Talk:List of small modular reactor designs

Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of small modular reactor designs was copied or moved into Rolls-Royce SMR on 26 March 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Even though

Even though being "small" and unimportant now it is very probable that small nuclear will start to play important role in the energy mix after several years ...

I was searching around wikipedia to find dedicated page for the small nuclear reactor designs and I did not find one.

If there is already one existing dedicated for the small nuclear reactor designs pls feel free to delete this one.

This list is missing two important Gen III small nuclear reactors: (1) Nuscale @ 45 MWe; (2) Babcock & Wilcox's mPower. It is also missing the Gen IV GE-Hitachi S-PRISM and the Russian Gen IV which might be considered to be a scaled up Hyperion to 300 MWe.

David B. Benson, 2011 Oct 19 PDT 23:04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.64.253 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the senior engineers of the PRISM project told me that the PRISM design, available in several sizes 157 (Mod A), 311 (Mod B), 360 MWe (S-PRISM), was certified by NRC in 1994.

EBR-II, 20 MWe, retired and destroyed by the Cliton administration in 1994, is not on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Van.snyder (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have learned this is now the defacto table for SMR development status on Wikipedia (2023). Please do not delete this table, as work is now underway to update design statuses. Ludviggy (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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/features/featurethe-worlds-smallest-nuclear-reactors-4144463/
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 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of small nuclear reactor designs. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130330123147/http://www.babcock.com/news_and_events/2013/20130220a.html to http://www.babcock.com/news_and_events/2013/20130220a.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect categorization of TerraPower TWR as SMR

Apparently TerraPower's TWR reactor keeps getting included as an SMR when in fact it is intended to be a large plant (600MW+): https://terrapower.com/updates/smr-and-twr-correcting-the-record/

Are there any real sources describing a small TWR?

--Nick Spacek (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the list

Per WP:LISTCRUFT, this list has grown quite a few unreferenced entries and is a bit of a mess. I propose to clean it by removing any black-linked or red-linked entries in the list with no supporting references. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a mess?
We could say that the list is primarily based on the IAEA list (with link added) and only include other reactors if the are referenced.
BTW, reactors should be added to the List of nuclear power stations once they have become operational. Wickey (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edits for consistency necessary as well. For instance “One unit ***approved*** for construction at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station” changed to “One unit ***planned*** for construction at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station”, approved generally refers to regulatory approval in the industry where the referenced article only indicates interest in using the site. Markmit (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Foreign Licenses and Foreign Operation vs Seeking Licenses and Operation

I have added the word "Foreign" to "Seeking Licenses" and "Operational" to bring greater clarity to what a company has achieved regulatory-wise. You may not realize this but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is used globally by many countries outside of the US for standards and licensing. However, some companies have opted to seek licensing through their own government's nuclear regulatory commission. Companies outside of the US are free to do whatever their government allows. However, the NRC has become the global gold standard for plant approval and the level of testing is much greater at the NRC than any other government regulatory commission for nuclear power worldwide. There needs to be a way to make this distinction for the reader. There's a very big difference between an NRC licensing and one performed in Korea or even the UK. Please do not remove my updates. Source: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/international.html Source: https://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/intl-safeguards/nrc-role-implementing-intl-safeguards.html ALTERNATIVE: If you know the "foreign" licensing follows IAEA I am fine with changing "Foreign" to "IAEA Approved". Otherwise, stick with the distinction we have. (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludviggy (talk • Ludviggy (talk)[reply]

@Ludviggy: Foreign means different things to different people. Based on your edits, I believe that you live in the United States. Canada, for example, is a foreign country from your point of view. But for a Canadian reader, the United States is a foreign country. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. The word foreign has no meaning in Wikipedia. Please remove the foreign words from the article. --TuomoS (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you. The word "foreign" is not acceptable. However, we need to find a way to distinguish "NRC Licensed" from manufacturers who are licensing elsewhere. It's critical to make this distinction for the reader. NRC/IAEA really needs to be recognized as the world leader here for licensing. How about "Local Regulatory" or "Non-NRC/IAEA"? Let me know what you think. Thank you. Ludviggy (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just write the name of the country, e.g. "Licensed in South Korea". -- TuomoS (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is you would need a legend color for each country. Take a look at what I did in my most recent changes and let me know if you are ok with it. Ludviggy (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Locally" is not a neutral term. The IAEA is not a global licensing authority - no such thing exists - and the US NRC is in no way a substitute for such an authority. The licensing notes should either be neutral or deleted entirely. Thetrick (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the color coding doesn't have to be so detailed. Five colors suffice: design phase, seeking license, licensed, under construction, and operational. The country can be mentioned in the text. -- TuomoS (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We can mention where it is licensed in the comments column. We should not treat countries preferentially (NRC vs "local") --Ita140188 (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have globalized the table and removed the need for color-coding to convey information. I think the two tags for the table section can be removed but will leave that to another editor. --Thetrick (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the globalize tag that I had added, but I am not sure if the current situation is good for accessibility: should we have a dedicated column with a standard text reflecting the legend text or the current "comment" format is enough? Ita140188 (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the current revision should be enough because I added descriptive text for each entry that approximately matches the legend text, and another column would clutter the table. However, I'm not familiar with accessible design, so I will again defer to other editors. --Thetrick (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 IAEA SMR Status Report

I am in the process of updating the table to the latest global SMR statuses. Please feel free to help: https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_Book_2020.pdf Ludviggy (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludviggy: Your link does not point to the latest IAEA status report. A newer version is here. --TuomoS (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Got it. Ludviggy (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]