4 ms·

A plan C still sounds like a good idea.

by jacobn 5y ago

lultimouomo 5y ago
Blow it up and let the local population deal with the fallout? Backlash would be huge, yet I think it could happen, in a "Oops we fucked up, see ya!" situation.
- masklinn 5y ago
  No need to blow it out, I would hope an SMR (or MMR) would be designed with full containment in case of meltdown, so you can trigger a meltdown on your way out, and whoever arrives gets a bunch of corium encased in heavy shielding.
  - idontwantthis 5y ago
    I do like the idea of leaving behind an object that's not dangerous, it's just so incredibly heavy that it greatly inconveniences the enemy.
    - azernik 5y ago
      Corium is absolutely dangerous - it take heavy equipment and time to break it apart and use it, and the stuff tends to be so massively radioactive it'll kill most gear and people who try to do the job. The shielding, in this case, serves to protect innocent bystanders who aren't trying to pull the thing apart. Though I would still not want to live close by - intentional "safe" meltdowns are not a well-explored technology.
      - idontwantthis 5y ago
        Would there be corium though? Isn't that caused by destruction of the container? Seems like there would just be melted Uranium very slowly cooling off.
        azernik 5y ago
        Corium is "everything in the reactor melted together". It doesn't have to include the containment vessel. For example, in Chernobyl, the corium didn't include any of the containment vessel, because RBMKs funny have containment vessels. For something this small the proportion of uranium would probably be higher, but it'd still be a radioactive slurry of fuel, decay products, control systems, cooling loop, and internal structural materials.
        azernik 5y ago
        *because RBMKs don't have containment vessels
- dmingod666 5y ago
  zero consequences, just follow the Bikini Island pattern nobody bats an eyelid.
credit_guy 5y ago
A plan C (or maybe A) would be to use the TRISO fuel [1],[2],[3], and it's almost certain that this project will use it (at this point nothing is final, this paper is just a call for comments). This fuel is small grains the size of a poppy seed. If you need to leave in a hurry, you just put the fuel in some boxes, maybe mixed with some sand, and load the boxes in an airplane and fly away. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel#TRISO_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel#TRISO_fuel [2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/x-energy-tier-i-awardee https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/x-energy-tier-i-awardee [3] https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-reactor-technologies https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-reactor-technologies

A plan C still sounds like a good idea.

by jacobn 5y ago

A plan C still sounds like a good idea.

Blow it up and let the local population deal with the fallout? Backlash would be huge, yet I think it could happen, in a "Oops we fucked up, see ya!" situation.

masklinn 5y ago
No need to blow it out, I would hope an SMR (or MMR) would be designed with full containment in case of meltdown, so you can trigger a meltdown on your way out, and whoever arrives gets a bunch of corium encased in heavy shielding.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  I do like the idea of leaving behind an object that's not dangerous, it's just so incredibly heavy that it greatly inconveniences the enemy.
  - azernik 5y ago
    Corium is absolutely dangerous - it take heavy equipment and time to break it apart and use it, and the stuff tends to be so massively radioactive it'll kill most gear and people who try to do the job. The shielding, in this case, serves to protect innocent bystanders who aren't trying to pull the thing apart. Though I would still not want to live close by - intentional "safe" meltdowns are not a well-explored technology.
    - idontwantthis 5y ago
      Would there be corium though? Isn't that caused by destruction of the container? Seems like there would just be melted Uranium very slowly cooling off.
      - azernik 5y ago
        Corium is "everything in the reactor melted together". It doesn't have to include the containment vessel. For example, in Chernobyl, the corium didn't include any of the containment vessel, because RBMKs funny have containment vessels. For something this small the proportion of uranium would probably be higher, but it'd still be a radioactive slurry of fuel, decay products, control systems, cooling loop, and internal structural materials.
        azernik 5y ago
        *because RBMKs don't have containment vessels
dmingod666 5y ago
zero consequences, just follow the Bikini Island pattern nobody bats an eyelid.

credit_guy 5y ago

A plan C (or maybe A) would be to use the TRISO fuel [1],[2],[3], and it's almost certain that this project will use it (at this point nothing is final, this paper is just a call for comments). This fuel is small grains the size of a poppy seed. If you need to leave in a hurry, you just put the fuel in some boxes, maybe mixed with some sand, and load the boxes in an airplane and fly away. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel#TRISO_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel#TRISO_fuel [2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/x-energy-tier-i-awardee https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/x-energy-tier-i-awardee [3] https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-reactor-technologies https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-reactor-technologies