Jump to content

Talk:Hunterston B nuclear power station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hunterston A

[edit]

Is there a Hunterson A? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good shout, I fixed it up a little. --John 04:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, that's plenty sufficient, all the reader needs to know. I've just been forced to categorize most of these UK nuclear plants for creating the map. It doesn't matter much for a large scale geographic picture weather there is a A and B station if they're right next to each other. But in this case I'll just say that the B plant is the notable one of the two. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, there is definitely an A! It is notable for having been visited by Nikita Khrushchev Alexei Kosygin, then president of the USSR Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers (schoolboy memory failure corrected. --NSH001 (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)). I remember it well, as I, my family, and half the neighbouring villages turned out to watch him and all the other dignitaries arrive. Also notable because, at the time it was finished, it was the largest nuclear power station in the world, a status that only lasted 2 or 3 months. I can remember it being built, a process that took years. I was amazed (being a little boy) at the huge size of the crane (called Goliath) that they used to build it. Note that the old Magnox reactors are physically much larger than the AGRs -- because they use natural uranium metal fuel (not enriched), you need a lot more of it to achieve criticality -- but this is not clear from the photo, which is taken from near the AGR building.[reply]
--NSH001 10:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hunterstone - sorry - A even has a website hunterstona.co.uk. Gordonofcartoon 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gordon, might be useful if I ever get round to setting up a stub article on Hunterston A. (By the way, you mis-spelled it again [1])
--NSH001 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I don't see the need for two separate pages for the A and B stations. Does anybody else think the two articles should be merged? Fintan264 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be two separate pages. They are separate developments within the Nuclear Power history within the UK. Different technologies; different owners; one shutdown - the other operating; different opening dates.....
--Stewart (talk | edits) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Hinkley Point A nuclear power station#Merge? for some points I've raised in favour of a similar merge. Fintan264 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are both different stations, different owners, one is active one is not. Why confuse people by merging. They should stay seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.128.50 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be merged. They are entirely separate entities historically, legally, commercially and technically. Their only point of commonality is that they are adjacent. You might as well merge BBC Scotland and STV on that basis, since their Pacific Quay headquarters are right next to each other and they both make TV programs. Thparkth (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the two stations were so separately operated. If this is the case then maybe the articles should reflected and make known this information, just to avoid future confusion? Fintan264 (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea. Thparkth (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be merged. Both are on the same site and people see it as one power station. Hunterston A is historical so it doesn't matter who runs it. The articles are both short in any case and it would make it easier to read/research. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I feel this is quite wrong. There is no connection between the two power stations at all. It certainly matters who runs Hunterston A vs. B given that one is a government body and the other is a private company. If most people see them as one power station, they are simply ignorant. The *only* thing they have in common is the rough location. Thparkth (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they shouldn't be merged. Different owners, different technologies, different histories, one decommissioned the other still operating. I think of the two very differently, as I grew up nearby, and watched "A" slowly being built over many years, quite different from "B". I endorse the points made by Thparkth. --NSH001 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not dogmatic about whether they are merged or not, but I suggest that we apply the same policy to all UK nuclear stations, for uniformity, e.g Dungeness A&B, Sizewell A&B, Heysham A&B. bearing in mind that some sites currently with an A will soon be having a B. A little bit of planning now can help keep things tidy in the future. Tiger99 —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And you would not include Hunterston C - which could possibly be a coal fired power station. --Stewart (talk | edits) 20:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Mr. Salmond has his way, Hunterston C, if it is built, will not be nuclear. I don't think there is another site in the UK with nuclear and conventional adjacent. If A and B have seperate pages, so would C, otherwise we would have conventional and nuclear on the same page, which would possibly be confusing, so it might be better to keep them all seperate. But why not wait until there is a definite plan for Hunterston C, with something to write about, before discussing where we put it? Or, we could for each multiple site, have a disambiguation page, and individual pages for each. Too many choices, none of them clearly optimum, yet.... Tiger99 (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would create a hard to understand and maintain mess. Better as now, separate with each mentioning the other. Rod57 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Design

[edit]

A section on the design of the reactors and rest of power station would be nice. Rod57 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

graphite cracking

[edit]

Article says "The graphite moderator core in each of the twin advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGR) at Hunterston B has recently developed structural problems in the form of cracking of the bricks" but the document cited seems to say that other AGRs have cracked graphite and thus it should be checked for at Hunterston B. If they have cracked it would be helpful to replace 'recently' with a date. Rod57 (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased as above. - Rod57 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hunterston B 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hunterston B 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) 23:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2020

[edit]

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. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunterston_B_nuclear_power_station&oldid=1200468868"