“More than 70 new nuclear reactors are now under construction, but that’s not nearly enough to make a strong dent in CO2 emissions worldwide,” said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of nuclear science and engineering Jacopo Buongiorno recently. “So the question is, why aren’t we building more?”
Everyone in the industry knows the answer to that question. We are not building more nuclear power plants, because they are hugely expensive, delay-prone projects that face more red tape than practically any other human endeavor. They are politically risky, as well as potentially dangerous to human health.
So, what if you could solve all of those problems at once: The delays, the cost, the safety risks, the political reactions on a local level, and the added point that tons of concrete poured at land-based nuclear power plants contributes significant CO2 emissions to the atmosphere?
MIT researchers are now working on a nuclear power plant design that for off-shore floating nuclear power plants, which would be built in shipyards and moored out to sea, about eight to ten miles off shore. This would keep them in territorial waters, but allow them to be placed in water deep enough so that tsunami events would never hit them. Tsunami events, a potential disaster for coastal nuclear power plants, do not take place in deep water, said MIT in a recent release. They only build up to dangerous levels in shallow water environments.
A floating nuclear reactor, built on an oil-rig type of platform, would have the reactor components underwater for balance and to keep potential overheating events from ever occurring, given the seawater could passively cool the reactor. In general, during normal operations, cool water from lower ocean layers would be pumped up to cool the reactor and the warmer water would be released near the surface, where the water is already warmer – making for a zero-impact reactor regarding its affect on the thermal conditions of the ocean.
Buongiorno also applauds the point that the platforms for the offshore NPPs would be made of steel. They would not require the enormous concrete shells that are necessary for protecting populated areas from land-based reactors.
Concrete not only contributes to CO2 emissions, but is responsible for huge costs and delays at land-based construction sites, he says. In addition – all that earthmoving needed to prepare for a nuclear power plant? That isn’t necessary with an offshore plant.
Building a nuclear plant in shipyard has many advantages, the professor says. Nuclear plants could be built at the shipyards and towed back to them for decommissioning, when that comes due. Shipyards are also geared up for enormous projects, as they already deal with the largest ships in the world, including nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers.
“There are shipyards that build large cylindrical platforms of the type we need and companies that build nuclear reactors of the type we need. So we’re just combining those two. In my opinion, that’s a big advantage,” said Buongiorno.
According to MIT, “nuclear reactor (either a 300-MW or a 1,100-MW unit) and its related safety systems are located in watertight compartments low in the structure to enhance security and safety, provide easy access to ocean water, and give the overall structure a low center of gravity for increased stability. The reactor core and associated critical components are housed within a reactor pressure vessel (RPV), which is located inside a compact structure called the containment. Surrounding the containment — but separated by a gap — is a large chamber that extends to the edge of the cylindrical structure and is constantly flooded with seawater, which enters and exits freely through ports.”
Similar to the concept of small modular nuclear power plants, floating platform appear ready to solve several major industry problem with one creative, radical idea. To put it one way, this is one design team for nuclear power that is thinking outside of the box.
Anonymous comments will be moderated. Join for free and post now!
With all due respect to Professor Buongiorno, this is hardly a new idea. The concept of building nuclear plants offshore has been around for decades. And as the folks in the Navy will tell you, we already have lots of these--they're called "ships."
Westinghouse did this over 40 years ago, at the South Pole. Built in three sections of barges. They ran the thing down there to power the labs and housing, then brought it back to the States when the world devided up the Pole, it was cut up and buried in Washington State.
PSEG ordered 4 floating Westinghouse 1150 MW Nuclear Units back in early 1970s to place offshore of the New Jersey coast. The units (Atlantic Nuclear Power Station) were being constructed by Offshore Power Systems in florida. The orders were cancelled in 1978 due to increasing costs and environmental protests. I first learned of this when I started work in the Nuclear Fuels Group in the Newark General Office in 1979.
This is not a new concept. Google "en.wikipedia.org/.../Offshore_Power_Systems" to view a project that progressed beyond a idea.
Good concept. Did you think about how do we get the electricity, generated by the plants that are 8 to 10 miles out in the ocean, to shore? Long extension cords?
Seems pretty on the verge of insanity after seeing what a wave did to Fukushima
"Good concept. Did you think about how do we get the electricity, generated by the plants that are 8 to 10 miles out in the ocean, to shore? Long extension cords?"
Sort of, not quite the kind you would use for the lawnmower but same principle, I presume one would transmit DC though rather than AC.
"Seems pretty on the verge of insanity after seeing what a wave did to Fukushima"
Did you read the article? How is your comprehension? Ships at sea (in deep water) are not affected by Tsunamis! In a worst case scenario the thing would sink. Nuclear boats have sunk without leaking radioactivity.
To stock: I would be delighted if you learned how to read.
We already have floating reactors. Basically on United States Aircraft Carriers. Same concept.