4 ms·

Security against malevolent actors? Having reactors everywhere seems like an invitation for disaster... edit: i am pro clean power and i believe nuclear waste

Security against malevolent actors? Having reactors everywhere seems like an invitation for disaster... edit: i am pro clean power and i believe nuclear waste can be stored safely; I just don't want to put town's at risk via under secured nuclear facilities.

XzAeRosho 3y ago
One could argue that large reactor plants make for easier targets since the surface area of attack vectors is much larger.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  One might also argue that 1000 units versus 1 (guessing) would be harder to keep track of.
  - topspin 3y ago
    There are rarely 1 conventional reactors on a site, although there are a few examples to the contrary. The largest sites have 6-8 reactors. Typically there are 2-4, which facilitates load management during outages. The good news from the security prospective is that SMRs will likely be similarly concentrated, just with greater numbers of reactors. They are highly unlikely to be sprinkled about willy nilly, despite the thinking of some. Siting is a major problem with all power generation and particularly with nuclear: getting a site approved is a major accomplishment involving no end of costly wheeling and dealing over many years. Although there are use cases, often championed as killer applications for SMR, such as very remote, undeveloped locations, I expect that for every 1 such isolated reactor actually deployed, 100 will be lined up in rows and columns at major reactor sites.
    - sgt101 3y ago
      A big consideration is grid structure, it's very expensive to create power distribution from generators into the infrastructure. There already exists grid infrastructure at old reactor sites, so I think it's very likely that they would be ideal candidates for SMR deployment.
      - topspin 3y ago
        Some fraction of existing coal and LNG sites, and their existing infrastructure, are also feasible. Larger sites are often quite distant from populations and have large perimeters.
    - SubiculumCode 3y ago
      Thank you for your thoughtful answer, and does assuage my concerns. Full speed ahead!
EasyMark 3y ago
Why wouldn't you locate a bunch in one location and make what is essentially a traditional plant? I don't think anyone with any common sense is talking about dropping 1 for every hundred houses or so in suburban chicago. There won't be any kids being like "yo dawg lets go climb that SMR after school"
Dennip 3y ago
It was my understanding that these would still be built more or less like conventional nuclear power plants. You just stick a whole bunch of SMRs in one location. All the site prep work, concrete, electrical grid connections, steam generators, water etc is in one place.

XzAeRosho 3y ago

One could argue that large reactor plants make for easier targets since the surface area of attack vectors is much larger.

SubiculumCode 3y ago
One might also argue that 1000 units versus 1 (guessing) would be harder to keep track of.
- topspin 3y ago
  There are rarely 1 conventional reactors on a site, although there are a few examples to the contrary. The largest sites have 6-8 reactors. Typically there are 2-4, which facilitates load management during outages. The good news from the security prospective is that SMRs will likely be similarly concentrated, just with greater numbers of reactors. They are highly unlikely to be sprinkled about willy nilly, despite the thinking of some. Siting is a major problem with all power generation and particularly with nuclear: getting a site approved is a major accomplishment involving no end of costly wheeling and dealing over many years. Although there are use cases, often championed as killer applications for SMR, such as very remote, undeveloped locations, I expect that for every 1 such isolated reactor actually deployed, 100 will be lined up in rows and columns at major reactor sites.
  - sgt101 3y ago
    A big consideration is grid structure, it's very expensive to create power distribution from generators into the infrastructure. There already exists grid infrastructure at old reactor sites, so I think it's very likely that they would be ideal candidates for SMR deployment.
    - topspin 3y ago
      Some fraction of existing coal and LNG sites, and their existing infrastructure, are also feasible. Larger sites are often quite distant from populations and have large perimeters.
  - SubiculumCode 3y ago
    Thank you for your thoughtful answer, and does assuage my concerns. Full speed ahead!

EasyMark 3y ago

Why wouldn't you locate a bunch in one location and make what is essentially a traditional plant? I don't think anyone with any common sense is talking about dropping 1 for every hundred houses or so in suburban chicago. There won't be any kids being like "yo dawg lets go climb that SMR after school"

Dennip 3y ago

It was my understanding that these would still be built more or less like conventional nuclear power plants. You just stick a whole bunch of SMRs in one location. All the site prep work, concrete, electrical grid connections, steam generators, water etc is in one place.