Talk:Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

Wind Direction Confusion
This article currently says, "prevailing westerly winds. These would have put the Phoenix-Scottsdale metropolitan area into jeopardy in the event of a major accident." This confuses me. The plant is located far west and somewhat south of the phoenix-scottsdale area. Wouldn't EASTLY winds be more dangerous? I don't see how these statements make any sense...

(Text above by an unknown poster, I think) My reply: The meaning of westerly is From the west, not To the west. So a westerly wind would come from the Pacific, then over California, then over Palo Verde (picking up fallout from any disaster, should one happen) then over Phoenix. So the article is right. Check Google using "Define: westerly"  --By the way, I am new at editing talk pages, so I hope I'm doing passable work; let me know if not. Dwight666 (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Largest in the US
In what sense is this the largest? Ontario's Bruce Nuclear Generating Station has a capacity in excess of 6000 Megawatts. I may remove this claim in due course. Crosbiesmith 14:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Were they talking about number of reactors, site size, capacity, or some other measure?
 * And instead of removing, how about, 'once the largest'?
 * ~ender 2007-03-01 07:49:MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.171.226 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Were they not saying that it's the largest in the U.S.? theanphibian 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * -Crosbiesmith, if you will review the statement in the article's first paragraph, you will see that Palo Verde is the largest plant in the United States of America, not in the world. Bruce Nuclear Generating Station is located in Ontario, Canada, which is not the United States. (CLP)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.226.235 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have updated the intro - at 3 x 1300 = 3900 MW, Palo Verde is the largest of all the power plants in the US, not just the nuclear plant. Scherer is 4 x 900 = 3600 MW--Graham Proud (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The pipe "bomb"
According to CNN, "checks failed to show any explosive material on the pipe", should we call it a bomb at all? F 00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading comprehension check -- Just three or so sentences after the line you mention, it says this, quite clearly -- ""MCSO bomb squad tests later determined that the capped pipe was a credible explosive device," APS said in a written statement." - Ageekgal 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion: There is no story here. None. But apparently the media will take any chance they can to invoke images of terrorism. They are fear-mongers. They are counting on people who skim articles and listen for keywords only to notice the phrases "pipe bomb," "nuclear," and "terrorism" without comprehending the full context of the so-called story. The whole section should be omitted from the article -- if not now, then definitely a few months in the future because there is no historical significance to this "story." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acc78 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

History deleted again
People deleting cited history: 65.96.107.206 146.126.61.241 And people who've deleted information, instead of asking for citations: Cascadia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.249 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

History Section NPOV issues
The History section of the article seems to me to be POV (probably an explanation for the deletions by earlier editors). I don't have a copy of The Arizona Project to read up on the arguments against siting Palo Verde where it is, but this sounds like it indeed comes from an argument and isn't strictly a statement of fact. The first sentence -- "Palo Verde's selection was questionable" -- has a definite POV quality to it and could be refined. I didn't do so since it's clear from the talk page that this section has drawn some earlier attention, so I wanted to discuss it here instead.

This section isn't really a history section, but more an argument against the plant's location. It would be better to convert this into a more comprehensive section on the process of determining where Palo Verde was to be built -- covering both arguments for and against locating it away from any large bodies of water and upwind of a major metropolitan area. Maybe The Arizona Republic or The Phoenix Gazette published articles about it during the 1970s or 1980s that could help flesh out both arguments and cite multiple sources on the matter. • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A good example of a section that covers both sides of this sort of controversy is Diablo Canyon Power Plant. &bull; WarpFlyght (talk &bull; contribs) 03:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations for cost figures?? POV or OR?
Reading the capital cost calculations for the plant, I can't believe any real financial analyst was involved, so the source of the claimed 1.4 cent cost is needed. A 60 year life time for a plant that is only licensed for 40, and no plants I know of haven't required significant investment to be relicensed, and a 5% roic is absurdly low, so I can't imagine even the crooks and liars writing AAA ratings for SIVs to sign off on that kind of investment analysis. My quick calc of 10% roic for 40 years gives me about 2.8 cents, which I wouldn't trust with an 11 foot pole. But a more realistic capital cost probably makes the plant uncompetitive with coal, natgas, etc., for the time frame it was built. Mulp (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Capital cost for a new 1-GW-nuclear power plant (5 billion $ investment) at 5% over 40 years is 4.16 cts/kWh. If they got cheaper money then this must be considered as subsidies. --79.218.86.215 (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an old 3.7 GW, $5.9 billion plant;
 * 5.9/3.7 = 1.6 $/W = 32% of 5/1 $/W.
 * 32% of 4.16 ¢/kW·h = 1.3 ¢/kW·h ... which is less than the figure in the article.


 * 79.218.86.215's edit summary: capital cost IS part of production cost. Article does NOT mention that capital cost is not included in 1.33 cts/kwh
 * No, capital cost is NOT part of the production cost.
 * Read the paragraph more carefully: "... the depreciation and capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour."
 * This doesn't change the fact that "production cost" is the worng term, and that the article is POV. Besides that the given numer of 1.4 cts/kwh for capital cost is definitely a lie, since that would mean that they get money over 40 years at afixed interest rate of just 2%.--79.218.81.156 (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From the source, http://www.nei.org/filefolder/economic_benefits_palo_verde.pdf
 * "Palo Verde had a production cost of 1.33 cents per kilowatt-hour. ...
 * Production costs represent the operations, maintenance and fuel cost of the plant. They do not include depreciation, interest or ongoing capital cost."
 * Would you prefer some other term, e.g. 'operating cost'?
 * —WWoods (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * indeed this is the exact term when yopu only calculate the cost of operation - this would not include capital cost.--79.218.81.156 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, of course capital cost is part of production cost. Otherwise you would need to change the article about photovoltaic energy and claim that it has an production cost of 0.0 cts/kWh - ZERO. This of yourse would be wrong, would give a wrong impression to the readers, and therefore would be POV! I suggest that you change the article and write about REAL COST of nuclear energy from Palo Verde. You can tell cost for maintanence, fuel, capital, waste removal and buliding of reserve funds extra and sum it up. As long as you did not do that in a NPOV way I will always fight. --79.218.81.156 (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pipe Bomb vs Dry Pipe
Before I make any changes, I wanted to check if anyone wanted to "help" a newbie to Wikipedia. Full disclosure, I also work at Palo Verde, so I wouldn't mind a check to ensure I keep a NPOV.

I noticed that reference 11 was used twice. It is correctly used to discuss the pipe bomb. It was used incorrectly in association with the dry pipe. Two totally different topics. See below for the incorrect reference.

The finding came as the "final straw" for the NRC, after Palo Verde had several citations over safety concerns and violations over the preceding years, starting with the finding of a 'dry pipe' in the plant's emergency core-cooling system in 2004.[11]

Anyway - if anyone is watching this page, drop me a line so I can start fixing a few errors.

Fswirbul (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Taking issue with one line
"... and one of the largest ones on the planet"

It's the 11th largest Nuclear Station by capacity, this phrasing makes it sound higher than that. The margin between the 5th biggest is 35% larger than Palo, and the biggest is 89 % larger (from installed capacity). Moreso China has 10 stations under construction that will exceed Palo's installed capacity when completed.

I am not sure if my suggestion is to remove or rephrase the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crcrewso (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
In the Security section, it says "Armed guards, security checkpoints with machines, and bomb sensors ..." What machines is it talking about? Mysticdan (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is referring to the X-ray machines mentioned in the previous sentence. It is unsourced information, but that is the logical conclusion. I've fixed it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090512065931/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-005.iv.html to https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-005.iv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090512070532/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-009.iv.html to https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-009.iv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph in Description Section Concerning Costs and Wholesale Energy (added April 2016)
This paragraph seems poorly sourced in terms of its numbers for Palo Verde's operating costs and the claim that its operating at a loss. I would expect the operating costs for Palo Verde are in line or even slightly below the industry average of 2.67 c/kWh as of 2014 according to the EIA (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html) The wholesale cost of energy changes daily and as we get into the hot summer months it is going to go up compared to when the article was written in April (the article also links the daily updated EIA page which contradicts the statements made in the paragraph depending on what the price of wholesale electricty is on that particular day). Additionally it talks about the cost of producing power via Natural Gas without discussing the capital cost, investment in pipelines and transmission networks from a new Natural Gas plant, etc. as though the operation of Palo Verde is a costly producer of power for the local markets. Such is not the case in all the information I've been able to gather from NEI, EIA, and various internet sources. I believe that paragraph in particular needs some widespread edits in order to paint a more accurate picture of the true costs of Palo Verde. I may start today, but just wanted to start a discussion on the topic. Minawreck (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 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 tag to http://www.nei.org/filefolder/economic_benefits_palo_verde.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311091239/http://www.aps.com/main/news/releases/release_429.html to http://www.aps.com/main/news/releases/release_429.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002131207/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sonoran desert not Arizona desert
It's called the Sonoran desert not the Arizona desert 2600:1011:B119:8ECE:0:4E:8E89:5F01 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Whistleblower Info
I think this article is missing significant whistleblower info. Such as here: https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/critical-6425795

Found here List of nuclear whistleblowers Czarking0 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That source was kind of bad though so here is a much better one: https://kkc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mitchell-v.-Arizona-Public-Service-Co.-Case-No.-91-ERA-91.pdf