Science > Physics > The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OwlHoot" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2006 11:21:00 AM |
| Object: |
The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
I posted the following on another forum, not related to
physics, and having gone to the trouble of thinking
about the idea (doubtless not original) and typing the
post, I'm curious to hear any expert, or at least maybe
more informed, comments:
[..] As for nuclear power, it seems to me by far the simplest
solution, which eliminates the risk of catastrophic radiation
leaks caused by accidents or attacks (by terrorists or
countries), and avoids ending up with plants having to be
dismantled and high-level waste needing disposal, is to
build nuclear plants deep underground:
Just tunnel two or three miles into basement rock, such as
granite or basalt, and install reactor cores in shafts off
the main tunnel. These could be simpler and more compact if
necessary than a reactor on the surface, especially if
unmanned, and at the end of their lifetimes or in extremis
one could just seal their shafts and leave them (possibly
for future generations, with more advanced technologies,
to dispose of or even make further good use of as they
see fit).
This also uses less space on the surface, especially if
several such buried reactors could feed output energy to
the same surface station, which is important in densely
populated countries such as the UK.
Naturally the tunnel would be quite expensive up front to dig,
and equip the necessary infrastructure such as coolant pipes
and power cables. But if one tunnel could be used with lots
of "offshoot" shafts, one would gain economies of scale.
Also, as diamond miners know, tunneling several miles into the
Earth's crust gets noticeably hot. So circulating coolant could
double up to produce thermoelectric (based on temperature
difference) or even geothermal energy.
To prevent a meltdown of one reactor trashing the whole
underground complex, the best design would be a vertical
entrance shaft (or possibly more practically a spiral ramp),
then have long horizontal shafts running off this, and have
each reactor in further vertical shafts off the latter, with
a large plug of rock suspended over each reactor shaft. At
the first sign of a meltdown, or to seal a spent reactor,
they could then flood the affected shaft and detonate charges
symmetrically round the top of the plug so the latter would
break free and fall over the top of the shaft.
Cheers
John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahooo.co.uk)
(remove one 'o' from yahooo to reply)
.
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
05 Nov 2006 11:58:44 AM |
|
|
"OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162747260.175238.286640@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| I posted the following on another forum, not related to
| physics, and having gone to the trouble of thinking
| about the idea (doubtless not original) and typing the
| post, I'm curious to hear any expert, or at least maybe
| more informed, comments:
|
|
| [..] As for nuclear power, it seems to me by far the simplest
| solution, which eliminates the risk of catastrophic radiation
| leaks caused by accidents or attacks (by terrorists or
| countries), and avoids ending up with plants having to be
| dismantled and high-level waste needing disposal, is to
| build nuclear plants deep underground:
|
| Just tunnel two or three miles into basement rock, such as
| granite or basalt, and install reactor cores in shafts off
| the main tunnel. These could be simpler and more compact if
| necessary than a reactor on the surface, especially if
| unmanned, and at the end of their lifetimes or in extremis
| one could just seal their shafts and leave them (possibly
| for future generations, with more advanced technologies,
| to dispose of or even make further good use of as they
| see fit).
|
| This also uses less space on the surface, especially if
| several such buried reactors could feed output energy to
| the same surface station, which is important in densely
| populated countries such as the UK.
|
| Naturally the tunnel would be quite expensive up front to dig,
| and equip the necessary infrastructure such as coolant pipes
| and power cables. But if one tunnel could be used with lots
| of "offshoot" shafts, one would gain economies of scale.
|
| Also, as diamond miners know, tunneling several miles into the
| Earth's crust gets noticeably hot. So circulating coolant could
| double up to produce thermoelectric (based on temperature
| difference) or even geothermal energy.
|
| To prevent a meltdown of one reactor trashing the whole
| underground complex, the best design would be a vertical
| entrance shaft (or possibly more practically a spiral ramp),
| then have long horizontal shafts running off this, and have
| each reactor in further vertical shafts off the latter, with
| a large plug of rock suspended over each reactor shaft. At
| the first sign of a meltdown, or to seal a spent reactor,
| they could then flood the affected shaft and detonate charges
| symmetrically round the top of the plug so the latter would
| break free and fall over the top of the shaft.
|
|
| Cheers
|
| John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahooo.co.uk)
|
| (remove one 'o' from yahooo to reply)
Just tunnel twenty-seven miles into basement rock, such as
soft chalk, and you can connect Britain with Europe.
What was the cost of the Chunnel, which was dig in chalk,
not granite or basalt? (Answer: $21 billion)
Two or three miles, that's only two or three billion quid.
Why are Britain's power stations near the coast?
Do you really want to pay ten times as much for electricity
so that you have this safety net which wasn't needed
at Three Mile Island?
Seems to me that you are reacting to fear rather than
cost effective engineering.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "OwlHoot" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
05 Nov 2006 02:08:17 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162747260.175238.286640@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| [..] As for nuclear power, it seems to me by far the simplest
| solution, which eliminates the risk of catastrophic radiation
| leaks caused by accidents or attacks (by terrorists or
| countries), and avoids ending up with plants having to be
| dismantled and high-level waste needing disposal, is to
| build nuclear plants deep underground:
|
| [..]
Just tunnel twenty-seven miles into basement rock, such
as soft chalk, and you can connect Britain with Europe.
I wouldn't call chalk basement rock, although the point
you're making is clear.
What was the cost of the Chunnel, which was dig in chalk,
not granite or basalt? (Answer: $21 billion)
Although it may seem paradoxical, I'd have thought that
digging shallow tunnels in soft water-porous rock is much
more expensive than tunneling through solid igneous rock,
due to the elaborate casing required to keep out water
and prevent collapse.
That's why I specifically mentioned "basement rock", i.e.
igneous rock below sedimentary layers, although of course
one would need to find areas such as Cornwall where these
were at or close to the surface (or else have the expense
of tunneling down through your chalk and sandstone to
reach the igneous rock).
Two or three miles, that's only two or three billion
quid. Why are Britain's power stations near the coast?
Two or three billion quid is chicken-feed on the scale
of an enterprise like this. (For comparison, it probably
buys you only a couple of miles of motorway.)
But you do raise an interesting point, that nuclear power
stations seem to need a lot of water - perhaps more than
could be circulated through a long tunnel of practical
diameter without massively expensive titanium casing or
something.
Presumably even granite has some tendency to deform and
collapse if one tunnels deep enough, given the huge weight
of rock above the tunnel and the increasing temperature,
and the larger a tunnel diameter the more of a problem
that might become.
Maybe it would be better to construct a cluster of parallel
mini-tunnels, which might be safer anyway if high-pressure
steam is being pumped around.
Do you really want to pay ten times as much for
electricity so that you have this safety net which
wasn't needed at Three Mile Island?
With more and more countries likely to become nuclear
powers, and even terrorists getting their hands on
nuclear bombs, safety will become more of an issue.
In any case, as I mentioned, the other big advantage is
that there's no waste disposal problem - a spent reactor,
perhaps along with a load of low-level radiocative junk
into the bargain, can just be left right where it is.
So in that sense an underground nuclear plant could be
considered as "disposable".
Incidently, assuming the use of nuclear power continues,
deep tunnels in non-porous rocks will probably be needed
anyway to store all this stuff. So why not go the whole
hog from the outset?
Seems to me that you are reacting to fear rather than
cost effective engineering.
Not my own fear - I'm a great believer in nuclear power.
But fear is widespread among the public, so much so that
many governments are inhibited by this from building more
nuclear power plants.
Cheers
John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahooo.co.uk) <-- remove one 'o'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
05 Nov 2006 06:06:26 PM |
|
|
"OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162757297.470588.124590@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| >
| > "OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1162747260.175238.286640@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | [..] As for nuclear power, it seems to me by far the simplest
| > | solution, which eliminates the risk of catastrophic radiation
| > | leaks caused by accidents or attacks (by terrorists or
| > | countries), and avoids ending up with plants having to be
| > | dismantled and high-level waste needing disposal, is to
| > | build nuclear plants deep underground:
| > |
| > | [..]
| >
| > Just tunnel twenty-seven miles into basement rock, such
| > as soft chalk, and you can connect Britain with Europe.
|
| I wouldn't [...]
| > What was the cost of the Chunnel, which was dig in chalk,
| > not granite or basalt? (Answer: $21 billion)
|
| Although it [...]
| That's why [...]
| > Two or three miles, that's only two or three billion
| > quid. Why are Britain's power stations near the coast?
|
| Two or three [...]
| But you [..]
| Presumably even [...]
| Maybe it [...]
| > Do you really want to pay ten times as much for
| > electricity so that you have this safety net which
| > wasn't needed at Three Mile Island?
| With more and more [...]
| In any case [...]
| Incidently [...]
| > Seems to me that you are reacting to fear rather than
| > cost effective engineering.
|
| Not my own fear [...]
I might have responded to each of your points but I had to
very rudely snip them first and now I've forgotten what they were.
Why the ***** some people find it necessary to save the
enormous expense of a few hundred bytes in a world of broad
band is beyond me comprehension.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OwlHoot" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
06 Nov 2006 01:10:54 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162757297.470588.124590@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| [..]
|
| With more and more [...]
| In any case [...]
| Incidently [...]
| > Seems to me that you are reacting to fear rather than
| > cost effective engineering.
|
| Not my own fear [...]
I might have responded to each of your points but I had to
very rudely snip them first and now I've forgotten what they
were. Why the ***** some people find it necessary to save the
enormous expense of a few hundred bytes in a world of broad
band is beyond me comprehension.
What _are_ you on about, you cantankerous old crank?
I didn't "snip" any of your post, apart from my own original,
which you quoted in its entirety, and if I had it wouldn't
have been to save bandwidth or try and deceive anyone by
taking anything out of context, but to focus on points
I was replying to.
FFS, this isn't relativity we're talking about, Androcles
or whatever you're calling yourself today. Must you really
play your juvenile egotistical games with _every_ topic?
Oh and use your real name you coward - Nobody gives a flying
f*ck what you say anyway, although I'm sure they wish there
was less of it!
Cheers
John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahooo.co.uk)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
06 Nov 2006 04:35:25 PM |
|
|
"OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162840254.437366.106750@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| >
| > "OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1162757297.470588.124590@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | [..]
| > |
| > | With more and more [...]
| > | In any case [...]
| > | Incidently [...]
| >
| > | > Seems to me that you are reacting to fear rather than
| > | > cost effective engineering.
| > |
| > | Not my own fear [...]
| >
| > I might have responded to each of your points but I had to
| > very rudely snip them first and now I've forgotten what they
| > were. Why the ***** some people find it necessary to save the
| > enormous expense of a few hundred bytes in a world of broad
| > band is beyond me comprehension.
|
| What _are_ you on about, you cantankerous old crank?
|
| I didn't "snip" any of your post, apart from my own original,
| which you quoted in its entirety, and if I had it wouldn't
| have been to save bandwidth or try and deceive anyone by
| taking anything out of context, but to focus on points
| I was replying to.
Ok. It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part and I apologise.
|
| FFS, this isn't relativity we're talking about, Androcles
| or whatever you're calling yourself today. Must you really
| play your juvenile egotistical games with _every_ topic?
|
| Oh and use your real name you coward -
"OwlHoot" is your real name?
Insults will get you everywhere, you fucking cowardly *****.
T-wit, too woo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OwlHoot" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
07 Nov 2006 01:24:17 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162840254.437366.106750@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| I didn't "snip" any of your post, apart from my own original,
| which you quoted in its entirety, and if I had it wouldn't
| have been to save bandwidth or try and deceive anyone by
| taking anything out of context, but to focus on points
| I was replying to.
Ok. It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part and I apologise.
Ditto on my part - I'll admit my insults were somewhat OTT,
and to be honest I was slightly frustrated at not getting more
replies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
07 Nov 2006 06:13:32 PM |
|
|
"OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162927457.129343.175350@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| >
| > "OwlHoot" <ravensdean@googlemail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1162840254.437366.106750@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | I didn't "snip" any of your post, apart from my own original,
| > | which you quoted in its entirety, and if I had it wouldn't
| > | have been to save bandwidth or try and deceive anyone by
| > | taking anything out of context, but to focus on points
| > | I was replying to.
| >
| > Ok. It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part and I apologise.
|
| Ditto on my part - I'll admit my insults were somewhat OTT,
| and to be honest I was slightly frustrated at not getting more
| replies.
|
The bottom line is one of cost vs. benefit. Safety doesn't come into
that. What do you want a nuclear power station for anyway?
1) To provide electrical energy.
2) To provide a hazard, like Chernobyl.
We don't want (2). We do want (1).
1) So build fossil fuel plants.
2) But they emit greenhouse gases!
1) Ok, so build nuclear plants.
2) But they are not safe!
1) Ok, build them underground.
2) But it costs too much!
1) So build wind farms.
2) But they are ugly!
1) So go without electricity.
2) No! I have to have it.
1) Ok, so use hydroelectric dams.
2) But it floods the land environment!
1) Ok, so use tidal energy.
2) But it spoils the marine environment!
1) Ok, so use direct solar energy.
2) But there isn't enough sun in Britain!
1) I have this magic system that is totally safe and
has no impact on the environment and all the
electricity you need for nothing.
2) Gimme, gimme, gimme!
1) Pay me, pay me, pay me!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
05 Nov 2006 03:20:19 PM |
|
|
OwlHoot wrote:
[...]
John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahooo.co.uk)
(remove one 'o' from yahooo to reply)
How many people died in the Three-mile island accident ?
How many people have died in mining accidents this year ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor
http://www.planete-energies.com/content/nuclear-energy/production-electricity/nuclear-reactors.html
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
05 Nov 2006 06:16:27 PM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1162761619.262669.322600@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OwlHoot" |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
06 Nov 2006 01:52:56 PM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
OwlHoot wrote:
[..]
How many people died in the Three-mile island accident ?
How many people have died in mining accidents this year ?
Obviously your point is that mining is more dangerous than
nuclear power.
A squint at http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/chartshome.htm
shows that in the US there are roughly 60 mining fatalities
per year, averaged over recent years, of which about 30 per
year have occurred in coal mines.
(I'd have suspected the coal mine fatalities were a larger
proportion, and combustion was the chief cause directly or
otherwise; but it seems large machinery is the main culprit.)
However, assuming you're comparing like with like, your point
applies only to people involved, i.e. constructing and working
in those industries. But a major incident at a nuclear power
station on the surface is likely to kill or injure many more
people not in the vicinity than a mishap down a mine.
In any case, when one also considers the number of working
mines in the US, including surface mines (where no doubt
many of the fatalities occur), we're not exactly talking
the Battle of the Somme - probably one or two fatalities
per mine per year, which is most likely less than the
number of people who die every year tripping on their
shoelaces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor
http://www.planete-energies.com/content/nuclear-energy/production-electricity/nuclear-reactors.html
Sue...
Interesting links, but here I'm not even sure what your
specific point is.
Cheers
John R Ramsden
P.S. I wanted to CC sci.geology, but this has been archived
(on Google groups). So where the heck do geologists post
these days?!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The merits of building nuclear power plants deep underground |
06 Nov 2006 05:19:12 PM |
|
|
OwlHoot wrote:
Sue... wrote:
OwlHoot wrote:
[..]
<< How many people died in the Three-mile island accident ? >>
Answer: ZERO
"The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of
the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to
any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest
X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background
level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island
How many people have died in mining accidents this year ?
Obviously your point is that mining is more dangerous than
nuclear power.
A squint at http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/chartshome.htm
shows that in the US there are roughly 60 mining fatalities
per year, averaged over recent years, of which about 30 per
year have occurred in coal mines.
That is only the tip of the iceberg.
"9,007 killed in 53,173 accidents in October" [China]
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/06/content_5297359.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters#Mining_disasters
In addition to deaths, [US] many thousands more are injured an average
of 21,351 injuries per year between 1991 and 1999).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident
(I'd have suspected the coal mine fatalities were a larger
proportion, and combustion was the chief cause directly or
otherwise; but it seems large machinery is the main culprit.)
However, assuming you're comparing like with like, your point
applies only to people involved, i.e. constructing and working
in those industries.
Indeed... the workers are of the sinner class so they deserve
to die. ;-)
But a major incident at a nuclear power
station on the surface is likely to kill or injure many more
people not in the vicinity than a mishap down a mine.
Likely ?
In any case, when one also considers the number of working
mines in the US, including surface mines (where no doubt
many of the fatalities occur), we're not exactly talking
the Battle of the Somme - probably one or two fatalities
per mine per year, which is most likely less than the
number of people who die every year tripping on their
shoelaces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor
http://www.planete-energies.com/content/nuclear-energy/production-electricity/nuclear-reactors.html
Sue...
Interesting links, but here I'm not even sure what your
specific point is.
When a light water reactor boils off its coolant, it is also
boiling off its moderator, so the reaction stops.
<< The RBMK reactor was the type involved in the Chernobyl accident.
In 2004, several were still operating but there were no plans to build
any
more and there is international pressure to close those that remain.
The RBMK was the culmination of the Soviet program to produce a
water-cooled power reactor based on their ***graphite-moderated***
plutonium production military reactors. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK
I'll take my chances with a reactor in my backyard over going
down in a mine.
Sue...
Cheers
John R Ramsden
P.S. I wanted to CC sci.geology, but this has been archived
(on Google groups). So where the heck do geologists post
these days?!
Google groups has a search feature you might try.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
