Talk:Liquid fluoride reactor

Question on part relating to "109%" being "slow"
I agree...but the assumption that producing "only" this amount hinders deployment because the amount of U-233 would be inhibited is a narrow way of looking at deployment, isn't it? One could use U-233 from other sources? Use plutonium, etc. I doubt the idea that all the fuel starts for all MSRs or LFRs would spring from one "Mother" LFR is it? DavidMIA (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA

Duplication of MSR article
I've proposed merger back to Molten salt reactor which already covers the issues for liquid fluoride salt reactors in a more detailed, balanced, referenced, and encyclopedic way. A duplicate article for advocacy purposes is against policy. (WP:CFORK)

LFRs are a subset of MSRs, so one might offer the justification that this article is a subarticle of MSR. However, almost all the content in Molten salt reactor is about reactors using molten fluoride salts, the subject of almost all work to date; the article is not so large that it needs to hive off subarticles because it is approaching the size limit; and subarticle content still needs to be harmonized with the summary left in the main article. --JWB (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The index MSR article has had clean up requests pasted on it several times, so it might be sensible to make similar to spacecraft propulsion. If so, I think separate articles need to exist for the 1. Molten salt fueled reactor, and 2. the molten salt cooled reactor. They both have a low pressure core, and the resulting advantages, but are otherwise entirely different. Perhaps "fluoride" is not the distinguishing item? Ray Van De Walker (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of Molten salt reactor is on fluoride fuel reactors, and most of the rest is on salt issues common to both salt fuel and salt cooled only reactors. There's very little material on the salt cooled reactor, just a paragraph explaining it is one Gen IV design. And in fact the salt cooled Gen IV reactor already has its own subarticle, Very high temperature reactor, though it covers both a salt cooled and helium cooled design. Another existing subarticle is Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment. I can't see where there is much of a need for further splits at this time, or even what they would be, and I don't see the cleanup requests you referred to. Anyway, splitting would not get rid of the duplication. --JWB (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason we set up the Fluoride Reactor entry is because it SEEMS the MSR entry is Sodium oriented. It is not obvious, as you suggest, that the MSR entry has Fluoiride for "all works to date". Secondly, but actually more importantly, almost all R&D in the world is Sodium oriented and the reactors being researched, both Fast and Thermal spectrum, as Sodium ones, not fluoride ones. 65.117.234.99 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)DavidMIA


 * Molten salt reactor hardly mentions sodium at all. It only mentions that the Aircraft Reactor Experiment had sodium as a secondary coolant (the fuel salt was fluorides), and this is a very small part of the article. --JWB (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I do not oppose merging it...but this one has information in it that is very valuable. What would you suggest?65.117.234.99 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you list which points are in this article and not in the other one? Then we can go over them and add to Molten salt reactor. --JWB (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Given no response and that most of the article is duplication, I propose to go ahead and convert this article to a redirect to Molten salt reactor on May 1. If anyone can identify content which is not duplicated and add it to Molten salt reactor, please do so. --JWB (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)