Building Nuclear Power Plants Underground: Pros & Cons

In summary: My thinking is that if we build these things underground this would provide better protection of the environment in the case of a major problem...All of the ones I know of are built above ground. A problem with a meltdown would be that radioactive material would be released into the environment and it would be very difficult to clean up. Underground reactors would present other logistical problems, such as the fact that the coolant would be difficult to get out in the event of a problem.
  • #1
Arctic Fox
176
0
Is there any reason not to build nuclear power plants underground?

All of the ones I know of (http://pravda.ru/main/2002/02/05/36613.html) are all above ground - if there’s a problem like meltdown, it gets scattered all around. My thinking is that if we build these things underground this would provide better protection of the environment in the case of a major problem...

Comments?
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
In the case of a meltdown, the released radioactive material would end up directly in the groundwater, which is the worst possible situation. You might be able to build them in highlands or in deserts where the water table is very deep, but doing so would present very large logistical problems.

- Warren
 
  • #3
The Rubbia fast reactor (energy amplifier)

Arctic Fox said:
nuclear power plants underground?

My thinking is that if we build these things underground this would provide better protection of the environment in the case of a major problem...
That seemed to be Carlo Rubbia's thinking. He invented the underground accelerator-linked lead-cooled fast reactor. The accelerator provides some of the neutrons necessary to achieve criticality. That makes it easy to stop the reaction - you just turn off the accelerator and the reaction has to stop because there are no longer enough neutrons to sustain it (the accelerator, of course, cannnot accelerate neutrons since they have neutral charge - it generates neutrons indirectly by firing protons at the lead which then, in turn, undergoes spalatial fission, releasing neutrons).

Here are http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/gpr/images/rubbia.gif of the Rubbia Energy Amplifier.

Rubbia's idea was that the reactor had almost no way of melting down (a common scenario for a meltdown involves coolant pump failure and in Rubbia's design there are no pumps - the lead coolant relies instead on natural heat-driven circulation), so his reactor actually might not be a good example of one that is built underground to protect against the hazards of a meltown. But his reactor might still be a good example of building underground to avoid a meltdown. Being underground, it is difficult for the coolant to escape. It would also seem to present a more challenging target for human-guided missile-airplanes.

On a side note, Richard Garwin thought of a variation on the Rubbia reactor where the accelerator is left out and the resulting neutron deficit is made up with either decommissioned weapons plutonium or uranium-233 bred from thorium-232. See Megawatts and Megatons for details (Amazon let's you read about fifty scanned pages for free with their Search Inside this Book feature - search for the keyword rubbia. Also, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/ is a good place to ask nuke questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
hitssquad said:
That seemed to be Carlo Rubbia's thinking. He invented the underground accelerator-linked lead-cooled fast reactor. The accelerator provides some of the neutrons necessary to achieve criticality. That makes it easy to stop the reaction - you just turn off the accelerator and the reaction has to stop because there are no longer enough neutrons to sustain it (the accelerator, of course, cannnot accelerate neutrons since they have neutral charge - it generates neutrons indirectly by firing protons at the lead which then, in turn, undergoes spalatial fission, releasing neutrons)...

Rubbia's idea was that the reactor had almost no way of melting down (a common scenario for a meltdown involves coolant pump failure and in Rubbia's design there are no pumps - the lead coolant relies instead on natural heat-driven circulation), so his reactor actually might not be a good example of one that is built underground to protect against the hazards of a meltown.

However, terminating the fission process and its energy production
has never been THE problem.

The main problem is what to do about decay heat.

The Three Mile Island reactor successfully shutdown at the start of
the accident. The heat energy to melt the core did not come from
fission - but was decay energy - the heat released by the radioactive
decay of fission products.

An accelerator driven sub-critical reactor has exactly the same
problem - one can shutdown the accelerator in order to stop the
fissions [ just like scramming the control rods ] - but what does one do
about the decay heat?

The Rubbia design is very similar to the "pool-type" LMFBR [ Liquid Metal
Fast Breeder Reactor ] designs. The "pool-type" design addresses the
decay heat problem mentioned above - because of the thermal inertia
of the pool. The following link shows the IFR concept - the reactor is
colored orange, and the liquid sodium "pool" is blue:

http://www.anlw.anl.gov/htdocs/anlw_history/images/image_large/ifr_concept.html [Broken]

The Integral Fast Reactor [ IFR ] design from Argonne National Lab is
a pool design - as is it's predecessor and testbed - Experimental Breeder
Reactor II [ EBR-II ] at Argonne-West in Idaho - built in 1964.

http://www.anlw.anl.gov/divisions/facilities/EBR_II_Page/EBRII_Frameset.htm [Broken]

So the saving grace for Rubbia's design is not that it is driven by an
accelerator - but that it uses the "pool" concept; just as LMFBR designs
have done for decades.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist LLNL
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What are the advantages of building nuclear power plants underground?

Building nuclear power plants underground can provide several benefits, including improved safety and security. By being located deep underground, the risk of external hazards, such as natural disasters or terrorist attacks, can be greatly reduced. Additionally, underground construction can also help to protect the plant from extreme weather conditions, such as hurricanes or tornadoes. Underground plants may also have a smaller physical footprint, making them more suitable for densely populated areas.

2. Are there any disadvantages to building nuclear power plants underground?

While there are certainly advantages to underground nuclear power plants, there are also some potential drawbacks. One major concern is the high cost of construction, as building underground can be a complex and expensive process. There may also be challenges in accessing and maintaining the plant's equipment and infrastructure, as well as potential difficulties in emergency response and evacuation procedures.

3. How do underground nuclear power plants differ from traditional above-ground plants?

Underground nuclear power plants differ from traditional above-ground plants in several ways. The most obvious difference is their location, with underground plants being built deep beneath the Earth's surface. This location not only provides added safety and security, but also helps to reduce the visual impact of the plant on the surrounding landscape. Additionally, underground plants may also use different cooling methods, such as relying on natural groundwater sources rather than large cooling towers.

4. What are some potential environmental impacts of building nuclear power plants underground?

There are several potential environmental impacts to consider when building nuclear power plants underground. Excavation and construction activities can disrupt natural habitats and ecosystems, and may also release pollutants into the surrounding environment. Underground plants may also require the use of large amounts of water for cooling, which can impact local water resources. It is important for thorough environmental impact assessments to be conducted before construction to mitigate these potential impacts.

5. How do safety regulations differ for underground nuclear power plants?

The safety regulations for underground nuclear power plants are generally similar to those for above-ground plants. However, there may be some additional regulations and considerations due to the unique challenges of building and operating a plant deep underground. For example, there may be specific requirements for ventilation, emergency response plans, and access to the plant in case of an accident. It is important for these regulations to be carefully followed to ensure the safe operation of the plant.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Replies
52
Views
7K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
41
Views
15K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
21
Views
21K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
27
Views
7K
Back
Top