Nuclear needs to deal with the cost issue first. It is woefully uncompetitive.
I failed to see how one mile deep shaft is going to help that, standard boring or not
If you're wanted to dig a mile down for a massive piece of infrastructure, wouldn't geothermal be more price competitive at that point?
I mean part of the problem with meltdowns is the pollution of groundwater. "It's beneath the water table" yeah sure, there's no way fission products can go up a shaft. No way.
So what safety does this really address besides paranoia? I mean I guess if you have a runaway solid rod fuel reaction, you can just drop a bomb down there and blow the fuel rods apart.
Initially the $/kWh is actually one of the lowest cost services, but this hides the $9B subsidy the public pays for construction and the 30000 year waste stewardship.
Some people think easy solutions are without tradeoffs. Yet fission power only makes sense for remote regions and space missions.
Renewables overtook coal this year in some regions. As the economics are an unstoppable force, that will silence the hubris of those that like dangerous fission toys.
Which is why MSRs that use allegedly almost all the fuel seems like such a potential to feasible cost effective nuclear. It's not just the economic cost of waste, it's the publicity/politics around waste transport and storage.
I failed to see how one mile deep shaft is going to help that, standard boring or not
If you're wanted to dig a mile down for a massive piece of infrastructure, wouldn't geothermal be more price competitive at that point?
I mean part of the problem with meltdowns is the pollution of groundwater. "It's beneath the water table" yeah sure, there's no way fission products can go up a shaft. No way.
So what safety does this really address besides paranoia? I mean I guess if you have a runaway solid rod fuel reaction, you can just drop a bomb down there and blow the fuel rods apart.