Talk:Sodium-cooled fast reactor

message: Is this supposed to be unbiased?  I don't know enough to edit it, but it sounds remarkably like a sales pitch to me.
:This is a suggested reactor design that isn't in operation at the moment, and the exact details of how it would be deployed are not determined yet, which is why the information about it is a bit limited. There will probably be more room for discussing the pros and cons of the SFR once actual designs are determined. Also, please sign your posts on the discussion pages by sticking four ~ at the end of them. This will automatically mark them with the date and time, as well as your account name (if you have one) making it easier to see who said what. Even if you don't have an account you should still stick four ~ at the end so we can see when a comment was posted. 88.90.197.94 17:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was by  at 15:42, 16 November 2006, and is the only contribution to date from that IP. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: ::First of all, "Sodium-cooled fast reactor" is a generic term and having it "hijacked" byt a particular research project is wrong as it is. This article should be retained for a 'general' description of this reactor type which would then link to articles on individual implementations - like the Russian production ones and the various European or US prototypes. Until the US-based project is split into its own article, this article will keep being a mess by its nature of being a marketing hijack.83.240.117.207 (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this article seems to be about the US SFR project apart from the last line of the intro and the Reactors section. We need to split this article; eg. into Sodium-cooled fast reactor (project) and Sodium-cooled fast reactor (for the general category) ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a  to the intro. - Rod57 (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: or maybe the general type should just be a section in Liquid metal cooled reactor (and this article can be restricted to the specific US project) ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific project or general type - Article needs to be split

message: Why the Expand tag? It looks like a good short article to me, despite the anonymous comments above. No details are given at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion#February either. Andrewa 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand tag

message: The Design Goals section starts with these:
"The operating temperature should not exceed the melting temperature of the fuel. It has been found that the melting point of a fuel called SFR-MOX (20% tranuranic oxides and 80% uranium oxide)."
Clearly something is missing after the closing parenthesis, presumably the melting point of said fuel, as it stands now it doesn't make much sense.
RealSunner (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentences of Design Goals?

message: RealSunner is correct, it appears the actual value of the melting temperature of SFR-MOX was just left out.  68.13.125.78 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Melting temperature of the Fuel?

message: The Design Goals section may be going in the wrong direction.  The section should be about "A sodium-cooled fast reactor design is chosen in order to acheive X, Y, and Z"; not "here are the features we want to design into our sodium-cooled fast reactor."  Anyone agree?  Abramov (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Design Goals

message: The Russian Beloyarsk-4 BN-800 reactor has meanwhile reached criticality:  http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2014/06/25/russia-s-beloyarsk-4-ready-to-begin-nuclear-reaction Stepmose (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactors

message: After splitting the US project from the general type :
Could the Reactors section have the list converted to a table, with columns including construction start, first criticality ?, fuel type, pool/loop design, notes ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions/requests 

message: OK, I've moved it back. In the fullness of time I'll probably raise an RM, depending on how and whether it develops. At present it still gives undue weight to the Gen IV proposals IMO, given the far more general scope of the title. 
It is still a mystery to me why an article was ever written covering just two such disparate reactor types, let alone given such a misleading title. I'm guessing it comes from sources influenced by the Gen IV spin.
I have rewritten the lead to at least make some sense of it. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a pretty extensive list of existing sodium cooled reactors already in the article. The amount of weight on Generation IV might be undue, but it isn't exclusive. VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved back

message: The article says: and the hydrogen burns in contact with air. Well, it does if there is an ignition source. If it is close to the hot sodium, then there probably is, but otherwise it just mixes with air. It is light and floats away.  But if there is a sodium leak near water, then yes it is hot enough to ignite hydrogen produced. Gah4 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''and the hydrogen burns in contact with air''