5 ms·

If speed is key, what about developing nuclear-powered TBMs?

• avn2109 9y ago
  Many TBM's are already nuclear powered, in that the grid power they consume was generated in a reactor somewhere. There is no reason to bring the reactor closer to the dig site. Also, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Core for prior art /s
  • gosheroo 9y ago
    Using the grid there must be a lot of transformers and cabling involved. Plus with massive amounts of power in situ one might be able to process the waste rock differently (e.g. if it's looser material with fissures, compress it against the sides of the tunnel or perhaps even melt it rather than removing it. Admittedly I'm rather ignorant of soil and rock physics.)
    • resf 9y ago
      Nuclear reactors require a heatsink, usually a large amount of water. If you put a nuclear reactor underground, you have to pump water back up. This takes a lot of energy. Whereas, electrical energy travelling through cables is not affected by gravity.
      • gosheroo 9y ago
        What if you used the heat to melt rock?
• politician 9y ago
  Put a rocket on it; converting the thrust to electrical energy to drive the system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-_xfTUs3R0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-_xfTUs3R0 (These things are pretty inefficient, but it'd be a way to wrap SpaceX into this new company along with Tesla.)