Talk:Small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 June 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Image

Note that the image from the LLNL article could be placed in this article, as S&TR is a government publication. 216.164.138.57 17:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controlling agency

The first New Scientist article says "Alerts will be sent over secure satellite radio channels to the DoE or to an international agency overseeing the reactors." Of course, this presumes the US is the manufacturer. Simesa 08:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'or to an international agency overseeing the reactors.'216.96.233.118 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who would buy this?

I just had a little edit-~~war~~ ~~fight~~ squabble :) with Simesa over how to express the unlikelihood of any country buying this. I have tried to keep it encyclopedic this time. But what I would really like to point out is that the whole idea is ludicrous (instead I now leave it to the readers' imagination to figure that out). Who would buy this? Why would a country want to buy a plant that can be remotely shut down by another country? (it would have to be done from another country, because they're obviously not going to do it themselves) There would have to be considerable advantages to buying it, but none of those are mentioned in the article. DirkvdM 05:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a non-proliferation idea targeted at the Third World nations and at Second World nations who want nuclear power "with no strings". I can see SSTAR on large Pacific islands or near the cities in Africa. Of course, no mention was made of what to do with the waste from the spent fuel - it obviously would be reprocessed, but there would still be some high-level waste. The leasing nation certainly wouldn't want to keep the waste, so would the manufacturing nation? It's a problem for a decade from now. Simesa 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was an accepted principal of GNEP that the leasing nation would keep the waste, which is a big source of criticism of the plan. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lede for IFNEC/GNEP states that fuel supplier nations will take back spent fuel.216.96.233.118 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated information

Information provided in the article is outdated and (now) incorrect. SSTAR now means Small Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor, and together with STAR-LM and STAR-H2 forms STAR reactors group. Due to this split into three reactors from SSTAR described in the article, parameters of the current SSTAR are different (for example electric power is 20 MW). One can verify this information in IAEA document IAEA-TECDOC-1536 (available online) (for a quick reference - subsection 6.6.6., paragraph under title "Lead cooled small reactors"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.228.65 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]