Energy

Nuclear reactors a mile underground promise safe, cheap power

Nuclear reactors a mile underground promise safe, cheap power
The Deep Fission reactor uses many of the same components as a conventional reactor, like this fuel assembly
The Deep Fission reactor uses many of the same components as a conventional reactor, like this fuel assembly
View 1 Image
Diagram of the Deep Fission reactor
1/1
Diagram of the Deep Fission reactor

Startup Deep Fission has come up with a new way to deal with the economic and safety problems of nuclear power that is, to say the least, novel. The idea is to build a reactor that's under 30 inches (76 cm) wide and stick it down a mile-deep (1.6-km) drill shaft.

With its promise of limitless energy by breaking down matter itself, nuclear power has long held a utopian promise for humanity. However, economic and safety considerations, along with political opposition, have hindered its development – especially in the very countries that developed the technology.

The safety and economic factors are related because the high cost of building nuclear power stations has very little to do with the nuclear technology itself. Nuclear fuel, even with all the processing costs included, only comes to about US$1,663 per kilogram (2.2 lb). Because nuclear fuel has such an incredible energy density, that's about 0.46 ¢/kWh – and the fuel costs keep dropping as the technology becomes more efficient.

Where the real expense comes from is the massive civil engineering required to contain the nuclear reactor and protect the outside world in the event of a catastrophic accident. The reactor pressure vessel can be as much as eight ft (2.4 m) of stainless steel and the containment structure of reinforced concrete can be up to 6 ft (2 m) thick. Add in the foundations, support equipment, pressurizers, cooling systems, and the costs begin to add up before all the license fees are tacked on top.

The Deep Fission reactor
The Deep Fission reactor

What Deep Fission wants to do may seem daft, but there is a certain elegance about the proposal. The idea is to build a small reactor based on a conventional pressurized water reactor (PWR) that can fit into the borehole of a drilling operation. Like a PWR, the Deep Fission reactor would run at the same 160 atmospheres of pressure and temperature of 315 °C (600 °F).

The clever bit is to vastly simplify the design and do without all that ultra-expensive civil engineering by lowering the reactor down a drill shaft a mile deep. A pair of pipes would be attached. One to send down water and another to bring back steam from the reactor's steam generator.

The upshot is a small reactor that uses the same type of fuel and many of the same components as a PWR reactor, but one that has almost no moving parts except for the control rods that are operated remotely. Since the water column is a mile high, it would pressurize the reactor by its sheer weight, much like sticking it a mile under the sea, so no need for a pressurizer and the cooling system would be entirely passive.

In addition, being encased in solid rock far below any water table removes any need for a containment system. If things get really bad, fill in the shaft and cap it.

According to the company, if the reactor needs inspection or servicing, it can be hauled to the surface by cables in about an hour or two. The reactor's design is also self-limiting, so if it does manage to overheat, the nuclear reaction will automatically dampen itself down.

The concept still has a long way to go, but Deep Fission has already begun the pre-application and application review process with the Department of Energy of its plan for developing the system and finding the best geological location for a pilot plant.

If successful, it could give a whole new meaning to 'geothermal power.'

Source: Deep Fission

13 comments
13 comments
Pablo
If the heat source (reactor) is a mile deep, please explain how the manufacturer plans on keeping the steam from condensing as it rises back to the surface. Even at a high pressure, the amount of heat transfer from the steam to the surrounding soils would cause this design to be inefficient.
vince
That's a great way to endanger the water table if a lot of these things near water tables went South. I guess the water would be 'cleansed' of bacteria and the like but consuming radiation wouldn't be too cool.
TechGazer
"If things get really bad, fill in the shaft and cap it." Put the Deepwater Horizon crew on that; problem solved ... eventually.
Greg Jeffcoat
There is a difference between a mile of water’s pressure at one mile, and a mile of air above one mile deep. Every 30 feet of sea water is equal to approximately 14.7 psi. It takes over 50,000 feet of air column above sea level to create a force of 14.7 psi. So a mile below sea level into the earth of air pressure creates an additional 1.5 psi, so something like 16.2 psi total on the reactor. So they’ll have to come up with another way to pressurize the reactor for proper operating parameters .
Jinpa
Nuclear and safe don't belong in the same sentence, much less in a paragraph or article. Read the book Insurmountable Risks, by Brice Smith. When, not if, these devices fail, irreversible nuclear pollution of the water table is inevitable. Not smart.
The Doubter
I think some commenters are unduly pessimistic about nuclear power. Humanity will have to embrace nuclear power for round-the-clock power availability. This concept is quite elegantly thought out. And, the 1-mile column is of water. so the pressure at the reactor entry will be approximately 173 bars, which is adequate for efficient stem power generation.
cgroh
Man has successfully polluted the air, the water and the soil. Now it’s time for polluting the underground...
It is tempting to deem this idea as absurd, but the facts speak for themselves: nuclear power might be greener than any other form of power except for solar and wind (and if you live in Iceland, thermal). The problem with the radiation has to be tackled seriously - and there are some alternatives, like the new pebble reactors - in order to obtain it in an environmentally-safe manner.
dcris
Those promoting 'Nuclear Energy' are totally in line with the issue of radioactive waste and storage.... They WON"T GO AWAY. Change is coming in the energy sector in the next few years that will make all other forms of power production obsolete. And it surely is NOT Nuclear Energy.
ANTIcarrot
Given the tiny size I assume this is in the 1 to 10 megawatt range.

I'm also not quite sure this approach is as simple as outlined. The water and steam in the primary loop are still radioactive, and still need to be filtered for contaminates, presumably at ground level. Also before they can lift the core up, they need to do something about the two miles of pipes above it (one up, one down) and store all that radioactive water somewhere safe and shielded, along with the pipes.

It seems a overly complicated approach to solving one of the easiest and least challenging 'problems' of a nuclear power plant.
Majki
@Pablo - good observation; they might bring down steam generator as well to keep loses to a minimum.
Load More