3 ms·

I believe that after 9/11, we required all new nuclear plants to be able to withstand the impact of a 737. So it's just a little more complicated.

AlexAndScripts 2y ago
Perhaps it could be underground, either in an excavated area or a natural cave?
bialpio 2y ago
How much (little?) radioactive material would there have to be inside the SMR for an impact of a 737 into the neighborhood to be more devastating than the release of the radioactive material?
- consumer451 2y ago
  Well, this doesn't answer your question, but there is also the issue of waste storage. In light water reactors, that's stored on-site for a long time. This research appears to indicate that with SMRs, this is actually a bigger issue. > Small modular reactors (SMRs), proposed as the future of nuclear energy, have purported cost and safety advantages over existing gigawatt-scale light water reactors (LWRs). However, few studies have assessed the implications of SMRs for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The low-, intermediate-, and high-level waste stream characterization presented here reveals that SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste. Although the analysis focuses on only three of dozens of proposed SMR designs, the intrinsically higher neutron leakage associated with SMRs suggests that most designs are inferior to LWRs with respect to the generation, management, and final disposal of key radionuclides in nuclear waste. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119
amluto 2y ago
Off the top of my head, if I had to protect a shipping container sized object from a 737, I would bury it. Dig a hole maybe the size of a residential swimming pool, build some drainage and some concrete walls with enough space to allow the container to get back out, stick the container in, and backfill outside the walls. Put a lid on it and cover it with local soil. As a bonus: anyone trying to steal it would need an excavator of some sort. Or build an underground parking lot, park the SMR in it, put a serious door in front, and use the space above it for something else. Conventional construction underground, especially of something complex, is expensive. But much of the point of an SMR is that it’s built off site and then installed. Driving a container down a ramp or lowering one off a crane is straightforward.
- consumer451 2y ago
  I was thinking underground as well, but don't forget about the waste storage area/infrastructure: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40540802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40540802

AlexAndScripts 2y ago

Perhaps it could be underground, either in an excavated area or a natural cave?

bialpio 2y ago

How much (little?) radioactive material would there have to be inside the SMR for an impact of a 737 into the neighborhood to be more devastating than the release of the radioactive material?

consumer451 2y ago
Well, this doesn't answer your question, but there is also the issue of waste storage. In light water reactors, that's stored on-site for a long time. This research appears to indicate that with SMRs, this is actually a bigger issue. > Small modular reactors (SMRs), proposed as the future of nuclear energy, have purported cost and safety advantages over existing gigawatt-scale light water reactors (LWRs). However, few studies have assessed the implications of SMRs for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The low-, intermediate-, and high-level waste stream characterization presented here reveals that SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste. Although the analysis focuses on only three of dozens of proposed SMR designs, the intrinsically higher neutron leakage associated with SMRs suggests that most designs are inferior to LWRs with respect to the generation, management, and final disposal of key radionuclides in nuclear waste. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119

amluto 2y ago

Off the top of my head, if I had to protect a shipping container sized object from a 737, I would bury it. Dig a hole maybe the size of a residential swimming pool, build some drainage and some concrete walls with enough space to allow the container to get back out, stick the container in, and backfill outside the walls. Put a lid on it and cover it with local soil. As a bonus: anyone trying to steal it would need an excavator of some sort. Or build an underground parking lot, park the SMR in it, put a serious door in front, and use the space above it for something else. Conventional construction underground, especially of something complex, is expensive. But much of the point of an SMR is that it’s built off site and then installed. Driving a container down a ramp or lowering one off a crane is straightforward.

consumer451 2y ago
I was thinking underground as well, but don't forget about the waste storage area/infrastructure: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40540802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40540802