No doubt it is part expense but there are other factors too, like earthquake vulnerability and radiating heat (not radioactivity simply thermal heat radiation) would become more difficult. I'm sure there are others.
would it ever be feasible (don't want to say "possible", over used and besides just about anything is "possible") to have a nuke plant in orbit and either "tether" the power back to the surface or 'broadcast' it back in another way?
if such a thing were done, would a disaster in orbit create the same harmful effects as high alt nuke warheads going off--EMP,radiation,etc?
would it ever be feasible (don't want to say "possible", over used and besides just about anything is "possible") to have a nuke plant in orbit and either "tether" the power back to the surface or 'broadcast' it back in another way?
;
Was not Tesla working on wireless Electricity if I remember correctly ?
But if it was low enough in orbit it would seed the atmosphere with deadly radiation pellets
would it ever be feasible (don't want to say "possible", over used and besides just about anything is "possible") to have a nuke plant in orbit and either "tether" the power back to the surface or 'broadcast' it back in another way?
Not with current technology. The amount of power required to power a single city wouldn't be possible via any type of wireless conduit. Furthermore, the logistics of providing that much power from orbit doesn't make sense. Either it would be a mega structure to power entire segmented regions of a continent or filling the sky with nuclear reactors, neither of which would be practical nor desirable.
Not with current technology. The amount of power required to power a single city wouldn't be possible via any type of wireless conduit. Furthermore, the logistics of providing that much power from orbit doesn't make sense. Either it would be a mega structure to power entire segmented regions of a continent or filling the sky with nuclear reactors, neither of which would be practical nor desirable.
Personally, I do wonder why civilian nuclear power plant builders don't use the same reactors the US Navy uses - very long core life, small size coupled with good output and as they are built for use in ships the whole structure is very strong and self-contained.
so back to my original question; WHY are they not built underground or in a mountain?
is it just simple finances? or is there another "real" reason?
I wonder how many nuclear powered ships -- namely subs -- have been lost due to core malfunctions. I doubt any American ones but I bet Russia has lost a few and kept it quiet.
It is also interesting to read about the New Safe Confinement and how they now are starting to dismantle the reactor and the old sarcophagus.