Underground Nuclear Reactors
- Thread starter tetra
- Start date
- Status
Hey--I like the idea!
The last that I have read, there was the idea of putting nuclear waste underground.
I don't see a real reason as to why the heck that a nuclear reactor couldn't be placed underground, except for......
1) the size of the hole!!! Excavating such a massive area would obviously be very expensive;
2) transmitting the huge amount of amperes from the ground to the surface transmission lines, as there would have to be a large area of air insulation around these transmission cables;
3) the possibility of ground water contamination in the event of a catastrophe, and
4) Hey!!!! not in my neighborhood!!! Of course all of the tree huggers, who don't want the "Spotted Snail Darter" to be displaced from it's native habitat!!!!
By the way, I am pro nuke.
The technology to safely utilize nuclear energy now exists, if not the people to run these reactors. The US Navy does a pretty good job with their mobile reactors. There has been some question as to the ability of enlisted people to handle such dangerous and complex machinery, (technology) but the NAVY actually has a pretty good record, so far.
Given the alternative of dwindling fossil fuels, that are largely held by--- you know who, I don't have any problem whatsoever with nuclear energy---above ground or below ground!!!
Besides, the ragheads may be launching ICBM's at us any day now
Great subject Tetra!!!!!!!!
The last that I have read, there was the idea of putting nuclear waste underground.
I don't see a real reason as to why the heck that a nuclear reactor couldn't be placed underground, except for......
1) the size of the hole!!! Excavating such a massive area would obviously be very expensive;
2) transmitting the huge amount of amperes from the ground to the surface transmission lines, as there would have to be a large area of air insulation around these transmission cables;
3) the possibility of ground water contamination in the event of a catastrophe, and
4) Hey!!!! not in my neighborhood!!! Of course all of the tree huggers, who don't want the "Spotted Snail Darter" to be displaced from it's native habitat!!!!
By the way, I am pro nuke.
The technology to safely utilize nuclear energy now exists, if not the people to run these reactors. The US Navy does a pretty good job with their mobile reactors. There has been some question as to the ability of enlisted people to handle such dangerous and complex machinery, (technology) but the NAVY actually has a pretty good record, so far.
Given the alternative of dwindling fossil fuels, that are largely held by--- you know who, I don't have any problem whatsoever with nuclear energy---above ground or below ground!!!
Besides, the ragheads may be launching ICBM's at us any day now
Great subject Tetra!!!!!!!!
There are several problems that come to mind when thinking of placing reactors underground. The first is accessability. If you have a problems it is going to be hard to get to for any major repairs or upgrades.
Should you have a chain reaction then you have the problem that it is going to lift the ground wherever it is. Depending upon how deep and what size it is as to what happens after that. Either you have grandmothers idea of a hole for planting a flower gone beserk or you have a new sink hole in the neighborhood that could be a tourist attraction.
Should the above occur, then you are looking at underground radioactive pollution gone bananas. To find a waste facility site required a lot of looking and then a lot of finangling to get it done. No guarentees here either. With the half life being so long, it leaves all kind of possibilites to come up that no one ever thought of.
Still I am suprised that we do not have more pollution from naturally occuring radioactives, it is what keeps the earth's core molten. There has to be quite a bit of it circulating within the magma.
Should you have a chain reaction then you have the problem that it is going to lift the ground wherever it is. Depending upon how deep and what size it is as to what happens after that. Either you have grandmothers idea of a hole for planting a flower gone beserk or you have a new sink hole in the neighborhood that could be a tourist attraction.
Should the above occur, then you are looking at underground radioactive pollution gone bananas. To find a waste facility site required a lot of looking and then a lot of finangling to get it done. No guarentees here either. With the half life being so long, it leaves all kind of possibilites to come up that no one ever thought of.
Still I am suprised that we do not have more pollution from naturally occuring radioactives, it is what keeps the earth's core molten. There has to be quite a bit of it circulating within the magma.
Off hand, I don't how large a pit would have to excavated in order to handle the immense size of a nuclear power plant. I am guessing that the area could be 1/4 mile across though! The depth of such a hole might well need to 500-1000 ft. in order to offer any useful level of safety. Even at 1000 ft. x 1000 ft. x1000 ft., this would come out at 1 billion cubic ft. of soil & bedrock that would have to be removed in order to place such a nuclear plant in.
I suppose that one could tunnel underground and reduce such a figure, but you are then looking at a whole lot of BS problems there too in bringing equipment into the area through tunnels. I am reminded of Cheyanne mountain and all the immense amount of money spent to build NORAD. I forget what the cost was back in the '60's ???, but in today's dollars, one could expect an enormous bill, PER PLANT BUILT!
Too, there is again the groundwater problem. One doesn't have to dig down very deep at all before you will start to have nothing but an immense swimming pool! This has always been a problem with coal mines & the like.
I was watching some program recently, where there was the idea of placing nuclear waste into old salt mines. These were in remote areas and also had the benefit of being in a very dry, stable environment as well. But I believe that these few existing areas would be insufficient in volume to contain even one small nuclear plant.
One thing about a nuclear chain reaction in a worst case scenario is that it is going to be fission only. Therefore the explosion would not be nearly so large as an actual fusion weapon, thus you would actually benefit from the plant being located underground. There would also be the benefit of security, in that the RagHeads wouldn't be able to crash a jet liner into it if were 1000 ft. underground! Security would also be a lot easier in that access would, or could be restricted to authorized personele only.
Still, I know that eventually we are going to have to become weened off of petro-chemicals. It is inevitable. Nuclear energy production has received a bad wrap from all the Greenpeacer's & Tree huggers. Of course Chernobyl & 3 Mile Island didn't help to instill any faith into the voting public!
Good points, WET!!!!!1
I suppose that one could tunnel underground and reduce such a figure, but you are then looking at a whole lot of BS problems there too in bringing equipment into the area through tunnels. I am reminded of Cheyanne mountain and all the immense amount of money spent to build NORAD. I forget what the cost was back in the '60's ???, but in today's dollars, one could expect an enormous bill, PER PLANT BUILT!
Too, there is again the groundwater problem. One doesn't have to dig down very deep at all before you will start to have nothing but an immense swimming pool! This has always been a problem with coal mines & the like.
I was watching some program recently, where there was the idea of placing nuclear waste into old salt mines. These were in remote areas and also had the benefit of being in a very dry, stable environment as well. But I believe that these few existing areas would be insufficient in volume to contain even one small nuclear plant.
One thing about a nuclear chain reaction in a worst case scenario is that it is going to be fission only. Therefore the explosion would not be nearly so large as an actual fusion weapon, thus you would actually benefit from the plant being located underground. There would also be the benefit of security, in that the RagHeads wouldn't be able to crash a jet liner into it if were 1000 ft. underground! Security would also be a lot easier in that access would, or could be restricted to authorized personele only.
Still, I know that eventually we are going to have to become weened off of petro-chemicals. It is inevitable. Nuclear energy production has received a bad wrap from all the Greenpeacer's & Tree huggers. Of course Chernobyl & 3 Mile Island didn't help to instill any faith into the voting public!
Good points, WET!!!!!1
kmguru
Staff member
I like the underground nuclear plant idea, specifically if we add that to the pebble bed reactor design. The turbines and generators can be above ground.
But honestly, we should spend more research money into desiging a hot fusion reactor. There is no real effort like we did with sending man to the moon, or building a space station. Presently, the University proffesors are tinkering with hot fusion in their spare time. We should make it a national goal with a time limit.
But honestly, we should spend more research money into desiging a hot fusion reactor. There is no real effort like we did with sending man to the moon, or building a space station. Presently, the University proffesors are tinkering with hot fusion in their spare time. We should make it a national goal with a time limit.
Underground, above ground, either way they'll never be as safe as dirty old coal and oil plants. I think we should think about building new nuke plants, because computer technology has made building and mantience of the plants better.
The problem with an undeground reactor is two fold. First the acessbility to a massive problem, i.e. near meltdown would be hard. You have to get people in and out quickly among other things.
The second problem that if the reactor melts down the core, above or below ground will hit the water table at some point. This will create a massive steam bubble ejecting fallout into the atmosphere. If it didn't explode, the entire watertable would be polluted, which may not happen if it was above ground.
Plus digging a huge cavern, and supporting the construction would cost nearly as much as the plant itself.
The problem with an undeground reactor is two fold. First the acessbility to a massive problem, i.e. near meltdown would be hard. You have to get people in and out quickly among other things.
The second problem that if the reactor melts down the core, above or below ground will hit the water table at some point. This will create a massive steam bubble ejecting fallout into the atmosphere. If it didn't explode, the entire watertable would be polluted, which may not happen if it was above ground.
Plus digging a huge cavern, and supporting the construction would cost nearly as much as the plant itself.
There is no need for Nuclear power, not in that sense. The entire preposal for that was just as a quick method to increase power, in the long run the investment should be made in using Gas from old and working mines/oil wells and landfill tips.
The gas accumilates and can be used to heat water, drive turbines or just look pretty in the night sky, not to forget to mention that if it's handled correctly it can also lower the levels of CH4/NO/NOx emmisions into the atmosphere.
The gas accumilates and can be used to heat water, drive turbines or just look pretty in the night sky, not to forget to mention that if it's handled correctly it can also lower the levels of CH4/NO/NOx emmisions into the atmosphere.
kmguru
Staff member
The idea in this topic is to move the reaction chamber and the heat exchanger (the radioactive loop) underground. Rest can stay above ground. Using a relatively safer method of pepple bed and helium as the heat transfer loop - it can be done much safer than what is today. Besides, the technology of our nuclear power plants are stuck in 1978 with some very minor safety improvements.
France and China are still building Nuclear power plants. We have not heard any disaster since Chernobyl....
If the curley1 is afraid, let us put them away from population centers ...like in Alaska or Nevada....(We had a lot of underground tests in Nevada)...
It is doable...
France and China are still building Nuclear power plants. We have not heard any disaster since Chernobyl....
If the curley1 is afraid, let us put them away from population centers ...like in Alaska or Nevada....(We had a lot of underground tests in Nevada)...
It is doable...
The populace is afraid of nuclear reactors and that is one of the reasons you have not seen more done with them. Also the cost is much higher that for conventual power plants even though they produce cleaner enegry. There also follows the waste problem for reactors. These reasons are why we are still using old tech for them. No one supports new ones.
Much more safer is the orbiting solar arrays that thecurley1` mentions. The technology is there to do this. It needs a little modification and tweaking is all. The industry will not go for this unless they find that they must go else where to do the generation for power. Eventually earth friendly green laws will force this to be. It is but a matter of time. The power industry will find themselves at much the same point as the cigarette industry is today. Saw as the villian and something must be done about them will be the mentality. Even though this drives up the cost of power that the consumer uses it will be veiwed as a health issue. You see this happening already with the various products that the chemical industry produces.
I have mentioned this in several posts before. It is a firm belief of mine that I see as a coming event. And it may well be within our lifetimes that this starts to occur. This is based upon the items mentioned above and reactions through the public and insurance industry that drives a lot of the pesent laws on the books today. It takes it only another step further and it will not be oniy the power industries. One at a time each will have their turn until industry sees that the writing is on the wall. This may well be where our space frontier begins and not with the ISS and NASA.
Much more safer is the orbiting solar arrays that thecurley1` mentions. The technology is there to do this. It needs a little modification and tweaking is all. The industry will not go for this unless they find that they must go else where to do the generation for power. Eventually earth friendly green laws will force this to be. It is but a matter of time. The power industry will find themselves at much the same point as the cigarette industry is today. Saw as the villian and something must be done about them will be the mentality. Even though this drives up the cost of power that the consumer uses it will be veiwed as a health issue. You see this happening already with the various products that the chemical industry produces.
I have mentioned this in several posts before. It is a firm belief of mine that I see as a coming event. And it may well be within our lifetimes that this starts to occur. This is based upon the items mentioned above and reactions through the public and insurance industry that drives a lot of the pesent laws on the books today. It takes it only another step further and it will not be oniy the power industries. One at a time each will have their turn until industry sees that the writing is on the wall. This may well be where our space frontier begins and not with the ISS and NASA.
Wow wet1, I never thought that the power industry could be heading for the same fate as the tobacco comapnies. I think I can see the writing on the wall.
Though the solar arrays sound pretty radical, its a sound theory. I think it was brought to NASA by someone in the '80s, but there were too head strong about the shuttle and SDI.
Though the solar arrays sound pretty radical, its a sound theory. I think it was brought to NASA by someone in the '80s, but there were too head strong about the shuttle and SDI.
kmguru
Somewhere I saw these figures a few years ago. I can not for the life of me remember where I saw them. I will have to do some looking around and see if I can locate where it was.
While the inital one will not be cheap nor will it generate the full amount of power needed by itself to feed a major cities's needs. Once started it will become a self generating process. One at a time with improvements that will assist in the cost reduction and effeciency in continuing the process.
But it needs to start somewhere and that is the key. The starting of this will open the doors to inner system travel around the solar system. Costs will eventually be a driving factor to ensure that such is the case. When the cost of generating a watt drops low enough and the price of fuel, business, meeting enviroment law requirements, and keeping on the good side of public opinion rise high enough then will we see these things start to be. It gets closer every day.
Somewhere I saw these figures a few years ago. I can not for the life of me remember where I saw them. I will have to do some looking around and see if I can locate where it was.
While the inital one will not be cheap nor will it generate the full amount of power needed by itself to feed a major cities's needs. Once started it will become a self generating process. One at a time with improvements that will assist in the cost reduction and effeciency in continuing the process.
But it needs to start somewhere and that is the key. The starting of this will open the doors to inner system travel around the solar system. Costs will eventually be a driving factor to ensure that such is the case. When the cost of generating a watt drops low enough and the price of fuel, business, meeting enviroment law requirements, and keeping on the good side of public opinion rise high enough then will we see these things start to be. It gets closer every day.
kmguru
Staff member
There is a better way. Earth still has a lot of heat at the core that if we can use as a geothermal energy, will last us at least 100 million years. In about 100 years, we will probably harness Hot fusion, in about 1000 years we probably harness black holes...
So let us use the geothermal energy - it is very easy to get at and it is fairly low-tech.
So let us use the geothermal energy - it is very easy to get at and it is fairly low-tech.
- Status