Talk:Generation IV reactor

We still don't know what a gen-iv reactor is in the first place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.251.61 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MSR and SCWR

The Molten-Salt Reactor is an epithermal reactor, not a thermal reactor.

Also, the Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor can be either thermal or fast -- and the US is interested in pursuing the fast version as well as the thermal version. Oralloy 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

image

The image at the top is low quality and interferes with the table of contents... Strait 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think some Generation III+ Generators are out already, but it says that it will be released at 2010. (check the canada website at bottom) Andrewrhchen 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PBR

I don't see Pebble bed reactor under either Generation III reactor or here. Since INL is looking at building one, shouldn't it be here? Simesa 20:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats the same things as a VHTR, but 'Pebble bed' sounds just more lovely, just like a beach, nothing radioactive ;-) -- Eiland (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy amplifier

The Energy amplifier is a concept I just heard of. Perhaps it deserves a mention here as well. Simesa 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) its covered under sub-critial reactors

Agreed. The ADS/Subcritical reactor should definitely be covered in this article. for some info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor and http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/348/new-age-nuclear?page=0%2C0 Laxman2001 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging of Generation II and Generation III pages into Generation IV page

I could see merging the Generation II and Generation III pages together, but Generation IV is a completely different topic. I recommend leaving the pages as they are. Simesa 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that the reactor generation categories should be merged. Leave as they are, because of the technological advances made from generation to generation make reactors distinctly different in terms of efficiency, safety, etc. (Lachlan, 26/12/2006).

• I might consider removing that tag later, but I think this should be discussed more first. Andrewrhchen 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that the reactor generation categories should be merged. Leave as they are, because of the technological advances made from generation to generation make reactors distinctly different in terms of efficiency, safety, etc.Mion 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think they should be kept seperate as well. Removing tags, repost if need be. The machine512 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• oppose - I also think they shouldn't be merged. We don't have much material for the gen III stuff, but that's just a Wikipedia problem. From an organization standpoint it just doesn't make any sense. theanphibian 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose the merge too. Since nobody here seems to know of any reason for the merge, the tags should be removed (they don't seem to have been yet despite comments above). In fact they should never have been added IMO; It's a complete waste of everyone's time to add these tags without providing a rationale, and it does nothing to improve the appearance of the encyclopedia... especially when the tags then remain for months with no action, because nobody really knows what the proposer had in mind. Andrewa 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, the fact that they've been there since December 2006 goes to further demonstrate the points you mention here. Tags are off, let's get back to improving the articles. theanphibian 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Off topic, NOPV sentace in header.

The sentence "However, according to some, still, a severe accident at a Generation IV nuclear power plant is both "physically and statistically possible"[1]." Does not fit with the topic of the rest of the header, let alone the rest of the article. The article is about Gen IV. development while the sentence is a about the safety of yet-non-existent devices. Also, the use of wiggle words such as "according to some" is something to be avoided. Pointing out that that these systems can 'physically and statistically fail' is meaningless since any system can fail and nowhere in the article does it say Gen IV can't. It's a truism pure and simple. It doesn't belong in this or any other article. Nailedtooth (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to remove it. Lcolson (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I object but I see that you already removed it. The article is not about GEN development but about Gen IV. Onme of the goals of Gen IV is inherent safe reactors, and when a leading report says this is not possible, it is noteworthy. I'm restoring it, as I don't think consensus was reached already. There must be more people out there who have opinions about nuclear articles than just us three. -- Eiland (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Complementing myself; why would the Keystone center write this, if we're only talking about theoretical exercises? But we could remove "according to some", as the KC doesn't say so, but as one always hears Gen IV is "inherently safe", I tried to keep it NPOV as I felt it was too negative to write they can go wrong. But if you believe its a wriggle word, I agree and remove it. -- Eiland (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First, if it's been removed then the discussion should be whether to include it again. Declaring the discussion to be invalid and reverting it is a dictatorial move that runs contrary to the idea of discussion before changes. To avoid another edit war I've requested moderation in this discussion.

Second, the biggest problem with the sentence is it's a truism. It's logically and obviously true no matter what. Such a sentence could be included in any article about any technology since any technological system has the possibility of statistically and physically failing. Despite the fact that someone said it, it doesn't provide any information about Gen IV the reader already didn't have.

Third, just because someone perceived to be important said it that doesn't' make it important. That's called 'argument from authority' and it holds absolutely no weight. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For archive sake, the reference deleted by Nailedtooth is

However, according to some, still, a severe accident at a Generation IV nuclear power plant is both "physically and statistically possible" <~ref>The Keystone Centre Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding p. 47<~/ref>.

-- Eiland (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, wikipedia does that automatically every time the page is updated/edited, right? Nailedtooth (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was an obvious statement and shouldn't be included. Nailedtooth pretty much hit the arguement on the head. The first paragraph says that one of the primary "goals" is to "improve safety". So of course a GEN4 system could still fail. Pointing that out specifically in the third paragraph didn't improve the article, since I don't think anyone would mistakenly think they were failproof after reading that one of the "goals" was merely to "improve" safety.

On a grander scale, no technological system is failproof, and the more advanced it is, the more likely there is to be more possible failure mechanisms. I could think up several possible ways that a wind turbine or solar thermal system could "fail" and lead to thousands or millions of deaths. Whats important about failures is their likelihood of occurring.

I'm not trying to remove any mention to possible failure pathways, or white wash the article, looking at the first few paragraphs I've seen several adjectives that could probably be removed on the grounds that they could steer the article one way or another. If you think the article makes GEN4 systems look too nice, I think it would be better to focus on removing adjectives like innovative, central, significantly, etc... Adjectives are usually debatable and unnecessary, and an easy way of seeing POV, and perhaps one of the larger problems with this article. "inherent" would probably classify as one of those same words, and shouldn't be included, unless part of a meaningful (read: referenced) quote that is useful for increasing understanding of the topic in the article.

My personal opinion is that GEN4 systems are paper designs at this point. Essentially theoretical, and having theories on theories seems kinda pointless at this point.Lcolson (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What time would be better then? When it is built? I think people want to know if it is going to be risky or not before it is being build, and the design phase is when that should be known. A lot is being said about Gen IV being Inherently safe, and I think WP should give the main views on this matter. of -- 213.84.17.197 (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest, because some of the newer designs have been tauted as "inherently safe" that a discussion of safety improvements touch down on the use of this term and that these reactors continue to carry a non-zero risk. I don't think it's a truism in this case because of the advocacy that has taken place, and while it's obvious that any device is capable of failing, what's not obvious is whether or not there are any failures that could result in a major nuclear accident. I would argue that describing this possibility as still existing does not fall into he realm of truisms for the lay person, or even for the reasonably educated. Some new reactor designs claim to be unmeltable, so the question of whether it is in fact impossible to melt one is worthy of treatment somewhere in the article. Mishlai (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Generation I Retired?

This is a minor point, but the "Roadmap" from Argonne National Labratory references Magnox as a Generation I design, and yet this article states that all Generation I reactors have been retired, yet there are two Magnox type reactors in Commercial Service in the United Kingdom even today Spiz101 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NGNP

In the article, there is the date of 2021 mentioned for the construction of the first NGNP as the closest possible. But on the page for the NGNP, no such thing is mentioned, and it is not even in a concrete planning phase. I would like to delete this, unless someone brings some proof or sources... --Data2 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)