Talk:Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#Public opposition and nuclear free movement. • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] do me a favor?

Will someone please tell doug laughlin....happy thursday!

                                           Have a great day yourself
                                                    Maryliss72.79.144.254 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)