Talk:Experimental Breeder Reactor I

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 20, 2007, December 20, 2008, December 20, 2016, and December 20, 2017.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Here, I found this on the internet...

The U.S. experience with "fast breeder" reactors argues against restarting the Fast Flux Test Facility. In November 1955, the first U.S. "power reactor" ever to produce electricity, the EBR-1, (experimental breeder reactor) melted down during testing. Rather than scramming the reactor, the operator mistakenly hit the button for slow shut down, and in the few seconds it took to press the correct button, approximately half of the reactor core melted down. The public was not made aware of this meltdown until Lewis Strauss, head of the Atomic Energy Commission, and the man who claimed nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter," was confronted by the Wall Street Journal and had to admit his ignorance of the accident.

Cut the from the page and redirected. Mark Richards 00:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note: I do not believe it is appropriate to merge this with EBR II. The two were in different locations, run by different organizations, and ran for different periods. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not merging. Calling twe two unrelated however is the other extreme. I propose to delete "unrelated" as you make enough distance, so to speak, with just stating:

"There is also a separate facility called Experimental Breeder Reactor II."

Pukkie (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Too cheap to meter:" IAnyone in the power industry should have understood that there are huge costs associated with the production and distribution of power, even if the heat source to create the steam were free. No one gives away switchyard, transmission system, aux power, operators, maintenance force, unit transformers, boilers, or turbines free. Edison (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First reactor[edit]

EBR-1 was the first reactor to generate power. Is it worth mentioning the first actual nuclear power plants? The first was, I believe, Obninsk. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Atomic energy was successfully harvested for the first time"--wasn't there actually a tiny generator at Oak Ridge immediately after the war? I'm not the expert to edit the main page, but I think the museum there shows the first electricity-generating apparatus.

Disputed[edit]

Nuclear power plant contains this:

Electricity was generated by a nuclear reactor for the first time ever on September 3, 1948 at the X-10 Graphite Reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee in the United States, and was the first nuclear power station to power a light bulb.^[1]^[2]^[3]

I don't think this article should contain the claim it does, and I am marking it as dubious on that basis. --John (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Graphite Reactor". 31 October 2013.
^ "Graphite Reactor Photo Gallery". 31 October 2013.
^ "First Atomic Power Plant at X-10 Graphite Reactor". 31 October 2013.

No, indeed, X-10 did not generate electricity[edit]

A confusion might be arising here from the fact that the English word power is overly polysemic. X-10 generated a lot of thermal power indeed (up to 500 kW it seems), but I cannot find any indication that this heat was ever used to generate electricity. The goal here was to synthetize plutonium as a fission product, and heat was, in this instance, an undesirable by-product that had to be evacuated.

After thoughtfull consideration and carefull reviewing of internal links and external sources, I hereby take the decision to remove any reference to X-10 as producing electrical power.

On a side note, I don't suppose that it is reasonable at all to cite flicker.com as a source.

Noliscient (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the X-10 indeed ran an experiment that used thermal heat from the reactor to generate electricity. This youtube video shows diagrams of the experiment and a plaque at the X-10 site commemorating the event. I updated the EBR-I article to clarify the conflict. Ajnosek (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

I was somewhat appalled to find no mention of the fuel or coolant. These are important parts of the historical significance of EBR-I (and what I was looking for when I came here... it was an LMFBR but neither sodium cooled nor oxide fueled as I now discover, while EBR-II went to sodium cooling but retained the metallic fuel). I've made a tiny but referenced start to a section on its design. Andrewa (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Graphite Reactor". 31 October 2013.

[2] "Graphite Reactor Photo Gallery". 31 October 2013.

[3] "First Atomic Power Plant at X-10 Graphite Reactor". 31 October 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]