NUKES

More and more countries (mostly northern, not endowed with sun nor hydro) slowly awake to the reality, that combining climate targets with present energy needs is possible for them only by return to nuclear power. Which is technically sound resolve. However, as brightest engineers are again busy with re-inventing (LMFBR or HTGR) and optimising new designs, one important thing is overlooked: the evil nature of the man.

While nuclear power can be harnessed with existing technologies to be dirt-cheap (sic !), clean and efficient, no engineer can construct a device which could not be purposedly destroyed by an another engineer. And there is always the imbalance of costs&effort - construction is much more difficult and expensive than destruction. (Don't forget - costs differences built whole trades and industries, even whole economies !)

Designing a containment building resistant to an aircraft's strike will not help against an act of human negligence or sabotage from the inside.

Perhaps , the way of thinking of the designers would be influenced by an enhanced knowledge that both most serious GAUs in the nuclear industry (Chernobyl and Fukushima) were acts of intentional&remote sabotage?

At least until this is taught in engineering schools, I propose a universal and amicable solution: go underground. There should be an ISO-norm for that. As simple as this.

Building of the nuclear plant fully underground is technically quite feasible due to its compactness, although some re-adjustments of the designs are required. Part of the increased costs can be offset by unnecessary containment building. And re-considering of the infamous RBMK -design due to: easiness of robotic refuelling, lack of pressurized steel tank, single circuit, etc - is recommendable. Plus, no costs for de-commissioning ; just leave it there , along with burnt-out fuel, under good blanket of solid concrete. (No, I did not forget residual heat generation, either distant possibility of natural criticality, isotopes diffusion, etc....)

Countries which have old salt- or coal mines could make avail of it. The less fortunate just have to dig. The far-sighted Swiss bored into the mountain.

Theoretically, we could forfeit nuclear and for example use solar only - with huge global ring of transmission network, forwarding the solar energy 8-10 hours ahead, beyond of terminator line, as the globe rotates. But I'll sooner see global justice first than global power system...

Many educated and wise men (sometimes both in one person) begun recently to speak about small nuclear power plant. "Small" - sounds reassuring : small money, small risk, small pollution...

The excellent, academic case of a fallacy. Nuclear power plant has extremally low usage of metal and workmanship to get built, per MW installed. Costs are generated by procedural, social, security and bureaucratic manoueuvres, which are MW-independent. So, the bigger the plant - the better. In case of GAU, pollution depends on meteorology mostly: wind and precipitation. In the worst case, small reactor fully blown out may generate pollution of comparable area as the huge one, also totally exploded.

The next act of major sabotage at some nuclear plant worldwide is not only probable , but inevitable - it is only a question of time. Once there is a way - there is a will...

And, following the logic of the underground jungle, not a single one , but always in pair - act & revenge, or the whole chain of it.

By the way - I forgot to mention that I'd really love to see the world going nuclear...