to Wylfa nuclear power station. The result of the discussion was moved.

Pronunciation

It would be good to have a mention of the correct pronunciation. I'd guess at something like WOOL-va but it would be great if someone local could add IPA and/or pronunciation respelling. --Hybrid2712 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC) add this link[reply]

http://www.horizonnuclearpower.com/news Proposed reactor type by Horizon Hitachi is a 2x ABWR 1.3GWe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.147.254 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleadiing text

Do the numbers on this: "...Wylfa houses two 490 MW Magnox nuclear reactors, "Reactor 1" and "Reactor 2", which were built from 1963 and became operational in 1971.[4] Wylfa typically supplied 23 GW h of electricity daily..." and the capacity factor is 97.7%. This seems unrealistically high for any worthwhile time period of generation - is there anyone in the know who could check this out? (Prismsuk (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

"The Fukushima incident was caused by a 9.0 MW earthquake followed by a tsunami; Anglesey is not in an area which suffers similar seismic activity, with 5.0 MW being considered a "large" earthquake in the UK [20] (the logarithmic scale used means that the Fukushima earthquake released about a million times as much energy) and the last major tsunami to hit the British Isles having been 7,200 years ago.[21]"

This text is inaccurate in two major ways:

1.) The epicentre of the March 2011 earthquake was 176 km northeast of the Fukushima power plant, so the ground shaking at the power plant locations was not equivalent to a 9.0 earthquake.

2.) The last major tsunami to hit the UK was the 1775 tsunami caused by the Lisbon earthquake, 236 years ago.

It is also still not clear what caused the Fukushima plant to fail: the ground shaking or the tsunami. I am not going to fix the text and spark an edit war with the nuclear industry and their wikipedia minions, so I will simply point out the inaccuracies here.

130.235.100.183 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the epicentre of a "large" UK earthquake might not be spot on top of the Wylfa station. Fukushima experienced an enormously greater ground shock, by several orders of magnitude, than has ever been seen in the UK.

It is, I suppose, literally true that the Portuguese tsunami was major (near Portugal) and hit the British Isles (a bit), but that is a little misleading since when it _got_ to Britain no significant effects were recorded.

I don't work for, in any sense, not some PR flack's dodge, the nuclear industry. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the seismic activity essay, I agree, but I am afraid it is original reasearch.

I have deleted: "This came as disturbing news to some people as Hitachi built the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station where a major nuclear incident occurred in 2011." because:

a) Hitachi built only reactor n.4 (finished 35 yeas ago)

b) Hitachi also built reactors n.2 and n.4 of Fukushima Daini which where hit at full power and built, togheter with Toshiba, reactor n.3 of Onagawa, also hit at full power, without any consequences.

c) If Hitachi was at fault about reactor n.4 cooling pool, we could say that it has learned his work with the three newer reactor's hit without consequences.

--Robertiki (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal of the material about seismic activity (well, I suppose I would). It would be impermissible synthesis to draw the (obvious) conclusion that Wylfa is not going to suddenly jump into the sea, but it is not OR to mention pertinent facts. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wylfa Nuclear Power 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:

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) 21:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Berkeley Nuclear Power Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]