Talk:Pebble bed modular reactor

Politics

It would be great to have some treatment of the politics of the PBMR here! Some who are opposed to other nukes such as the PWR on the traditional bombs, wastes, accidents basis seem to find the PBMR appealing, which is a bit ironical as the program on which all current pebble bed programs are based was in Germany, and was shut down because of these exact issues. Others are unconvinced. NPOV would be a challenge. It's not the place to promote any of the opposing views of course, but a (carefully sourced!) description of them would be useful IMO. Andrewa 02:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any detailed information on the reasoning behind the cancellation of the German program would be very welcome. It should also be remembered that there was an European collaborative reactor at Winfrith in England, Dragon, which started up in 1966, and the Americans also had a graphite moderated helium cooled high tempertaure research reactor, Peach Bottom, which started up in 1968. Would it be incorrect to say that these research programs have continued? EdgarBeowulf (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Moormann report on AVR reactor seems to have killed the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Dragon reactor was shutdown in 1976. Peach Bottom unit 1 was shutdown in 1974. HTR programs using TRISO fuel continue, China are building HTR-PM. - Rod57 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the South African project is internationally regarded as the leader in the global power generation field"

This sentence is a bit weaselly, and the reference here is to a document produced by the company. Unless anyone has a valid objection I think it should be removed. Muchado (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]