Talk:Nuclear reactor

Power output
The article should mention the power output of a typical modern reactor. AxelBoldt 02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Historic development
"The only purpose for these reactors was the mass production of plutonium (primarily at the Hanford Site) for nuclear weapons against Japan"

The "against japan" part is only right when you know how WWII ended. At the time, the fear was that Germany would develop nuclear weapons before the allies, and the purpose of the Manhattan project was primarily to use the weapon against Nazi Germany. Now the war in Europe ended before the bomb was finished, and then it was decided that it could be used against Japan instead. Japan did not have capacity to develop the bomb at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.59.10 (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something in the article about how the desire for plutonium was related to the early design choices for reactors? The article doesn't even mention HPWC reactors, and there is no classification of reactors types by the desired (or undesired) byproducts. Shanen (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Classification by type of nuclear reaction
Under the heading "Radioactive decay" I have removed the last sentence which read "it is the best way for producing energy in the future"

Aside from the fact there was no capital letter, the obvious next question would be "Says who?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finewinescotland (talk • contribs) 08:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How it works
Simply listing the components does not help. Diagrams of a nuclear reactor apparatus would be much more effective, explaining each step in the mechanism.

Louiechefei28848888 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is duplicated in nuclear power, and though that article refers to this one as the main, it in fact contains more information than the How It Works section here. It's also been marked as needing citation. I cleaned up some of the description text in How It Works, but citations and coordination between these two articles will still be needed. Mishlai (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

-I've moved the following from the article to here:

"The rate of fission in a reactor is not capable of reaching sufficient levels to trigger a nuclear explosion (even if the fission reactions increased to a point of being out of control, it would melt the reactor assembly rather than form a nuclear explosion). Enriched uranium is uranium in which the percent composition of uranium-235 has been increased from that of uranium found in nature. Natural uranium is only 0.72% uranium-235; the rest is mostly uranium-238 (99.2745%) and a tiny fraction is uranium-234 (0.0055%)."

This text has been marked as uncited in the nuclear power article for a few months and I don't know the citations either. I'm not sure that we can even make that statement... it's probably best to say something more along the lines of "nuclear reactors differ from nuclear weapons in that reactors are designed to fission at a controlled rate." We could perhaps also cite some of the design criteria that affect this - certainly fuel enrichment and density are important to that, as well as many other factors - geometry, poisons, and so on. The nuclear explosion article defines a nuclear explosion so vaguely that I'm not even sure we can definitively say that all reactors are incapable of producing it's definition - "rapid release of energy from an intentionally high-speed nuclear reaction." Clearly being intentional or not doesn't determine whether a rapid energy release could be classed as an explosion. In any case, while I support the goal of reassuring people that reactors != nuclear bombs, we can't make definitive "this can't happen" statements without a good reference.

I'd like to expand this section to explain more and in better detail, and I think these topics will see more treatment. Anyone have sources on differences between weapons and reactors? I've found this

http://www.isanw.org/facts/weapons.html#node13

But it's not great. Mishlai (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Two Changes to the Fusion Reactor Section
I would like to pose two changes to the Fusion Reactor Section:
 * 1) While the statement that fusion reactors can operate "without the complexities of handling actinides," I think it should be mentioned that D-T (ITER's reaction) and D-D fusion reactions still produce highly energetic neutron radiation.  I would like to mention this so a newcomer to the article will know that fusion reactions have inherent setbacks (aside from the sustainability issue).
 * 2) I would like to contend the statement that ITER is an attempt to "commercialize fusion power."  ITER's purpose is to show that sustainable, controlled fusion reactions are possible and, if so, perform radiation damage/material tests.  Commercialization is an entirely different endeavor.

(Sorry to be so nit-picky.) THaskin (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Go for it!

Neutronicity and persistent radioactivity from fusion reactions is discussed somewhere in Wikipedia already, but can't hurt to have it here too. --JWB (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern terminology "actinoid"
I haven't given a reference in the text for the change, but it's here if anyone's interested. The WP article has already been converted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You say actinoid, I say actinide
Apparently the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry decided many years ago to change the name of lanthanides and actinides to lanthanoids and actinoids. Yet somehow the word has not gotten out. I had not heard of the term before, and I've read quite a few papers. It raises the question: what if they invented a "standard" and nobody adopted it? Or perhaps: if a standard grows in the forest and no one knows about it, is it really a standard? But seriously, if no one in the nuclear energy business uses the term, is it really the "standard"? I think we should return to the terminology that is normally used. If someone wants to drop a footnote that chemists have changed the name, but this change hasn't been picked up in the nuclear field, that would be fine. NPguy (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was new to me, too. My main reason for preferring "oid" was consistency with the Actinoid article, which opens with “The actinoid (according to current IUPAC terminology; previously actinide) series...” However the focus there is chemistry, not the nuclear industry. The citation above is pretty firm, but the one in the text isn't from a mainstream publication.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What's exactly IUPAC didn't change it? DHANUSH RAHUL (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Classification by size
please include a classification by size and mention Micro nuclear reactors

too bad Micro nuclear reactor link doesn't show any real reactors, they're small because they aren't shielded (there is a picture of a dead guy for scale at the bottom of sstar. Russians had a smaller "naked reactor" in a coal mine that killed a lot of people. Aqueous uranyl acetate and sodium borate, as the water boiled away the borate became more concentrated. Problem was the steam in the boiling water bubbles had no borate. Shjacks45 (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Bombs
Following the spirit of this edit, I'm considering moving the text again, to the caption of the "nuclear fission" image. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections: done it. Thanks to User:98.217.14.211 for noticing this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The smallest
What is the smallest fission reactor ever built? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.151.190 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A nuclear weapon primary weighs about 10 pounds, is about 3 inches wide at maximum implosion, and runs for about a microsecond. --JWB (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about a controllable reactor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.13.225 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC) How are you defining smallest? Aqueous homogenous reactors can be smallest in terms of amount of fissile material. --JWB (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Article lead
Lead currently reads in part There are also other less common uses as discussed below. Two problems with this:

1. There are far more research reactors in the world than naval propulsion reactors, so what it says is simply untrue.

2. It's not obvious where below it's discussed. At the very least, it needs a section on other reactors (and I'd suggest that naval propulsion reactors go in this section too, although they do have some similarities to NPPs, but there are some important differences, for example the level of fuel enrichment).

Other views? Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversions by NPGuy
Please discuss your reverts here. I'm curious what you find fault with; my correction of the RBMK transliteration from Russian to English (I speak Russian as a second language), or of the fact that no RBMK design was built in the Western World. Please elaborate, rather than making blanket reverts. FellGleaming (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a native Russian speaker, but isn't the relevant cyrillic character the same as the one in Khrushchev's name - i.e. "shch"? The question of whether the RBMK is unsafe is a matter of judgment rather than fact, so it is better to say it is "considered" unsafe.  The better way to say where RBMKs were deployed is not via a negative ("not in the West") but by a direct statement ("only in the former Soviet Union"). NPguy (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The character is the same, but its used in "Хрущёв", its followed by a vowel. When followed by consonant, the pronunciation is slightly different; original transliteration implied a syllable that did not exist.
 * Regarding the safety of he RBMK, this is more than just a opinion. It is asserted both by real world events (the only large scale radiation release in history) and by design parameters (positive void coefficient and lack of containment structure). No other reactor has either the operational record or these multiple design flaws.
 * Your point about asserting the positive rather than the negative is certainly correct. Please consider me in agreement for that change.   FellGleaming (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mention of unions
While I've never been a union member, I feel they do have a place in the the article under "People" - particularly since they have Wikipedia articles. How would you all feel about inclusding just the sentence: "In the United States and Canada, workers except for management, professional (such as engineers) and security personnel are likely to be members of either the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) or the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA)." Would that be acceptable? Simesa (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There having been no discussion on this in 5 days, I'm going to put the text in. Note that it was in for quite awhile, then expanded (inappropriately), then removed. Simesa (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Controlled by Controlling
Consider rephrasing: "The power output of the reactor is controlled by controlling how many neutrons are able to create more fissions." --67.186.249.241 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The power output of the reactor is controlled by maintaining a certain neutron density within the core by use of control rods and the boron concentration of the reactor coolant water. Gilawson (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stirling engine plants ?
I was just wondering: aren't there any stirling engine nuclear power plants ? A stirling engine is more efficient than a steam engine/turbine, so ... KVDP (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad Link
I clicked on the link "Generation I Reactor" in section 5.1.4 and it redirected me to a page about Generation 2 reactors. This link needs to be redirected to the page about Generation 1 reactors. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.211.243 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is because we have no article on Generation I Reactor yet, and it is partly covered in Generation II Reactor. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing
Needs shutdown paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.23.3 (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was it called a reactor
Reactor seems a strange name for a fission core. Who introduced the term ? Was it after the Chicago Pile ? Rod57 (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the original UK patent (Szilard was working in Britain when he filed it) it was referred to as an 'atomic furnace' or 'atomic boiler' (as in a steam engine) as that was what it represented as a piece of equipment used to replace an earlier technology, being used to heat water, however the name 'reactor' came about because of the crossover with the field of Chemistry, as a 'reactor' is a piece of equipment where chemical reactions take place. The original usage is probably more accurate though. If you want to find out about Leo Szilard's nuclear work in London then I suggest you also read Jacob Bronowski, as the two were great friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The term atomic boiler would cover only power reactors, and is to be avoided also as atomic has been replaced by the more accurate nuclear in both technical and general usage. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Question
Why do not add links to simulatots of various reactors ? 194.146.217.38 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

illustration
I'm confused by the illustration: according to my list of isotopes, both the Krypton and Barium isotope do not exist? 31.151.200.128 (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nuclear reactor technology" should redirect to "Nuclear reactor", not the other way round. -- Neutronscattering (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear reactor technology → Nuclear reactor – Non-controversial. Move requested here. Lead is written as though Nuclear reactor is the article title. Kvng (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. This move would be a start, and it gets rid of the word "technology". However, this article covers a lot of nuclear reactor engineering, but that article does not exist. Instead there is an article is called nuclear engineering and is sort of a dump article which covers stuff other than reactors. Nuclear reactor engineering should be a main article, with some of this moved to there. Analogously we have articles for automobile and automotive engineering. We also need to decide what to do with a lot of subarticles on nuclear safety like nuclear safety, but also nuclear criticality safety, passive nuclear safety, Nuclear reactor control, nuclear reactor physics, and so on. Some of these articles seem to have been written by people unaware of the other articles. S  B Harris 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It might be nice to have all sorts of articles on nuclear reactors, but let's start by getting the basic article right. NPguy (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Completely reasonable to have the main article written first. Marcus   Qwertyus   03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be the main article for reactors but it's a sub-article for others. I got here following links through this path: Nuclear power -> Nuclear power plant -> Nuclear reactor. I'd love to see a graph of how all these articles are interconnected. --Kvng (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Lets start sorting of these nuclear articles with this move. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Can't see the point of the current title. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Energy Catalyzer
It seems that there are people who don′t find convincing the claim that a nuclear reaction takes place in E-cat and thus not considering this device a nuclear reactor. There are reliable sources for the assertion, so wording should be like: Apparently E-Cat is (claimed to be) a nuclear reactor. Further verifications are required.--86.125.177.251 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are the peer-reviewed physics papers? We already have a category more suited to the "E-Cat" article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a peer-reviewed paper by Focardi, on whose work the e-cat is based. It was once in the reference list for the E-cat article, but if someone has deleted it you can find it in the lenr.org library.  I'd have thought the E-cat shouldn't be put the hoaxes category unless the evidence for this is definitive.  I don't think it fits in that section.
 * The claim is based on the amount of energy generated which (assuming the measurements are correct) is too much for conventional sources (direct evidence in the form of transmutations is less clear). One could postulate alternative explanations, such as tapping into dark energy, but since the nuclear explanation involves only the speeding up of the reaction, for which various models have been proposed, it is the most plausible one, subject of course to the heat measurements being correct.
 * I'd be happy with describing it as a claim, but adding 'apparently' as well, as proposed above, is wrong since it is clear that it is claimed even if there is unclarity in some people's minds as to whether that claim is valid. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The nuclear reactor article has quite enough to do to describe extant reactors. It should confine itself to the mainstream and leave the E-cat to another article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A short mention of Energy Catalyzer in the see also section seems justified even though some users consider that non-mainstream should be ignored on biased considerations.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Energy efficiency?
The section Heat generation boldly claims:
 * A kilogram of uranium-235 (U-235) ... releases approximately three million times more energy than a kilogram of coal burned conventionally (7.2 × 10¹³ joules per kilogram of uranium-235 versus 2.4 × 10⁷ joules per kilogram of coal).[3][4]

Source [3] refers to coal. Source [4] refers to a book on atomic bombs. Not much of the atomic bomb energy output is used for energy production, and most nuclear reactors aren't atomic bombs (AFAIK). I'm out for the real energy efficient power production in nuclear power plants, including energy losses for energy conversion and other leakages. It's easy to make a computation of the mass equation and make an E=mc², but that has little relevance for mass to energy conversion available in factual power production, since a lot of energy is lost in various processes. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's stretching WP:CALC too far for my taste. I've marked it as original research. --Kvng (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory"
An external link Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory is repeatedly added, and is now in twice. Uncontroversially, I removed just one of the two, but they're both back again. Firstly: I'm not sure about whether or not this falls within WP:ELNO and other views are requested. Secondly, I am confident that we don't need them twice and I will be removing, once again, the one in the "See also" section unless anyone can offer a good reason for its retention.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:NPguy, for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate link we added to two different sections of this page (formerly added to both 'see also' and 'external links'). I moved the link from "External Links" back under the "See also" section. The link belongs there. Sorry about the earlier duplicates. --Neweb (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another RV, I'm afraid, back to where it was. See WP:ALSO for what's allowed in that section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I wasn't aware that the "See Also..." section should only feature internal Wikipedia links. OK with the change you made. I just expanded that paragraph a bit to add a detail. --Neweb (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As User:Kvng points out, the material might work better as a reference, rather than just a link; in other words if it's that important, and keeping it within the parameters of WP:UNDUE, write it up! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fission kinetic energy
The line:


 * The kinetic energy of fission products is converted to thermal energy when these nuclei collide with nearby atoms.

is converted to:


 * The kinetic energy evolved from fission disperses into space as nuclei collide with nearby atoms.

I reversed the change because:


 * - There is no mention of the kinetic energy being converted into thermal, which is probably the most important thing that happens;
 * - Kinetic energy cannot convert into anything if all it does is "disperse into space". The chances of that happening are very low as opposed to causing various collisions, creating heat.
 * - Saying kinetic energy "evolves" is not descriptive of what happens, and is a confusing and imprecise use of the verb.

SkoreKeep (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Safety
This section is extremely poorly written and conceived. I will go through the problematic parts sentence by sentence.

I. "Mistakes do occur and the designers of reactors at Fukushima in Japan did not anticipate that a tsunami generated by an earthquake would disable the backup systems that were supposed to stabilize the reactor after the earthquake.[34]"

Truisms like "mistakes do occur" should not belong in an encyclopedia. Designers of Fukushima reactors clearly anticipated tsunami since the reactors were protected by tsunami walls. This sentence should be removed.

II. "According to UBS AG, the Fukushima I nuclear accidents have cast doubt on whether even an advanced economy like Japan can master nuclear safety.[35]" UBS AG is an insurance company, and what does it even mean to "master nuclear safety"? This sentence should be removed.

III. "An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005–2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents would be expected in that period.[36]" This is an extremely dishonest sentence and a prime example of how context-free citation can sometimes be worse than outright lying. The study, first of all, recommends further implementation of nuclear power. The sentence does not note that the probability analysis was based on a three-fold increase in nuclear reactors. This increase is also not "the expected growth of nuclear power"; the article postulated a three-fold increase for the purpose of analyzing the impact of nuclear reactor increase. The sentence also incorrectly reports the conclusion reached by the study. The study concludes that, if current technology were to be used, and there was a three-fold increase in nuclear reactors, we can expect four core damage accidents. Whether that is acceptable or not is a policy question for a different forum. What is not acceptable is reporting four as "at least four." This sentence should be removed.

IV. "The nuclear power industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors, and has proposed new safer (but generally untested) reactor designs but there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly.[33] " I'm not sure what is this sentence supposed to convey. It certainly does not convey specific information. This sentence should be removed.

I will remove all the sentences on safety in a week. I will leave the section heading for future additions of actual information.

Pensiveneko (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support all of those edits. There is a slight but noticeable pov slant in the article's safety section as it currently stands. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Molten salt reactors
"The prototype was the MSRE, which also used Thorium's fuel cycle to produce 0.1% of the radioactive waste of standard reactors"

This is a fuzzy unreferenced claim. I find in Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor:

"When these two benefits of lower transuranic production, and recycling, are combined, a thorium fuel cycle reduces the production of transuranic wastes by more than a thousand-fold compared to a conventional once-through uranium-fueled light water reactor."

This is much more precise and qualified, but also different: it talks only about the production of transuranic wastes. Somebody more knowledgable, please reformulate 91.155.192.132 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would add that the "transuranic" framing is inappropriate here because Th is a lower atomic number element than U, and will first transmute to U isotopes, an option that U as a breeding stock doesn't have. This is sort-of explained higher up in the linked article.
 * Perhaps the whole passage should go, as it says something that isn't actually true, and when corrected to be true, is no longer interesting. 91.155.192.132 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me it's better to use the more refined version of the statement than simply to delete. This is an important feature of such reactors. NPguy (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I made an edit along those lines that hopefully clarifies things.130.233.139.251 (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC) (same guy different IP)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuclear reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060316101947/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml to http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Nuclear reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927181836/http://bioenergy.ornl.gov:80/papers/misc/energy_conv.html to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029200744/https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_200_816_259_0_43/http%3B/inlpublisher%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/communities/inl_gov/about_inl/home_page_fact_sheets/sheets/experimental_breeder_reactor___i_4.pdf to https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_200_816_259_0_43/http%3B/inlpublisher%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/communities/inl_gov/about_inl/home_page_fact_sheets/sheets/experimental_breeder_reactor___i_4.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110515064305/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2011-04-04/fukushima-crisis-worse-for-atomic-power-than-chernobyl-ubs-says.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-04/fukushima-crisis-worse-for-atomic-power-than-chernobyl-ubs-says.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Nuclear reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.eepublishers.co.za/images/upload/Meyer%20Chernobyl%205.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050826111231/http://www.ucsusa.org:80/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=1408 to http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=1408

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuclear reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131211073343/http://www.eepublishers.co.za/images/upload/Meyer%20Chernobyl%205.pdf to http://www.eepublishers.co.za/images/upload/Meyer%20Chernobyl%205.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nuclear 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 http://www.hss.energy.gov/NuclearSafety/techstds/standard/hdbk1019/h1019v2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005211316/http://www.gen-4.org/PDFs/GenIVRoadmap.pdf to http://www.gen-4.org/PDFs/GenIVRoadmap.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606023005/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-lessons-of-fukushima to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-lessons-of-fukushima

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) 15:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nuclear 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 http://www.gen-4.org/PDFs/GenIVRoadmap.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231105602/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf61.htm to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf61.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304024833/http://isjaee.hydrogen.ru/pdf/AEE04-07_Prelas.pdf to http://isjaee.hydrogen.ru/pdf/AEE04-07_Prelas.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040929083915/https://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F09%2F24%2F1359225 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F09%2F24%2F1359225

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) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple issues
There are many problems with the current article. Just a few are listed below! Probably more to follow. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Article length and focus
This article is excessively long and detailed owing to a merge from and possibly also from  and perhaps even others.

This is an important topic and the article should be focused and accessible to the layperson. Classification should be covered but not in this much detail.

The subtopic of reactor classification deserves its own detailed article, whether as a list or otherwise, with a main link from the relevant section here. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Reactor types
Partly as a result of this merge and lack of focus I suspect, the section Reactor types is a mess.

Firstly, there are now two types of nuclear reactor: Fission and fusion. Nearly all current ones are fission, but there have been several fusion reactors constructed (if the Chicago pile was a reactor, then so is JET), ITER is under construction, and more are planned. Or, if this article is about fission reactors (and there's a case for that) then this should be stated in the lead, and possibly even by a hatnote to a more general article.

Then under purpose there have to date been three types of (fission) reactor:
 * Power reactors (a redlink, I can't believe that) that produce heat as the main product, including naval reactors and nuclear power station reactors (and one was also used for desalination and several for building heating but never exclusively)
 * Plutonium production reactors (at least one also used for building heating)
 * Research reactors (which are often used for other purposes, notably medical radioisotope production and commercial and forensic neutron activation analysis but I don't think any have been designed or built with those as the primary purpose, I could be wrong, and one was used for plute production for Smiling Buddha)

Sources required of course. Andrewa (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote
We don't have subarticles any more. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. A reorganization is needed. I think the biggest problem is the classification. We can classify reactors in many ways, but the options are mainly by purpose (power, plutonium production (or military), research) or by type (fusion/fission, moderated/fast reactors). Maybe we can have both classifications. --Ita140188 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Added a reference
Comes Shoaibraza134 adding a reference to the "See also" list at the end of the article:


 * Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The advantages and disadvantages (numbering a convenient 9 each in the article) are long-known to the nuclear discussion; there is nothing new there. The descriptions are single line explanations; they hardly cover the meaning, let alone the significance of the point. Finally, the article seems to have been rather inexpertly translated (from Japanese?) containing interesting passages such as "Vigor is an alternative vigor but not a new vigor as Uranium material is a non-renewable source and its provisions are limited." Even assuming vigor means energy, the sentence is clumsy. I'm going to repeal the addition. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Misleading information in introduction
I just read about this subject here, of which honestly I don't really know much. The introduction mentions (second sentence) that nuclear reactors are, amongst other, used in propulsion in ships. Two sentences later, it is mention that steam turbines can be used to drive a ship's propeller. When you read this introduction and you have no idea about the subject, it makes you think big ships run on nuclear reactors, or at least, that's what I believed for a second (and I was shocked). But no, after reading the article on nuclear marine propulsion, I realised this is only a very rare method used for ship propulsion (I don't know anything about ship propulsion either). What I want to say is that nuclear ship propulsion should be explained in a separate chapter of the page (in a few lines) with a separate link to the article well shown (not linked in a word but consciously marked in that chapter). Nuclear marine propulsion doesn't seem to play such a big role in nuclear reactors, that it should be mentioned several times in the introduction of its main page. Thanks! twothousandandeighteen (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As we have a rather reduced number of civilian power reactors these days, I wouldn't underplay the importance of nuclear reactors for marine propulsion. Although the civilian use of them was barely a blip, their naval use has been and remains important, both for large carriers and vitally so for submarines. There's scope for rewording here, but not by that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

NUCLEAR reactors
Is it good to get more nuclear reactors in our lives DHANUSH RAHUL (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Is everything in this article up-to-date as of 15 January 2019, at 03:24?
I strongly suspect not (as, for an example, I have edited articles for small typos, grammos, or similar without confirming that the entire remainder of the article is correct).

Assuming it is not, there are many statements that do not have a date associated with them, but should. Some (but not all) examples below:

"This page was last edited on 15 January 2019, at 03:24." 

"As of early 2019, the IAEA reports there are 454 nuclear power reactors and 226 nuclear research reactors in operation around the world.[1] [2]" 

"There are about 280 such reactors operating, in 56 countries." 

"Current technologies" 

"Generation III reactor (evolutionary improvements of existing designs 1996-present)" 

"Water cooled reactor. There are 104 operating reactors in the United States. Of these, 69 are pressurized water reactors (PWR), and 35 are boiling water reactors (BWR).[24]" <as of when?>

I imagine this is a common problem in Wikipedia articles that in some sense discuss something "current"? What is the Wikipedia policy for dealing with this issue, and is this page in compliance with that policy?

PS: In my reading today about nuclear reactors and linked articles, I found many instances of this problem.

Rhkramer (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is a problem throughout Wikipedia, there is also a guideline for this: MOS:CURRENT. If you find these statements and you have time, you may solve some of them by looking at the original source and adding a "as of ..." date. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks very much! Rhkramer (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

reactivity
A proper definition for reactivity is missing, and I would propose to add an extra article on "reactivity (nuclear engineering)". When is rho = (k-1)/k used and when rho = ln(k)? --Gunnar (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Pool type reactors
Following this edit the article now again lists Pool-type reactor as a water cooled reactor.

However there are two types of Sodium-cooled fast reactor and one of these is commonly referred to as pool type.



See the image caption here for use of the term pool type to refer to a sodium cooled reactor. There are many others both inside and outside of Wikipedia.

I think that as it now stands, the article is misleading in its terminology. Comments? Suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It would appear to me that the best route would be to label Two types of LMFBRs as pool-design LMFDBR and loop-design LMFBR, and name the water pool reactor as a water pool design. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If water pool design is a common name that would work. But first things first. Your edit has restored an error. The term pool-type reactor is ambiguous, and should be avoided completely in this context. But worse, the list in which it occurs clearly implies that pool type is a type of water cooled reactor. This is not just confusing, it is just not true. There are two very different meanings to pool type when it comes to nuclear reactors.
 * Swimming pool is common and unambiguous.
 * Yes, water pool would be much better than pool-type. But we can't invent terms. We should be guided by sources. Does this have any usage?
 * Even pool reactor would be better than pool-type, as pool type more commonly refers to an LMFBR, while pool reactor more commonly refers to what I am calling a swimming pool reactor (which is the older term).
 * But better to avoid the confusion altogether IMO. What about open pool reactor? It's not all that common but it does have some usage, and is unambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That works for me. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be encyclopedic and avoid original research, I think this article needs to stick with established terms of art. Rather than inventing a new term it's probably best to add a short description where the standard term might be misleading. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle.
 * But you seem to be saying that open pool reactor is not one of these established terms of art? I get 15,600 ghits for "open pool reactor" and all of them appear relevant.
 * As I said, it's not nearly as common as swimming pool reactor (273,000 ghits, and prior to the proposal for Open-pool Australian lightwater reactor I'd never even heard this other term) but seems to be an established term of the art. So if the standard term swimming pool reactor is unacceptable for some reason, it's a good second choice.
 * But nor had I heard these reactors referred to as pool-type, and I think that is simply because this term is even more commonly used for one of the two types of sodium-cooled fast reactor. So if you're meaning that pool-type reactor is the standard term for this type of light water reactor, it's not, and for very good reasons. It may be common in some contexts.
 * But this is not one of those contexts, and using it as we currently are, implying that it refers only to these light water cooled reactors, is something an encyclopedia should be very concerned to avoid, surely? Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think open pool reactor is a good compromise. It is clear and widely used in the literature. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tank in pool seems quite a popular term as well, it's new to me but seeing a few links from that phrase to pool-type reactor I googled "tank in pool" nuclear Wikipedia and got 174,000 ghits. Andrewa (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an RM
I was not expecting this to be at all controversial. My mistake.

I should in hindsight have raised an RM for rather than boldly moving it and making that page a DAB. My mistake as I said.

I think the next step in the light of discussion above should be an RM ->.

Comments? Other suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Dubious
Can pool type really refer to an open pool reactor? This seems to me to be a Wikipedia invention, possibly invented by people who had heard of pool type LMFBRs and didn't know the difference. Mind you, Wikipedia has enormous influence so maybe the term has caught on. If so and it's in sources now obviously we can use it too! But I think we need a source (and if the sources are all more recent than our usage won't that be interesting). Andrewa (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC) These type of reactors are generally for education purposes and occasionally for production of medical isotopes. see https://www.ans.org/news/article-2066/pool-reactors-1-an-introduction/ Tanada 09:15, 6 November 2021

Expert needed
The section on by coolant is particularly cringeworthy... I've made some changes but unsure whether it's even an improvement. Probably needs a complete rewrite... eg no mention of RBMK and SGHWR and not obvious where they go as they're not BWRs, but the bullet on the BWR would currently suggest they are. Andrewa (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * HPR1000, reactor coolant system.png

Pile and Reactor, Atomic and Nuclear
I can't find any use of Nuclear Pile. Reactor overtook Pile in the mid 50s, not the 40s.(Though reactor had always been used to some degree, the actual assemblys were commonly called Piles well into the late 50s. It also varied a bit country to country, Britain stuck to Pile notably longer)

Atomic in the usage of things like Atomic Power or Atomic Power Station was the most common through the 60s and only lost out in the 70s 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:2CA3:A172:A84C:9F22 (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)