Energy

Deep Fission raises $30 million to build mile-deep nuclear reactor

Deep Fission raises $30 million to build mile-deep nuclear reactor
The new borehole reactor plant will have a much smaller footprint than this surface plant
The new borehole reactor plant will have a much smaller footprint than this surface plant
View 2 Images
The new borehole reactor plant will have a much smaller footprint than this surface plant
1/2
The new borehole reactor plant will have a much smaller footprint than this surface plant
Diagram of the Deep Fission reactor
2/2
Diagram of the Deep Fission reactor

Giving a whole new meaning to underground power, startup Deep Fission Nuclear has secured US$30 million in funding to install a micro-reactor in a mile-deep borehole by July 4, 2026 as part of the US Department of Energy's Reactor Pilot Program.

Over a year ago, we looked at Deep Fission and its plans to install nuclear reactors in what at first seems the oddest place possible outside of the gibbon enclosure at the zoo. The company wants to drill a 30-in (76-cm) borehole into solid rock in a geologically stable area to a depth of one mile (1.6 km) and lower a complete nuclear reactor on a wire to the bottom.

It may seem strange, but there's some solid engineering logic behind it. Perhaps the three biggest concerns regarding nuclear power are cost, safety, and security. The nuclear power plants that have been built since the 1950s have been extremely expensive – at least in the West with construction taking decades and costing tens of billions of dollars. In addition, there are legitimate fears of a catastrophic accident as well as the threat of terrorist sabotage.

Deep Fission's plan is to ameliorate these problems by radically shifting the reactor location.

Diagram of the Deep Fission reactor
Diagram of the Deep Fission reactor

Contrary to popular perception, the huge construction expense for nuclear plants isn't the reactor itself but the extensive civil engineering needed to contain it and its support equipment. By placing the reactor deep underground, it's possible to eliminate a lot of the plant and to simplify its design, resulting in a reduction in above-ground construction costs of up to 80%.

The current Deep Fission plan is for a self-contained 15-MWe modular reactor fueled with Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and running at a temperature of 315 °C (600 °F) to be lowered on a cable to the bottom of the bore hole, which is flooded with water. Attached to the reactor are two insulated pipelines. One carries water down and the other carries live non-radioactive steam back to the surface, where it feeds turbines to generate electricity. Meanwhile, the water column and the surrounding rock pressurizes the reactor to 160 ATM (2,352 psi) without the need for special equipment.

This arrangement allows the plant to have a footprint of only a quarter acre to a half acre (1,012 to 2,023 m²) for the basic configuration. In addition, by placing the reactor deep underground, the containment structure is no longer required and security is provided by the location of the reactor.

Another safety feature is the fact that placing the borehole in a stable area and drilling deep beyond the water table means the reactor is essentially self-disposing. If it's damaged and can't be hauled to the surface, the hole can be filled with rubble and concrete. At such a depth, there's no chance of contaminating the water table and, contrary to popular belief, uranium doesn't leach very far through solid rock even over millions of years.

According to Deep Fission, a pilot plant could be built in about six months and if the technology is commercialized, it could provide electricity to the grid for about five to seven cents per kWh.

"This is a unique moment for the nuclear industry," said Liz Muller, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Deep Fission. "Deep Fission has the right technology, at the right time, and in the right place. With this funding, we can begin building our pilot reactor, with the goal of completion in 2026. We believe we can scale our technology rapidly and profitably to address the massive energy demand from AI data centers and other customers around the world."

Source: Deep Fission

11 comments
11 comments
Techutante
I have concerns.
paul314
How many of these would you have to build at somewhere less than 10K homes each? You'd need 60 to match a typical 1MWe reactor, so that would be at least 15-30 acres (although perhaps they could be more widely distributed)/
Chase
I'm curious about longevity and refuelling.
@paul314, I would assume that the 1/4 acre also includes all of the surface components, like the turbine/generator, heat exchanger (opportunity for geothermal cooling via helical coil piping back down to the reactor?), step-up transformers, control systems, etc. As the number of colocated reactors goes up, is be willing to bet the surface area efficiency would also go up. At least for a bit, until you hit the minimum distance between reactor bore holes, whatever that may be.
rdp
As with any novel engineering approach, I'm sure Deep Fission will discover novel failure modes as they scale up. This phrase caught my attention: "a 30‑inch borehole into solid rock in a geologically stable area to a depth of one mile." Will the availability of geologically suitable sites be a limiting factor?
pete-y
I presume this could easily be scaled up to provide more significant power outputs.
michael_dowling
....it could provide electricity to the grid for about five to seven cents per kWh. What happened to fission energy too cheap to meter?
DaveWesely
@Paul314 Why would it take 60 15 MWe reactors like this to equal a typical 1 MWe reactor?
ANTIcarrot
I have concerns. 1) A 15MW reactor shouldn't need a containment building at all, since the cube-square law means it doesn't have enough energy to melt down. The only remaining issue would be a steam release, and this design doesn't stop that. 2) I question the efficiency of running a pipe of moderately hot steam though a mile of relatively cold water. Will the entire borehole be pressurised so that the water can heat up, not boil, and avoid thermal losses? 3) Claiming the steam coming back up will be non radioactive is straight false. Neutron activation of oxygen in the steam will happen. If there is any corrosion, or cracking due to thermal cycling of the reactor, you will get other nasties as well. It won't be high level radiation, but it will be radiation. It will also need to be filtered out and disposed of. 4) If there's radiation constantly flowing through the coolant loop, which is under pressure, you probably do need a pressure containment building anyway. Albeit potentially a much smaller one.
christopher
Total insanity - imagine the expensive of trying to solve a meltdown, a mile underground, to stop a few centuries worth of toxic radioactive steam spewing forth otherwise...
The Doubter
Even after noting all these concerns, I still feel it is a good idea. They are mentioning areas of 1/4 acre etc, it is likely to be 50-100 acres. But it will be a step ahead from the 1000s of acres a conventional reactor requires.
Load More