2 ms·

"A Mile Underground" is way below most ground water deposits. Most wells are less than 1000 feet deep. The world's deepest aquifer is less than 2 miles deep. Yo

by foxyv 2y ago

"A Mile Underground" is way below most ground water deposits. Most wells are less than 1000 feet deep. The world's deepest aquifer is less than 2 miles deep. You would not bury a nuclear reactor in such a place. Also, nature has multiple buried natural fission reactors just like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto... Essentially what is being proposed here is an artificial geothermal well. The cost of the drilling is offset by not having to pay for the construction of huge concrete buildings and disposal of secondary nuclear waste. Disposal of waste on-site would essentially be filling the well with concrete. You are killing two birds with one stone. In addition, ground water is usually filtered through miles of sand, coal, and limestone. Well water is often radioactive and needs to be tested regularly because it has been filtered through uranium and thorium decay products. If such a reactor were to be breached, it's waste would not reach the surface unless it were placed in a mile deep spring that no one knew about somehow. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/natural-radionuclides-private-wells https://www.epa.gov/radtown/natural-radionuclides-private-we... https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments-and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/private_wells/2018-downloads/050818-uranium_in_well_water_september_2016.pdf https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments-and-agencies/dph/d...

bilekas 2y ago
Okay that is a bit more less concerning then and makes a bit more sense to a layman like myself.
butlike 2y ago
From that article, it appears to have been a singular fission reactor that happened 1.7 billion years ago, which would make study of the ramifications to the surrounding area impossible now, right?
- foxyv 2y ago
  The best part about studying radioactivity is how predictable it is and how easy it is to detect. It's part of how we are able to date the age of earth using Uranium isotope ratios. Decay occurs at predictable rates. The entire earth's crust is contaminated with nuclear byproducts which allow us to learn a great deal about it's formation even a couple billion years later. Fossil reactors are just an example of the nuclear world we live on. There are also countless other nuclear materials in the earth's crust. It's part of why we have to test for nuclear contamination of our wells. The destruction of one of these reactors a mile deep would be a blip on the radioactive material being unearthed. We would have to be careful not to place them next to existing aquifers, but they would be way more safe than surface plants which already have an amazing track record.
fweimer 2y ago
As far as I can tell from the article, the primary coolant loop extends to the surface, and that's a key aspect of the proposal. Obviously not everything is very far down. The idea certainly is cute, but potential failure modes look more like What If? scenarios than anything else.
- foxyv 2y ago
  I don't see where this is mentioned. I would think they would use a hydraulic cylinder and a heat exchanger to separate the primary loop from the secondary loop.

by foxyv 2y ago

bilekas 2y ago

Okay that is a bit more less concerning then and makes a bit more sense to a layman like myself.

butlike 2y ago

From that article, it appears to have been a singular fission reactor that happened 1.7 billion years ago, which would make study of the ramifications to the surrounding area impossible now, right?

foxyv 2y ago
The best part about studying radioactivity is how predictable it is and how easy it is to detect. It's part of how we are able to date the age of earth using Uranium isotope ratios. Decay occurs at predictable rates. The entire earth's crust is contaminated with nuclear byproducts which allow us to learn a great deal about it's formation even a couple billion years later. Fossil reactors are just an example of the nuclear world we live on. There are also countless other nuclear materials in the earth's crust. It's part of why we have to test for nuclear contamination of our wells. The destruction of one of these reactors a mile deep would be a blip on the radioactive material being unearthed. We would have to be careful not to place them next to existing aquifers, but they would be way more safe than surface plants which already have an amazing track record.

fweimer 2y ago

As far as I can tell from the article, the primary coolant loop extends to the surface, and that's a key aspect of the proposal. Obviously not everything is very far down. The idea certainly is cute, but potential failure modes look more like What If? scenarios than anything else.

foxyv 2y ago
I don't see where this is mentioned. I would think they would use a hydraulic cylinder and a heat exchanger to separate the primary loop from the secondary loop.