Flexible, Reliable, Protected Power from Off-shore Nuclear Installations
Before the Arab Oil Embargo in the early 1970s, Westinghouse was engaged in a project called Offshore Power Systems. The idea was that they would build large nuclear power units in a factory and float them to destinations off of the coast near major load centers. The large plants would be placed on artificial steel islands and protected by breakwaters formed of giant concrete “jacks” called dolos.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey was the first customer; they signed contracts for what they called the Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant. The manufacturing process for the first order began at Blount Island, near Jacksonville, Florida in 1972. However, the concept died after PSEG lost a lot of business following the Arab Oil Embargo and needed to halt new projects to stem their cash flow drain. (A significant portion of the company’s power output served petroleum refineries that had less raw material to refine for quite a few months.)
The notion of putting nuclear plants off-shore has never quite disappeared. A French partnership that includes DCNS, EDF and Areva has a slightly different approach that takes advantage of their experience in building reliable, underwater nuclear plants. Check out the promotional video and imagine the possibilities. I hope there are a few Atomic Insights readers in the Washington Navy Yard, Newport News and Groton who get inspired to fire up their competitive thought processes.
What do you think? Will Flexblue “sinking nuclear power plants” beat out Russian “floating nuclear power plants?” Better yet, will American companies enter the fray and take advantage of their more extensive experience in off-shore power systems.
Additional Reading
EITB.com (January 25, 2011) – Underwater nuclear plant on the Basque coast?
Discovery News (January 25, 2011) – Nuclear Reactors Move to the Ocean Floor
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.
@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.
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.
There are no cracks in water!
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.
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.
@ 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.