4 ms·
There might also be less security needed if you have dozens of smaller reactors. You have to secure the one because losing it affects so much. If losing a coupl
by kbenson 7y ago
There might also be less security needed if you have dozens of smaller reactors. You have to secure the one because losing it affects so much. If losing a couple is not as big a problem, you an rely more on the redundancy of the system than on the redundancy of the component.
This depends on the threat model to some degree, but there's security in knowing that it's vastly harder for a threat to affect multiple targets at once, no matter the threat.
- jacobedawson 7y agoIsn't this just the same scenario as we currently have, just with different underlying technology? Do coal-powered plants have additional security outside of a few private guards?
- caymanjim 7y agoThere's not much security around existing power plants, even nuclear ones. There's vastly more security around a casino or even a large shopping mall. I don't think it's a limiting factor, especially for non-weaponizable fusion reagents.
- numpad0 7y agoFor fission reactors that is not the case, a fission core can be as small as few liters in volume without losing power, but are artificially kept to less dense forms, such that runaway supercritical events(intended or not) can only result in Fukushima and not a Nagasaki. That might be different for this fusion device, but for outdated looking fission reactors it’s artificial dilution for NPT purposes and by no way a technological limitation.