Ask questions via twitter! Message any question to @answers on twitter. We'll publish the question and send you a reply each time there's a new answer.
Next Question

Answered Question

gthomas gthomas
 
December 15, 2008 09:44 PM

Would it be more secure and better for the environment to build future nuclear power plants deep underground?

Interesting Question?  Yes (0)   No (0)   
RSS
 
 

Best Answer  Chosen by Asker

natebosch natebosch
 
 December 15, 2008 10:08 PM
I wouldn't be better for the environment (nuclear power plants, when managed appropriately cause very little harm to the environment), and wouldn't be worth the cost in terms of safety from industrial accidents, as the risk of accidents which cause damage outside the plant is so low. The only potential benefit I can see is the added safety from air based or other attacks by terrorists and other countries. The likelihood of these attacks, and the potential benefit/cost ratio of moving the plant underground is debatable and I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable in military affairs, but in terms of containing radiation or any other such benefit, it is unnecessary as the plants are already very safe above ground.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rs21131.pdf



Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip natebosch for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 

Other Answers (7)

Sort By
blackmere blackmere
 
December 15, 2008 09:57 PM
I am no expert on this subject and my views on nuclear power are likely shaped from being a child in the 80s. That said, the threat of meltdown is one part of the problem and the only part addressed by burying the plant. The real threat and real reason nuclear power should be a method of last resort is the waste involved is deadly. We have gotten very good at containing it but burying it deep in the earth for some future people to deal with IS NOT AN ANSWER. I don't know how much risk is acceptable risk in this case but from my layman's understanding of the subject it seems like too much risk.
Source(s):
Anti-nuke propaganda being pounded into my head at a young age and some light internet searches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Solid_waste


Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip blackmere for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
capnmatttt... capnmatttt...
 
December 15, 2008 10:00 PM
There are risks no matter where you build a nuclear power plant. For instance, under ground their could be the possibility of ground water contamination.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip capnmattttt for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
bmlhailsto... bmlhailsto...
 
December 15, 2008 10:02 PM
Negative, you do not want a nuclear plant underground. You could ruin aquifers, dilute water supplys, and if it blew up one day, it could take a big chunk out of the earth. Best case scenario is on land, but contained within a giant steel box, top, bottom, and sides. It's like a blast chamber and a containment chamber for keeping in leaks. Problem is, you need reasonable exhaust.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip bmlhailstone for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
ilaksh ilaksh
 
December 15, 2008 10:10 PM
I think that if the underground site were correctly selected so that there was not a risk of groundwater contamination then an underground site could be safer.
However, with the recent scientific breakthroughs and economic and engineering levels in solar, wind, tidal, biofuel and other approaches it doesn't make sense to risk such horrific environmental or human consequences as have been witnessed as a result of nuclear power even if such risks can be minimized.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip ilaksh for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
bugsandins... bugsandins...
 
December 15, 2008 10:43 PM
Many of the risks involved with a nuclear power plant arise from the disposal of the toxic waste generated by a large scale plant. Simply moving the plant underground will not change the amount of waste it produces.

Also, the reason nuclear plants have such large towers is because they generate enormous amounts of heat. Such amounts of heat would be much harder to manage in an underground facility, requiring the plant to be close enough to the surface to have an above ground cooling tower.

These two reasons are enough to not move nuclear plants underground, as well as the fact that an underground facility will always cost more to construct than one that is on the surface.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip bugsandinsects for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
glennswest glennswest
 
December 16, 2008 03:55 AM
Yes and maybe.

Deep underground certainly has the security aspect covered. Things like planes, and car-bombs. Also you can design install and forget. Some of the latest designs are really idea for this concept. Build it, use it, and leave it.
Also if you plan, you can have multiple generations of reactors on one site.

The maybe part is, the thing you worry about the most is a leak of radioactive gas, but generally such things are relatively heavy, and if
you plan right, you can have absorbing materials. The other thing
to think about is groundwater contamination.

New designs are designed to run with no cooling system, and to self
regulate, which does away with most of this. GE is actually helping
china build such plants, as they have a huge need for energy.
Look up pebble bed nuclear for the idea plant for your bury and forget.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip glennswest for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
meanjoe42 meanjoe42
 
December 16, 2008 05:34 AM
It a great concept - but it demands very reliable technology with no moving parts. I think some upcoming nuclear technologies fit this bill. Look at Toshiba's nuclear battery for instance.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S


Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip meanjoe42 for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 

Answer this Question

How tips and payments work

This question has already been resolved. You may add an answer to it but you will not be eligible to win best answer or any associated tips.

Related Questions

View All Engineering Questions

Ask a Question


140 characters left
Top of Page
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal

Top Members

This Week All Time
  • buddawiggi
    buddawiggi
    2nd Degree Black Belt
    28118 Points
    M$810.91 Earned
  • opher
    opher
    Purple Belt
    4949 Points
    M$207.34 Earned
  • annelisle
    annelisle
    Purple Belt
    3456 Points
    M$104.22 Earned
   See All
 

Most Popular Tags

mahalo(1652)
twitter(959)
music(472)
iphone(470)
google(365)
food(329)
internet(310)
online(300)
beer(281)
money(269)
movies(267)
apple(253)
facebook(244)
aotd(235)
answers(232)
health(223)
video(210)
free(208)
dog(205)
windows(198)
   See All
 

Categories

Welcome New Members


 
 
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.

Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.

Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More

 
 

Please log in to use this function.

Answers Home | Ask a Question | Earn Points | How Tips Work | Widget