4 ms·

I'm not seeing the stories on this mention the risk of widely distributing radioactive materials in these mini plants. How hard will it be for black hats to ext

I'm not seeing the stories on this mention the risk of widely distributing radioactive materials in these mini plants. How hard will it be for black hats to extract it for a dirty bomb? How vulnerable is it to being bombed directly? Is it cost effective to surround them with enough concrete and rebar to keep the nasty stuff inside?

mechhacker 7y ago
Another article mentions their site permit is for INL: https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/10/advanced-reactor-developer-oklo-receives-site-use-permit-from-energy-department/ https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/10/advanced-reactor-devel... They'll be using all the existing (and likely expanded) security and other infrastructure at that site. If you've ever been to a running plant you would notice the high security, including heavily armed guards. You can't just walk into these places and take stuff.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  The problem for a 1.5 MW commercial reactor is that paying security guards and building physical barriers very quickly becomes cost prohibitive. If you have a 1000 MW plant, it's doable. But at 1.5 MW it's really hard to run 3 shifts of guards and operators cheaply. Some have considered significantly undergrounding nuclear plants to help deal with this, but then cost of excavation gets way up there.
  - simonh 7y ago
    Which is why, as mechhacker pointed out, they are using a site with existing security arrangements. That’s a common approach for plans to use mini reactors like these.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      Makes all the sense in the world for reactor development and testing. For commercial deployment it'd be nice to understand the basic plan.
      - ForHackernews 7y ago
        Could you power a datacenter with a few of these? They'd typically have security already.
        acidburnNSA 7y ago
        Absolutley. There are a lot of good reasons to look into this. Most tech companies operating data centers want to be low carbon and need large scale, long term reliable backup power.
  - bsder 7y ago
    > The problem for a 1.5 MW commercial reactor is that paying security guards and building physical barriers very quickly becomes cost prohibitive. It's not clear that we won't have to do this anyhow as shooting transformers with rifles is a problem, too: https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2016/09/26/jla-thousands-lose-power-after-vandal-shoots-main-transformer/ https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2016/09/26/jla-tho... https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-grid-attack-20140211-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-grid-attack-20140211-st...
    - PaulHoule 7y ago
      When I was a teen I was working at Burger King and the power went out because somebody plinked a transformer on the West Side of Manchester, NH. We got to eat everything on the heat chute, and watched a drunk driver crash in an intersection with a non-working traffic light.
    - omegabravo 7y ago
      there is a substantial difference in severity between a transformer being compromised and a fission reactor being compromised
      - bsder 7y ago
        Probably less than you think. A lot of transformers used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the insulating oil. Those tend to contaminate groundwater and degrade on the same timescales as radioactivity. We have, fortunately, banned the usage of such things for quite a while. But, if a transformer hasn't been replaced in the last 20 years, it's probably hazardous.
  - Proven 7y ago
    None said it has to be 1.5MWh, it can be 5 or 10 x 1.5.
acidburnNSA 7y ago
They'll likely have to answer the airplane impact question directly during licensing. A combination of steel mesh structures and below-grade can help, as can the fact that this reactor is very low power and low burnup (meaning the radiological source term will be fairly low for worst-case). But it will still be important and non-trivial to physically protect the plant. This is a fundamental challenge for small reactors, and is part of the reason reactors got big in the first place.

mechhacker 7y ago

Another article mentions their site permit is for INL: https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/10/advanced-reactor-developer-oklo-receives-site-use-permit-from-energy-department/ https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/10/advanced-reactor-devel... They'll be using all the existing (and likely expanded) security and other infrastructure at that site. If you've ever been to a running plant you would notice the high security, including heavily armed guards. You can't just walk into these places and take stuff.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
The problem for a 1.5 MW commercial reactor is that paying security guards and building physical barriers very quickly becomes cost prohibitive. If you have a 1000 MW plant, it's doable. But at 1.5 MW it's really hard to run 3 shifts of guards and operators cheaply. Some have considered significantly undergrounding nuclear plants to help deal with this, but then cost of excavation gets way up there.
- simonh 7y ago
  Which is why, as mechhacker pointed out, they are using a site with existing security arrangements. That’s a common approach for plans to use mini reactors like these.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Makes all the sense in the world for reactor development and testing. For commercial deployment it'd be nice to understand the basic plan.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      Could you power a datacenter with a few of these? They'd typically have security already.
      - acidburnNSA 7y ago
        Absolutley. There are a lot of good reasons to look into this. Most tech companies operating data centers want to be low carbon and need large scale, long term reliable backup power.
- bsder 7y ago
  > The problem for a 1.5 MW commercial reactor is that paying security guards and building physical barriers very quickly becomes cost prohibitive. It's not clear that we won't have to do this anyhow as shooting transformers with rifles is a problem, too: https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2016/09/26/jla-thousands-lose-power-after-vandal-shoots-main-transformer/ https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2016/09/26/jla-tho... https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-grid-attack-20140211-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-grid-attack-20140211-st...
  - PaulHoule 7y ago
    When I was a teen I was working at Burger King and the power went out because somebody plinked a transformer on the West Side of Manchester, NH. We got to eat everything on the heat chute, and watched a drunk driver crash in an intersection with a non-working traffic light.
  - omegabravo 7y ago
    there is a substantial difference in severity between a transformer being compromised and a fission reactor being compromised
    - bsder 7y ago
      Probably less than you think. A lot of transformers used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the insulating oil. Those tend to contaminate groundwater and degrade on the same timescales as radioactivity. We have, fortunately, banned the usage of such things for quite a while. But, if a transformer hasn't been replaced in the last 20 years, it's probably hazardous.
- Proven 7y ago
  None said it has to be 1.5MWh, it can be 5 or 10 x 1.5.

acidburnNSA 7y ago

They'll likely have to answer the airplane impact question directly during licensing. A combination of steel mesh structures and below-grade can help, as can the fact that this reactor is very low power and low burnup (meaning the radiological source term will be fairly low for worst-case). But it will still be important and non-trivial to physically protect the plant. This is a fundamental challenge for small reactors, and is part of the reason reactors got big in the first place.