Talk:British Energy

A correction was made to the financial details section. The Nuclear Liability Fund claims 65% of available cashflow, not 65% of profit. Source: pg. 2 of the NAO report.

Fair use rationale for Image:British energy logo.png

Image:British energy logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I really am getting sick and tired of the use of bots. I've added fair use details (although it would be relatively obvious to a non-bot what area it falls under in fair use). I wish people would learn that the intent, not the letter, is generally what the law is about, and not go using bots when they don't understand this (and by association, it appears the users who release them). Roche-Kerr 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom Location

British Energy is a British company based in the United Kingdom region of Scotland. The UK is the internationally recognised name of this country, not Scotland, England Wales nor Northern Ireland nor even Great Britain. I have no problem with any of the four regions being stated, but the UK must also be listed, as the UK is the official, legal and sovereign country name, like it or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and therefore must state accurate facts, not people's own personal preferences. In my humble opinion, this is a non-argument and the United Kingdom should take precedence. This is a norm across many FTSE 100 companies listed on Wikipedia. Darkieboy236 15:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

May 2008 disruptions

Pencefn, I've seen you have undone me adding this article:British Energy Hit by Second Plant Closure to "In the Media" section of British Energy page. In my opinion the story is notable as:

1. the power cut has hit the mainstream UK National news, and the news on wiki portal Energy, after affecting the capital city of the UK
2. the timing impacts the iminent sale of the UK Government stake in British Energy
3. The Times article I linked to draws attention to "the fragility of Britain's power infrastructure", which is a topic worthy of serious consideration.
4. This event is described as "the most serious disruption to the UK's supply network in more than 20 years"

However, I am very new to Wikipedia and so am still learning what counts as "encyclopedic" and will defer to the consensus opinion if the recent events are considered "operational" rather than "notable" --Sunbite (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you regarding the fragility of Britian's power network, especially given the media interest on Tuesday with the power cuts following the trips at three power station (one oil, one coal and one nuclear). This information in my mind does not belong in a specific generator's article ratheer in a UK Electricity or Energy article. The current high cost of gas and oil is also putting pressure on the systems. Your point is well made, however I think it should be elsewhere (possibly Energy use and conservation in the United Kingdom or Energy policy of the United Kingdom). --User:Pencefn 09:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is British Energy & which logo to use.

British Energy still exists. The article cannot be said to be historic. Since the takeover in January 2009, British Energy cease to be a listed company, but has still existed as a wholly owned subsidiary of EDF Energy. This was reflected in the change to the logo - and branding to the website at the time. The article has had the incorrect logo since then conclusion of the takeover. If you go to any of the sites at present, you will see the interim logo being display.

However EDF Energy have stated their intent to re-brand the British Energy business as part of EDF Energy at the beginning of July 2010. This will take some time to happen, and due to the current financial climate rebranding of the sites will take some.

The British Energy name will remain in part as the operational sites are licensed to British Energy Generation Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of British Energy).

THere is also the possibility that Centrica will take over use of the brand as part of their purchase of a 20% share of the existing nuclear business. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point if BE still has an ongoing, and future, existance - though why then was "is" changed to "was"? I was viewing the article from the future standpoint of BE no longer existing, when the logo it used for most of its life seemed most appropriate. Am I right that "British Energy plc" no longer exists; if we use plc then it should be as "British Energy Group plc"? Also, I'll add the old logo somewhere below - for the pragmatic reason that logo images are deleted if they are not used! Rwendland (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My revision was a bit confusing - BE was a plc, but is now a wholly owned subsidiary of a French government owned comapny. Was was probably the wrong term to use. I would welcome a more appropriate revision as the combined EDF Energy generation capacity makes it the largest generator, of which BE is part. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 17:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:British Energy.svg Original British Energy logo

Do you agree that when rebranding is fully underway (i.e. BE website changes significantly), we should start a new article, and keep this as the historical article on BE? Seems the best approach to me. NB I've linked to the old logo here, in the hope that stops it being deleted in case we want it in the future. Rwendland (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm a little late to this discussion,having just rewritten the article to historic context. Rwendland, the new article is already written: EDF Energy. Stewart, BE is now only referred to historically by EDF. Check the website or recent interviews/press. Corella (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

HQ location

BE website and companies house still give British Energy Group plc HQ and Reg Address as East Kilbride, as a Scottish registered company. And British Energy Generation Ltd is registered at Barnwood, Gloucester. So is it correct to give HQ as now in London? Have the staff moved? Rwendland (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

British Energy Generation Ltd is the company that holds the site licences for the eight nuclear power stations (and will probably continue to exist for some time. British Energy plc now longer exists as it is no longer a plc. East Kilbride houses the Scottish Engineering based and shared services. Most of the corporate functions are now absorbed into the EDF Energy business at Victoria, London (internal audit, and some HR functions). Prior to the takeover some of the corporate functions were undertaken in Gloucester and others in the Paddington Office. The Paddington Office has now closed. The staff email addresses are now changing from @british-energy.com to @edf-energy.com (not to be confused with the existing @edfenergy.com email addresses). The operational headaquarters of the existing nuclear business are Gloucester, BE trading and EDF trading are merging, Eggborough has been sold, and the new nuclear business is based in London, off Tottenham Court Road.

It is unfortunate that the BE website (apart from a few examples) still talks as though it is an independent plc, even though it ceased to be so 18 months ago. I will check next week for the up-to-date corporate details. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 21:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lewiswind/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Energy. 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://archive.is/20121209080524/http://www.aboutblyth.co.uk/html/cegbstory.html to http://www.aboutblyth.co.uk/html/cegbstory.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517152447/http://www.unizar.es/jmyusta/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/IEA-Lessons-of-liberalized-markets-2005.pdf to http://www.unizar.es/jmyusta/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/IEA-Lessons-of-liberalized-markets-2005.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Energy. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.allmediascotland.com/allnewswire/1512/British_Energy_Signs_%A3550m_Partnership_with_Doosan_Babcock
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930163715/http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?ReleaseID=287881&NewsAreaID=2 to http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?ReleaseID=287881&NewsAreaID=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928074513/http://www.british-energy.com/article.php?article=185&screen=4 to http://www.british-energy.com/article.php?article=185&screen=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002235506/http://www.centrica.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=39&newsid=1845 to http://www.centrica.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=39&newsid=1845

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)