3 ms·
>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,
by 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 agoPresumably 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 agoA 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 agoConsidering the state of IoT (eg IoT botnets), I am not sure this will be reassuring to most. Unless it was sarcasm?
- waldothedog 3y agoI believe the comment was intended to emphasize the issues created by mass scale remote mgmt
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nukeman 3y agoI 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 agoWhat'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/