Talk:VVER

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Russia

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Containment[edit]

The VVER-1000 does have a regular style western contaiment. Will u please add this to ur article. Thanks --unsigned comment by 68.194.98.25 at 03:29, 19 January 2006

Loviisa 1 and 2 in Finland are VVERs with containment buildings added. --unsigned comment by 128.214.182.110 (talk) at 11:11, 3 February 2006

Transcription[edit]

This transcription from Russian to English is a great invention :)

--peyerk 11:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citation[edit]

This page has a lack of citation. It needs to have it. BlackSlivers 02:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation - VVER vs. WWER[edit]

I have never heard the abbreviation "WWER" used in English, only "VVER." Is this a term used in Commonwealth countries, because I only recall seeing this in German or Polish texts. --Adamrush (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translated from russian to english its like call VVER. But the english expression means Water-Water Energetic Reactor, short WWER. Reagards ChNPP (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time[edit]

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B6%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%90%D0%AD%D0%A1

Construction 1958

Start operation dec-1964 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.24.80.5 (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RBMK "lack of containment"[edit]

This article repeats the myth that RBMKs have no containment, which has been spread to distinguish "dangerous" Soviet designs from modern "safe" ones. Yet Chernobyl 1 had a 2250-tonne reactor lid, which was clearly not intended to keep out the rain and the birds. The point is not that RBMKs have no containment - rather that that containment has been proven to be inadequate. Theeurocrat (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that the reactor lid of Tsch. - and of the other RBMK in Russia - is the containment, is wrong. Most of the western reactor types have such a reactor lid too, as a protection against impacts from outside (together with the reactor building, constructed of more or less robust concrete walls), and additionally a steal or concrete containment against gaseous pressure buildup from inside. --62.202.229.248 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metsamor and VVERs models[edit]

RuPedia artice on VVER suggests, that there are 3 sub-models of VVER-440, initial VVER-440-230, later safer VVER-440-213, and seismo-adapted VVER-440-270. Latter is inherited from 230 submodel, but still is a different 'SKU'. And those submodels are the reactors of Metsamor/Armenia. 79.111.193.57 (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary cooling circuit[edit]

"To ensure safety all primary components are redundant." - But according to the picture it seems that there is only one Pressurizer? --BjKa (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to get a cite for this (and the rest of the section). But I guess the argument is that the Pressurizer is not a primary system as it can continue for a while without it, and especially that after a SCRAM the Pressuriser is not needed to remove the <10% residual heat production as an unpressurised primary circuit can do that to keep core temp within design bounds. Rwendland (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll follow that thought and try a rewording.

However most of this is general practice in all modern nuclear power stations. I'm not sure if this should not rather be dealt with in PWR. An actually useful information would be how many of the four primary loops are enough to deal with a SCRAM situation in a VVER.

Also: "being redundant" in my book means "unneccessary". I'll replace that with "designed with redundancy".

--BjKa (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VVER-1200[edit]

I took out the following section:

If a VVER-1200 experiences a loss of coolant accident or loss of power accident the turbogenerators 'coast down' for 30 seconds, during which time a shutdown can be initiated using residual power in the system. Further emergency power is available from a backup set of diesel generators kept on standby to maintain cooling flow to the reactor.

It's a nice description, but not particular to the VVER-1200. It belongs in a generic article about the emergency cooling of nuclear power stations. --BjKa (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What?![edit]

"[...] had to close with this two respectively four of their units." What does this mean in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.167.255 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I have reworded as: Because of this, Bohunice Nuclear Power Plant had to close two reactors and Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant had to close four.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]