Talk:THTR-300

Article name
I have heard of this reactor before, but I never heard of the 300 classification. Still, this doesn't mean that the name is wrong, just that the common name was the THTR, and not the THTR-300. Still, references would be nice.

I have added see also links to other helium cooled reactors, such as the PBMR, which is its closest offspring (well that and the HTR-10 in China). Inaddition, I put it under the catagory Nuclear reactors, hopefully under this catagory it will get a little more attention and may get checked faster. Lcolson 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO the article name should probably be Thorium High Temperature Reactor, or failing that THTR, but it's no big deal. It doesn't seem to have been a great success, it probably would have been given time but political considerations shut it (and AVR) down before this could happen. Andrewa 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Development paths
At the risk of straying into WP:OR, it's probably better to see the (successful and) multi-fueled AVR reactor rather than THTR as the ancestor of both the PBMR and HTR-10. Two main reasons:


 * They both use uranium feedstock rather than thorium - thorium was obviously a key concept for THTR.


 * HTR-10 is on a similar scale to AVR (a little smaller even), rather than scaling up to the size of THTR.

THTR is, so far, a dead-end development. Thorium fuel technology is being developed, notably in India and to some extent in South Korea, but they both use (or propose to use) heavy water moderators. Andrewa 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article needs quite a lot of work... for example (who knows why?) is not a terribly encyclopedic concept. Much of what it says is unsourced and/or in marginal English. Andrewa 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Example: "After a couple of weeks the power plant was switched on again, but the former supporters." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.19.110 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a handful of minor adjustments plus one clarification in the decommissioning section. The repetitive statement that 80 incidents occurred was reduced to one copy of that statement (the one with a reference). The old version implied that the 'inactive' costs incurred by the facility are somehow unique. All inactive reactors incur costs for security and safety while they await deconstruction. Clearly the article still needs a lot of work. Freshgroundcoffee (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional: all of the IAEA links are dead.Freshgroundcoffee (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * apologies for repeated posts. The THTR section in the pebble bed reactors page would serve as a drop-in section (titled Operation), with material from the existing Decommissioning section removed (paragraph 2 and the first half of paragraph 4, as they pertain to operation of the facility rather than its decommissioning). Unless anyone objects, I will make that change next time I remember to check this site.Freshgroundcoffee (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Could explain the decision to deactivate in more detail
says (google translate from German ) "On the other hand, ongoing negotiations on financial and licensing issues could not lead to a satisfactory result, which meant that the decommissioning decision had to be taken after 423 full load days. The reason for the termination of the project was therefore not technical or even safety-related deficiencies in the THTR 300, but the unattainable agreements on the financial regulation of the continued operation of the prototype nuclear power plant THTR 300."

- more on this would be interesting. What were the financial and licencing problems ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)