3 ms·

My main concern (I'm not a nuclear engineer) is that smaller nuclear plants means lots of radioactive material (fuel/waste) is being moved and stored in a piece

My main concern (I'm not a nuclear engineer) is that smaller nuclear plants means lots of radioactive material (fuel/waste) is being moved and stored in a piece-meal fashion, enabling "small scale" accidents or even theft.

tootie 8y ago
I'm sure Uber is working on this.
- brodsky 8y ago
  very edgy, but this isn't reddit.
aidenn0 8y ago
Most modern designs are specifically designed to not create materials that are easily weaponizable, which reduces the value of them (and thus theft). Accidents are an issue, and what do do with the waste is a huge question that will decide whether or not nuclear plants are economically feasible moving forward.
- basicplus2 8y ago
  Just because one cant make a nuclear bomb from the material does not mean it cannot be weaponised.. Anything radioactive that can be spread into the food chain is an issue.
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    There's a lot there that depends on the specifics of the substances. Radioactivity doesn't mean dangerous or weaponizable. Bananas are radioactive. Granite countertops are radioactive.
    - bayesian_horse 8y ago
      I assume they are not fueling nuclear plants with bananas and granite.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    Anything radioactive that can be spread into the food chain is an issue. or mixed with a suicide belt's "materials"
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  Radioactivity is invisible, and not detectable short of a Geiger counter. It doesn't even hurt at a dose that would eventually kill people. Also, depending on the radiation, radioactivity can make other materials dangerous. And yes, the fuel they are talking about is a lot more radioactive than a banana or whatever. I just worry that somebody with ill will or even just bad luck will defeat security measures "en detail", if the material is moving around in smaller parcels. Also, more people "legitimately" possessing a reactor and radioactive material will hardly decrease the risk of intentional abuse.
- DennisP 8y ago
  If Terrapower or other molten chloride fast reactors work out, then waste is a solved problem.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
anonymous5133 8y ago
I've always thought if the reactor was so small then why can't we just by default build the reactors underground? Isn't the underground a more stable area to begin with? Even during earthquakes? Reactor waste could be stored at the location permanently and if the reactor gets the 1 in a million accident then the whole place is already basically built in a cement/rock containment vessel. If a serious meltdown occurs then it would be easy to just start pouring lead or cement into the facility. Even if there was a small nuclear explosion we already know the impacts of underground nuclear explosions.
- jabl 8y ago
  Many of the current small reactor concepts are indeed designed to be installed below grade.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > why can't we just by default build the reactors underground? It would appear to carry an increased risk of hidden problems and groundwater poisoning. There might also be issues with corrosion and accessibility for maintenance. That said, I'm not ruling it out. A lesson these new approaches to nuclear engineering is that we never figured out the right defaults the last time around. We were too focussed on making bombs and submarines. > we already know the impacts of underground nuclear explosions Nuclear plants should never fail by way of nuclear explosion. If this is a possibility it is a bad reactor design.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    > Nuclear plants should never fail by way of nuclear explosion. If this is a possibility it is a bad reactor design. Fast reactors have always had this potential problem, since they require a much higher density of high enrichment material. A larger fast reactor might have a ton of plutonium in it; in an accident where fuel is melting and moving around unpredictably it's hard to prove that a prompt supercritical mass of Pu won't assemble somewhere. Edward Teller famously warned about this in 1967. This is one advantage of MSRs as fast reactors: the fuel is already dispersed in salt, so such rearrangement is less plausible.
DennisP 8y ago
No reason a bunch of small reactors can't be put together at one site. The reason for building small is just to reduce construction time risk, and maybe allow factory mass production.
qubax 8y ago
Also not a nuclear engineer, but "mini-nuclear" anything doesn't conjure up anything good for me either. Hopefully, unlike in the tech world, the nuclear world thinks about and implements safety first rather than as an after thought.

tootie 8y ago

I'm sure Uber is working on this.

brodsky 8y ago
very edgy, but this isn't reddit.

aidenn0 8y ago

Most modern designs are specifically designed to not create materials that are easily weaponizable, which reduces the value of them (and thus theft). Accidents are an issue, and what do do with the waste is a huge question that will decide whether or not nuclear plants are economically feasible moving forward.

basicplus2 8y ago
Just because one cant make a nuclear bomb from the material does not mean it cannot be weaponised.. Anything radioactive that can be spread into the food chain is an issue.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  There's a lot there that depends on the specifics of the substances. Radioactivity doesn't mean dangerous or weaponizable. Bananas are radioactive. Granite countertops are radioactive.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    I assume they are not fueling nuclear plants with bananas and granite.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Anything radioactive that can be spread into the food chain is an issue. or mixed with a suicide belt's "materials"
bayesian_horse 8y ago
Radioactivity is invisible, and not detectable short of a Geiger counter. It doesn't even hurt at a dose that would eventually kill people. Also, depending on the radiation, radioactivity can make other materials dangerous. And yes, the fuel they are talking about is a lot more radioactive than a banana or whatever. I just worry that somebody with ill will or even just bad luck will defeat security measures "en detail", if the material is moving around in smaller parcels. Also, more people "legitimately" possessing a reactor and radioactive material will hardly decrease the risk of intentional abuse.
DennisP 8y ago
If Terrapower or other molten chloride fast reactors work out, then waste is a solved problem.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

anonymous5133 8y ago

I've always thought if the reactor was so small then why can't we just by default build the reactors underground? Isn't the underground a more stable area to begin with? Even during earthquakes? Reactor waste could be stored at the location permanently and if the reactor gets the 1 in a million accident then the whole place is already basically built in a cement/rock containment vessel. If a serious meltdown occurs then it would be easy to just start pouring lead or cement into the facility. Even if there was a small nuclear explosion we already know the impacts of underground nuclear explosions.

jabl 8y ago
Many of the current small reactor concepts are indeed designed to be installed below grade.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> why can't we just by default build the reactors underground? It would appear to carry an increased risk of hidden problems and groundwater poisoning. There might also be issues with corrosion and accessibility for maintenance. That said, I'm not ruling it out. A lesson these new approaches to nuclear engineering is that we never figured out the right defaults the last time around. We were too focussed on making bombs and submarines. > we already know the impacts of underground nuclear explosions Nuclear plants should never fail by way of nuclear explosion. If this is a possibility it is a bad reactor design.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  > Nuclear plants should never fail by way of nuclear explosion. If this is a possibility it is a bad reactor design. Fast reactors have always had this potential problem, since they require a much higher density of high enrichment material. A larger fast reactor might have a ton of plutonium in it; in an accident where fuel is melting and moving around unpredictably it's hard to prove that a prompt supercritical mass of Pu won't assemble somewhere. Edward Teller famously warned about this in 1967. This is one advantage of MSRs as fast reactors: the fuel is already dispersed in salt, so such rearrangement is less plausible.

DennisP 8y ago

No reason a bunch of small reactors can't be put together at one site. The reason for building small is just to reduce construction time risk, and maybe allow factory mass production.

qubax 8y ago

Also not a nuclear engineer, but "mini-nuclear" anything doesn't conjure up anything good for me either. Hopefully, unlike in the tech world, the nuclear world thinks about and implements safety first rather than as an after thought.