Talk:Generation III reactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

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)

Contents

[edit] References on the ESBWR and AP1000

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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).
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)
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)

[edit] Organization

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)

[edit] Article Will Probably Stand

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

[edit] Cleanup-rewrite

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)

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