1. Kirk Sorensen has advocated underwater nuclear installations in the past. i favor underground installations because they would involve less materials, are less complex to build, and would most likely be less expensive. Of course a Rod, who spent several years under water with a nuclear power plant, is going to like the underwater approach.

    1. @ Charles,

      Both have merit, the underwater approach allows portability and so the power would be sold as a premium (at first). This was done in the Philippines with barges holding diesel generators as a backup for the lack of generation capacity in the country in the 1990’s. Of course, if well designed the unit should last for 40 years or more and after the capital costs have been paid the power would be just a cheap as a land based unit.

  2. @Charles – you bet I like the idea – I am comfortable with being underwater.

    As an aside, which do you think is easier – sinking an object that is heavier than water or digging a deep hole? “Easy” translated to cheaper by my way of thinking.

  3. Will Flexblue “sinking nuclear power plants” beat out Russian “floating nuclear power plants?”

    Only if they can manage to produce it cheaply through a standardized industrial process. If they indeed plan to build 10 per year, they have a good chance.

    Will American companies enter the fray and take advantage of their more extensive experience in off-shore power systems ?

    If the concept is fruitful, as I expect, I am sure they will, for the simple reason that the potential buyers will want an alternative for bargaining purpose (think Airbus/Boeing) and US is by far the most credible alternative.

  4. The idea has merit. The problem is going to be the screams from the cheap seats about an impending environmental disaster. There is a need to prepare the public for this concept well in advance if it is to work.

  5. You asked the right question: “sinking nuclear power plants” beat out Russian “floating nuclear power plants?”. Floating certainly sounds simpler for the concept of getting power plants to out-of-the-way places near a coast. What would be the advantage of a submarine nuclear plant? This would seem to be a niche product in any case.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts