Hacker News Reader

Comment by lbriner | Hacker News Reader

One of the concerns I had never considered with these smaller reactors is the potential security concerns. Although they might not be overly dangerous, they are still realistic targets for terror groups. It's easier protecting a small number of large sites even though they are horrifically expensive to build.

View on HN

The terrorism threat has always been more media then reality with reactors though. The idea of these small reactors is that they're not big complicated structures, so there protection needs are different - i.e. the reactor body can be built into the ground and concreted over until its time to decommission it.

Such a unit would be pretty close to impenetrable to any terrorist threat - there's no building to crash into, no structure or employees to attack. The literal attack surface is greatly reduced - and any operation to penetrate the unit would be large, highly visible, and take time.

> the reactor body can be built into the ground and concreted over until its time to decommission it.

This seems wild. Who is doing or proposing it?

Westinghouse are big into the concept and have been for a few decades - obviously anti-nuclear sentiment tends to hold it back, though the economics are tricky.

What is the risk of sabotage from someone working in and very knowledgeable about how the unit works?

Minimal. You're talking about highly trained, licensed nuclear power engineers.

That's a community in the US that can safely be estimated as 70% prior US Navy nuclear reactor techs and officers.

Considering how many thousands of minimally-protected water treatment plants there are, and how much publicity a serious sabotage job would get, and how extremely few reports there are of sabotage actually happening...

Zero: small scale reactor designs like pebble bed reactors are designed as "set and forget" - they're intrinsically safe, and only need to be accessed when they need refueling.

A model of deployment was that if you were setting up a town, you'd basically go dig a pit and lower one of these into it, pave over the top (or I suppose actually install some very heavy doors) and then build the town radially outwards from the reactor. The unit itself would be hermetically sealed - no employees, no systems to maintain. If it malfunctions or fails, then the idea is you drive out, pickup the container and drop a new one in.

Ever been to a Nuclear Power Plant? I have and it's the last place a terrorist would attack. Quite literally more security that most Military bases. You wouldn't make it within 100 yards of the perimeter fence let alone the containment building.

perimeter fencing doesn't stop an airplane

Containment buildings do. Small reactors - even a cluster - wouldn't be worth slamming an airplane into; not going to damage them.

More baseless fear of the invisible nuclear boogyman.

The tons and tons of concrete that shield the reactor core would, though. You would be better off slamming a plane into a dam - much easier to crack, much less chance of containing the disaster it if you do manage to crack it.

As seen previously: there are more attractive targets, like skyscrapers.

This was always my concern. Or frankly, terrorist-like countries going "oops we didn't mean to bomb this nuclear plant, pinky promise".

The fact that in Ukraine, abysmal and abominal as the war is, no such events occured to date, actually gives me some hope that it's less likely than I thought.

>The fact that in Ukraine, abysmal and abominal as the war is, no such events occured to date, actually gives me some hope that it's less likely than I thought.

You don't consider Russia attacking a nuclear power plant an example of this very thing? It was much closer to disaster than previously thought. You don't have to breach the containment vessel for things to go horribly wrong. There are a number of external critical systems that if destroyed, could result in a meltdown.

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-nuclear-power-plant-russi...

I'm not saying anything good about Russian invasion or their (lack of) careful approach, merely that no nuclear disaster struck so far, despite a hot and indiscriminate war in place, including literally around nuclear plants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com