Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor: Difference between revisions
m (David MacQuigg moved page Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor/editorial to Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor/Editorial: corrected capitalization) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
{{TOC|right}} | |||
Nuclear power is a controversial topic, and some of the controversies remain unsettled, even after the facts in the article are agreed on. The tab [[ThorCon_nuclear_reactor/Debate Guide|'''Debate Guide''']] will provide a concise summary from each side of the ongoing discussion of these unsettled issues. | |||
== Organized comments moved to the Debate Guide tab == | |||
The list of curated comments formerly here has been moved to a separate tab [[ThorCon_nuclear_reactor/Debate Guide|Debate Guide]].[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 13:22, 2 January 2023 (CST) | |||
==Editorial discussion== | ==Editorial discussion== | ||
'''one of these has been built recently''' | '''one of these has been built recently''' | ||
Line 7: | Line 15: | ||
::::This old version of the article on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ThorCon_nuclear_reactor&oldid=850279880 includes some history and origin details near the top related to ORNL. In my view, this article would benefit from including more context and history about the origin of the ThorCon ideas, both here and at WP. I had wondered all along where this design "came from". This old version gives a rather succinct history of the design right at the top. Who began the design? Where has it been tested? Where WILL it be tested, and when? I have no idea if the information is accurate, but the level of detail seems right.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (CDT) | ::::This old version of the article on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ThorCon_nuclear_reactor&oldid=850279880 includes some history and origin details near the top related to ORNL. In my view, this article would benefit from including more context and history about the origin of the ThorCon ideas, both here and at WP. I had wondered all along where this design "came from". This old version gives a rather succinct history of the design right at the top. Who began the design? Where has it been tested? Where WILL it be tested, and when? I have no idea if the information is accurate, but the level of detail seems right.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (CDT) | ||
:::::There is some good historical material on this and other liquid fuel reactors at [https://thorconpower.com/history ThorConPower.com/history] I can add some of this and other design information in a section at the end of the article. I started to do that on the WP version, but had to give up when one of the WP editors insisted we make it the main focus of the article, not just a subsection. This is the way it goes on WP. Everyone gets to add their stuff, and it turns the article into a tedious mush. I suspect also, that the editor insisting on changing the focus was anti-nuclear, and his statements about the original article being "propaganda" reflected his bias. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 19:14, 9 May 2022 (CDT) | :::::There is some good historical material on this and other liquid fuel reactors at [https://thorconpower.com/history ThorConPower.com/history] I can add some of this and other design information in a section at the end of the article. I started to do that on the WP version, but had to give up when one of the WP editors insisted we make it the main focus of the article, not just a subsection. This is the way it goes on WP. Everyone gets to add their stuff, and it turns the article into a tedious mush. I suspect also, that the editor insisting on changing the focus was anti-nuclear, and his statements about the original article being "propaganda" reflected his bias. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 19:14, 9 May 2022 (CDT) | ||
== image copyright issue == | |||
File:ThorCon Can.png appears to be copyrighted and not licensed for us to display. We'll need written permission or it will have to be removed. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 07:46, 11 January 2023 (CST) |
Latest revision as of 10:59, 11 January 2023
Nuclear power is a controversial topic, and some of the controversies remain unsettled, even after the facts in the article are agreed on. The tab Debate Guide will provide a concise summary from each side of the ongoing discussion of these unsettled issues.
Organized comments moved to the Debate Guide tab
The list of curated comments formerly here has been moved to a separate tab Debate Guide.Pat Palmer (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2023 (CST)
Editorial discussion
one of these has been built recently Apparently, these are not a new idea, but are being reconsidered. See New Molten Salt Thorium Reactor First Time (in) Decades. I know next to nothing about this, but put the link here in case this might help flesh out this article. Eventually, this article could use a better introduction. Coming to it as an uninformed, undecided reader, the current intro is too sparse for me to get my bearings. Pat Palmer (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- The article is just a starter with info I picked up from the ThorCon website. Hopefully we will get an expert to jump in and "flesh" it out. Molten salt reactors are some of the first ever built. See the MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment) back in the 1960's at Oak Ridge. For reasons controversial to this day, they decided to abandon a successful demo and go with PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors). ThorCon is a straightforward upscale of these early reactors. David MacQuigg (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- A brief history of this kind of reactor would be nice in the opener. As a reader, I'd like to know if any of these exist already (when, where etc).Pat Palmer (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (CDT)
- And, is this the one where reactor modules get decommissioned after 4 years of use, allowed to "cool down" in place, and then removed/replaced with a new modules? If so, I'd like to see that in the article. It may be over in the WP version...sorry to be confused. Rushing about here.Pat Palmer (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2022 (CDT)
- This old version of the article on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ThorCon_nuclear_reactor&oldid=850279880 includes some history and origin details near the top related to ORNL. In my view, this article would benefit from including more context and history about the origin of the ThorCon ideas, both here and at WP. I had wondered all along where this design "came from". This old version gives a rather succinct history of the design right at the top. Who began the design? Where has it been tested? Where WILL it be tested, and when? I have no idea if the information is accurate, but the level of detail seems right.Pat Palmer (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (CDT)
- There is some good historical material on this and other liquid fuel reactors at ThorConPower.com/history I can add some of this and other design information in a section at the end of the article. I started to do that on the WP version, but had to give up when one of the WP editors insisted we make it the main focus of the article, not just a subsection. This is the way it goes on WP. Everyone gets to add their stuff, and it turns the article into a tedious mush. I suspect also, that the editor insisting on changing the focus was anti-nuclear, and his statements about the original article being "propaganda" reflected his bias. David MacQuigg (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2022 (CDT)
- This old version of the article on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ThorCon_nuclear_reactor&oldid=850279880 includes some history and origin details near the top related to ORNL. In my view, this article would benefit from including more context and history about the origin of the ThorCon ideas, both here and at WP. I had wondered all along where this design "came from". This old version gives a rather succinct history of the design right at the top. Who began the design? Where has it been tested? Where WILL it be tested, and when? I have no idea if the information is accurate, but the level of detail seems right.Pat Palmer (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (CDT)
- And, is this the one where reactor modules get decommissioned after 4 years of use, allowed to "cool down" in place, and then removed/replaced with a new modules? If so, I'd like to see that in the article. It may be over in the WP version...sorry to be confused. Rushing about here.Pat Palmer (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2022 (CDT)
- A brief history of this kind of reactor would be nice in the opener. As a reader, I'd like to know if any of these exist already (when, where etc).Pat Palmer (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (CDT)
image copyright issue
File:ThorCon Can.png appears to be copyrighted and not licensed for us to display. We'll need written permission or it will have to be removed. Pat Palmer (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2023 (CST)
- Article with Definition
- Developed Articles
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Physics Developed Articles
- Physics Advanced Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Engineering Developed Articles
- Engineering Advanced Articles
- Engineering Nonstub Articles
- Engineering Internal Articles
- Physics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Engineering Underlinked Articles
- Nuclear Engineering tag