4 ms·

It seems that digging cost is pretty minor when compared to the usual cost of these projects. As far as safety, I would expect this depth to be below and away

It seems that digging cost is pretty minor when compared to the usual cost of these projects. As far as safety, I would expect this depth to be below and away from any groundwater, so even with a meltdown there would be no effect on water sources. Presumably if something like Chernobyl happened they would bury the hole and the fuel would just melt its way further down without ill effect. There were plenty of underground nuclear tests already so some of the effects might be understood in practice as well.

senectus1 2y ago
As someone that works in the mining industry... digging is not cheap. not cheap at all.
- itishappy 2y ago
  How do you think it compares to construction of a plane-proof bunker?
- pjc50 2y ago
  HS2 estimating £33 million per kilometer, in the absolute best case of a horizontal fairly shallow tunnel through earth and clay. A 1km hole straight down? I suspect that's going to start at 100m and go up unforseeably from there. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819fe740f0b623026984f5/HS2_Guide_to_Tunnelling_Costs.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819fe740f0b... But! What's not apparent until you read the article is that the planned reactor is .. 76cm across. That is, it's designed to fit down an oil well. Effectively you get "artificial high temperature geothermal", a hot object buried deep underground that you circulate water past.
  - AlexAndScripts 2y ago
    HS2 is more about NIMBYs and inefficiency than actual technical issues.
- foobarian 2y ago
  Not cheap, but may be small compared to nuclear plant construction.
- Bedon292 2y ago
  I don't think they were meaning to say digging is cheap, just that the cost would be minor when compared to the total costs of other nuclear power projects. It cost something like $34B to add two reactors to Plant Vogtle in Georgia [1]. And cost overruns at a project in South Carolina ended up with an estimate of $25B before the company filed for bankruptcy and the project never got finished. Whereas most of the estimates I have seen are in the single digit millions per mile for drilling. But even $100M in drilling would be minor compared to $25B. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal
- euroderf 2y ago
  FWIW... Finland has built a deep geological nukewaste repo. Wikipedia's numbers are: 520m (1700 feet) deep for 818 M€. Source of the money: "The State Nuclear Waste Management Fund has approximately €1.4 billion from charges for generated electricity."
- swader999 2y ago
  This is drilling.
JohnBooty 2y ago
As far as safety, I would expect this depth to be below and away from any groundwater, Nuclear power needs lots of water for cooling and this is no exception. Can you realistically have a nuclear power plant far enough away from groundwater that this isn't a concern? Not a rhetorical question. Maybe you can!

senectus1 2y ago

As someone that works in the mining industry... digging is not cheap. not cheap at all.

itishappy 2y ago
How do you think it compares to construction of a plane-proof bunker?
pjc50 2y ago
HS2 estimating £33 million per kilometer, in the absolute best case of a horizontal fairly shallow tunnel through earth and clay. A 1km hole straight down? I suspect that's going to start at 100m and go up unforseeably from there. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819fe740f0b623026984f5/HS2_Guide_to_Tunnelling_Costs.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819fe740f0b... But! What's not apparent until you read the article is that the planned reactor is .. 76cm across. That is, it's designed to fit down an oil well. Effectively you get "artificial high temperature geothermal", a hot object buried deep underground that you circulate water past.
- AlexAndScripts 2y ago
  HS2 is more about NIMBYs and inefficiency than actual technical issues.
foobarian 2y ago
Not cheap, but may be small compared to nuclear plant construction.
Bedon292 2y ago
I don't think they were meaning to say digging is cheap, just that the cost would be minor when compared to the total costs of other nuclear power projects. It cost something like $34B to add two reactors to Plant Vogtle in Georgia [1]. And cost overruns at a project in South Carolina ended up with an estimate of $25B before the company filed for bankruptcy and the project never got finished. Whereas most of the estimates I have seen are in the single digit millions per mile for drilling. But even $100M in drilling would be minor compared to $25B. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal
euroderf 2y ago
FWIW... Finland has built a deep geological nukewaste repo. Wikipedia's numbers are: 520m (1700 feet) deep for 818 M€. Source of the money: "The State Nuclear Waste Management Fund has approximately €1.4 billion from charges for generated electricity."
swader999 2y ago
This is drilling.

JohnBooty 2y ago

As far as safety, I would expect this depth to be below and away from any groundwater, Nuclear power needs lots of water for cooling and this is no exception. Can you realistically have a nuclear power plant far enough away from groundwater that this isn't a concern? Not a rhetorical question. Maybe you can!