Talk:TerraPower

Current projects

The article lead currently says that the TWR is their current focus. I think that is badly out of date for a start.

TerraPower have had three main projects. The TWR was the first. Then there was the Natrium reactor (which I personally think is still the most promising) which still seems to be current.

Their latest proposal is the MCFR. Andrewa (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The early sections talk as though TerraPower has a single project, either the TWR, or Natrium. The Designs section is a better overview of the company's (seemingly independent) projects. The MSR section actually mentions two projects, the MSR reactor and a HEU reactor. Are they one project that was diverted, or two independent projects? not clear. And the MCRF project isn't listed at all, although Andrewa provides a link above, to a sentence in a section in the MSR article. Are the MCRF and MSR projects the same?

The whole article should be broken up by project, 3 to 5 of them, to reflect the more broad umbrella of the company. Then, each of these sections can go into detail on the engineering, and possible individual investments in projects, if any. Have any of these projects been terminated or suspended? Seems likely given the research orientation. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the TWR project is no longer being pursued. The company website lists Natrium, Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR), and Isotopes. The isotopes branch is for nuclear medicine. I think it would make sense to have sections for TWR which would include some information about the project being suspended or canceled, the Natrium reactor technology including TerraPower's need for domestic HALEU fuel production, the MCFR research partnerships and plans for commercialization, and the Isotopes project.

Of interest is the change from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "strategic significance" Class III to Class II since the higher enrichment levels of uranium present a moderately higher risk for proliferation. Assuming there is an article about these classifications it should be adequate to link to that article. Entroposity (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Terrapower article - advertising?

This article reads like a PR piece on the company. Would be great to actually talk about risks, challenges, and bumps in the road of their history (which they’ve had several of). 2600:1700:87C0:8A00:0:0:0:29 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, all statements need to be sourced to Reliable Sources WP:RS like newspapers or academic journals. If you can find any sources for the info you refer to, go ahead and be Bold WP:BOLD and add such statements. (Be aware that any sources that talk about the problems with nuclear reactors must talk SPECIFICALLY about this company.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A simple Google search pulls up lots of possible dangers:

• https://www.google.com/search?q=dangers+of+terrapower#ip=1

And the dangers do not have to be specifically about TerraPower. The dangers have to be about the technology TerraPower is using.

This article in its current state mentions no dangers. In its current state it is an advertising puff piece.

There is nothing in the article about total costs over time including decommissioning, waste storage and disposal over the long term. And what those total costs mean when doing honest calculations on the cost per kilowatt hour. And the cost of any possible catastrophic accidents, and how that cost is added to the total costs of TerraPower plants as a group. And how that effects the cost per kilowatt hour as a group. Assuming the government does not subsidize any of the total costs.

You see this info for all other types of renewable energy. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It sounds, to me, similar to the original projections for nuclear energy from the 1950s, that ignored all the huge problems from costs, fission products, and loss-of-coolant accidents. At that time, there were few production reactors, so those problems seemed small, and could be ignored. Subsequent experience disagreed. Similarly, TerraPower's designs aren't in production, limiting knowledge of the dangers and hazards. Although, current experience suggests some of the usual problems from reactors. (Which TerraPower's designs hope to remedy or mitigate.) So, yeah, an objective edit should be done on this article, by someone who knows. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Sources?

Lots of the investment section dont seem to have sources. Citations needed 112.204.166.157 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Link in "Sodium fast reactor (Natrium)"

The first word in this chapter is Natrium, referring to the reactor type I guess?

This first word is implemented to link to Natrium (which is a redirect page, -> Sodium). Sure, the reactor uses sodium for heat transfer (which can carry a lot more thermal energy than e.g. water), and the term might be closely bound to that reactor type (like we netizens are in agreement of talking about the space telescope when James Webb is mentioned in the news), but is it appropriate to link to the chemical element when the reactor heat-sink material is the context? --DerMarkus1982 (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Natrium seems to be a subsidiary, maybe an independent company bought out. Or a project name within TerraPower. It points to the 'Sodium' article. Which has a disambiguation page, with a link to Natrium Reactor, which points back to the same Natrium section of this article. I took out the link in this paragraph, changed it to the non-link the Natrium design. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)