3 ms·
Right 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
by Manuel_D 6y ago
Right 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 6y 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 6y 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?"