The Hidden Costs of Going Underground

The notion that “going underground” is a foolproof way to secure critical infrastructure has gained traction in recent years, especially following Russia’s war with Ukraine. Engineering firms like EarthGrid are developing technologies that can tunnel through even the hardest materials at unprecedented speeds, making it possible to bury power cables, data centers, and other sensitive equipment beneath our feet.

This trend is exemplified by EarthGrid’s rock-melting tunnel-boring machine (TBR), which was recently tested in a California quarry. While this technology has sparked excitement about faster and more efficient undergrounding, it also raises concerns about the environmental impact of tunnel boring. The process can release potentially hazardous gases locked in the ground, and occasional flooding issues can arise when water tables are disrupted.

Advancements in laser-guidance systems and gyroscopes have improved the accuracy of tunnel boring equipment, mitigating some of these risks. However, as Mark Neller, energy leader for Europe, India, Middle East, and Africa at engineering consultants Arup, notes, “We usually measure [progress] in millimetres per minute.” This slow pace of innovation is a critical consideration when weighing the costs and benefits of undergrounding.

The data bunker boom is another trend that has emerged in response to growing concerns about security. Data centers are being installed in remote locations, often in naturally cool caverns deep within mountains or beneath the sea floor. These sites offer several advantages, including reduced energy consumption and a lower risk of physical intrusion or electromagnetic interference. Dennis Bonn, chief executive of Trentino DataMine, observes that “Ninety million cubic metres of dolomite rock provide natural protection against physical intrusion, electromagnetic interference, seismic events, and hydrogeological risks – levels of protection that simply cannot be replicated above ground.”

While undergrounding may offer a range of benefits, it’s essential to consider the broader implications. As Robbie McGoran, head of work winning and business development at Joseph Gallagher, notes, “Countries bordering Russia are increasingly asking about undergrounding.” This trend is likely driven by a desire for increased security in the face of escalating global tensions.

However, as we prioritize protection over transparency, we must also confront the potential consequences for democratic accountability and public access to information. The notion that going underground can safeguard our critical infrastructure from physical threats and cyber attacks may be overly simplistic. Alexander RE Taylor, senior lecturer in communications at the University of Exeter, notes that “Brutal materiality is still important,” hinting at a deeper truth: that even as we seek to shield ourselves from harm, we must also confront the complex relationships between technology, security, and the natural world.

As the demand for undergrounding continues to grow, it’s essential that we prioritize not only innovation but also transparency and accountability. We need to weigh the costs of going underground against the benefits, considering both the environmental impact and the potential consequences for democratic values. Only by acknowledging these complexities can we create a more secure and sustainable future for our critical infrastructure.

Ultimately, our increasing reliance on technology to shield us from harm must be tempered with an awareness of the risks and challenges that come with this approach. By doing so, we can build a more resilient and sustainable future – one that balances security with transparency and accountability.