No obstacles prevent China from rapidly building floating nuclear power plants

1968 photo of the Sturgis, the first nuclear power barge, in the Panama Canal. It provided electricity to operate the locks from 1968-1975

1968 photo of the Sturgis, the first nuclear power barge, in the Panama Canal. It provided electricity to operate the locks from 1968-1975

Credible entities in China have begun lining up the supply chains required to produce reliable electrical power from barge mounted nuclear fission power plants. There are no technical, industrial, or regulatory hurdles that prevents the first of those machines from being in service by 2020.

China has a pressing need for the electricity those movable power plants will be able to produce; it is building artificial islands that are a long way from power lines, pipelines, and developed fuel handling port facilities. Nuclear plants, unlike all other options, can produce power 24 hours per day using fuel that can be airlifted at intervals that might be measured in years.

Many Chinese political leaders are competent engineers and scientists. They recognize that weak, unreliable energy sources like wind and sun are not capable of providing the power required to operate dredges, early warning radar systems, concrete plants, airports, and the electrical power needs for a growing population that will inhabit their brand new territory.

Russia, which has talked about building floating nuclear power plants for decades and has had a construction program underway since 2000 has yet to make any operational power plant deliveries.

China, however, has a history of follow through and task completion. They build what they say they are going to build. They manufacture some excellent products in a wide range of industries — including electronics, locomotives, ships, power plants, computers, and solar panels — that are exported all over the world.

In contrast, Russia’s export successes have been limited to oil, natural gas, vodka, military hardware and a few long-delayed nuclear power plants.

Unlike the United States, which has withheld its world-leading floating nuclear propulsion plant expertise from the commercial market for more than 60 years, China seems to understand that technology developed to propel ships can be put to valuable use in many other applications. Turbines are turbines whether they are on ships or on land. Power plants that include steam propulsion turbines can be readily adapted to drive steam turbines attached to electrical generators.

Since ship nuclear propulsion systems require robust foundations and the capability to withstand the stressful conditions of stormy weather and the possibility of nearby explosions, they are well-suited to being installed in power barges that can be moored in ports that may be in the path of typhoons. An old friend of mine who is a retired Dutch Navy engineering officer often told me that in the history of power plants, there are a number of examples of machines that made a successful transition from seaborne power to land based power, but there were few, if any, that had moved from land to sea.

In my worldview, Chinese floating nuclear power plants are not a strategic threat or safety concern. The infrastructure that they will power is another story that I won’t discuss here.

Market opportunity

China’s manufactured islands in the South China Sea are an ideal “early adopter” customer for floating nuclear power plants. However, they are not the only or even the largest market for the machines that may begin to float out of their shipyards at an increasing rate beginning in 2020.

Those transportable plants with their lightweight supply lines will represent an economically competitive source of electricity and clean water that may find a large and lucrative market once the builders begin series production. I expect that the suppliers will engage in the relentless production cost and sales price improvements that Chinese manufacturers have been able to achieve in so many other industrial enterprises.

The planning for the decision to build power barges to supply artificial South China Sea islands became publicly known at the end of 2015 with the announcement of the National Marine Nuclear Power Demonstration Project. In January of 2016, China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation and China Guangdong Nuclear signed a strategic cooperation agreement to develop off shore nuclear installations. Though it is a bit difficult to fully understand the Google translate version of the Chinese language story, it also appears that CNOOC (China National Offshore Oil Company) is cooperating by supplying its experience in offshore construction.

CNOOC is also interested in small nuclear plants to provide electricity to its power-hungry, distant offshore drilling rigs. It may sound a bit like carrying coal to Newcastle, but oil wells are generally powered by diesel engines that require refined petroleum; they cannot burn the crude oil that they are extracting, though some are able to beneficially use the natural gas that often accompanies the oil. When rigs are not too far off shore, it’s often cost effective to power them from the onshore power grid. Distant rigs, however, are almost ideally suited to be powered by atomic generators.

When added to the coastal cities of developing countries, the island nations that continue to rely on diesel generators, and the large number of oil rigs with diesel generators, the market for floating nuclear plants is potentially in the hundreds to thousands of units. As things stand today; China might be able to rapidly establish a dominant market position that will be difficult to overcome.

Capitalizing on attention

A story on appeared on Wednesday, April 20 describing the partnerships that have been established and describing the initial market target of the artificial islands in the South China Sea.

That story instigated a flurry of stories in a variety of media outlets, including Global Times, Reuters, Economic Times (India), Foreign Policy, Chicago Tribune, and New York Times.

My hope is that the development stimulates a prosperity and stability-enhancing competitive race to build ever more capable machines that can provide reliable power to places that have always been hampered by the difficulty of supplying fuel for dirty, polluting generators and by the lack of access to abundant fresh water.

My concern is that the development will be seen by some as an action that requires aggressive efforts to slow progress and halt development.

Sturgis in 2014. Powered Panama Canal pumps 1968-1975.  Reactor fuel long ago removed.

Sturgis in 2014. Powered Panama Canal pumps 1968-1975.
Reactor fuel long ago removed.

That shouldn’t be America’s response; we have competitive capabilities in this arena.

After all, we were the first nation to deploy a floating nuclear plant to provide power to an important piece of our global infrastructure. Unfortunately, we were also the first to abandon the technology after making budgetary decisions that ensured Sturgis was an expensive, one-of-a-kind orphan.

We should seize the flurry of attention being paid to maritime nuclear plants as an opportunity for generating excitement about atomic energy development and a growing understanding of the benefits provided by extremely compact fuel sources.

The US Navy, my former employer, has been designing, building and maintaining superior nuclear propulsion plants and training suppliers and operators for more than two generations. With the notable exception of the 1950s vintage Shippingport project, the nuclear Navy has been more than reluctant to share its technological expertise and skills in human resource development with anyone else.

Shippingport was a qualified success; it enabled a commercial nuclear industry that grew rapidly for 20 years and produced machines that have supplied a large, consistent supply of clean electrical power for the past four decades. Unfortunately, that first nuclear power plant construction industry had growing pains and ran into a number of obstacles. By the mid 1980s it had faded to a mere shadow with no new construction starts during a 35 year period.

Now is the right time for another effort to commercialize the investment that we’ve made in maritime nuclear energy. Maybe this time, it will point the way to an industry that doesn’t stop growing until all customers who can use the power are economically served.

I’m positive that my suggestion to selectively share more capability will not be well-received in certain offices in the Navy Yard — I’ve checked within the past week. I can only hope that my old friends there will think deeply and remember what we were taught long ago. It’s no good for the Navy to operate beautiful, esthetically amazing nuclear power plants if the ships they propel go down.

Extending that idea a bit, it’s not a sound national strategy for the United States Navy to so carefully protect useful but not militarily unique nuclear knowledge to the point of allowing the country that paid for that knowledge to experience a preventable economic decline.

Atomic Show #251 – SA Royal Commission, Diablo Canyon, Trivial Tritium, DOE budget priorities

It’s not often that the Atomic Show has the chance to be a source of breaking news, but this show includes a timely report from Ben Heard in Adelaide, South Australia. Just an hour before our show began, the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission issued the tentative findings from the investigative effort begun […]

Read more »

Plausible explanation for Indonesia’s abrupt turns in nuclear energy announcements

For the past several weeks, Indonesia has been a hot topic on some of the mailing lists to which I subscribe. It’s also been the subject of frequent news items in some of the trade-focused journals that I read. I’ve been developing a theory that might explain some of the confusing developments. Background For those […]

Read more »

Attacking the “root crown” of 10 CFR 810 nuclear power plant export controls

Bottom line up front. Atomic fuel utilization facilities should not be subjected to the export control regime that is supposed to be focused on special nuclear materials production facilities. Instead, utilization facility exports should be subjected to rules similar to those that apply to other advanced technology exports like aircraft, computers, and communications equipment. The […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #245 – Building a prosperity program on used nuclear fuel foundation

I applaud reasoned, long term thinking that aims to use science, technology and deep understanding of human wants and needs — aka politics — to set a course for success. You can find one of my favorite current examples of an effort that meets my criteria in the expansive, lightly populated, rather dry state of […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #244 – September 2015 atomic update

For the first time in several months, I gathered a group of nuclear energy experts to chat about recent events and announcements in nuclear energy. Participants in this episode include: Meredith Angwin who blogs at Yes Vermont Yankee and Northwest Clean Energy Steve Aplin who blogs at Canadian Energy Issues Les Corrice who blogs at […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #242 – Moltex Energy – Ian Scott and John Durham

Moltex Energy has developed a unique conceptual design for a molten salt reactor called the Stable Salt Reactor. In this design, the fuel salt is loaded into tubes that resemble the standard cladding tubes into which solid pellets are loaded in a conventional water cooled reactor. The tubes are arranged into assemblies that resemble the […]

Read more »

South Australian nuclear discussion intensifying

On August 8, 2015 the Saturday Paper [Melbourne, Australia] published a thought-provoking article titled South Australia’s future role in the nuclear industry. It describes how the economic opportunity presented by an expanded involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle is meeting up with a particularly stressed unemployment situation in South Australia to stimulate some frank discussions […]

Read more »

ANS 2015 Plenary Talks – Part 4 David Scott, architect of UAE nuclear program

The UAE has made amazing progress in moving from a country almost totally dependent on burning natural gas (some of which is imported) to provide domestic electricity to one where a rapidly growing portion of its electricity from 2017 onward will be produced in zero fossil fuel, no CO2 emission nuclear fission reactors. In 2009, […]

Read more »

Tale of two Chinas – One surging forward, one retreating

Two stories caught my attention this morning. One came from the Taipei Times, one from the Beijing Review. The first one focused on a future energy supply prognostication from an American “expert” who has a light educational and professional background in energy technology, manufacturing, engineering, economics and market dynamics. The second one documents recent progress […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #238 – StarCore Nuclear co-founders

StarCore Nuclear is a Canadian company whose co-founders, David Dabney and David Poole, are experienced engineers and businessmen. They have spent most of the past six years developing a technology and a business model aimed at providing reliable, emission-free electrical power and heat to remote locations. The basis of their technology is a high-temperature helium […]

Read more »

South Australian senator believes there’s value in “nuclear waste”


South Australian Sen. Sean Edwards sees economic opportunity for his state by taking advantage of other countries’ irrational fear of radioactive materials. He wants to turn what some call “waste” into wealth. He and his staff recognize that there are tens of billions of dollars set aside in government budgets around the world for safe […]

Read more »