4 ms·

Another reason, as I have a moment to write... vulnerability to terrorist/military action. It's not enough to safeguard a plant against accidents. It needs to b

by beat 7y ago

Another reason, as I have a moment to write... vulnerability to terrorist/military action. It's not enough to safeguard a plant against accidents. It needs to be safeguarded from malice as well - including inside jobs (a knowledgeable operator manipulating the controls, with full authorization) and brute violence, which could be crashing a fully fueled airliner into it or attacking with a bunker-busting military drone. What happens if your nuclear plant is hit with a weapon designed to destroy a modern military bunker complex? (Which could be a state actor, or an act of terrorism that somehow takes over a drone.) Now, what happens when you blow up a windmill?

AstralStorm 7y ago
If someone blows up a reactor of this design, it will start shutting down. Meltdown shouldn't happen even if the core is badly hit, but additional cooling besides the pool may be needed. Safer than Fukushima which withstood a tsunami and operational failure with little environmental damage. (Though big economical.) The more important risk is of theft of fissible material.
- beat 7y ago
  I think I mentioned in my OP that I appreciate the eye to modern safety here. But the proponents of nuclear as a (or THE) solution generally aren't talking about this design. They're either talking more of the same-old reactor designs that are decidedly not safe for these sorts of attacks, or near-vaporware like thorium that no one actually builds in the real world. I think safety from anything short of a nuclear attack, including insider sabotage, is essential. And the only way to do that is to build a reactor that can't fail even if its containment is destroyed. I haven't seen that design yet. edit: I'm actually less worried about the theft of fissionable material, as commercial reactor-grade materials aren't anywhere near bomb-grade, and would need a lot of refinement (a dedicated facility) to make bombs. It's mostly a problem for state-level actors like Iran that will shuffle fissionable material from their civilian reactor projects over into secret military projects. fwiw, the reason Iran even has substantial uranium is because, in the 1970s, the US was merrily building a half-dozen civilian reactors for our good friend the Shah of Iran. So when the revolution happened in 1979, those all fell into the hands of our new most hated enemies. And 40 years later, they still have all that uranium and leftover know-how and equipment to play with. Which gets back to my whole "Do we build reactors in Yemen?" question.

by beat 7y ago

AstralStorm 7y ago

If someone blows up a reactor of this design, it will start shutting down. Meltdown shouldn't happen even if the core is badly hit, but additional cooling besides the pool may be needed. Safer than Fukushima which withstood a tsunami and operational failure with little environmental damage. (Though big economical.) The more important risk is of theft of fissible material.

beat 7y ago
I think I mentioned in my OP that I appreciate the eye to modern safety here. But the proponents of nuclear as a (or THE) solution generally aren't talking about this design. They're either talking more of the same-old reactor designs that are decidedly not safe for these sorts of attacks, or near-vaporware like thorium that no one actually builds in the real world. I think safety from anything short of a nuclear attack, including insider sabotage, is essential. And the only way to do that is to build a reactor that can't fail even if its containment is destroyed. I haven't seen that design yet. edit: I'm actually less worried about the theft of fissionable material, as commercial reactor-grade materials aren't anywhere near bomb-grade, and would need a lot of refinement (a dedicated facility) to make bombs. It's mostly a problem for state-level actors like Iran that will shuffle fissionable material from their civilian reactor projects over into secret military projects. fwiw, the reason Iran even has substantial uranium is because, in the 1970s, the US was merrily building a half-dozen civilian reactors for our good friend the Shah of Iran. So when the revolution happened in 1979, those all fell into the hands of our new most hated enemies. And 40 years later, they still have all that uranium and leftover know-how and equipment to play with. Which gets back to my whole "Do we build reactors in Yemen?" question.