4 ms·

How are they planning to handle security? The rest of the thread mentions they intend to use these in very remote regions (northern Canada and such). While that

How are they planning to handle security? The rest of the thread mentions they intend to use these in very remote regions (northern Canada and such). While that makes a lot of sense practically, doesn't it make security kind of tricky? I get that they'd be carefully remotely monitored, but it seems like a realistic possibility that a team of people could break in (the renders show these in shipping containers surrounded by a simple double layer of barbed wire fencing), steal the radioactive material, and escape before security arrives. I get that we store actual nuclear bombs in unmanned remote sites (missile silos), but those are operated by the literal military and secure underground. These would realistically be operated by private companies, and are just shipping containers sitting on the surface.

mike_hearn 4y ago
They don't have to be on the surface. Infrastructure is often buried underground even for non-security related reasons.
zizee 4y ago
Someone wrote in another thread: > It uses TRISO fuel, which are fissionable materials enclosed in a carbon and ceramic shell that's extremely tough and can handle far higher temperatures than are present in a reactor without melting. Each grain of fuel is about the size of a poppy seed, with the majority of the seed being the ceramic shell. It's not a dense fuel. This stops issues of radioactive material leaching into groundwater, and also makes it quite difficult to use the fuel for nefarious purposes (like a dirty bomb). Someone would need to separate the fuel from the shell, not a trivial thing to do. All this to say that it's not super attractive for terrorist types. Also, remember that whilst they talk about using them in remote areas, it's mostly about being "remote to other infrastructure", not "remote from all people". These things will be installed in small regional towns / mine sites etc. Places where a town sized number of people will be. So it's not like it will be hours away from any first responder. Finally, these can be secured pretty well physically. They won't be easy to move, or cut into, or siphon out the material, at least not in a smash-and-grab type scenario. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robust-nuclear-fuel-earth https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robu... edit: I wouldn't say they are risk free, just not as big a risk as it first sounds locating a nuclear reactor out in the middle of nowhere :-) edit2: I'm by no means an expert, but I really liked this video on the topic on the benefits of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). I really love the concept, especially their mass produced, regularly rotated/retired nature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYnqJ4VnRM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYnqJ4VnRM8
- ipdashc 4y ago
  That makes sense. Thanks!
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  It's shit like this: > In 2009, this improved TRISO fuel set an international record by achieving a 19% maximum burnup during a three-year test at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). This is nearly double the previous mark set by the Germans in the 1980s and is three times the burnup that current light-water fuels can achieve—demonstrating its long-life capability. That makes the entire industry seem like a bunch of liars and grifters. Tripling the burnup when you're increasing the amount of U235 6x isn't an improvement, it's a step backwards. It uses 2x the uranium and almost 3x the enrichment. Just present the fuel honestly on its actual merits rather than telling five lies and half-truths and one real advantage.
  - zizee 4y ago
    Sorry, I'm not quite following you. Could you please ELIA5? (No snark intended)
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      They're implying it resulted in 3x the fuel economy (20% burnup) when in reality it is half by hiding the important figures (20% enrichment rather than 3.5%, and it adds a lot of other mass to the fuel that is difficult to remove when you need to store it). So that you'll assume that the bit they didn't mention is normal rather than very unusual. An analogue would be advertising a new car that gets 150mpg, but not mentioning the fuel it uses is a special exotic fuel not made in many existing refineries that requires 6x as much oil and you need 9 gallons of non-fuel to run through the engine for every gallon rather than 0.2. Every single statistic nuclear proponents cite that can be easily checked in a few minutes is either technically true but designed to mislead like this one, or an outright lie. It makes it very hard to believe the things that cannot be easily checked. In all likelihood one or more of the SMR concepts around is safe and economically viable enough to fill an important niche, but when all information they mention turns out to be lies it's kinda hard to trust.
Faint 4y ago
You would still need big equipment to do that, you can't just break in and "take the fuel", it's deadly taken straight out of active reactor. Probably easier to just truck the whole container.
imhoguy 4y ago
You may mix it with other public services which need some security already - remote airport, forest guard house, polar lab etc.

mike_hearn 4y ago

They don't have to be on the surface. Infrastructure is often buried underground even for non-security related reasons.

zizee 4y ago

Someone wrote in another thread: > It uses TRISO fuel, which are fissionable materials enclosed in a carbon and ceramic shell that's extremely tough and can handle far higher temperatures than are present in a reactor without melting. Each grain of fuel is about the size of a poppy seed, with the majority of the seed being the ceramic shell. It's not a dense fuel. This stops issues of radioactive material leaching into groundwater, and also makes it quite difficult to use the fuel for nefarious purposes (like a dirty bomb). Someone would need to separate the fuel from the shell, not a trivial thing to do. All this to say that it's not super attractive for terrorist types. Also, remember that whilst they talk about using them in remote areas, it's mostly about being "remote to other infrastructure", not "remote from all people". These things will be installed in small regional towns / mine sites etc. Places where a town sized number of people will be. So it's not like it will be hours away from any first responder. Finally, these can be secured pretty well physically. They won't be easy to move, or cut into, or siphon out the material, at least not in a smash-and-grab type scenario. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robust-nuclear-fuel-earth https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robu... edit: I wouldn't say they are risk free, just not as big a risk as it first sounds locating a nuclear reactor out in the middle of nowhere :-) edit2: I'm by no means an expert, but I really liked this video on the topic on the benefits of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). I really love the concept, especially their mass produced, regularly rotated/retired nature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYnqJ4VnRM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYnqJ4VnRM8

ipdashc 4y ago
That makes sense. Thanks!
Schroedingersat 4y ago
It's shit like this: > In 2009, this improved TRISO fuel set an international record by achieving a 19% maximum burnup during a three-year test at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). This is nearly double the previous mark set by the Germans in the 1980s and is three times the burnup that current light-water fuels can achieve—demonstrating its long-life capability. That makes the entire industry seem like a bunch of liars and grifters. Tripling the burnup when you're increasing the amount of U235 6x isn't an improvement, it's a step backwards. It uses 2x the uranium and almost 3x the enrichment. Just present the fuel honestly on its actual merits rather than telling five lies and half-truths and one real advantage.
- zizee 4y ago
  Sorry, I'm not quite following you. Could you please ELIA5? (No snark intended)
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    They're implying it resulted in 3x the fuel economy (20% burnup) when in reality it is half by hiding the important figures (20% enrichment rather than 3.5%, and it adds a lot of other mass to the fuel that is difficult to remove when you need to store it). So that you'll assume that the bit they didn't mention is normal rather than very unusual. An analogue would be advertising a new car that gets 150mpg, but not mentioning the fuel it uses is a special exotic fuel not made in many existing refineries that requires 6x as much oil and you need 9 gallons of non-fuel to run through the engine for every gallon rather than 0.2. Every single statistic nuclear proponents cite that can be easily checked in a few minutes is either technically true but designed to mislead like this one, or an outright lie. It makes it very hard to believe the things that cannot be easily checked. In all likelihood one or more of the SMR concepts around is safe and economically viable enough to fill an important niche, but when all information they mention turns out to be lies it's kinda hard to trust.

Faint 4y ago

You would still need big equipment to do that, you can't just break in and "take the fuel", it's deadly taken straight out of active reactor. Probably easier to just truck the whole container.

imhoguy 4y ago

You may mix it with other public services which need some security already - remote airport, forest guard house, polar lab etc.