Talk:Moorside nuclear power station

AP1000 reactor design: Brittle steel ?
Explain please. It is "non-sense". I read in the source: "Last year Ma, a member of the NRC since it was formed in 1974, filed the first “nonconcurrence” dissent of his career after the NRC granted the design approval. In it, Ma argues that some parts of the steel skin are so brittle that the “impact energy” from a plane strike or storm-driven projectile could shatter the wall. A team of engineering experts hired by Westinghouse disagreed, as did several engineers consulting for the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which recommended the design be approved." Is it a bad quality steel ? I would say that without context it is impossibile to understand the meaning. I would say that Adam Piore doesn't understands what is steel and made insufficient research. I urge to drop the mention, written a couple of months after Fukushima and under an ousted leadership.--Robertiki (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Found the answer, it was not the steel. --Robertiki (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

NuGen ownership
I have a COI, so won't be making any edits myself, but I'd like to just point out a (hopefully) non contentious factual error. The ownership of NuGen is by Toshiba Corporation (60%) and Engie (40%), not Westinghouse Electric Company, which is also majority owned by Toshiba - has a contractual relationship with NuGen as a supplier. Ste1179 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 

Proposed railway station for the power station
How can a proposed Moorside railway station, Cumbria have definitive coordinates when the location is for a proposed Moorside Nuclear Power Station, which is being fought by neighbors? Perhaps I should pick a spot on the railway west of the proposed nuclear power station. Any advice from editors in Cumbria?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Losses when building
I don't understand the statement "losses ... mostly the construction of four AP1000 reactors in the U.S.". How is it a loss ? The big spending started on March 12, 2013, i.e. just over four years now. Were they waiting to get the money right now? It does not make sense. --Robertiki (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moorside 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141203170001/http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/protest-campaign-launched-against-nuclear-power-station-near-sellafield-1.1164871 to http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/protest-campaign-launched-against-nuclear-power-station-near-sellafield-1.1164871

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Merging Moorside clean energy hub article
Asking comments about merging Moorside clean energy hub as a section of Moorside nuclear power station.

Changing the type of a reactor was never a reason to split a new article. And neither adding new technology. Also, at the moment, we have only a proposal. If in the future, building starts as new proposal, i.e. the project changes name, we simply move the article name to the new Moorside clean energy hub and if the article becomes too unwieldy, split the history of the first proposal from the main body.

Splitting it now now scatters information and efforts and it can be confusing, as two different sites. --Robertiki (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * These two projects are completely different. the only thing that they have in common is the fact that they are on the same site. they use completely different reactor technology, different companies and have completely different histories, hence the new page. currently i am creating new pages for all proposed nuclear power stations in the united kingdom, linking back to the main article despite what stage of development they are in. In this case, do you want to rename the page and put the previous design under a new heading of Cancelled proposals? Alex Berrow (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The difference with the other proposed projects you've created pages for is that those are all new plants to be built on or alongside existing sites, whereas for Moorside we just have one failed proposal and one current proposal. I'd be in favour of keeping everything on the existing Moorside nuclear power station page, at least for now (and potentially renaming later). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * (@Alex) Up to now, the only sure thing is that it will be a nuclear power plant. From the referenced source:

The group is also considering other nuclear technology such as small modular reactors (SMRs), and advanced modular reactors (AMRs), which could be linked with renewables, storage and hydrogen production to create an integrated clean energy hub in the north west region.
 * As mentioned, the change in reactor technology does not matter, there are many nuclear power plants with a mix of reactor technologies, and anyway, AP-1000, APR-1000 or EPR are all PWRs. And adding SMRs and AMRs won't change the plant nature of being based on nuclear fission techonologies. What would be really different is adding a storage and hydrogen production facility, I suppose, powered with renewables ? But about that, I see only speculation i.e. a "could be". It would not be the first time of a renewable "vaporware". --Robertiki (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: there are truly two proposed plants, one from EDF-led Moorside consortium to revive the PWR nuclear plant proposal, and one from a Rolls-Royce-led UK SMR consortium which proposes a Moorside clean energy hub. The two plants would be placed next each other. --Robertiki (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Correction: the EPR and SMR proposals would both be part of the "clean energy hub", as is clear from the sources cited in the articles. But I still don't think we can justify having two separate articles for now. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * BBC source states:

Copeland Council said two consortia had now submitted plans for its "clean energy hub" on the site, adjacent to the Sellafield reprocessing plant.


 * and

The EDF-led Moorside consortium wants to build two pressurised water reactors of the same type as being constructed at Hinkley Point C in Somerset


 * and

The Rolls-Royce-led UK SMR consortium plans a low-carbon power station around a small, light-water reactor


 * The BBC source is of later date, so I would say it is more reliable (more precise). --Robertiki (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

yeah, i would be in favour of moving things around, renaming to moorside clean energy hub and having a section called previous cancelled proposals, something along the lines of this as it is on the same site but with different proposals. shall we do that on this page here or on Moorside clean energy hub. i will add the titles onto this page so that it can be moved over easily. Alex Berrow (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there is no need to hurry. Let us wait after summer. --Robertiki (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)