Submersed nuclear power plants

In summary, the biggest flaws with the idea of a free-floating nuclear power plant are the lack of consideration for the effects of underwater energy on power transmission, the need for stronger and more expensive piping to handle the higher pressure of cooling water at depth, the potential political and technical issues of conducting maintenance on a submerged plant, the potential impact on the surrounding ecosystem due to heat rejection to the ocean, the challenge of releasing non-condensable gases from a steam plant, the difficulties in handling spent fuel and decommissioning the plant, the potential security and defense concerns with locating the plant in international waters, and the availability of more advanced and cost-effective land-based nuclear plant designs.
  • #1
theCandyman
398
2
Hello everyone, it's been a while since I posted here! Unfortunately, I've been away from the nuclear engineering scene and detoured to computer science. My job now is as a programmer for avionics. I enjoy it, but it isn't my first love.

Recently, though, I got invited by my uncle to help out a friend of his that is trying to get an odd project off the ground. I volunteered, but looking over his ideas, I think they are a little baseless in their assumptions...

Here is his website: http://txgroup.org [Broken]

And his nuclear power plant proposal: http://txgroup.org/media/kunena/attachments/66/Nuclear_Power_Proposal.pdf [Broken]

He is a nice guy, but I don't think this will work and I'd like him to not waste his time on it. What should I tell him is the biggest flaw with his idea? That if the ocean is used as an emergency coolant, the ocean is going to be contaminated? That a free floating plant is going to be an engineering feat of its own? That the enrichment needed for nuclear sub fuel would be economically inviable for a commercial plant?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #3
Many plants located oceanside/seaside use seawater directly in the condensers.

The Russians have proposed floating NPPs and their icebreakers use seawater cooled nuclear plants.

There have been proposals in the past to place nuclear reactors off-shore, but not necessarily submerged.

And Toshiba has proposed small sealed modular reactors for small municipalities, which would contain highly enriched cores that would operate for 10-20 years without refueling.

However, it is very difficult for an individual to successfully introduce a nuclear reactor considering the effort (many man-years, usually by a team of dozens of engineers and hundreds of support staff) to design and license the plant, reactor and fuel.
 
  • #4
theCandyman said:
Hello everyone, it's been a while since I posted here! Unfortunately, I've been away from the nuclear engineering scene and detoured to computer science. My job now is as a programmer for avionics. I enjoy it, but it isn't my first love.

Recently, though, I got invited by my uncle to help out a friend of his that is trying to get an odd project off the ground. I volunteered, but looking over his ideas, I think they are a little baseless in their assumptions...

Here is his website: http://txgroup.org [Broken]

And his nuclear power plant proposal: http://txgroup.org/media/kunena/attachments/66/Nuclear_Power_Proposal.pdf [Broken]

He is a nice guy, but I don't think this will work and I'd like him to not waste his time on it. What should I tell him is the biggest flaw with his idea? That if the ocean is used as an emergency coolant, the ocean is going to be contaminated? That a free floating plant is going to be an engineering feat of its own? That the enrichment needed for nuclear sub fuel would be economically inviable for a commercial plant?

Basic questions

1. The reactor would be at a depth where thre are no effects of hurricanes and tsunamis. But the power transmission to shore will have to transit the zone where it could be affected. It is high energy underwater which is conductive and a signicantly different capacitance from dry air. Has the design accouted for that?

2. The depth will require cooling water at depth. Commpared to a commercial plant this will be at a higher pressure requiring stronger piping. The typical commercial plant intakes (lower pressure are huge and are likely to be concrete. That is a safety issue for personnel versus a very expensive design issue.

3. Submarines undergo periodic shipyard availabilities to inspect and maintain the hull. This is a political and technical issue for a submerged nuclear power plant.

4. The plant will need to reject heat to the ocean. Has the effect of heating at depth on the surrounding ecosystem been considered? Greenpeace and the Sierra Club will likely want to know.

5. Turbine air ejectors remove non-condensible gases from condensers. If this is a steam plant, how will the gases be released.

6. If the plant is modeled on a scaled-up submarine it will be a PWR. Steam Generator venting is going to be interesting and if released outboard will be pretty violent and thermally exciting.

7. How will spent fuel be handled? Where will you put it? What will be done with the plant at decommisioning?

8. Will the plants be inside territorial waters? Based on maritime laws, how will security be maintained when even drug runners have submarines and potential enemies have right of innocent passage and freedom of the seas. How will trawlers and seine fishing vessels be excluded from the area? Is this a national defense issue or the utilities responsibility?

9. With advanced land-based nuclear plant designs available, why would you increase the complexity and costs in this way?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5


Hello there,

I would like to provide some insights on the concept of submersed nuclear power plants that your friend is proposing. While it is commendable that he is thinking outside of the box and exploring new possibilities, there are several major flaws with this idea that need to be addressed.

Firstly, using the ocean as an emergency coolant for a nuclear power plant is not a feasible option. The ocean is a vital ecosystem and any contamination from a nuclear accident could have severe and long-lasting consequences on marine life and the environment. Additionally, the process of using ocean water as coolant would still require a cooling system, which defeats the purpose of having a submersed plant.

Secondly, designing and building a free-floating nuclear power plant would be an engineering feat in itself. The challenges and risks involved in such a project would be immense and could potentially outweigh the benefits. It would also require a significant amount of resources and funding, which may not be practical for a commercial plant.

Lastly, the enrichment process needed for nuclear submarine fuel is not suitable for a commercial plant. It is a highly specialized and expensive process that would not be economically viable for a power plant. It would also raise concerns about the security and proliferation of nuclear materials.

In summary, while the idea of submersed nuclear power plants may seem innovative, it is not a practical or safe solution. I would advise your friend to consider these flaws and explore more feasible options for his project. As a scientist, it is important to consider the potential consequences and risks of any new technology before pursuing it. I wish your friend all the best in his endeavors.
 

1. What is a submersed nuclear power plant?

A submersed nuclear power plant is a type of nuclear power plant that is built underwater, either in a lake, river, or ocean. The plant is typically housed in a large, watertight structure and generates electricity using nuclear reactions.

2. How is a submersed nuclear power plant different from a traditional nuclear power plant?

A submersed nuclear power plant differs from a traditional nuclear power plant in that it is built underwater instead of on land. This allows for more efficient cooling of the reactor and a decreased risk of environmental contamination in case of a nuclear accident.

3. What are the advantages of a submersed nuclear power plant?

One of the main advantages of a submersed nuclear power plant is its decreased risk of environmental contamination. Being underwater also allows for more efficient cooling, which can increase the overall efficiency of the plant. Additionally, these plants can be built closer to populated areas without causing visual pollution.

4. What are the potential risks associated with submersed nuclear power plants?

The main potential risks of submersed nuclear power plants are related to the possibility of a nuclear accident and the release of radioactive materials into the water. There is also the risk of damage from natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis, which could potentially damage the plant and lead to a nuclear accident.

5. Are submersed nuclear power plants currently in use?

While there have been proposals for submersed nuclear power plants, there are currently no operational plants in use. However, some countries, such as Russia and China, are actively researching and developing this technology for potential future use.

Similar threads

Replies
52
Views
7K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
25
Views
6K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
17K
Replies
1
Views
987
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
938
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top