Talk:Generation IV reactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)