Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Empire_of_Liberty

I’ve often wondered why they don’t create fission plants far far underground, where if there were a catastrophe the waste matter would be sealed in much like the remnants of hydrogen bomb testing back in the 50s-80s were done underground. I don’t know the physics of power transmission so I think that might be the problem, that is, power needs to be generated locally because transmission becomes too difficult and expensive?


13 posted on 06/14/2022 5:01:18 AM PDT by NicoDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: NicoDon

I don’t pretend to be an expert (or maybe I do), but cost is probably the big issue. The old 50’s promise of “too cheap to meter” met up with the reality of “why should we charge less than coal?” The same applies in reverse. If it costs more than coal, they’ll just use coal.

I always thought they should build reactors or store waste at a subduction zone and let plate tectonics take the whole thing down to melt. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust and all.


21 posted on 06/14/2022 5:25:25 AM PDT by Empire_of_Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: NicoDon

too expensive.

I don’t know why they don’t create city-size nuke generators like those used in nuke powered subs and aircraft carriers.

Those COULD be buried for security


27 posted on 06/14/2022 5:53:35 AM PDT by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson