Talk:Bruce Nuclear Generating Station

Quality of article??

Isn't this article missing a lot, such as:

• Why are the reactor buildings square/rectangular/cubical as opposed to the dome shape of Pickering?
• Function of vacuum building -- rather unique feature is it not?
• How many turbines? done
• Thermal efficiency?
• Where are wastes stored? On-site or elsewhere? Capacity? sorta done
• What about the heavy water plant? Still operating? done
• Closing of nearby Inverhuron provincial park -- and subsquent reopening
• How many people does it employ? done
• Affect on local economy
• Original cost?
• One control room per reactor or one per station or one for both A and B
• Why a "four pack" ... as opposed to the two-pack design currently touted? might be better covered on PickeringA page
• Thought there was an issue with transmission lines where there really weren't enough built. sorta done, line being upgraded
• Why Bruce was able to stay operating during the blackout, but Pickering was not? (I remember a radio interview where it was mentioned the control panel design of Bruce was different than Pickering, the operator had access to key information that let him decide to keep running)
• The operation agreement with a private company is rather unusual for Ontario is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldercarb (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Feldercarb (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Are all these map links really needed? This is not even a geographic entry.

--Jdeboer 14:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, those links are part of a spamming of all nukes. Well, they are broken for Canadian sites, so away they go. --Jdeboer 04:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They can give very nice and detailed satellite images on US sites, unfortunately, Canada sites can hardly be seen on Google maps or Terra. --Dubaduba 19:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I saw in the news today that the Ontario Government has committed to refurbishing and reactivating Reactors 1 and 2 --dovm 23:09, 13 Oct 2005

Refurbishment

Added in a bit about the ongoing refurbishment of units 1 and 2, and a like to the Bruce Power website describing the project. Burtonpe 19:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest debacle in updating units 1 & 2. Documents left behind in a news studio by the Minister in charge of sector. Bruce 1 reactor 324 days late, and Bruce 2 reactor 433 days late.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090603/AECL_raitt_follow_090603/20090603/?hub=TorontoNewHome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.6.118 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

The statement "Bruce A subsequently lost this capability due to safety concerns with the booster rod system" is unsourced and I'm pretty sure it's wrong. The booster system was originally designed for this kind of extra maneuvering capability, but the safety concerns were raised during original construction. I don't think the boosters were ever completed or made operational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.176.194 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The booster rods were definately installed and used, but were subsequently removed due to operational difficulties with their cooling systems. They were never unsafe. This reference from the AECB describes their design and use. The were removed after the publicaton was produced, but 1993 is after the commissioning of Bruce A. The parent website for this reference () has a lot of very good CANDU-related references.Alex Rauket (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly stated in the OSPE report page 7, which is and was referenced:

"The Bruce A and B stations were designed to operate through grid disturbances and were also designed to operate for at least 6 hours disconnected from the grid so they could reconnect following a load rejection or grid blackout. Unfortunately, a design decision to use booster rods to control reactor power in the Bruce A units rather than absorber rods proved to be a reactor safety concern. They were subsequently removed without installing absorber rods. Consequently, the Bruce A units can no longer operate after a load rejection or grid blackout and are currently required to shut down following those events. During the planning for the refurbishment of the Bruce A units, the capability to survive a load rejection or grid blackout was not included in the scope of the refurbishment work." [1]

So were installed, were a safety concern, were removed. And was not unsourced. Feldercarb (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Feldercarb (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Start Class?

What does it take to move an article beyond Start Class?Feldercarb (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC) What's worse: "cheers" or "enjoy"?

It's definitely not start class. Unfortunately the classification scale is a bit unclear (there are clearly defined minimal criteria for each classification level - but not all of the criteria are easy to assess), doesn't have as much granularity as it should (although this varies by WikiProject), and people generally don't bother updating article classifications very often (the core issue). Typically a member of the WikiProject will be the one to update the classification, I'm not sure how common it is for non-members to update the classification but since it doesn't seem to be actually prohibited (although probably somewhat discouraged, although as most WikiProjects only say that their members can modify classifications and don't say anything about non-members it's very uncertain) and since I'm also active enough in this subject area that I feel comfortable assessing it, I went ahead and updated the classification to C-class. With some more work this article could certainly move to B-class, and while it definitely merits the work required I'm not sure that it'll get done anytime soon (which, alas, is the nature of Wikipedia's volunteer-driven and work-intensive editing process).

If you're not familiar with assessment of articles on Wikipedia, ratings beyond B-class always require specialized assessment (GA, FA, and FL in particular require that the article/list is formally assessed by the singular centralized/Wikipedia-wide nomination process), and particular WikiProjects may have their own extra non-standard categories, special criteria for assessment, or unused default categories (most notably obvious in that many WikiProjects don't use A-class at all, although that's likely due to confusion with GA-class and the self-assessment issue).

Many WikiProjects allow you to manually request an independent review of an article's assessment by listing it on a certain page, but for many WikiProjects, these lists are extremely disused (for example the last entry on WikiProject Energy's assessment request list appears to be from four years ago!). Garzfoth (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

okay nice lecture, can we bump its rating up?Feldercarb (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"bump" -- can we review the class rating??Feldercarb (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Are construction costs in now dollars or 1977 dollars?

This is a very important distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.65.1 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the source it's in "dollars of the year", so presumably 1978 dollars for Bruce A and 1989 dollars for Bruce B. The cost should probably be explicitly specified as CAD if anyone gets around to firmly confirming these dates - the original source is cited in the greenpeace source but unfortunately it does not appear to be available online so someone needs to contact Bruce Power to see if they have a copy that they could scan for verification (or other citations). I'm not certain if these costs truly exclude the bruce bulk steam system and other stuff like the heavy water plant though... Garzfoth (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

OCAA Fringe?

Is the OCAA a fringe group? They are quoted in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_electricity_policy wiki article. I think I would like to have critical points of view posted/noted, and present an opposing point of view, rather than dismiss out of hand. Feldercarb (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a self-published source from a fringe advocacy group with demonstrably false claims. Citing them would give WP:UNDUE weight to a non-reliable minority source. A far better approach would be to summarize the major points of the FAO report on the refurbishment, which is an impartial third-party review from a reliable source. Maybe after that is complete we can revisit this subject and see if there are some more reliable sources representing non-minority or significant-minority opinions (both pro- and anti-refurbishment) that can be cited, but I'd like to get that FAO report summarized first (and you're more than welcome to try your hand at doing that). Garzfoth (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Cobalt 60

I think this section is overly detailed, and could perhaps be moved to the Cobalt 60 article 207.245.235.26 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Portions of it could be copied to the cobalt-60 article, but the level of detail here is quite intentional and I believe it is still quite appropriate and nowhere near overly technical (although I suppose moving it to a top-level heading within this article might possibly be a good idea at this point?). Garzfoth (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, I think you have some personal connection to this topicFeldercarb (talk)

Ita, about your table

• Many of the units were shutdown for lengthy periods. I feel this to be important information, especially if you wish to assess the cost and reliability of this plant. This information has disappeared
• also the age at closure information has disappeared - do you really want to be operating a 51 year old nuke?
• "Phase" doesn't make sense -- maybe "plant"
• since all the units are PHWR and CANDU these two columns seem doubly redundant
• "closure" -- is planned or scheduled
• we already have an INFOBOX which lists all the units, not sure we need ANOTHER table
• I worry sometimes about endless edits that don't add information

Feldercarb (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

⚛️ 2064 ?

From https://london.ctvnews.ca/mobile/first-steam-generator-arrives-at-bruce-power-for-13b-refurbishment-project-1.5098299 ➡️ "Bruce Power has just started a 13-year, $13-billion project to refurbish six of their eight nuclear reactors, extending the life of the Bruce Power site until 2064."

Security and safety section

This edit [2] has been made at least 12 times by IPs (11 times by the same IP). It has been undone by various named accounts, and I agree with their edit summaries stating that "the plant suffered another PR blow" is WP:POV. I've warned the main IP for edit warring. Meters (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Broken map

Lakes Huron and Erie and Ontario are missing. -- Beland (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)