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

Energy Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Generation IV International Forum page were merged into Generation IV reactor on 2012-03-22. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The Molten-Salt Reactor is an epithermal reactor, not a thermal reactor.

Also, the Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor can be either thermal or fast -- and the US is interested in pursuing the fast version as well as the thermal version. Oralloy 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image at the top is low quality and interferes with the table of contents... Strait 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I think some Generation III+ Generators are out already, but it says that it will be released at 2010. (check the canada website at bottom) Andrewrhchen 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Pebble bed reactor under either Generation III reactor or here. Since INL is looking at building one, shouldn't it be here? Simesa 20:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the same things as a VHTR, but 'Pebble bed' sounds just more lovely, just like a beach, nothing radioactive ;-) -- Eiland (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Energy amplifier is a concept I just heard of. Perhaps it deserves a mention here as well. Simesa 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) its covered under sub-critial reactors[reply]

Agreed. The ADS/Subcritical reactor should definitely be covered in this article. for some info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor and http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/348/new-age-nuclear?page=0%2C0 Laxman2001 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guinivere, described on the page, has been reported as running successfully: http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2012/01/reactor-accelerator-hybrid-achieves-successful-test-run 121.73.5.66 (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've added the source. Grayfell (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see merging the Generation II and Generation III pages together, but Generation IV is a completely different topic. I recommend leaving the pages as they are. Simesa 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that the reactor generation categories should be merged. Leave as they are, because of the technological advances made from generation to generation make reactors distinctly different in terms of efficiency, safety, etc. (Lachlan, 26/12/2006).

• I might consider removing that tag later, but I think this should be discussed more first. Andrewrhchen 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that the reactor generation categories should be merged. Leave as they are, because of the technological advances made from generation to generation make reactors distinctly different in terms of efficiency, safety, etc.Mion 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they should be kept seperate as well. Removing tags, repost if need be. The machine512 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose - I also think they shouldn't be merged. We don't have much material for the gen III stuff, but that's just a Wikipedia problem. From an organization standpoint it just doesn't make any sense. theanphibian 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the merge too. Since nobody here seems to know of any reason for the merge, the tags should be removed (they don't seem to have been yet despite comments above). In fact they should never have been added IMO; It's a complete waste of everyone's time to add these tags without providing a rationale, and it does nothing to improve the appearance of the encyclopedia... especially when the tags then remain for months with no action, because nobody really knows what the proposer had in mind. Andrewa 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the fact that they've been there since December 2006 goes to further demonstrate the points you mention here. Tags are off, let's get back to improving the articles. theanphibian 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't know what a gen-iv reactor is in the first place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.251.61 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems, the Chinese know very well what it is. Their first commercial generation IV reactor starts debugging run June 2020.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vgf5XcTC4g The Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant in east China's Shandong Province, Rongcheng City.

Developed by the Tsinghua University it will be connected to the power grid 2021 --Manorainjan 18:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "However, according to some, still, a severe accident at a Generation IV nuclear power plant is both "physically and statistically possible"[1]." Does not fit with the topic of the rest of the header, let alone the rest of the article. The article is about Gen IV. development while the sentence is a about the safety of yet-non-existent devices. Also, the use of wiggle words such as "according to some" is something to be avoided. Pointing out that that these systems can 'physically and statistically fail' is meaningless since any system can fail and nowhere in the article does it say Gen IV can't. It's a truism pure and simple. It doesn't belong in this or any other article. Nailedtooth (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Feel free to remove it. Lcolson (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object but I see that you already removed it. The article is not about GEN development but about Gen IV. Onme of the goals of Gen IV is inherent safe reactors, and when a leading report says this is not possible, it is noteworthy. I'm restoring it, as I don't think consensus was reached already. There must be more people out there who have opinions about nuclear articles than just us three. -- Eiland (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complementing myself; why would the Keystone center write this, if we're only talking about theoretical exercises? But we could remove "according to some", as the KC doesn't say so, but as one always hears Gen IV is "inherently safe", I tried to keep it NPOV as I felt it was too negative to write they can go wrong. But if you believe its a wriggle word, I agree and remove it. -- Eiland (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, if it's been removed then the discussion should be whether to include it again. Declaring the discussion to be invalid and reverting it is a dictatorial move that runs contrary to the idea of discussion before changes. To avoid another edit war I've requested moderation in this discussion.

Second, the biggest problem with the sentence is it's a truism. It's logically and obviously true no matter what. Such a sentence could be included in any article about any technology since any technological system has the possibility of statistically and physically failing. Despite the fact that someone said it, it doesn't provide any information about Gen IV the reader already didn't have.

Third, just because someone perceived to be important said it that doesn't' make it important. That's called 'argument from authority' and it holds absolutely no weight. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For archive sake, the reference deleted by Nailedtooth is

However, according to some, still, a severe accident at a Generation IV nuclear power plant is both "physically and statistically possible" <~ref>The Keystone Centre Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding p. 47<~/ref>.

-- Eiland (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, wikipedia does that automatically every time the page is updated/edited, right? Nailedtooth (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was an obvious statement and shouldn't be included. Nailedtooth pretty much hit the arguement on the head. The first paragraph says that one of the primary "goals" is to "improve safety". So of course a GEN4 system could still fail. Pointing that out specifically in the third paragraph didn't improve the article, since I don't think anyone would mistakenly think they were failproof after reading that one of the "goals" was merely to "improve" safety.

On a grander scale, no technological system is failproof, and the more advanced it is, the more likely there is to be more possible failure mechanisms. I could think up several possible ways that a wind turbine or solar thermal system could "fail" and lead to thousands or millions of deaths. Whats important about failures is their likelihood of occurring.

I'm not trying to remove any mention to possible failure pathways, or white wash the article, looking at the first few paragraphs I've seen several adjectives that could probably be removed on the grounds that they could steer the article one way or another. If you think the article makes GEN4 systems look too nice, I think it would be better to focus on removing adjectives like innovative, central, significantly, etc... Adjectives are usually debatable and unnecessary, and an easy way of seeing POV, and perhaps one of the larger problems with this article. "inherent" would probably classify as one of those same words, and shouldn't be included, unless part of a meaningful (read: referenced) quote that is useful for increasing understanding of the topic in the article.

My personal opinion is that GEN4 systems are paper designs at this point. Essentially theoretical, and having theories on theories seems kinda pointless at this point.Lcolson (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What time would be better then? When it is built? I think people want to know if it is going to be risky or not before it is being build, and the design phase is when that should be known. A lot is being said about Gen IV being Inherently safe, and I think WP should give the main views on this matter. of -- 213.84.17.197 (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, because some of the newer designs have been tauted as "inherently safe" that a discussion of safety improvements touch down on the use of this term and that these reactors continue to carry a non-zero risk. I don't think it's a truism in this case because of the advocacy that has taken place, and while it's obvious that any device is capable of failing, what's not obvious is whether or not there are any failures that could result in a major nuclear accident. I would argue that describing this possibility as still existing does not fall into he realm of truisms for the lay person, or even for the reasonably educated. Some new reactor designs claim to be unmeltable, so the question of whether it is in fact impossible to melt one is worthy of treatment somewhere in the article. Mishlai (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor point, but the "Roadmap" from Argonne National Labratory references Magnox as a Generation I design, and yet this article states that all Generation I reactors have been retired, yet there are two Magnox type reactors in Commercial Service in the United Kingdom even today Spiz101 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and one (Wyfla) is still running today and may run till 2014. - Rod57 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, there is the date of 2021 mentioned for the construction of the first NGNP as the closest possible. But on the page for the NGNP, no such thing is mentioned, and it is not even in a concrete planning phase. I would like to delete this, unless someone brings some proof or sources... --Data2 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any unreferenced material may be removed as is wiki policy. That being said, google is your friend: [13] and many more references can be found at [14]. Now I would not be at all surprised if those speculative dates have since been pushed back. It has been my understanding that the schedule for the ngnp has always been aggressive given the bureaucratic and political issues in the US. Lcolson (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eiland, if you want to blow fairy dust in my eyes, at least do it with some propriety. It reminds of the fifties magazines featuring how 'life' would be year 2000. Didn't work out, did it? And now you're presenting nuclear prospects made from those defending it, without allowing them to put in their 'Nota bene'? It's not a objective article and belongs to my eyes at the same place as those fifties magazine, in some book shelf collecting dust. You wanna sell it, do it somewhere else. You wanna 'present' it? Then have the grace to include their reservations.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.30.15.92 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comment from David Lochbaum quoted that says that nearly all serious incidents occur with new reactor technology. I think that this is manifestly untrue now given Chernobyl and Fukushima which were both old designs and old reactors Sgt101 (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This quote: "Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia" is taken completely out of context and as used it totally misrepresents the facts. Actually, what the quote says in incorrect to start with. Actual nuclear waste, fission products (high level and low level), always has the same half-lives. If transuranics are considered waste, they have the same half-lives. The same is true for the unburned Uranium (235 & 238) still in the spent fuel elements.

There are two things that are true. Some Generation IV reactors produce less mass of spent fuel for various reasons. Some Generation IV reactors might be fast neutron reactors which could burn up some transuranics that are found in the spent fuel from light water reactors. Tyrerj (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to merge Generation IV International Forum into this article as interrelated and partly duplicated article. Beagel (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. The Forum article doesn't have many sources, so it doesn't appear likely to grow.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes, makes sense. Johnfos (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone knows which of the six designs are breeder reactors? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.162.18 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

→All the fast reactors are, and also thermal molten salt reactors if they use thorium fuel.

Thank you, but are you sure about that? Also, I thought the supercritical water reactors (SWRs), at least the fast ones, could be breeder reactors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.21.7 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power in a warming world. Dec 2007 has interesting tables and descriptions of generation IV designs as of 2007. - Rod57 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After long thought i have flagged this article it is a well written and interesting ,even facinating article, it rightly points out that the designs are mostly theoretical, and this is my sticking point, is it appropriate for wikipedia to publish and thereby authenticate , theoretical designs? I have a few of my own ,(those nano-imploding generators i misplaced), the article on second look begins to look like a prospectus or a presentation. perhapes just a few links to greenpeace and iaea and current news article

 In my opinion we will build a solid foundation by sticking to the facts.

proposed edi t>delete entire article and replace with...a couple of linksSebastian barnes (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The reactor designs are part of a very real research and development effort by the Generation IV International Forum. The fact that the end result of current R&D efforts does not actually exist should not be surprising to anyone, nor should it be a cause to delete the entire article.Nailedtooth (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A recent editor removed the following for tenuous aesthetic reasons and replaced it with a hard to read bluelink-block-of-text instead of the orderly list of members below. I'm putting this here to get outside input on which configuration other editors prefer.

The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) was founded in 2001. Switzerland joined in 2002, the European Atomic Energy Community(Euratom) in 2003, and China and Russia in 2006. The remaining countries were founding members.^[1] There are presently nine active member countries of (GIF) along with Euratom.^[2][1]

•  Argentina^[3] founding, non-active member.^[1]
•  Brazil^[4] founding, non-active member.^[1]
•  Canada^[5]
•  China^[6]
•  France^[7]
•  Japan^[8]
•  South Korea^[9]
•  Russia^[10]
•  South Africa^[11]
•  Switzerland^[12]
•  United Kingdom^[13] founding, non-active member, while contributing via Euratom.^[1]
•  United States^[14]

The 36th GIF meeting in Brussels was held in November 2013.^[15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.171.162 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2014‎

I am the one who reformatted the section. There are currently (still) no WP:SECONDARY sources regarding the forum. The use of flags is nationalistic and distracting, and give undue emphasis to a comparatively small section of the article. The article completely fails to mention what the forum is or does, or what membership entails, or what is required to be considered 'active', or really anything about the forum at all, other than its existence. The recently added PR-speak "progress and pitfalls over the last decade was amongst the subjects discussed." does nothing to solve this problem. If this cannot be explained and supported, the lengthy inclusion of this info, especially one particular meeting among many, is inappropriate. If there isn't a compelling, sourced argument for the inclusion of this info, I will restore the section to its previous state. Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened the section. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so simply listing these pages without context or explanation is not acceptable, and the nationalistic flag icons are bloated and pretentious. Again, please find WP:SECONDARY sources establishing that this is a significant organization, or at least explaining what the forum actually accomplishes. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Generation IV 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=mscrkjkab&oeidk=a07e7melf609716b2c6
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_71564/australia-joins-the-generation-iv-international-forum
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009042600/http://euronuclear.org/1-information/news/Gen-IV.htm to https://www.euronuclear.org/1-information/news/Gen-IV.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213091046/http://www.ist-world.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=5cb8f3f283574cc6b2bdbf72533172d8 to http://www.ist-world.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=5cb8f3f283574cc6b2bdbf72533172d8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129121214/http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf to http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Generation IV 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_71564/australia-joins-the-generation-iv-international-forum
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205115654/http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/neGenIV1.html to http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/neGenIV1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512033030/http://www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/slides/Gen%20IV%20U-Tenn%20Presentation.pdf to http://www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/slides/Gen%20IV%20U-Tenn%20Presentation.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generation IV 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909172743/http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/6322207443/articles/power-engineering-international/volume-18/Issue_3/regulars/world-news/INTERNATIONAL.html to http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/6322207443/articles/power-engineering-international/volume-18/Issue_3/regulars/world-news/INTERNATIONAL.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Aristos Power Facebook blog, they are "happy to announce the launch of our 1.21 Jigawatts line of reactors, specially developed for the mad scientists and their midnight experiments. They can be placed in your basement or your backyard. Take them while they're hot." The mention about Aristos Power was added by an IP-user. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems, the Chinese know very well what it is. Their first commercial generation IV reactor started debugging run in June 2020.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vgf5XcTC4g The Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant in east China's Shandong Province, Rongcheng City. Developed by the Tsinghua University it will be connected to the power grid 2021. ^[1] --Manorainjan 10:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The HTR-PM is not commercial. --Wickey (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-for-Romanian-lead-cooled-reactor-research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.36.58 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current leading picture (I intentionally used the same size here) has two problems:

• As already said in 2006, it interfered with the TOC; now it dominates and pushes away the lead in normal-sized browsers.
• Even a bigger problem is that is outdated propaganda from the nuclear industry. It lies that "Generation IV: Nuclear Energy Systems [will be] Deployable no later than 2030". The GIF said in 2002 about the year 2030.

As we can read on p. 7 of the 2013 Technology Roadmap Update, it now says after 2030. That was 8 years ago. Even that is misleading as the paper makes clear deployment will be well after 2050, or never.

The best solution is deleting the image. --Wickey (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I delete it for the following reasons:

• Too big, distorting layout; smaller display does not make sense (unreadable); pushes away text and TOC downward;
• Image is meant for promoting nuclear power, not for informing the people (promotional texts);
• Image is very dominant, distracting from text;
• outdated, wrong and misleading info
  

--Wickey (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ita140188 added the unfocused tag without addressing here.

As the Generation IV International Forum redirects here, it should also be described here.

The article lacks a clear definition of a Generation IV reactor in general, and an explanation of how it exactly differs from earlier generations. It may also explain the difference between a prototype/demonstration reactor and a commercial Generation IV reactor, which is the real goal. There is a huge difference in the timeline between prototype and commercial. --Wickey (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As my tag implies, I think we need to separate the two concepts as they are separate things. This mixing has been creating a lot of confusion for years. One thing is the organization, the Generation IV International Forum, which should have its own article, and it is quite clear what the scope of that article should be. Another thing is what are generally called "gen IV reactors" in the sources. The gen IV name in this context is a continuation of the conventions established with the previous generations of reactors: the limits between generations are somewhat arbitrary, but there is generally an understanding of what they mean (something like Fourth-generation fighter and similar for fighter jets). In this context, gen IV reactors are generally characterised (from my reading of sources) by several properties such as passive safety features, designs that allow closed nuclear fuel cycles, higher efficiencies etc. In my opinion the first step towards clearing up this confusion is to split the information about the organization into its own article and make this article a more general view of the new generation of nuclear reactors. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Generation IV International Forum had an own article in the past. If Gen IV reactors are specifically linked to the concepts of the Forum, splitting is not useful; otherwise, it can be considerd. --Wickey (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This organization does not have a monopoly on the concept of fourth generation nuclear reactors. Rather, the name of the organization comes from the concept, not the other way around. So we should not confuse the aims and definitions of the Gen IV Forum with the representation of gen IV reactors in general in the sources. Most sources refer to gen IV reactors in general (as the next generation from generation III reactors), not linking the definition to the Gen IV Forum. Ita140188 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the article should start with a section about the definitions that GIF has adopted. --Wickey (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would only increase the confusion. The point is that there is no accepted universal definition of gen IV reactor. The GIF definition is just one specific to the organization, and it should not be confused with the more general concept of gen IV reactors. Just to clarify this discussion: would you support the split that I proposed, moving the information about the Forum into its own article and leaving a more general discussion here? Ita140188 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would increase the confusion? If Gen IV reactors exist – at least as design models – a section on the definition(s) is absolutely needed. Otherwise we just speak of Generation III+s at best. I did not say that GIF found the Gen IV reactor; I just suggest that there may be general definitions that GIF adopted.

I only support a split if this issue is solved, as all is based on the GIF definitions. This may be a hint. The EU is also part of the GIF. --Wickey (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not all based on the GIF definition, it's all based on what reliable sources report, whether they talk about GIF or not. Ita140188 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that Gen IV is indeed a concept of the GIF Forum, who selected the six types. --Wickey (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view is the Gen IV is a concept independent of GIF and the six reactor types it is currently focused on. And I also disagree with the assertion that existing reactors can't be Gen IV. Some of the recent edits based on this assertion seem dubious and arbitrary to me. That said, it's probably better to have discussion here rather than just reverting. NPguy (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you have reliable sources, as Ita140188 has.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx. --Wickey (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you should provide a source that the term "generation IV" was invented by the GIF. There are plenty of sources that mention gen IV reactors without mentioning GIF. Also, GIF does not include many countries such as China and India which are actively developing their own gen IV designs according to multiple sources (which again, mostly do not mention GIF). --Ita140188 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, GIF and WNA are not some regional journalists. If the World Nuclear Association refers to GIF as an international task force, developing six Generation IV nuclear reactor technologies, in a specific article about the subject, we should take that seriously. You should provide a source if you want to describe some reactor as being a Gen IV reactor. But actually, I still don't understand what is your problem. The article does not say that the term "Generation IV" was invented by the GIF. On the other hand, they are the organisation developing it. --Wickey (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that they are not the only organization developing and defining what gen IV reactors are. Neither this is what WNA says. As already mentioned, India, Russia and China, which are the main developers of generation IV reactors, are not even part of GIF (but they are acknowledged in the same source you cite as developing gen IV reactors) Ita140188 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say they are developing Gen IV reactors. BTW, it is about Generation IV spelled with a capital. This source says: "The development of GEN IV technologies is coordinated by GIF (Generation IV International Forum), an international organization founded in 2001. This organization publishes the referential documents for GEN IV NPPs: ...". --Wickey (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also defines gen IV reactors as "designs called revolutionaries because of their discontinuity with III generation NPPs.", not based on the GIF definition. It also includes designs that are apparently not "approved" by GIF (?) in this article such as the currently operational BN-800. To go back to the topic of this discussion, the focus problem is still present in this article: GIF and gen IV reactors are two different topics. One is an organization, the other is a type of nuclear reactor. Independently of the role of GIF in gen IV reactors development, would you agree to split these two clearly distinct topics? Ita140188 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Gen IV will not be commercial or even experimental before 1930-1940-1950 or so, BN-800 cannot be Gen IV. It is also not called Gen IV.

If you can add substantial info about GIF in the current article, a split-off may be considered. Still a summary should remain in this article, so you will not get rid of it. The leading organisation in developing the concept is GIF, not India, Russia and China. --Wickey (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has stalled, I have gone ahead and jumped in with some bold edits that have, I hope, given the article better focus. By reorganizing the lead section and treating some of the issues brought up here in the body of the article itself, I think it should feel more focused. As such, I am now boldly removing the focus tag. But if anyone here disagrees, of course, feel free to revert. Thanks! Trevdna (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience with how the term is used, Gen IV refers to a reactor type and not when that reactor is deployed. It does not refer to a specific technology, but it refers to reactors beyond those commonly deployed for power generation. If sodium fast reactors are considered Gen IV, the BN-600 is by that definition a Gen IV reactor. NPguy (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your definition is simply wrong and based on nothing. That is why I said that the article lacks a clear definition. --Wickey (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is not particularly relevant, but perhaps the reference to the BN-600 in this GIF source will be of interest: Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR). NPguy (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source says just that "Much of the basic technology for the SFR has been established ... and is being confirmed by ... the lifetime extension of BN-600 in Russia." This source of the same Forum mentions the BN-800 reactor as just an example of advanced reactor prototypes that are steps towards Gen IV designs. --Wickey (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the distinction between an "advanced reactor prototype [sic]" and a Gen IV reactor is what? I think it's inaccurate to call the BN-600 a prototype, since it's an operational power reactor. The BN-350 was more like a prototype. NPguy (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting "Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum cautions" cites two sources, both from 2010. That was 14 years ago. What do these (or similar) sources have to say about the topic nowadays? Sonicsuns (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]