Talk:Shippingport Atomic Power Station

Contradiction?

What's with the date convention in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It says:

It began operating on December 2, 1957 [...]

Ground was broken in 1954 at a dedication ceremony attended by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who opened the Shippingport atomic power station on May 26, 1958 as part of his Atoms for Peace program.

Was it operating before being opened? Ben ^T/_C 08:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

According to the ASME article, it went critical and generated power in "test" mode before formally "opening".--J Clear 23:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In all cases, a new nuclear reactor achieves intial criticality and extensive testing is performed prior to declaring the unit to be in "commercial operation". Commercial operation is when the unit has been tested and is supplying power to the grid for profit. Shippingport was operating but not yet commercial. 04/21/08

Was not the first commerical reactor, Calder Hall went on line over a year ealier (oct 1956). Removed refrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.4.63 (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• As a footnote now says, Calder Hall was dual-purpose, producing weapons-grade plutonium as well as electric power to the grid. The first purely civilian nuclear station in the UK was Berkeley. .John M Brear (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Site clean up

"The site has been cleaned up and released for unrestricted use." Does that refer to a web site, post 9/11 or to the physical site on the Ohio River? If the latter, when was the plant decomissioned, cleaned up, etc. In either case it needs clarification.--J Clear 17:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered my own question.--J Clear 18:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fast Breeder?

The text claims that Shippingport was a light water fast breeder reactor, which is a contradiction in terms. It's impossible to have fast neutrons in a light water moderated reactor. The breeding mechanism for the Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle uses thermal as opposed to fast neutrons (which is used in the Uranium-Plutonium fuel cycle). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHonzik (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The final core was using less moderator (water) than a normal light water reactor. So it was using an intermediate energy spectrum, so not a strictly thermal reactor but also not a truly fast reactor (which is difficult to impossible with water cooling). This is a good choice for breeding in the Th232/U233 cycle. Its the special properties of U-233, that allows using this intermediate spectrum. U235 and Pu239 are far less efficient at that energy. Breeding with Pu239 or U235 as fissile fuel needs a truly fast reactor. The article text has changed to light water thermal breeder by now. I am not sure about the exact (if there are some) definitions about when to call a reactor thermal, intermediate or fast. I think there should be at least a note, that it uses less moderator than normal U235 based reactors.--Ulrich67 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier?

The reactor was designed with two uses in mind: for powering aircraft carriers, and serving as a prototype for commercial electrical power generation. -> How could this nuclear power station power aircraft carriers? The station is some hundred miles away from the next ocean. --DF5GO (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• It was the reactor that was designed to be multipurpose - usable in land-based power-plant or in a naval propulsion system - not the power station! A similar situation arises with gas turbines, some are strictly air-propulsion, some naval propulsion, some land-based power generation and some multi-purpose. .John M Brear (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Full-scale?

Where is "full-scale nuclear power plant" defined? I agree, that both Obninsk and Vallecito were lower power by an order of magnitude, but in this article the "full-scale" sounds really like an excuse to claim it a first of something, dammit :). Given that Obninsk was operational for 48 years and went online 3 years before Shippingport at a period when the development of the field was very rapid (thus the power difference), it sounds almost insincere. The citation supports it, but it's a single source, and even there it's in quotes as if afraid someone takes it too seriously. 193.40.10.181 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.power-technology.com/projects/maine/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051113164902/http://www.nukeworker.com:80/nuke_facilities/North_America/usa/NRC_Facilities/Region_1/shippingport/index.shtml to http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facilities/North_America/usa/NRC_Facilities/Region_1/shippingport/index.shtml

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)