3 ms·
How exactly are you going to steal the fuel from inside the reactor if it is running? Only option is to cut into the reactor (and thus destroy it). And now you
by doikor 5y ago
How exactly are you going to steal the fuel from inside the reactor if it is running?
Only option is to cut into the reactor (and thus destroy it). And now you have just cut a hole into a nuclear reactor that is ON and killed yourself (or triggered a whole bunch of safety features stopping the nuclear reaction and maybe not kill the attacker but for sure notified the authorities)
Basically such a reactor is started once installed and never turned off until end of its lifetime.
- anarazel 5y ago> And now you have just cut a hole into a nuclear reactor that is ON and killed yourself (or triggered a whole bunch of safety features stopping the nuclear reaction and maybe not kill the attacker but for sure notified the authorities) So somebody can strap a bunch of explosives to it and cause a good bit of quite radioactive material to spill (I don't mean a chain reaction, just the normal radioactive waste). You don't need to steal it if your goal is to have a dirty bomb.
- dTal 5y agoThat's certainly a concern - but if we're stipulating people with huge amounts of explosives and ill-will, they can probably also do a lot of damage without the nuclear reactor anyway.
- Manuel_D 5y agoThe spill is contained within the containment facility. I guess they could use enough explosives to also breach the containment facility. But if they're capable of that, they probably have the means to do even more damage by targeting a skyscraper. Multiple orders of magnitude more people died in 9/11 than in Fukushima.
- anarazel 5y agoWe're talking microreactors here? There's no huge containment facility. They're not all that large.
- Manuel_D 5y agoRight there's no huge containment facility, but there's still a concrete dome over the reactor isn't there? I'm still not seeing how our hypothetical terrorist A-team inflicts more damage by attacking a microreactor versus attacking a populated area directly.
- anarazel 5y ago> Right there's no huge containment facility, but there's still a concrete dome over the reactor isn't there? I'm pretty sure these aren't intended to be used with a concrete dome or anything as substantial as that. Look at the pictures in the article, and some of the referenced benefits: Can be used for emergency response to help restore power to areas hit by natural disasters - "Can be quickly removed from sites and exchanged for new ones" - "Can be used for emergency response to help restore power to areas hit by natural disasters" That doesn't really mesh with needing to build a concrete dome on site.
- Manuel_D 5y agoOr it can be installed underground, as the same website has proposed in other articles on small reactors: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-key-resilient-features-small-modular-reactors https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-key-resilient-features-... It's a lot easier to dig a pit than build a giant 5 meter thick dome. Regardless, the point remains: the question that needs to be asked isn't "are these sites vulnerable to attack" it's "can an attacker inflict more damage here than through conventional means?"