Nuclear Power

I think its pretty clear that nuclear power will have to be used more often with all the worries about the energy crisis.

Since nuckear plants would become big terrorist targets, how hard would it be to simply build Nuclear powerplants underground? This would make them very very secure I think.
When I say underground, I dont mean in a cave or something, I mean to make a big cavity into the ground, much like the ones made to build the base of skyscrapers.
Additional infrastructure would be built above the plant to cover up the plant on ground level.

Would something like this be feasable? I would think that the extra cost would be made up by the great security the plant would have.
any thought?...

[edit on 21-11-2005 by Unplugged]

it sounds like a good idea.

prpblem is politicians dont like to spend money on something that they dont see as necessary

Well we may need to use nuclear power in the future because there is a good supply of the elements needed.

BUT, we need a lot of power to get them, where can they SAFETLY be stored AND it will cause cancer and infertility to the employee's of the power plants!

Ever thought what might happen if something goes wrong, there is a high chance that there will be a nuclear explosion, which will kill loads of people!

speight89 says:

Well we may need to use nuclear power in the future because there is a good supply of the elements needed.

BUT, we need a lot of power to get them,

I doubt if the cost to mine and refine uranium is any more (based on the potential prower produced per kilogram of finished product) than the cost to mine coal or petroleum.

where can they SAFETLY be stored AND it will cause cancer and infertility to the employee's of the power plants!

Storing uranium prior to its use in a power plant is not that big of a deal. It's the radioactive waste products which pose a problem. A good portion of that can be ameliorated by using breeders to reprocess the fuel, although a reactor which can re-process spent fuels can also -- with some engineering -- be used to process weapons-grade uranium.

And what makes you think that stored uranium will make a person infertile or give them cancer?

When you compare the health concerns of fissionables to the health concerns of our hydrocarbon society, including pollution from oil slicks, damage to the environment where oil pipelines interfere with animal migration, sulfur dioxides and all other pollution responsible for filthy air, unhealthy smog, acid rain, and the very real possibility of global warming ...

... and you factor in the fact that a lot of the oil belongs to people who are out to rip us off, or else the geopolitics of the situation puts us into imperial adventures in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi, Israel, Venezuela, etc.(which we wouldn't have to be involved in if we weren't addicted to foreign hydrocarbons), not to mention the hideous balance fo payments deficits get us into ...

... I'd take fissionables with their "danger" any day, thank you very much!

Ever thought what might happen if something goes wrong, there is a high chance that there will be a nuclear explosion, which will kill loads of people!

Gimme a break!



[edit on 2-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]

I meant when it is used up and is nuclear waste, it will be hazardous for thousands of years, at least!!

The underground nuclear facillity sounds like a good idea, especially if its armoured with walls of concrete with patrolling gaurds with gasmasks and super plasma rifles which fire terrorist seeking missiles .

The problem with nuclear power is not safety, or waste, or terrorism.

You know what the problem with nuclear power is?

MASSIVE IGNORANCE.

Technical and scientific ignorance.

Yes, that's right. I've heard so much insanity that it boggles my mind. Some of the best stuff:

1. If a nuclear power plant explodes it will be like a hydrogen bomb!
Uhh, no. It is not possible for a nuclear power plant to explode anything like a nuclear weapon would.

2. If there ever was a meltdown the area around the reactor would be uninhabitable for thousands or millions of years!
No again. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident ever, and within 20 years people are moving back into the 15KM denied zone and planting crops.

3. If a nuclear plant in America melted down it would be like Chernobyl!
A few key differences:
1. North American plats have a massive containment structure - soviet plants did not.
2. American PWR/BWR power plants operate in a different way than the Soviet RBMK1000/RBMK1500 "Chernobyl" reactors do.
3. The safety standards are much higher in American plants. An RBMK1000-type reactor would NEVER be allowed in the US. Even the Canadian CAN-DU reactor design, which isn't a bad design, is forbidden in the US.

4. We can never get rid of the waste!
Sure we can. The highest level waste sludge is mixed into glass and lead to stabilize it. It's sealed in drums and buried within an extremely stable geological area like a salt mine well away or underneath any water table. Once it is sealed that stuff will, for all intents and purposes, stay there forever.

5. What if someone digs up the waste 10,000 years from now?
That already has been thought of. There are plans to bury platinum placards with warnings in numerous languages near the waste, and other plans along those lines.

6. What if there is an accident involving moving material?
Nuclear materials such as high-level waste are moved in heavily armored traincars that are made to easily withstand the forces involved in a serious derailment.

When you think about it, nuclear power really is the safest, cleanest, and most reliable energy out there. The demon behind nuclear energy is the fearmongering, half-truths, unjustified fear, and simple ignorance.

As far as underground designs - it might just not be feasible. I don't think anyone here has any idea how tough a reactor containment building really is, or what layers of security are involved with people working in/around a facility like this. (I have seen pictures of paramillitary plant gaurd squads armed with assault rifles.)

Re: Sterility and Cancer to Workers
The radiation exposure of plant workers and ambient radiation levels in a facility are carefully monitored. I have never heard of nuclear plant workers having even a remotely higher incidence of cancer.

The ambient radiation levels are so low that it would be safe to live in a house built right next to the reactor containment building. You can take a geiger counter and measure nothing but the faint click-click of background radiation. That's right! You're being exposed to radiation from space right now as we speak!



[edit on 11-12-2005 by Toxic Fox]

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Toxic Fox]

Originally posted by speight89
Well we may need to use nuclear power in the future because there is a good supply of the elements needed.

BUT, we need a lot of power to get them, where can they SAFETLY be stored AND it will cause cancer and infertility to the employee's of the power plants!

Ever thought what might happen if something goes wrong, there is a high chance that there will be a nuclear explosion, which will kill loads of people!

As the previous poster mentioned, there is no way you can have an atomic bomb type explosion at a nuclear power plant. Unless you just meant an explosion in general...? don't blame the technology, blame the owners who must be held accountable for improper maintainence of critical components and systems in the plant. A nuclear power plant is like a car, and what happens if you fail to change your oil every 5000 km? and who's fault is that?

I think most of the current nuclear power plants are designed such that the frequency of an accident occuring is no more than 1e-6, which is an extremely low probability. Things have changed since Chernobyl!

Originally posted by Toxic Fox
The problem with nuclear power is not safety, or waste, or terrorism.

You know what the problem with nuclear power is?

MASSIVE IGNORANCE.

Technical and scientific ignorance.

Yes, that's right. I've heard so much insanity that it boggles my mind. Some of the best stuff:

1. If a nuclear power plant explodes it will be like a hydrogen bomb!
Uhh, no. It is not possible for a nuclear power plant to explode anything like a nuclear weapon would.

2. If there ever was a meltdown the area around the reactor would be uninhabitable for thousands or millions of years!
No again. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident ever, and within 20 years people are moving back into the 15KM denied zone and planting crops.

3. If a nuclear plant in America melted down it would be like Chernobyl!
A few key differences:
1. North American plats have a massive containment structure - soviet plants did not.
2. American PWR/BWR power plants operate in a different way than the Soviet RBMK1000/RBMK1500 "Chernobyl" reactors do.
3. The safety standards are much higher in American plants. An RBMK1000-type reactor would NEVER be allowed in the US. Even the Canadian CAN-DU reactor design, which isn't a bad design, is forbidden in the US.

4. We can never get rid of the waste!
Sure we can. The highest level waste sludge is mixed into glass and lead to stabilize it. It's sealed in drums and buried within an extremely stable geological area like a salt mine well away or underneath any water table. Once it is sealed that stuff will, for all intents and purposes, stay there forever.

5. What if someone digs up the waste 10,000 years from now?
That already has been thought of. There are plans to bury platinum placards with warnings in numerous languages near the waste, and other plans along those lines.

6. What if there is an accident involving moving material?
Nuclear materials such as high-level waste are moved in heavily armored traincars that are made to easily withstand the forces involved in a serious derailment.

When you think about it, nuclear power really is the safest, cleanest, and most reliable energy out there. The demon behind nuclear energy is the fearmongering, half-truths, unjustified fear, and simple ignorance.

As far as underground designs - it might just not be feasible. I don't think anyone here has any idea how tough a reactor containment building really is, or what layers of security are involved with people working in/around a facility like this. (I have seen pictures of paramillitary plant gaurd squads armed with assault rifles.)

Re: Sterility and Cancer to Workers
The radiation exposure of plant workers and ambient radiation levels in a facility are carefully monitored. I have never heard of nuclear plant workers having even a remotely higher incidence of cancer.

The ambient radiation levels are so low that it would be safe to live in a house built right next to the reactor containment building. You can take a geiger counter and measure nothing but the faint click-click of background radiation. That's right! You're being exposed to radiation from space right now as we speak!



[edit on 11-12-2005 by Toxic Fox]

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Toxic Fox]

"3. The safety standards are much higher in American plants. An RBMK1000-type reactor would NEVER be allowed in the US. Even the Canadian CAN-DU reactor design, which isn't a bad design, is forbidden in the US."

I don't think that is a correct statement about CANDU, correct me if I am wrong though. The U.S NRC has never formally reviewed the CANDU technology, at least not the newest CANDU reactor (ACR-1000).

"4. We can never get rid of the waste!
Sure we can. The highest level waste sludge is mixed into glass and lead to stabilize it. It's sealed in drums and buried within an extremely stable geological area like a salt mine well away or underneath any water table. Once it is sealed that stuff will, for all intents and purposes, stay there forever. "

I believe the borosilicate glass (spelling) only lasts about 10,000 years and may leach to the surrounding geological body after that... this is off the top of my head, I don't remember the exact number, but it is not permanent.