Talk:Generation III reactor

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

This statement:

The reactors are used in nuclear power plants to produce nuclear power from nuclear fuel.

Was 1) unnecessary and 2) of questionable accuracy (the AP1000, EPR, etc refer to the plants themselves). Just in case anyone had any questions there. theanphibian 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit the page, so please fix the IAEA link, it has moved to: http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/reactors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.187.72 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the ESBWR and the AP1000 really Gen III+ or just Gen III? It's rather hard to investigate the claim considering that there are no references, just one of the article's problems. theanphibian 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very simplified drawings are available at [1], but you're right - even though the AP1000 is design-certified by the NRC there are no online references such as the two in the

ABWR

article.

Thanks. Hopefully I'll get around to digging later. theanphibian 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help, the ESBWR is a true

passively safe design, while the AP1000 is not. Simesa 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, and the

EPR uses completely active safety systems and it's the only one of the new line that's being built. Passive safety makes a design better, but doesn't necessarily make it the better design. theanphibian 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The AP1000 is most definitely a Gen III (no plus) reactor. It's development started pretty much at the same time as the EPR. The only difference are their respective safety paradigms. Westinghouse claims (in the view of the scientific community wrongly) that their rector can survive any meltdown event. Hence the reduction of many active safety systems. It is also most definitely not passive safe. To prevent a meltdown one ALLWAYS needs active cooling. And any meltdown will cause the release of large quantities of radioactive isotopes. --Dio1982 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say the AP1000 is only III when it has the evolutionary features that define a III+? Where is your cite indicating that half "of the scientific community" disagrees with a Westinghouse claim I've never heard of and can't find? What makes you say it is "most definitely not passively safe" (it is for all but one specific event)? What makes you say one ALLWAYS (sic) needs active cooling? And while meltdowns will release radioactive isotopes, I presume you understood that containments were designed to retain them in the plant. ~~ —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Simesa (talk • contribs) 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

To prevent a core meltdown one absolutely needs active cooling after a shutdown in a PWR. Period. The power density from the decay of fission products is too high (initially 10% of thermal power). BWRs also need active cooling, but the cooling current is produced by running a turbine with the produced steam and/or via an elaborate condensation and water reinsertion system.

A core meltdown will release large amounts of radioactive Isotopes since the most effective barrier, the cystal lattice of the Uranium pellets, is destroyed. Isotopes which are mobile (mostly noble gases and iodene) will accumulate within the containment building and will be very likely released to the environment to reduce pressure within the containment building. Mind you, this will be leagues away from a Tschernobyl, but depending on meltdown scenarios and wind it may pose a hazard to the public. --Dio1982 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to reiterate my point, why should the AP1000 be classified III+? It is a evolutionary design based on current Reactors (Gen II) and it was developed during the late 70ies (start of AP600 program) and 80ies. The only rectors which might classify for III+ are HTRs since their development started during the mid 90ies. --Dio1982 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I may be a hair late on this debate, but as it seems passivity is the sticking point for III+ (as compared to III) I do feel obligated to come to the defence of the AP1000 here, as it was being picked on. AP1000 has significantly enhanced passivity relative to any previous PWR. A key aspect is the shield building (steel - essentially a giant, passive heat sink allowing 72 hours without operator intervention in a station blackout) and heavy use of squib valves in IAEA class-D passive systems.

It seems to me that the only questionably passive reactors listed as III+ here are the EPR and APR14000, though I am not confident enough in my assessment to change them at this time. Revr J (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article would be improved by making it more list oriented. I'll try that later. theanphibian 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus appears to be that this will not be moved. theanphibian 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is terrible, both factually and stylistically. There are major factual errors in all of the the article's sections, and it is entirely too brief. I will propose the following changes:

- a comprehensive review of pages describing generation I, II, III, III+, and IV designs

- a complete rewrite of the introduction for this article to correctly reflect what gen III is

- a complete rewrite of the subsections to correctly reflect which designs are classified as what

I will take a quick pass at it right now, but I do not have the time to fix all of the wiki's problems. It is hard to believe that I am the only registered user in this entire enterprise who has worked for and has expert knowledge of the nuclear industry. Lwnf360 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have an interested expert. Interested to see your contributions. Andrewa (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried cleaning up the article and added some details and external sources. Will need more attention though! Lokster (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Gen II, this article is original research. Gen IV was dubbed by the DOE for developing new plant types in 2000 [2]. In 2003 the French CEA was the first to refer to Gen II types in Nucleonics Week, "Etienne Pochon, CEA director of nuclear industry support, outlined EPR's improved performance and enhanced safety features compared to the advanced Generation II designs on which it was based." (Vol. 44, No. 39; Pg. 7, September 25, 2003). First mentioning of Gen III was also in 2000 in conjunction with the launch of the GIF plans..

The first thing there was was Gen IV. The rest is ex-post fabrication. -- Eiland (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, with regards to it all being derived from "Generation IV" in many regards; however, the other terminology is not entirely "original research" (assuming you're invoking the Wiki "No original research" definition). References to other generations of nuclear power technology were part of the Gen IV Internation Forum, but were generic terms used primarily for reference purposes (i.e. to show how Gen IV is different).

The terminology is used extensively in the industry, and definitions have effectively been developed. I would agree if your comment is that a little more background on this could be helpful to the article, is this what you're getting at? Revr J (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess so. It is being presented as if the nuclear generations are something by way of themselves, with a plan etc., which they are not. Dubbing specific kind of types to specific kinds of generation becomes problematic as the whole term is problematic. An AGR was never designed as a Gen I. But that is not my problem, I guess. I assume that if anyone says this type is of this gen, at least it should be referenced, according to whom, etc. -- Eiland (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify which are just designs and which are real : Each section could be converted from lists to a table - possibly to include year of first construction start, year of first operation, and number of construction starts ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea man, be bold and make your changes. - Boundarylayer (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't spend a lot of time on this topic and don't want to step on anyone's toes - but I see we now have two very useful tables under Gen III+ for example. My thanks to whoever did those. - Rod57 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roappur NPP under construction.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first table in Lists of Generation III+ reactors has a column for first grid connection - but it would also be great if the ones under construction could say when construction started - either as an extra column, or by sharing the "first grid connection" column ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]