5 ms·

Although I am an advocate for nuclear power, I am a little worried about small reactors, which will inevitably warrant less attention and care. The smaller the

Although I am an advocate for nuclear power, I am a little worried about small reactors, which will inevitably warrant less attention and care. The smaller they are, there more there are, the more there is a risk of mistakes and dissemination to bad actors I think.

remarkEon 3y ago
>which will inevitably warrant less attention and care. Can you explain why this would be the case? I suppose you might need less manpower to run the reactor, which might mean fewer total man hours. But does that necessarily mean it gets less attention and care?
- discodave 3y ago
  Presumably part of the appeal of a small reactor is it's cost. If you're trying to do things on a budget, then there's smaller budget for safety.
  - nohankyou 3y ago
    A large amount of small reactors would most likely need to be remotely managed. Think of it as a very large IoT toaster just begging to be played with.
    - ElFitz 3y ago
      Considering the state of IoT (eg IoT botnets), I am not sure this will be reassuring to most. Unless it was sarcasm?
      - waldothedog 3y ago
        I believe the comment was intended to emphasize the issues created by mass scale remote mgmt
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - nukeman 3y ago
      I know your comment was sarcastic, but today I was wondering if you could do remote control via SIPRNet or JWICS (military computer networks) and avoid the issues associated with conventional controls.
  - nomel 3y ago
    What's so unreasonable about this comment? Could someone explain? I think, in other words, the cost to guard and physically secure a reactor doesn't depend on the size of the reactor, just the existence of the reactor [1]. A large reactor would require the same defense as a small one. Note that the majority of the cost of nuclear is the people [2]. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/security/faq-force-on-force.html https://www.nrc.gov/security/faq-force-on-force.html [2] https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/ https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/
callalex 3y ago
The US military has been safely running small mobile nuclear reactors for many human generations at this point.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Until n=0 goes to 1. As the Concorde. Like, this sudden optimism concerning nuclear power is a bit worrying. Lowest bidder building small plants everywhere. What a nightmare ... I really don't get where all this trust for the competence of others comes from.
  - callalex 3y ago
    But it’s not sudden optimism at all, it’s a multi-generational proven record.
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      They work until they don't and threaten to spread invisible poison that can make a x miles radius inhabitable. A "sorry but not sorry you choose to live next to it" event. And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up?
      - nomel 3y ago
        To be fair, current power generation also spreads bad things, that will slowly make large areas of the planet uninhabitable. I don't think it's fair to think so little of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They have standards. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they will give up their standards of safety.
      - nemo 3y ago
        >And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up? No one's said "we" are "supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere." This one's being installed at a military base. It should have adequate security.
mrtksn 3y ago
I have similar reservations for proliferation of the nuclear energy as a whole. Currently, these devices need careful handling and we appear to have enough smart and serious people to do just that however I don't trust having enough of those people if we had a reactor in every city. But on the other hand we have managed to have air travel(which also relies on meticulous maintenance and operations) very safe despite sharp increase of flight over the years, so it must be possible to find a way to make it work.
- kibwen 3y ago
  The relative safety of airlines is solely, solely, solely because of stringent safety regulation. If you see anyone arguing that nuclear power could be cheaper if we just waived regulation, you can safely disregard their opinion as hopelessly myopic.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Agree, the regulations would probably be part of the safe nuclear energy proliferation - if it happens.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    However, Boeing doesn't have to fight off 50 lawsuits and mobs of chanting protesters every time they want to roll a new plane off the line.
  - theragra 3y ago
    But air travel is usually much safer then other means. Similarly, nuclear power is also safer than many other sources, from what I know (not much). Isn't it a bit absurd? Why we require this high level of scrutiny for these industries, but not for others, where our effort can get higher results?
  - nukeman 3y ago
    As a blank check, sure. But there are specific regulations that could be removed. For example, the U.S. prohibits automatic load following equipment in nuclear plants, while the French allow it. It would allow for a control room operator to not have to constantly micromanage the reactor.
houseatrielah 3y ago
There's a big push for nuclear now, I'm curious, is there a hypothetical series of events that even an reasonable nuclear advocate is concerned about? They are mostly not too worried about Fukushima water for example.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  The Fukushima water issue is a good test case. Anyone informed knows it is harmless.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  The water being discharged into the Ocean from Fukushima isn't problematic but the cleanup from the entire debacle there is going to take somewhere around a trillion dollars and last 30+ years. There's still a multi thousand acre exclusion zone... Up until a few years ago, there was a large nuke plant with a history safety incidents, owned and operated by a company implicated in several bribery scandals, directly upwind from NYC. Nuclear technology, operated by responsible operators in well-designed plants is extremely safe. Unfortunately we live in a world where Nuke plant operators literally bribe legislators for billion dollar bailouts and the companies responsible for operating our fleet are the worst profit-maximizing ghouls you can imagine. It's the essence of John Glenn's quote about the Apollo missions, "My life depended on 150,000 pieces of equipment, each bought from the lowest bidder." https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-speaker-arrested-republican/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-... https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/holtec-under-criminal-investigation-eda-says-in-since-redacted-court-filing-1294345 https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/...
  - houseatrielah 3y ago
    That plus sign(+) may be doing some heavy lifting if Chernobyl is any guide -- 20,000 years to go.
- phil21 3y ago
  I like to think I'm a reasonable advocate. I think the strongest anti-nuclear case is one of civilization collapse (fast or slowly) and instability - what happens when say, Russia, can no longer afford or has the capability to maintain these plants? Even shutting them down leaves huge massive problems for multiple generations. Then you have the waste storage issue which is largely a political issue. This needs to be solved before nuclear in the US can really be seen as realistic - imo.
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_nuclear_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_nuclear_reactor It appears to not require active safety systems. And we are talking about Alaska.
crmd 3y ago
I would much rather see a small number of highly secure mega baseload power plants distributed across the country and run like mainframes vs distributed computing.
- imtringued 3y ago
  That's $35 billion plus tip, please.

remarkEon 3y ago

>which will inevitably warrant less attention and care. Can you explain why this would be the case? I suppose you might need less manpower to run the reactor, which might mean fewer total man hours. But does that necessarily mean it gets less attention and care?

discodave 3y ago
Presumably part of the appeal of a small reactor is it's cost. If you're trying to do things on a budget, then there's smaller budget for safety.
- nohankyou 3y ago
  A large amount of small reactors would most likely need to be remotely managed. Think of it as a very large IoT toaster just begging to be played with.
  - ElFitz 3y ago
    Considering the state of IoT (eg IoT botnets), I am not sure this will be reassuring to most. Unless it was sarcasm?
    - waldothedog 3y ago
      I believe the comment was intended to emphasize the issues created by mass scale remote mgmt
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nukeman 3y ago
    I know your comment was sarcastic, but today I was wondering if you could do remote control via SIPRNet or JWICS (military computer networks) and avoid the issues associated with conventional controls.
- nomel 3y ago
  What's so unreasonable about this comment? Could someone explain? I think, in other words, the cost to guard and physically secure a reactor doesn't depend on the size of the reactor, just the existence of the reactor [1]. A large reactor would require the same defense as a small one. Note that the majority of the cost of nuclear is the people [2]. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/security/faq-force-on-force.html https://www.nrc.gov/security/faq-force-on-force.html [2] https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/ https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/

callalex 3y ago

The US military has been safely running small mobile nuclear reactors for many human generations at this point.

rightbyte 3y ago
Until n=0 goes to 1. As the Concorde. Like, this sudden optimism concerning nuclear power is a bit worrying. Lowest bidder building small plants everywhere. What a nightmare ... I really don't get where all this trust for the competence of others comes from.
- callalex 3y ago
  But it’s not sudden optimism at all, it’s a multi-generational proven record.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    They work until they don't and threaten to spread invisible poison that can make a x miles radius inhabitable. A "sorry but not sorry you choose to live next to it" event. And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up?
    - nomel 3y ago
      To be fair, current power generation also spreads bad things, that will slowly make large areas of the planet uninhabitable. I don't think it's fair to think so little of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They have standards. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they will give up their standards of safety.
    - nemo 3y ago
      >And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up? No one's said "we" are "supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere." This one's being installed at a military base. It should have adequate security.

mrtksn 3y ago

I have similar reservations for proliferation of the nuclear energy as a whole. Currently, these devices need careful handling and we appear to have enough smart and serious people to do just that however I don't trust having enough of those people if we had a reactor in every city. But on the other hand we have managed to have air travel(which also relies on meticulous maintenance and operations) very safe despite sharp increase of flight over the years, so it must be possible to find a way to make it work.

kibwen 3y ago
The relative safety of airlines is solely, solely, solely because of stringent safety regulation. If you see anyone arguing that nuclear power could be cheaper if we just waived regulation, you can safely disregard their opinion as hopelessly myopic.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Agree, the regulations would probably be part of the safe nuclear energy proliferation - if it happens.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  However, Boeing doesn't have to fight off 50 lawsuits and mobs of chanting protesters every time they want to roll a new plane off the line.
- theragra 3y ago
  But air travel is usually much safer then other means. Similarly, nuclear power is also safer than many other sources, from what I know (not much). Isn't it a bit absurd? Why we require this high level of scrutiny for these industries, but not for others, where our effort can get higher results?
- nukeman 3y ago
  As a blank check, sure. But there are specific regulations that could be removed. For example, the U.S. prohibits automatic load following equipment in nuclear plants, while the French allow it. It would allow for a control room operator to not have to constantly micromanage the reactor.

houseatrielah 3y ago

There's a big push for nuclear now, I'm curious, is there a hypothetical series of events that even an reasonable nuclear advocate is concerned about? They are mostly not too worried about Fukushima water for example.

BurningFrog 3y ago
The Fukushima water issue is a good test case. Anyone informed knows it is harmless.
mikeyouse 3y ago
The water being discharged into the Ocean from Fukushima isn't problematic but the cleanup from the entire debacle there is going to take somewhere around a trillion dollars and last 30+ years. There's still a multi thousand acre exclusion zone... Up until a few years ago, there was a large nuke plant with a history safety incidents, owned and operated by a company implicated in several bribery scandals, directly upwind from NYC. Nuclear technology, operated by responsible operators in well-designed plants is extremely safe. Unfortunately we live in a world where Nuke plant operators literally bribe legislators for billion dollar bailouts and the companies responsible for operating our fleet are the worst profit-maximizing ghouls you can imagine. It's the essence of John Glenn's quote about the Apollo missions, "My life depended on 150,000 pieces of equipment, each bought from the lowest bidder." https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-speaker-arrested-republican/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-... https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/holtec-under-criminal-investigation-eda-says-in-since-redacted-court-filing-1294345 https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/...
- houseatrielah 3y ago
  That plus sign(+) may be doing some heavy lifting if Chernobyl is any guide -- 20,000 years to go.
phil21 3y ago
I like to think I'm a reasonable advocate. I think the strongest anti-nuclear case is one of civilization collapse (fast or slowly) and instability - what happens when say, Russia, can no longer afford or has the capability to maintain these plants? Even shutting them down leaves huge massive problems for multiple generations. Then you have the waste storage issue which is largely a political issue. This needs to be solved before nuclear in the US can really be seen as realistic - imo.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_nuclear_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_nuclear_reactor It appears to not require active safety systems. And we are talking about Alaska.

crmd 3y ago

I would much rather see a small number of highly secure mega baseload power plants distributed across the country and run like mainframes vs distributed computing.

imtringued 3y ago
That's $35 billion plus tip, please.