It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The dam failures killed an estimated 171,000 people; 11 million people lost their homes. It also caused the sudden loss of 18 GW of power , the equivalent of roughly 9 very large modern coal-fired power stations or about 20 nuclear reactors, equalling about 1/3 the peak demand on the UK National Grid en.wikipedia.org...
Standard concrete yes. But add more lime to it, and you increase its hardness & durability. E.g. fire cement can be harder than most stones. Likewise I advocate stainless steel bar, as opposed to ordinary steel (as that rusts and expands over large amounts of time).
tom.farnhilli seem to remember that concrete has a life of one thousand years not two
So provide an emergency chimney!!! The water isn’t normally radioactive, unless it’s certain types of Boiling Water Reactor designs (Pressurised Water Ones don’t).
Because you need to vent radioactive water vapor to the atmosphere.
That doesn’t make much sense. If the core is on fire, they will die anyway (unless they run away for a few days, like in Fukushima)
Because you can't have your nuclear power station enclosed as the workers would be breathing high levels of hot particles.
Then Have two chimneys for the ponds: One short one (to let air in) and another long one (to let moisture filled air out). This will work as wet air is (counter intuitively) lighter than dry air (but it’s not so counter intuitive when you see clouds floating high above).
Your cooling ponds storing your old nuclear fuel are hot and also evaporating LARGE quantities of water keeping them cool.
If you have a lead-iron-concrete “meltdown matt” the core meltdown will never reach the water table, as the little heat produced (after fuel dilution) will be in equilibrium to that lost from conduction.
People don't want them below ground where the water table is.
GE and Hitachi plan new reactor to burn UK plutonium stockpile
Multibillion pound plant at Sellafield would convert UK's nuclear power plant residue into fuel www.guardian.co.uk...
So basically smaller reactor sizes would be a good way of increasing feasibility, as then digging project can be proportionately smaller?
Why it isn't done is due to the lack of 'subterranean construction companies' - which are few and far between due to the fact that many people are rather fixated on the traditional concept of above-ground construction.