Talk:Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

Installed capacity
As for pris database the power is 950 for each reactor.--Dwalin (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to list the Gross Capacity, instead of the Net. Thats what all other articles follow, and what the Russian Wikipedia article itself follow. Regards. Rehman(+) 06:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * bhà, lets use gross capacity.--Dwalin (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But of course, you are welcome to mention the Net in the article. Just to clarify, what I meant was other articles follow adding Gross in the infoboxes. The article itself may contain anything relevant. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Incident December 2014
whats going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.242.90 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So far all that's being reported is that there was an accident at the No. 3 reactor. Since they are talking about steps to restore normal power flow and not steps to evacuate, it is most likely not a high level accident, but I cannot speculate beyond the brief alert from Reuters and a few other news agencies. 68.48.8.9 (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

what's going on? Lots of reports of leaks and leaked messages. We know they are testing Westinghouse fuel assemblies and there has been problems elsewhere with these in VVERs Johnpaterson1234 (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Plant operational status during the 2022 Ukraine - Russia military conflict
Plant operational status? 117.197.176.124 (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Article implies operational on 12th March. But who controls where the electricity goes ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fuel type / isotope?
Add the fuel type used in the reactor please, is it U235? 2001:8003:E96F:BC00:B9E0:5FFF:81:4AD1 (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * What fuel/isotope does it use? U235? I need to know in order to estimate the severity of the possible disaster 2001:8003:E96F:BC00:B9E0:5FFF:81:4AD1 (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it de facto part of Russia?
The location is controlled by the Russian military, but has not been annexed by Russia, as far as I know. Is it correct for the infobox to say it is in the country of "Ukraine (de jure)" and "Russia (de facto)"? Nurg (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * yeah, I think that is incorrect and should be changed. A countries military controlling a site is not the same as that site now being located in that country. --1234567891011a (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Cautious"
Re. First my bad, I misread the edit summary - slow, methodical is in the NPR source. All the same, "slow and methodical" isn't a synonym for "cautious".  Volunteer Marek  19:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity
"On 4 March 2022, both plants were captured by Russian forces during the Battle of Enerhodar of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."

It is singular until that sentence, so what does "both plants" refer? Drsruli (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . I have clarified the text. It means both the nuclear and the thermal power stations. Nurg (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of Tobias Münchmeyer
The phrasing bringng Tobias Münchmeyer into attention seems to be unneeded. I'm fairly certain plenty of people have expressed concerns that the site would be shelled by artilleri and as such, it is quite uninteresting that anyone in particular did so. This seems to be placed there, to bring attention to specific people and organizations. 89.239.195.102 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Safety Systems
There really ought to be a section on safety systems telling what types (active, passive, etc.) and how many, especially with Russia playing with things that go "Boom". Given when it was built and by whom, I'm not optimistic that it was constructed with robust safety, but just as the U.S.' Hanford site added safety systems as time went on these plants could have as well. I'm going to pursue an avenue of information that may or may not pan out, and may or may not provide linkable source material, so I hope others will jump in with whatever is known. I suspect it has back-up generators on-site in case of plant power failure, which would probably be diesel, but it's got to have a lot more than that! Dismalscholar (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Unable to edit page
I was going to add a few words to this article about the August 6, 2022 attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which struck near a dry storage facility where 174 casks with spent nuclear fuel are kept. However, the article appears to be locked from editing, making this edit impossible. Please correct this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 173.88.246.138, hi, the article right now is semi-protected to avoid vandalism. You can make an account and after a few edits you will be able to edit this article. Otherwise, please make a request stating exactly what you want changed and the sources. Use this link to do so, and it will alert other users. Thanks! AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Shelling of the plant

 * By August 6, 2022 IAEA reported one of three reactors remaining in operation disconnected from the grid and triggered its emergency protection system as a result of shelling the previous day. Is there any information available about who is doing said shelling? Seems like important information. The source does not mention it, but mentions Ukraine informed the IAEA that the shelling had damaged the plant’s [...]. Is the plant back under Ukraine's control? AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the plant is not under Ukrainian control. The power plant is on the south bank of the Dnepr, and the frontline (on land) at closest is about 60km away. Ukrainian sources are claiming Russia is shelling themselves for ??? reason.
 * The question is not whether Russian claims make sense, the question is whether Ukrainian claims makes sense (they don't). RadomirZinovyev (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They do make sense. Russia has a history of False flag operations. See Russian Apartment Bombings for example. See also . The bottom line is that at times they do in fact attack places under their control in order to blame it on someone else. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even without the history Adoring nanny provided, it is possible for Russia to shell territory they hold. Whether you feel it makes sense or is a likely decision to make is not relevant, only what reliable sources report. Nelsonblaha (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Guys are you joking or something? This is a serious topic. Why would Russia shell the nuclear power plant that they themselves occupy and where (according to Ukraine) the Russians place a lot of military hardware (of which there is no video evidence but I digress)? The Russians were safely running the power plant since they take it over in early 2022 until the shelling started and are still relying on the same Ukrainian workers that operated the plant before the war. What false flag? What would be the motivation for creating a nuclear catastrophe in the most pro-Russia regions of Ukraine? Because they are just evil? Obviously no. Ukraine has all the motivation for actually carrying out the shelling (hitting an object that is occupied by the enemy): disrupting the referendums in southern Ukraine; calling on UN peacekeepers to guard the NPP and locally freezing the conflict, etc... The fact that Ukraine or Ukrainian-aligned figures are saying something (that openly goes against any logic) doesn't automatically that it is true. Just look at the "ghost of Kyiv" or the mighty "Kherson Counteroffensive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.171.154.112 (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for personal speculation, please see WP:NOTFORUM and the talk page guidelines. Please keep this discussion focused on linking and discussing what reliable sources say. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Jr8825, is this directed to me? I wasn't speculating, I was asking for sources for what seems to be important information to have on an article, in case it wasn't clear. I am familiar with the guidelines, but thank you. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't directed at you, but at 212.171.154.112. The anon's comment was removed, but not Jr8825's response, making the thread confusing. Jr8825's response should probably have been deleted too, but I don't know what standard practice is in this type of situation. Nurg (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Thank you Nurg. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Zelenskyy accusations contradiction
@Ermenrich Hello, why do you keep reverting the statement contrasting the statements of president Zelenskyy in relation to the position of Russian forces near the power plant? Reliable sources tell us that the plant was occupied by Russia in March – on 8 August, some 5 months into the Russian occupation of the plant, Zelenskyy accuses Russia of shelling the plant, then on 13 August, he revises his accusation, instead stating that Russia was "stationing their troops on the site of the plant to launch attacks on Ukrainian forces". WP:NPOV prescribes representing information "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", which, in my view, is not a principle being fully upheld when we omit a straightforward contrast of the two contradictory accusations. Thanks, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 00:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have a section on this. Why start a new one? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The source provided didn't say there's a contradiction. Find a reliable source which says this. Until one is provided, the assumption there's a contradiction rests on your personal analysis, or by combining sources to come to a conclusion they don't make themselves. Jr8825  •  Talk  01:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There are various RS that say that Russia appears to be shelling from the plant, including The NY Times, as well as that Ukraine accuses Russia of launching false flag attacks on the plant and its surroundings. There is no contradiction, and frankly, given all the other things Russia has done and is doing in Ukraine, it does not seem unlikely that they would try to shell the plant and blame Ukraine.—Ermenrich (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It does seem contradictory that Russia stations troops at the station and wants to connect it to its grid and at the same time stages false flag attacks there. However I also agree with User:Jr8825, unless RS call it a contradiction we can't use these words. We should just state the facts and let the reader decide. Alaexis¿question? 09:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

IAEA's Mr Grossi at the UN ".. the contents of such statements are frequently contradictory" https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14996.doc.htm hope that helps. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , the IAEA is referring to contradictions between the statements made by Russia and Ukraine, not Ukraine's statements being contradictory among themselves: He went on to say that IAEA has received information from both the Russian Federation and Ukraine indicating the state of the facility, its operations, and damage assessments. However, the contents of such statements are frequently contradictory.. The only person claiming a contradiction in Zelensky's statements is the Russian ambassador to the UN, and even then we'd need a reliable source rather than the raw notes of the meeting to cite it as notable (Russia always claims everything Ukraine says is a lie).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK understood. Agree there's no RS for that claim. Separately there were reports of a pylon 'falling over'. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/08/11/7362814/ and other pylons in Kursk https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukrainian-sabotage-behind-pylon-blasts-southern-kursk-region-2022-08-16/ - I don't think we use Pravda. It's all very foggy.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

MWe is non-SI unit
Suffixes are non-SI usage. Moreover, MWe is redundant as the correct usage in SI is already there in the article (to specify electrical in the prelude to the number and SI unit). Is non-SI A new Wikipedia Policy? Or does this need to be corrected? 50.43.46.94 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 50.43.46.94, I think it is the units the sources use. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022
Sources 41 and 42 cited for the paragraph about "activation of Article 5" both imply the collective West will do something or are considering something when it's just 1 member of the US House out of 435 and one member of the UK House of Commons out of 650. Source 41 says "UK, US Set Ultimatum" which is clearly false. Surely there are better sources that are more accurate about the impact of the statements. I suggest removing the sources. dhjw (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the sources are replaced with ones that make better sense of the politicians' comments, well and good. If the sources are just removed, the text should be removed too, which I am fine with, because it's just two politicians speculating on Twitter. And in the case of Ellwood, he didn't say what he meant, which was that the radiation would have to spread into a NATO country. Nurg (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that with the current non-heavyweight cites, two politicians speculating on Twitter isn't important enough for this summary. If this section ever gets spun out into its own article, then it could be reconsidered with better citing, but not for this summary section. Rwendland (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, both politicians in question are on defense focused committees and have substantial influence. Maybe in a month or so that could be removed since something more significant may have happened but for now it should be kept,
 * Basedeunie042 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Marginally related: I suspect that "breach" is a misnomer in the sense that you can't really breach an Article of a Treaty of which you are not a Party. It's in the tweet so, assuming I am correct an my Englih isn't failing me, putting it between quotes should do.109.119.236.121 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Investigative report concluding Russian false flag shelling "highly likely"
See. Mentioned in The Guardian's Ukraine coverage today. Jr8825 •  Talk  23:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022
Please revert Special:Diff/1108435446. The previous text seemed well sourced and claims were correcly attributed to their source, don't think wp:fringe really applies here, left alone the 'typical Russian bullshit' argument, if it may be called so. On the other hand I find that recent events are taking a large part of this article, so a separete article may be needed, this would be probably best left for a separete discussion.176.247.167.36 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)`
 * It was reverted (for better or for worse) at 00:59, 7 September 2022‎ (UTC), nearly 24 hours before you posted. Please pay attention. Nurg (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should pay more attention. It looks like my second concern was also recently addressed, the reversion wasn't that clear and my confusion may have had something to do with WP:Village pump (technical). Frankly I'm not sure and thanks anyway. 176.247.138.232 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

RCP seals. High temperature or Low Temperature?
FLEX strategies for beyond design bases mitigation might help. 100.14.217.246 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Amphibious assault
Russian sources mention a defeated Ukrainian amphibious assault in which 200 - 300 Ukranian special forces died. Is there anything known about this? Or were these stories just propaganda? 84.241.202.178 (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No outside verification anything of the sort happened. I'd stuff it in with the usual "we killed 6000 militants and destroyed 67 HIMARS" crap that Russia puts out. I believe it is mentioned in the article as Reuters repeats Russian claims without any editorial comment for the most part.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

750kV lines
It's mentioned in the "Facilities" section that there are 750kV transmission lines out of the plant, and specifically that one goes north over the reservoir and another one (most recently built) "south-westward to the Kakhovska substation." But, where do the other two go? It is also worth a mention on this article about which of these lines has been disconnected from the grid during the crisis, where that disconnection is claimed to have happen, and when it happened. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd be wanting a reliable source (RS) and I'm not sure this is one, but this map shows the lines: https://mobile.twitter.com/qwolphin/status/1507476854604992512. Here are the coords of the substations they go to: Khahovska 46.723, 33.192 ; Pivdennodonbaska 47.324, 37.427 ; Zaporizka 48, 35.51 ; Dniprovska 48.435, 34.037. Wait on, is this article that mentions the damage to the lines an RS https://english.nv.ua/nation/energoatom-head-tells-what-s-happening-at-zaporizhzhya-npp-50265918.html. There may be later articles - I haven't followed this for a month or two. Nurg (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. I see what was confusing me: Three of the four lines appear to run along the same gneral route for some length before branching. Criticalthinker (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Explosives placed
"Russian troops have placed military equipment, weapons, and explosives in the turbine department of the unit four of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, according to the information from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ",. Should this be included? That seems significant, especially after the destruction of Kakhovka Dam. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You need a IAEA reference. Ukraine has reason to say certain things for its war effort. Here is the real statement that comes without the insinuation of ill intent. "The IAEA is aware of reports of mines having been placed near the cooling pond. No mines were observed at the site during the Director General’s visit, including the cooling pond. However, the IAEA is aware of previous placement of mines outside the plant perimeter, which the Agency has previously reported, and also at particular places inside - which security personnel at the plant explained were for defensive purposes. “Our assessment of those particular placements was that while the presence of any explosive device is not in line with safety standards, the main safety functions of the facility would not be significantly affected.". https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-167-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine Liger404 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Need help fixing my reference
Not sure what is wrong with my reference. I was adjusting the reason for the 6th reactor being in hot shut down to the IAEA reason and not the Ukrainian reason. This is a more reliable 3rd party source. You can find the statement in the bottom of this article from the IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-162-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine Liger404 (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. You had omitted the tags. Additionally you had a URL as the website, and a full stop following the ref. Nurg (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Liger404 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)