General > General Technical Chat

Frivolous Nuclear Question

(1/4) > >>

LaserSteve:
Lets say it is early in the Cold War.. Your doing serious civil or mechanical engineering.    You have a task right before President Johnson takes over. As Johnson was the one who ended the first "down-town"  deep shelter project, at least publicly. .   Usually back up power plants in the cold war used diesel or big  turbines from Solar Corporation. 

If you wanted to place a reactor 3500 feet under the Pentagon, how would you handle the spent fuel pool? Where would you place the refueling shaft?   Granted it will probably be like a sub and use zirconium / aluminum plated   fuel plates rather then rods,  but how would you hide the fuel cycle in the middle of DC?   Just for various purposes, lets assume reactor is no more then 3-4 kilometers from point of use laterally. . Also how would you quietly  dispose of the gas phase emissions?.  Lets call it 8 to 80 MW.   We can safely assume that there will be  turbine  generators  and lead acid batteries for backup until the warm up cycle is completed, because no one in their right mind does a emergency  black start / rapid rod pull  on a small reactor in a hurry, except perhaps the two major navies that have a lot of nuclear subs.  One other assumption, you have to use a fuel cask within 100 feet of the surface and hide it in plain sight.  One other "reality" detail, , you have only the mining gear of the day, maybe just a basic Tunnel Boring Machine.


 Just a hypothetical fun design question.  If under the Pentagon bothers you for location, there is always the Kremlin...

I once was a conspiracy theorist of sorts, but not now.  please leave the Politics out of it and stick to the technology...

Steve

pqass:
"...how would you handle the spent fuel pool? Where would you place the refueling shaft?"
Underwater in the Potomac.  Any "package" can be picked up or dropped off without raising suspicion.
The water would also cool and shield any emissions outside the carrier.

"Also how would you quietly  dispose of the gas phase emissions?"
Compressed and blown-out over a wide area under the river (where wide=fine bubbles a-la aquarium stone, enough not to be noticed).  I'm not sure if this will irradiate the passing boats though.   The solution to pollution is dilution.  /s


Cerebus:

--- Quote from: LaserSteve on May 11, 2021, 08:14:29 pm --- Just a hypothetical fun design question.  If under the Pentagon bothers you for location, there is always the Kremlin...

--- End quote ---

Or Downing Street or the Houses of Parliament in London. London as a fantasy location has the advantages of a few existing deep shelters left over from WWII the locations of which are often scketchy, the extensive underground railway tunnels - some disused - and a navigable river with a still significant draft in the parts of the city that are of interest (There's still enough draft inland of Tower Bridge that there's an old warship, HMS Belfast, moored there).

I'm led to believe, but don't know for a certain fact, that the basements of the Ministry of Defence on Whitehall are quite interesting and I wouldn't be at all surprised if at some point someone didn't fly a plan for something similar in the way of survivable power for there.

(For those not familiar with the local geography, the Houses of Parliament, the Thames river, Downing Street, and the Ministry of Defence are all within a stone's throw of each other, if you've got a particularly strong throwing arm.)

jmelson:

--- Quote from: LaserSteve on May 11, 2021, 08:14:29 pm --- Lets call it 8 to 80 MW.

--- End quote ---
OK, you have a big omission, here.  Is this 8-80 MW thermal or 8-80 MW electric.  Take the more conservative #, it means you still need to get rid of 8-80 MW of heat.  That's QUITE a lot of heat.  You could dump it in the convenient river, but anybody who has a satellite with a thermal camera is going to immediately know the thing is there.

Also, reactors have LOTS of safety and ancillary equipment, so it would be real hard to put one in a small underground site.  3500 feet down??!!??  Yikes, just the excavation for the mine shaft would be a huge project and would gather a LOT of notice.

The US government HAS built "something" near the White House.  It was excavated with a lot of secrecy and concealment walls, trucks moving all day every day for years, and finally a building went up that looks like a shed for big Diesel generators.
Is it a tunnel betwwen W.H. and Pentagon?  Support equipment for a deep bunker?  Nobody is saying.

Jon

jmelson:
Oh, and if you are interested in following this, there is a book about some of this stuff :  Raven Rock

Raven Rock is a mountain in southern Pennsylvania that has been hollowed out to make a HUGE backup site for the US military.  Supposedly, they can house 3000 people for 3 months with provisions there.

There's also Mt. Weather, in VA, for FEMA.  There's also Camp David and more facilities.

Jon

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version