And build nuke plants in the same area where the mines are, using old shafts to store spent fuel. Secure roads or tracks could be built between tha plants and the storage area. Train the miners to run the plants and the spent fuel system.
Insure redundant safety oversight (government) from the start.
Peace,
mangeorge
I believe you are making the mistake of thinking that when a mine finishes operations, you end up with a deep hole in the ground, and some tunnels.
Almost all of it collapses inward, ground is not as stable as you imagine, you’ll usually be left with some of the shaft, but it may not be particularly deep, though you’d not want to fall down it.
I assume we are talking about coal mines here, and not, say tin mines.
Looks like they’ve been discontinued already.
What?
You know we mine for uranium too right?
Yes. Once they are abandoned, you wouldn’t know a mine from a hole in the ground.
I’m referring the mines in West Virginia, USA, where there was an explosion yesterday that killed over 25 workers. But the same idea wherever coal mines, whos output is used to generate electricity, are located.
If the mine shafts aren’t suitable, then don’t use them od course. I know very little detail about nuclear reactors or mines. I’m just offering an idea. It seems like way too many miners die in mines. I do know there is now reactor technology (pebble bed, etc) which is much safer than 30-40 years ago.
And then there’s the pollution.
The details are what I’m asking about.
Okay, you made me look, you dirty crook. I had to check to be sure I’d spelled “mines” correctly.
Sure. I just don’t hear much about uranium mines killing workers.
These are just suggestions, not edicts.
Is there some reason to believe mining for uranium is nearly as dangerous as for coal? I don’t know.
There are also a lot of active mines. As they back out, they can strenghten the shafts as needed. As it is now with storage, they first have to dig that “hole in the ground”.
BTW; this tragedy was the result of a methane explosion, not collapse. I have no idea if methane would be a factor in a storage facility.
Do we really want radioactive waste in a mine where there is gas that might explode?
They do, though. There’s the hazard of radon gas in uranium mines. You can deal with that issue through proper ventilation, but you can also make coal mines safer that way.
Yeah, that’s what I’m asking for. Opinions. I should have used some ?s, huh?
Yep
I hoped the quizzical expression on my face would do the trick. 
Um… do we really want radioactive waste where it will poison our groundwater instead of the atmosphere?
I’m pretty sure that potential problem has been addressed. Not proven to be solved, maybe. The claim is that the waste containment method is secure.
There is still a lot of environmental harm from burning coal. Even “clean” coal.
Normal waste containment methods might be secure. Sticking it in a mineshaft is not.
As I mentioned in reply #9, you wouldn’t just “stick it in a mine shaft”. That’s just common sense. There are large caverns in those mines. I don’t know if they’re in dirt, or rock, or what. I’ve seen film of miners drilling in rock.
The o.p. is such a big pile of abject ignorance about the entire nuclear power fuel and production cycle I would scarcely know where to begin to address the misconceptions. Suffice it to say that the locations where longwall coal mines exist are rarely geologically suitable for erecting power plants, and the idea of training miners–who as a vocational socioeconomic group are among lowest rates of literacy of native English speakers in the United States–to safely operate and maintain nuclear power production and spent fuel disposal facilities is nothing short of absurd.
There are many compelling reasons to migrate away from coal-fired and oil-fired power plants and toward nuclear fission and renewable energy sources, but the scheme proposed above is not remotely viable, nor would such a shift occur in less than a human generation even with a focused national program.
Stranger
Well, a real opinion in imho. Cool, that’s what I was asking. Had I been less than ignorant of the details of such a shift I likely wouldn’t have posted. A little more detail and a little less puffery would have been nice, but that’s okay.
The only point I have a problem with is that the population is totally untrainable in any aspect of the system. There are a lot of highly technical jobs at issue, I’m sure. But there many unskilled jobs as well. And there are plenty of people, especially younger ones, who could with training move into the more technical jobs. It doesn’t take a genius to be an operator in the control room of a plant. Just some intelligence and some good training. In fact, a generation is what I had in mind. My recollection is that it could take 15 years to bring a plant online in the USA.
But I do see your point about the other things.
BTW; I’ve never been to the coal producing areas of the USA. I did a little research about the seismic stability of the area. A rare 4.5 isn’t that hard to design to is it?
In fact, it takes a great deal of training and expertise to run a nuclear power plant. You’re right that on any given day, it’s probably easy and low-key, but in order to fix a problems when it occurs, you’d want more than Average (albeit well-trained) Joe to fix it. However, we have a ready to go source for well-trained, smart, hard-working nuclear power technicians: The U.S. Navy, which also has an excellent safety record on the matter.