Talk:Generation IV reactor

message: 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)
thread_title: MSR and SCWR

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  PBR 

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay. I've added the source. Grayfell (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy amplifier 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merging of Generation II and Generation III pages into Generation IV page 

message: 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)
replies: text: and one (Wyfla) is still running today and may run till 2014. - Rod57 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation I Retired?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  NGNP 

message: There is a comment from David Lochbaum quoted that says that nearly all serious incidents occur with new reactor technology. I think that this is manifestly untrue now given Chernobyl and Fukushima which were both old designs and old reactors Sgt101 (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages / Disadvantages  

message: Propose to merge Generation IV International Forum into this article as interrelated and partly duplicated article. Beagel (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. The Forum article doesn't have many sources, so it doesn't appear likely to grow.   Will Beback  talk   00:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Support. Yes, makes sense. Johnfos (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Anyone knows which of the six designs are breeder reactors? Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.162.18 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breeder reactors 

message: Nuclear power in a warming world. Dec 2007 has interesting tables and descriptions of generation IV designs as of 2007. - Rod57 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dec 2007 summary by UCS 

message: After long thought i have flagged this article
it is a well written and interesting ,even facinating article, it rightly points out that the designs are mostly theoretical, and this is my sticking point, is it appropriate for wikipedia to publish and thereby authenticate , theoretical designs?
I have a few of my own ,(those nano-imploding generators i misplaced), the article on second look begins to look like a prospectus or a presentation.
perhapes just a few links to greenpeace and iaea and current news article 
  In my opinion we will build a solid foundation by sticking to the facts.
proposed edi t>delete entire article and replace with...a couple of linksSebastian barnes (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The reactor designs are part of a very real research and development effort by the Generation IV International Forum. The fact that the end result of current R&D efforts does not actually exist should not be surprising to anyone, nor should it be a cause to delete the entire article.Nailedtooth (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  theory or fact? 

message: A recent editor removed the following for tenuous aesthetic reasons and replaced it with a hard to read bluelink-block-of-text instead of the orderly list of members below. I'm putting this here to get outside input on which configuration other editors prefer.
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) was founded in 2001. Switzerland joined in 2002, the European Atomic Energy Community(Euratom) in 2003, and China and Russia in 2006. The remaining countries were founding members. There are presently nine active member countries of (GIF) along with Euratom.http://www.euronuclear.org/1-information/generation-IV.htm	
*  founding, non-active member.	
*  founding, non-active member.	
* 	
* 	
* 
* 	
* 	
* 	
* 	
* 	
*  founding, non-active member, while contributing via Euratom.
* 
The 36th GIF meeting in Brussels was held in November 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.171.162 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2014‎
:I am the one who reformatted the section. There are currently (still) no WP:SECONDARY sources regarding the forum. The use of flags is nationalistic and distracting, and give undue emphasis to a comparatively small section of the article. The article completely fails to mention what the forum is or does, or what membership entails, or what is required to be considered 'active', or really anything about the forum at all, other than its existence. The recently added PR-speak "progress and pitfalls over the last decade was amongst the subjects discussed." does nothing to solve this problem. If this cannot be explained and supported, the lengthy inclusion of this info, especially one particular meeting among many, is inappropriate. If there isn't a compelling, sourced argument for the inclusion of this info, I will restore the section to its previous state. Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shortened the section. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so simply listing these pages without context or explanation is not acceptable, and the nationalistic flag icons are bloated and pretentious. Again, please find WP:SECONDARY sources establishing that this is a significant organization, or at least explaining what the forum actually accomplishes. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: International forum member

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Generation IV reactor. 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  tag to http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=mscrkjkab&oeidk=a07e7melf609716b2c6
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_71564/australia-joins-the-generation-iv-international-forum
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009042600/http://euronuclear.org/1-information/news/Gen-IV.htm to https://www.euronuclear.org/1-information/news/Gen-IV.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213091046/http://www.ist-world.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=5cb8f3f283574cc6b2bdbf72533172d8 to http://www.ist-world.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=5cb8f3f283574cc6b2bdbf72533172d8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129121214/http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf to http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Generation IV reactor. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_71564/australia-joins-the-generation-iv-international-forum
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205115654/http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/neGenIV1.html to http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/neGenIV1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512033030/http://www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/slides/Gen%20IV%20U-Tenn%20Presentation.pdf to http://www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/slides/Gen%20IV%20U-Tenn%20Presentation.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Generation IV reactor. 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/20100909172743/http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/6322207443/articles/power-engineering-international/volume-18/Issue_3/regulars/world-news/INTERNATIONAL.html to http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/6322207443/articles/power-engineering-international/volume-18/Issue_3/regulars/world-news/INTERNATIONAL.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to Aristos Power Facebook blog, they are "happy to announce the launch of our 1.21 Jigawatts line of reactors, specially developed for the mad scientists and their midnight experiments. They can be placed in your basement or your backyard. Take them while they're hot." The mention about Aristos Power was added by an IP-user. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristos Power 

message: Seems, the Chinese know very well what it is. Their first commercial generation IV reactor started debugging run in June 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vgf5XcTC4g The Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant in east China's Shandong Province, Rongcheng City. Developed by the Tsinghua University it will be connected to the power grid 2021.   --Manorainjan 10:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The HTR-PM is not commercial. --Wickey (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation IV reactor in China 

message: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-for-Romanian-lead-cooled-reactor-research  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.36.58 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred needs updating 

message: The current leading picture (I intentionally used the same size here) has two problems:
*As already said in 2006, it interfered with the TOC; now it dominates and pushes away the lead in normal-sized browsers.
*Even a bigger problem is that is outdated propaganda from the nuclear industry. It lies that "Generation IV: Nuclear Energy Systems [will be] Deployable no later than 2030". The GIF said in 2002 about the year 2030.
:As we can read on p. 7 of the 2013 Technology Roadmap Update, it now says after 2030. That was 8 years ago. Even that is misleading as the paper makes clear deployment will be well after 2050, or never.
The best solution is deleting the image. --Wickey (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading picture 

message: In my experience with how the term is used, Gen IV refers to a reactor type and not when that reactor is deployed.  It does not refer to a specific technology, but it refers to reactors beyond those commonly deployed for power generation.  If sodium fast reactors are considered Gen IV, the BN-600 is by that definition a Gen IV reactor. NPguy (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your definition is simply wrong and based on nothing. That is why I said that the article lacks a clear definition. --Wickey (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is not particularly relevant, but perhaps the reference to the BN-600 in this GIF source will be of interest: Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR). NPguy (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

text: That source says just that "Much of the basic technology for the SFR has been established ... and is being confirmed by ... the lifetime extension of BN-600 in Russia." This source of the same Forum mentions the BN-800 reactor as just an example of advanced reactor prototypes that are steps towards Gen IV designs. --Wickey (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And the distinction between an "advanced reactor prototype [sic]" and a Gen IV reactor is what?  I think it's inaccurate to call the BN-600 a prototype, since it's an operational power reactor.  The BN-350 was more like a prototype. NPguy (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition