This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nuclear reactor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Nuclear reactor is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 7, 2005, June 7, 2006, and June 27, 2006. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 article should mention the power output of a typical modern reactor. AxelBoldt 02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
I would like to pose two changes to the Fusion Reactor Section:
(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)
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)
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)
What's exactly IUPAC didn't change it? DHANUSH RAHUL (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why do not add links to simulatots of various reactors ? 194.146.217.38 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. SBHarris 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
The section Heat generation boldly claims:
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. (mbork3!) 12:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The line:
is converted to:
I reversed the change because:
SkoreKeep (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nuclear reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nuclear reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
This article is excessively long and detailed owing to a merge from List of reactor types and possibly also from Classification of Nuclear Reactors 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)
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:
Sources required of course. Andrewa (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
We don't have subarticles any more. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Comes Shoaibraza134 adding a reference to the "See also" list at the end of the article:
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)
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)
Is it good to get more nuclear reactors in our lives DHANUSH RAHUL (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
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." <well this is the line that prompted me to phrase the question the way I did>
"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]" <this is a good statement, "timeless" in some sense (I mean, anytime you read the article, the statement will be correct)>
"There are about 280 such reactors operating, in 56 countries." <as of when?>
"Current technologies" <and then a whole section of technologies -- current as of when?>
"Generation III reactor (evolutionary improvements of existing designs 1996-present)" <when is the 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)
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)
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)
I was not expecting this to be at all controversial. My mistake.
I should in hindsight have raised an RM for Pool-type reactor 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 Swimming pool reactor -> Open pool reactor.
Comments? Other suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
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
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)
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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)