First-ever floating nuclear power plant construction underway
Published: 19 May, 2009, 18:36
The construction of the first floating nuclear power plant in history has kicked off in St Petersburg.
The headline is not correct. The US Army operated a floating nuclear power plant on a retired Liberty ship named Sturgis in the Panama Canal zone for about 13 years. That plant produced about 10 MW of electrical power to supply the pumps used to fill locks during ship transit. Of course, there have also been several hundred "floating nuclear power plants" operating on the world's oceans over the past 55 years, ever since the USS Nautilus reported "Underway on nuclear power." Those power plants pushed ships in the US, UK, French, Russian (formerly Soviet) and Chinese navies plus a couple of test civilian ships (Savannah, Otto Hahn , Mutsu) and a fleet of Russian icebreakers.
How is this going to be tethered? How will it react in say a tsunami or hurricane? I'm sure these issues have been thought out but what tests have they done to prove them? I think they are a good idea as long as there is no environmental impact.
Graham - great comments, and I certainly hope they have thought of all this. From my side, I can't see much diference to this, than a coastal Nuclear plant being hit by a Tsunami, so I think the calculations would be much the same. I think we have quite a good idea where Hurricanes and Tsunamis are high risk, so one strategy could be to avoid. However, I would also say that the core reactor, could be in a very structural robust design, which may even allow it to be tossed some distance and still survive. But the comments are still good, so let's hope we see some environmental planning report about it all. However, the idea of controlled, 'portable' nuclear power, I like very much.
The robustness of the design of the core is only as good as the ancilliaries and back up supplies. Yes it may (the core) survive being tossed some distance but then the grid connection is lost and also you will lose vital power for your cooling systems and safety systems. With respect to the siting of these floating nuclear power stations i'm sure they won't all be sited in areas free from hurricanes or tsunamis.
Graham, again good comments. Taking this as an apple for apple comparison with a shore based nuclear reactor, I doubt whether there would be any difference in the surviveability of the Grid connections, as most feeders are through transformers into overhead power lines. So for me the prospect of surviveability is the same for both sytems. basically a Tsunami would take out both, to an equal affect. In terms of safety systems, there is no doubt that in this respect a 'barge' would be far more likely to fragment and break up as a system than a ground based installation. However, if the core remains intact, including fuel configuration, and the moderator is failsafe e.g by using a system like CANDU then even an abrupt interruption would leave the core in an energy decaying state. There would be an issue of heat soak and thermal capacity, to make sure that a complete core system interruption, would not incur a positive temperature ramp, that was unsustainable within the design. This I am sure though is possible to arrange by design. So I still like the idea.
I really like the idea, and definitely something that builds on our strong technological base, that we posses in this field. It could even offer the opportunity to provide power to otherwise nuclear seeking nations, whilst still maintaining control of the fissile material. This would lessen the proliferation dangers, as the vesssel, under international shipping law, could fly the flag of the supplier, and thus be distinct. However, I still think there is some persuation needed, before people would accept, and be comfortable with such a 'temporay' structure, holding such a formidable enery source. So let's see how it all works out. Safety, needs to be the number one driver, and I know it will be.