Skip to main content

Timeline for Why was PACER abandoned?

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 27, 2012 at 17:12 comment added Ron Maimon @Nathaniel: Yes, the engineered dome idea is sort of silly. I don't know why they would switch down to fission and make an artificial dome. It should be a natural cavity. I wish they would make this stuff public, the cold war is long over.
Feb 27, 2012 at 13:58 comment added N. Virgo "Hollowed rock dome" should be "cavity in a salt dome". (Typing on phone and can't edit)
Feb 27, 2012 at 13:56 comment added N. Virgo I was partially going by PACER's wikipedia page, which describes a much more highly engineered solution in later versions of the proposal, including a building a metal-lined chamber, reinforcing the surrounding rock and using molten salts rather than water as a coolant. It doesn't say why it was changed but I assumed it was because there were engineering/safety related reasons why a simple hollowed rock dome wouldn't be suitable. If this is the case then the added complexity might be what killed the project. It would be good to know.
Feb 27, 2012 at 2:18 comment added Ron Maimon @Zassounotsukushi: The point is that the cavity is constant use--- you are extracting the water for removing the breeder materials, and reusing the radioactive components. You would get buildup of radioactive materials, sure, but they are all in one spot, and they are chemically separated at the plant, and can be bred and rebred by putting on the bomb casings until they are either safe or until they are fuel. If you have short half-life isotopes, you let them decay, for intermediate or long, you put them on the bomb-case for one more run-through. It's a continuous recycling program.
Feb 26, 2012 at 20:20 comment added Alan Rominger @RonMaimon I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the environmental issues with a subterranean cavity considering the economics of nuclear geologic repositories. Isolating the radioactive material isn't the kind of thing that you show in principle how it works and then proceed. It would be subject to endless scrutiny and failure mechanisms do exist.
Feb 26, 2012 at 18:55 comment added Ron Maimon Factor 1 was analyzed in estimate in the document, and it seems to be competitive with other power sources. The chamber itself is a side-effect of certain mining operations, and the explosion effect on the chamber was already known. The issues with mass-producing hydrogen bombs was already known in 1974, and it can only be cheaper today. I agree with point 3, but it seems a shame to base rejection on this. Point 2 is also dubious, because the cracks in salt can be repaired, and the salt formations are much larger than the cavity, so that the leaks should be contained for a long time.
Feb 26, 2012 at 18:52 comment added Ron Maimon Factor 4 doesn't seem right: the chamber is carved out of salt because the weakened parts will dissolve into the water, and any cracks self-repair. It is placed deep underground so that any leeching water will not contaminate groundwater. The radioactive materials are part of the economic output, they are to be chemically removed from the water, and form the breeder program. You can also use a completely different liquid, not water, if you are worried about contamination. I think the whole thing can be environmentally relatively ok, although it makes a lot of radioactive stuff.
Feb 26, 2012 at 18:31 history answered N. Virgo CC BY-SA 3.0