Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy

Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy by calyth2018 on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @09:58AM (#27675838)

While it's a neat point that you bring up about human nature and misplaced radioactive sources, is a portable nuke reactor something that's comparaable to radiotherapy units?

If what they mean is a Small Modular Reactor, they should still be about 40 m^3, and a bit less likely to be left behind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy by BitwiseFool on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:07AM (#27675944)

And because of those incidents, there are new regulations and safeguards in-place to help avoid such events in the future.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy by dividedbyzero on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:21AM (#27676141)

But it'll be hard to limit these things to just a few that can be secured really well. There will be lots of potential for an energy source like this in remote or underdeveloped regions, and once you pepper the globe with reactors, good luck having everyone adhere to regulations, and not try too hard to circumvent those safeguards.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy by caddywompus on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @03:30PM (#27680645)

Ah that is true. In that case the danger would be in the tracking and storage of fuel elements. Assuming re-fueling is required infrequently enough that a regulator organization could keep tabs on them. Although in that case the danger would be the tracking and safe storage of the fuel elements.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy by nielu on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @06:14AM (#27686816)

As far as i understand some of the small reactors are designed to be fueled only once in their lifetime - in the factory.

[ Parent | on HN ]