Talk:Supercritical water reactor
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Supercritical water 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 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Chemical Industry
[edit]Super critical water reactors are chemical reactors that use supercritical water to decompose or crack other chemicals such as cellulose generally to create syn gas or other low molecular weight product from a high molecular feedstock.
What you are describing is a nucrear reactor that uses super critical water as a working fluid or coolent. It does not react supercritical water and should be properly named for scientific purposes. 71.113.227.225 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, if you do a google search on "supercritical water reactor", nothing on the first page of hits has anything to do with a supercritical water (chemical) reactor, they all are related to a supercritical water (nuclear) reactor. If the "nuclear" where placed in there, this article wouldn't be hitting its targeted demographic.69.129.125.117 13:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
proven technologies?
[edit]What about supercritical nuclear reactors as a disadvantage need materials that "do not exist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarchTheMonth (talk • contribs) 04:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction it says: "The BWR, PWR and the supercritical boiler are all proven technologies."
this is simply not true, especially not for the BWR since the Fukushima accident Hogdotmac (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, PWR, BWR, and fossil supercritical boilers (especially coal and gas CCGT) are all well proven in that there are many gigawatts of these technologies installed. Fukushima has nothing to do with that, it has to do with a specific reactor site that had insufficient design basis against flooding. That is something totally different than the fact that BWRs are widely used.
- --Siphon06 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"high density water"
[edit]The lead currently says: "The reactor inlet coolant is high density water."
I don't think there's any such thing as "high density water". (Unless you're talking about heavy water of course.) Water is mostly incompressible, so it doesn't change its density with pressure. I suspect, what was meant was "high pressure water". Or specifically: Water at a higher pressure than your standard household pressurized-light-water-reactor, and much higher pressure than in a boiling-water-reactor. --BjKa (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- While doing a complete rewrite of the lead I've taken the sentence out. I don't think it will be missed. --BjKa (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)