Floating Nukes: a Better Alternative?

Schematic of a floating nuclear power plant. Credit: JVE Journals

by Bill O’Keefe

Dominion Energy, with the blessing of the Legislature is in the process of building a monstrous wind farm off the coast of Virginia. It will be 27 miles offshore and occupy an area of over 176 square miles — 92% as large as Richmond. When fully built, there will be 220 windmills, each standing 200 feet above water level. The cost is currently estimated to be $7.8 billion but cost overruns are inevitable. Think about this long enough to form a mental picture of what this will look like.

Since the Legislature has mandated a net zero emission future in the coming decades, Dominion is more than willing to take up the challenge and accommodate the Legislature’s dream. Not only is Dominion guaranteed a rate of return on the power generated but it also profits from capital construction expenditures. Non-regulated corporations should be so lucky. And, if it turns out that the windfarm doesn’t produce as promised or is made obsolete by technology or more accurate climate science, it won’t be Dominion that takes the loss, it will be Dominion’s customers.

When all is said and done, our electricity rates will be much higher than they are today — 12 cents per Kwh, well below states like California committed to the zero-carbon path. California’s residential rates are almost 20 cents per Kwh and rising. One estimate says they will rise to 40 cents when the natural gas ban is fully implemented.

Given this dismal outlook, it is reasonable to ask if there is a better alternative? The answer is probably a resounding yes. One such alternative that should be evaluated and compared to the windfarm boondoggle is small offshore nuclear reactors.

Seaborg Technologies believes that as soon as 2025, it can provide floating barges fitted with advanced nuclear reactors for use by developing countries. The first ship of this kind began supplying heat and electricity to the Russian port of Pevek on the East Siberian Sea in December 2019. Seaborg has said that its 100-megawatt reactor would take two years to build and would generate electricity that would be cheaper than coal-fired power.

A Physics Open paper by Esam Hussein states that “Most emerging small modular reactors incorporate safety and operational features that were tried and tested during the pioneering years of nuclear power, but the concept of modularity is still ambiguous. … As this was a critical review, all aspects of the technology had to be considered and analyzed.”

NuScale has received a Nuclear Regulatory Commission certification for its small modular reactor which could be mounted on platforms instead of barges. NuScale grew out of research at Oregon State University and has received substantial Department of Energy funding. Its reactor is a 76-feet-tall, 15-foot-wide steel cylinder capable of producing 50 megawatts of electricity. To generate as much electricity as Dominion’s windfarm, 52 modular reactors would be needed. Those would occupy about 3,120 acres or 4.9 square miles or 3% of the area needed by Dominion.

Shouldn’t the Legislature at least commission a study to compare the two options on a total systems basis? Being 27 miles offshore, the alleged risk of a nuclear accident is not very compelling. The cost that consumers will pay for windfarm generated electricity is.

In terms of risk management, the Democrat-controlled legislature has been infected with a bad case of climate ideology and the precautionary principle which, according to MIT meteorology professor Dick Lindzen, actually means  “everything is connected to everything; everything is uncertain, thus anything may cause anything, and thus we should do something abou

We unfortunately live in a world where if you don’t kneel at the altar of the worst-case scenario, you are accused of being in favor of doing nothing. While that is nonsense, it is a way for advocates/zealots to avoid the hard process of evaluating alternatives and taking cost-effective risk management actions for which there are many.

William O’Keefe, a Midlothian resident, is founder of Solutions Consulting and former EVP American Petroleum Institute.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

132 responses to “Floating Nukes: a Better Alternative?”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    So a nuclear aircraft carrier without the flight deck? Big whoop.

  2. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    So a nuclear aircraft carrier without the flight deck? Big whoop.

  3. Matt Adams Avatar

    Where are they gonna plug it in?

  4. Matt Adams Avatar

    Where are they gonna plug it in?

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    I’d be curious to know how much electricity costs for a reactor the size of one that serves an Aircraft carrier.

    But, here is a question. How many people would care if electricity cost no more than it does now or less in terms of what produced it?

    The basic premise is that it will cost more but is that true? Will technology further and further reduce the cost of electricity at the household?

    We approach this with the idea that we cannot reduce our consumption of electricity and is that true?

    1. “We approach this with the idea that we cannot reduce our consumption of electricity and is that true?”

      I don’t now. How many modern amenities are you willing to do without?

        1. Well then I guess you know the answer to your question. Unless you are willing to deprive others of luxuries you are unwilling to forego, we cannot reduce our power consumption – except for the small reductions we achieve as technology improves and the efficiency of electric appliances increases.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Naw. Are we “deprived” if the cost of water/sewer or cable or phone goes up or the price of gasoline?

          2. Now you’ve changed the subject, which is electricity CONSUMPTION, not cost.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nope.

          4. Whatever you say, Larry. All anybody has to do is read the thread to see that you did.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            who says you are “entitled” to ANY externally-provided service to your house? Electricity is one. What entitleds you to no increase in price?

          6. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Larry, define “deprived”? For what they do HRSD doesn’t charge nearly enough. Try going a couple of days without flushing.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            well, yes. “Deprived” is an interesting concept when talking about services provided to you at your home for some price.

            If we say water/sewer have to increase so we can reduce pollution in the rivers, it’s apparently different for electricity?

          8. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            I dunno. Never tried dumping electricty overboard.

          9. You said YOU are not willing to give up any modern amenities in order to reduce electricity consumption. Since you are not willing to give them up, it would be hypocritical of you to demand that other give them up.

            So, based on your answer, there can/will be no reduction in the CONSUMPTION of electricity – unless you are a hypocrite, of course.

            As you should be able to see, my comment was an answer to your question about CONSUMPTION of electricity, not the cost of electricity. Thus, from the standpoint of my response to your question, you changed the subject.

            And, of course I did not say one damned thing about being entitled to anything. That is just an other one of your desperate straw men.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            Actually no.

            If you could do all of what you are doing now and use LESS electricity for the SAME cost – would you?

            Why not?

    2. Larry, it is almost inevitable that technology will improve the efficiency of our space heating, lighting and other appliance usage and other technologies, such as flat screen TVs that have already done so. I don’t know why these other respondents don’t want to recognize this.

      Heat pumps are much more efficient today than 10 years ago, as are refrigerators, light bulbs, computers, etc.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        As you point out, it’s already well underway.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    I’d be curious to know how much electricity costs for a reactor the size of one that serves an Aircraft carrier.

    But, here is a question. How many people would care if electricity cost no more than it does now or less in terms of what produced it?

    The basic premise is that it will cost more but is that true? Will technology further and further reduce the cost of electricity at the household?

    We approach this with the idea that we cannot reduce our consumption of electricity and is that true?

    1. “We approach this with the idea that we cannot reduce our consumption of electricity and is that true?”

      I don’t now. How many modern amenities are you willing to do without?

        1. Well then I guess you know the answer to your question. Unless you are willing to deprive others of luxuries you are unwilling to forego, we cannot reduce our power consumption – except for the small reductions we achieve as technology improves and the efficiency of electric appliances increases.

          1. Now you’ve changed the subject, which is electricity CONSUMPTION, not cost.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nope.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            well, yes. “Deprived” is an interesting concept when talking about services provided to you at your home for some price.

            If we say water/sewer have to increase so we can reduce pollution in the rivers, it’s apparently different for electricity?

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            I dunno. Never tried dumping electricty overboard.

          5. You said YOU are not willing to give up any modern amenities in order to reduce electricity consumption. Since you are not willing to give them up, it would be hypocritical of you to demand that other give them up.

            So, based on your answer, there can/will be no reduction in the CONSUMPTION of electricity – unless you are a hypocrite, of course.

            As you should be able to see, my comment was an answer to your question about CONSUMPTION of electricity, not the cost of electricity. Thus, from the standpoint of my response to your question, you changed the subject.

            And, of course I did not say one damned thing about being entitled to anything. That is just an other one of your desperate straw men.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            Actually no.

            If you could do all of what you are doing now and use LESS electricity for the SAME cost – would you?

            Why not?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            Naw. Are we “deprived” if the cost of water/sewer or cable or phone goes up or the price of gasoline?

          8. Whatever you say, Larry. All anybody has to do is read the thread to see that you did.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            who says you are “entitled” to ANY externally-provided service to your house? Electricity is one. What entitleds you to no increase in price?

          10. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Larry, define “deprived”? For what they do HRSD doesn’t charge nearly enough. Try going a couple of days without flushing.

    2. Larry, it is almost inevitable that technology will improve the efficiency of our space heating, lighting and other appliance usage and other technologies, such as flat screen TVs that have already done so. I don’t know why these other respondents don’t want to recognize this.

      Heat pumps are much more efficient today than 10 years ago, as are refrigerators, light bulbs, computers, etc.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        As you point out, it’s already well underway.

  7. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    They could put windmills and solar panels on it too.

    Quick questions: when really bad shi, uh, stuff happens with a nuke, don’t they perform some sort of encapsulation? How ya gonna do that 1500 feet down?

    But then, that’s not in the environment. There’s nobody down there, so it’s harmless.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM&list=RDefrZdbDh5tk&index=2

    1. “…don’t they perform some sort of encapsulation? How ya gonna do that 1500 feet down?”

      Install a VERY long chute on the concrete truck?

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The family of the Thresher crew thinks that hilarious, Nancy. But seriously, water is an excellent radiation barrier. Duh.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Don’t forget the Scorpion.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        What about the fish? If you thought mercury was bad…

        BTW, the Thresher loss was blamed on a garbage chute, if I recall. The front didn’t just fall off.

        And don’t forget Global Explorer.

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          I heard a critical nuclear weld failed. Perhaps they just blamed that to build the SubSAFE system following the accident.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Well, well, you’re half right. Based on recovered pieces, it was the raw water system and a braze rather than a weld.

  8. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    They could put windmills and solar panels on it too.

    Quick questions: when really bad shi, uh, stuff happens with a nuke, don’t they perform some sort of encapsulation? How ya gonna do that 1500 feet down?

    But then, that’s not in the environment. There’s nobody down there, so it’s harmless.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM&list=RDefrZdbDh5tk&index=2

    1. “…don’t they perform some sort of encapsulation? How ya gonna do that 1500 feet down?”

      Install a VERY long chute on the concrete truck?

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The family of the Thresher crew thinks that hilarious, Nancy. But seriously, water is an excellent radiation barrier. Duh.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Don’t forget the Scorpion.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        What about the fish? If you thought mercury was bad…

        BTW, the Thresher loss was blamed on a garbage chute, if I recall. The front didn’t just fall off.

        And don’t forget Global Explorer.

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          I heard a critical nuclear weld failed. Perhaps they just blamed that to build the SubSAFE system following the accident.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Well, well, you’re half right. Based on recovered pieces, it was the raw water system and a braze rather than a weld.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar

    I’m not opposed to nukes. Propose one in NoVa and see how they feel.

    For that matter, propose ANY energy facility that produces electricity in NoVa and see how they feel.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar

    I’m not opposed to nukes. Propose one in NoVa and see how they feel.

    For that matter, propose ANY energy facility that produces electricity in NoVa and see how they feel.

  11. Paul Sweet Avatar

    Or any power line that takes power generated elsewhere to NoVa.

  12. Paul Sweet Avatar

    Or any power line that takes power generated elsewhere to NoVa.

  13. LarrytheG Avatar

    Correct – “power” to NoVa is a magic thing… that happens somewhere else.

  14. LarrytheG Avatar

    Correct – “power” to NoVa is a magic thing… that happens somewhere else.

  15. How about completing Surrey and Anna nukes?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I’d agree with that except that we should not be using 60-year-old designs and I’ve yet to see a modern/safer design that is approved.

      And cost. Are modern nukes cheaper than gas or renewables?

    2. Dominion customers have already paid about a billion for the preservation and development of a potential North Anna 3 unit, which, given that the current site is on a fault line, is less likely to be completed than a wind mill atop the Washington Monument–another gift to Dominion from its sycophants in the General Assembly.

  16. How about completing Surrey and Anna nukes?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I’d agree with that except that we should not be using 60-year-old designs and I’ve yet to see a modern/safer design that is approved.

      And cost. Are modern nukes cheaper than gas or renewables?

    2. Dominion customers have already paid about a billion for the preservation and development of a potential North Anna 3 unit, which, given that the current site is on a fault line, is less likely to be completed than a wind mill atop the Washington Monument–another gift to Dominion from its sycophants in the General Assembly.

  17. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    USS Lexington once powered Tacoma, Washington back in 1929. We could use the Navy’s 11 nuclear carriers to power the grid.
    https://bremolympicnlus.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/LexingtonTacoma2.jpg

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      ChiComs and Putin second that idea….

  18. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    USS Lexington once powered Tacoma, Washington back in 1929. We could use the Navy’s 11 nuclear carriers to power the grid.
    https://bremolympicnlus.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/LexingtonTacoma2.jpg

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      ChiComs and Putin second that idea….

  19. All of the ocean bordering Northeast state elected officials are giddy with excitement about costly offshore wind farms. If you add it all up, it is more power generation than existing infrastructure can handle. In other words, the states are running ahead pell mell without coordination as to how all this can be accommodated. I posed a news article about this apparent “haste” few weeks ago.

    Of course, it’s a little early to call it “haste” when all we have so far is lofty rhetoric and dreams from the ocean states.

    Virginia is hoping to run ahead even faster and pell meller so we get the most done before the dream collapses under its own weight. My problem is once being part of private industry, and seeing wisdom of procrastinating on huge projects like this. Being second or third best to meet regs often gives you chance to see the correct (lower cost/better quality) way forward.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I thought the idea was that wind would replace coal then gas, no?

      1. Gas has replaced coal, effectively, and now wind and solar PLUS storage are supposed to drive gas out of the market. It will take decades to get there I think.

    2. Every state believes it will be the locus of manufacturing for the components of off shore wind facilities such as the towers and turbines and it seems to me a long shot that ANY of them actually will become such.

      Steve will have a better understanding of the capacity of the shipyard and other Hampton Roads facilities to switch to this area of production. Building the actual construction ships would seem to be a better chance for Va, IMO>

  20. All of the ocean bordering Northeast state elected officials are giddy with excitement about costly offshore wind farms. If you add it all up, it is more power generation than existing infrastructure can handle. In other words, the states are running ahead pell mell without coordination as to how all this can be accommodated. I posed a news article about this apparent “haste” few weeks ago.

    Of course, it’s a little early to call it “haste” when all we have so far is lofty rhetoric and dreams from the ocean states.

    Virginia is hoping to run ahead even faster and pell meller so we get the most done before the dream collapses under its own weight. My problem is once being part of private industry, and seeing wisdom of procrastinating on huge projects like this. Being second or third best to meet regs often gives you chance to see the correct (lower cost/better quality) way forward.

    1. Every state believes it will be the locus of manufacturing for the components of off shore wind facilities such as the towers and turbines and it seems to me a long shot that ANY of them actually will become such.

      Steve will have a better understanding of the capacity of the shipyard and other Hampton Roads facilities to switch to this area of production. Building the actual construction ships would seem to be a better chance for Va, IMO>

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      I thought the idea was that wind would replace coal then gas, no?

      1. Gas has replaced coal, effectively, and now wind and solar PLUS storage are supposed to drive gas out of the market. It will take decades to get there I think.

  21. LarrytheG Avatar

    There are thousands of inhabited islands in the world and many do not have native fossil fuels and they import diesel oil to power turbines at twice or triple the cost of mainland fossil fuels. Electricity is pretty pricey.

    Nukes are a no go for most islands apparently – even small ones, too expensive and safety issues.

    We’ll know renewables are “ready” when they are able to do enough generation to offset some or all of the diesel turbines part of the day.

    When we see the smaller islands go to 100% production (not pilot) renewables/storage 24/7, we’ll know we have got to the point the enviros want but until we see a breakthrough on storage, it will be awhile.

    I still think if we can figure out how to get hydrogen from water – cost effectively, it’s still in the running. If it happens, everything changes overnight.

  22. LarrytheG Avatar

    There are thousands of inhabited islands in the world and many do not have native fossil fuels and they import diesel oil to power turbines at twice or triple the cost of mainland fossil fuels. Electricity is pretty pricey.

    Nukes are a no go for most islands apparently – even small ones, too expensive and safety issues.

    We’ll know renewables are “ready” when they are able to do enough generation to offset some or all of the diesel turbines part of the day.

    When we see the smaller islands go to 100% production (not pilot) renewables/storage 24/7, we’ll know we have got to the point the enviros want but until we see a breakthrough on storage, it will be awhile.

    I still think if we can figure out how to get hydrogen from water – cost effectively, it’s still in the running. If it happens, everything changes overnight.

  23. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    This is a commentary on an alternative to Dominion’s wind farm but no body has commented on that. Second, platforms with small reactors are a lot different than anchoring an aircraft carrier off shore. My bottom line is that I doubt that the wind farm is the most cost-effective option for reducing future CO2 emissions.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      How about it is the LEAST cost effective? Bar none.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        How do you know that without the benefit of a serious life cycle, full cost analysis?

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Because it requires building and operating an aircraft carrier without a flight deck.

          Lightships seemed like a good idea too. How many are still out there as compared to the number that have been hauled ashore as a tourist attraction?

          https://archive.hnsa.org/ships/img/portsmouth1.jpg

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Not doesn’t and nothing in the post suggests that. You are too blinded by ideology to have an open mind.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      This is the Conservative’s red herring alternative to other renewable sources. They wave it around until enough idiots think it’s the solution. It will get funded and initial build will begin. Cost overruns will then lead to calls to scrape it and start digging up coal.

      Rinse, Repeat.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        It’s too bad that your don’t read or just choose to not understand. One more time, I simply called for a comparative cost-effective analysis. Why does that bother you? Isn’t more and better information preferable to designed ignorance?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Well I DO READ and I’d read any cite you have that supports your point.

          “ignorance” is also only looking at things you want and support and ignoring the other issues that affect wider acceptance.

          If Nukes were as you think they are – why are they not on islands?

          Especially from a cost-effectiveness point of view as imported diesel oil is about 3 times the cost or more of other fossil fuels?

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            If you read my post before prejudging what I support, you would realize that asking for a comparative analysis is consistent with having an open mind. As for islands, read this–https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/17/floating-mini-nukes-could-power-countries-by-2025-says-startup

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Thanks for the link. Some of the content in your original post and if you had put the link there, I would have read it.

            This is not about “open mind”. I’ve stated my support for Nukes of modern design that are safer than the 60-year old designs.

            The article talks about electricity for developing nations and it would be cheaper than coal. I don’t see much supporting data for that claim but if it is actually true, some islands might change from diesel to nukes – but I see few takers at this point. I’m skeptical that it can produce electricity for what coal costs but would look at provided data that shows that.

            The main advantage of floating nukes would be to build them in a place in number then transport them to their destination – and NOT be floating any longer as they would always be vulnerable to storms and tsaumis like the Japanese plant.

            The question is – would you park one in the Potomac near DC or in the James near Richmond or similar?

            In terms of life-cycle costs, there are quite a few sources of comparative levelized costs – do you not know abou these or consider them not factual or accurate? Do you have one you like better than the others?

            You keep asserting that I’m blindly opposed. I’m not. I support nuclear that is modern and won’t melt down and essentially do to Japan what that nuke did.

            I don’t think that’s “blind oppositon” . Nuclear has had 60 years to improve and when it gets to the point where small ones can be placed near or in a places that we now have other power plants, then we’ll have achieved that.

          3. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            Oh, Gawd, the Guardian. ‘Nuff said. No, sir, this is not a viable idea. small modular reactors are, but not floating. But I was saying earlier that off shore wind is the worst idea. Lousy capacity factor and likely short lives, compared to on shore wind. The ocean is a harsh environment. You should see the rust on a carrier in for overhaul!

          4. “Lousy capacity factor and likely short lives, compared to on shore wind.” Those are valid objections if true; and there are answers as windmills over water are hardly new technology.

            In fact those questions are very obvious, very basic targets of any serious cost-benefit analysis. Why aren’t we talking about finding the truth here, based on objective studies vetted in public hearings by the State Corporation Commission, instead of spouting off ideological reactions to anything even slightly “green”-sounding? Instead, the Virginia GA lets Dominion win or lose these peeing contests based on raw political power and both supporters and critics go away backed-into-a-corner and angry at one another.

            Again, there are answers here: we should be making rational decisions based on the facts, not pre-judgment.

        2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Think. If a hurricane hits a windmill… now a nuke…

    3. LarrytheG Avatar

      I cannot imagine a worse thing to do to be honest. We talk about hurricanes that could destroy turbines – no such concern for floating nukes?

      How about vulernablility to terrorism or just a big accident and radiation in the bay?

      All land-based nukes are vulnerable to terrorist attacks – they’re gigantic targets for drone attacks and such.

      One would think that 60 years after the original design nukes – and knowing the public fears about them that they have still not yet produced a less risky design.

      In terms of life-cycle costs – comparing what it would cost to decommission a wind turbine with setting aside nuke material forever?

      All those reactors that come off of decomissioned warships go where?

      Even with that, I’d still support them if they were safer – safe enough to locate near a city they would serve – instead of pretending they are and then trying to find a rural site to overcome opposition or worse – put it offshore where really bad stuff could happen.

      If this was a good solution, how come no islands in the world have nukes and instead burn diesel fuel for electricity?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        I think this is the start of a cost analysis… all of which are prohibitively high…

        Asked and answered.

      2. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Well, the carriers just come into port for a storm, but then the carriers are not providing base load for Miami….

  24. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    This is a commentary on an alternative to Dominion’s wind farm but no body has commented on that. Second, platforms with small reactors are a lot different than anchoring an aircraft carrier off shore. My bottom line is that I doubt that the wind farm is the most cost-effective option for reducing future CO2 emissions.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      How about it is the LEAST cost effective? Bar none.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        How do you know that without the benefit of a serious life cycle, full cost analysis?

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Because it requires building and operating an aircraft carrier without a flight deck.

          Lightships seemed like a good idea too. How many are still out there as compared to the number that have been hauled ashore as a tourist attraction?

          https://archive.hnsa.org/ships/img/portsmouth1.jpg

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Not doesn’t and nothing in the post suggests that. You are too blinded by ideology to have an open mind.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      This is the Conservative’s red herring alternative to other renewable sources. They wave it around until enough idiots think it’s the solution. It will get funded and initial build will begin. Cost overruns will then lead to calls to scrape it and start digging up coal.

      Rinse, Repeat.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        It’s too bad that your don’t read or just choose to not understand. One more time, I simply called for a comparative cost-effective analysis. Why does that bother you? Isn’t more and better information preferable to designed ignorance?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Well I DO READ and I’d read any cite you have that supports your point.

          “ignorance” is also only looking at things you want and support and ignoring the other issues that affect wider acceptance.

          If Nukes were as you think they are – why are they not on islands?

          Especially from a cost-effectiveness point of view as imported diesel oil is about 3 times the cost or more of other fossil fuels?

          1. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            Oh, Gawd, the Guardian. ‘Nuff said. No, sir, this is not a viable idea. small modular reactors are, but not floating. But I was saying earlier that off shore wind is the worst idea. Lousy capacity factor and likely short lives, compared to on shore wind. The ocean is a harsh environment. You should see the rust on a carrier in for overhaul!

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            If you read my post before prejudging what I support, you would realize that asking for a comparative analysis is consistent with having an open mind. As for islands, read this–https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/17/floating-mini-nukes-could-power-countries-by-2025-says-startup

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Thanks for the link. Some of the content in your original post and if you had put the link there, I would have read it.

            This is not about “open mind”. I’ve stated my support for Nukes of modern design that are safer than the 60-year old designs.

            The article talks about electricity for developing nations and it would be cheaper than coal. I don’t see much supporting data for that claim but if it is actually true, some islands might change from diesel to nukes – but I see few takers at this point. I’m skeptical that it can produce electricity for what coal costs but would look at provided data that shows that.

            The main advantage of floating nukes would be to build them in a place in number then transport them to their destination – and NOT be floating any longer as they would always be vulnerable to storms and tsaumis like the Japanese plant.

            The question is – would you park one in the Potomac near DC or in the James near Richmond or similar?

            In terms of life-cycle costs, there are quite a few sources of comparative levelized costs – do you not know abou these or consider them not factual or accurate? Do you have one you like better than the others?

            You keep asserting that I’m blindly opposed. I’m not. I support nuclear that is modern and won’t melt down and essentially do to Japan what that nuke did.

            I don’t think that’s “blind oppositon” . Nuclear has had 60 years to improve and when it gets to the point where small ones can be placed near or in a places that we now have other power plants, then we’ll have achieved that.

          4. “Lousy capacity factor and likely short lives, compared to on shore wind.” Those are valid objections if true; and there are answers as windmills over water are hardly new technology.

            In fact those questions are very obvious, very basic targets of any serious cost-benefit analysis. Why aren’t we talking about finding the truth here, based on objective studies vetted in public hearings by the State Corporation Commission, instead of spouting off ideological reactions to anything even slightly “green”-sounding? Instead, the Virginia GA lets Dominion win or lose these peeing contests based on raw political power and both supporters and critics go away backed-into-a-corner and angry at one another.

            Again, there are answers here: we should be making rational decisions based on the facts, not pre-judgment.

        2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Think. If a hurricane hits a windmill… now a nuke…

    3. LarrytheG Avatar

      I cannot imagine a worse thing to do to be honest. We talk about hurricanes that could destroy turbines – no such concern for floating nukes?

      How about vulernablility to terrorism or just a big accident and radiation in the bay?

      All land-based nukes are vulnerable to terrorist attacks – they’re gigantic targets for drone attacks and such.

      One would think that 60 years after the original design nukes – and knowing the public fears about them that they have still not yet produced a less risky design.

      In terms of life-cycle costs – comparing what it would cost to decommission a wind turbine with setting aside nuke material forever?

      All those reactors that come off of decomissioned warships go where?

      Even with that, I’d still support them if they were safer – safe enough to locate near a city they would serve – instead of pretending they are and then trying to find a rural site to overcome opposition or worse – put it offshore where really bad stuff could happen.

      If this was a good solution, how come no islands in the world have nukes and instead burn diesel fuel for electricity?

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Well, the carriers just come into port for a storm, but then the carriers are not providing base load for Miami….

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        I think this is the start of a cost analysis… all of which are prohibitively high…

        Asked and answered.

  25. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Whatever happened to the idea of turning the Ghost Fleet into inescapable prisons?

  26. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Whatever happened to the idea of turning the Ghost Fleet into inescapable prisons?

  27. By the way, readers may not be aware Congress passed a big bipartisan Energy package along with the COVID relief.

    Most notably for Virginia it extended some of the tax credits for offshore wind for 5-years (which is a good thing due to the expense of it).

    I think the new Bill commits the U.S. to replace HFC’s refrigerants rapidly, which I agree with that. Although, business as usual: Congress’s lofty justification of solving climate change is probably cover-up for the fact they think it helps American business create jobs…I believe maybe USA companies alone make the new refrigerants.

  28. By the way, readers may not be aware Congress passed a big bipartisan Energy package along with the COVID relief.

    Most notably for Virginia it extended some of the tax credits for offshore wind for 5-years (which is a good thing due to the expense of it).

    I think the new Bill commits the U.S. to replace HFC’s refrigerants rapidly, which I agree with that. Although, business as usual: Congress’s lofty justification of solving climate change is probably cover-up for the fact they think it helps American business create jobs…I believe maybe USA companies alone make the new refrigerants.

  29. LarrytheG Avatar

    The start-up design is said to be moten salt that will not melt down but instead turn into an encapsulated “rock”.

    If true – it deals substantially with the safety issue and actually could be sited nearer to more dense populations of people.

    But the article itself is largely devoid of real data. It’s more like Popular Mechanics which has for years talked about “concepts” that “could”.

    There is a Russian floating nuke – and those nukes are modified ship reactors and I’ll be honest, I have no idea if military ship reactors are “safe” and cost-effective and feasible to use for civilian purposes like many islands that currently rely on imported diesel fuel.

    And as pointed out before, other than a few pilots , there are few actual wind/solar generating facilities for islands, not even ones that are co-located with diesel plants which are almost universally the power plant of choice for most islands.

    In that regard, a floating nuke does not have to even beat coal for cost-effectiveness – imported diesel is 3 times more costly than coal.

    At this point , neither wind, nor solar nor nukes “beat” imported diesel.

    1. If my father were still alive I could get some insights for this article. With Westinghouse Bettis Labs he designed the nuke sub reactors and participated in testing some of Rickover’s ideas, I think sodium cooling was one test. Dad’s first project was the start-up of the Shippingport, Pa. plant, the world’s first full-scale atomic electric power plant devoted exclusively to peacetime uses. I know he found it mind boggling the huge size of utility current day nuke reactors.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        And folks might remember the Savannah , a nuclear-powered non-military ship – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

        and as far as I know , none of the worlds current shipping fleet is nuke-powered – virtually all of them burn diesel.

        One would think if nuclear works on a barge and it works in military ships, it ought to work in civilian ships – and in fact, if it did, it would be easy to – right now – “park” one to provide power to islands and developing nations as proof of concept if nothing else.

        I support BOTH nukes and offshore wind – I don’t see them as competitors or advocate nukes as “better” than offshore until and unless real data backs that up.

        The start-up claims they can build a nuclear barge in 2 years also.
        Is that true? Can that actually be done?

        The Chinese, by the way, are building and deploying floating nukes to these islands they have claimed but not much data is available in terms of cost, how long to build, design, etc… they’re more akin to military ship reactors than civilian.

      2. They were huge, those utility-scale reactors, because only the economics of scale could finance and amortise the huge up-front costs imposed by all that micromanaged regulatory overhead that one had to go through in those days to get anything with “nuclear” in its name licensed. Plaudits to Bill O’Keefe and his cohorts for their willingness to re-examine politically unpalatable but intrinsically cost-effective alternatives to generate bulk electricity — if the anti-nuke lobby would simply give it a fair chance to be considered on the merits.

  30. LarrytheG Avatar

    The start-up design is said to be moten salt that will not melt down but instead turn into an encapsulated “rock”.

    If true – it deals substantially with the safety issue and actually could be sited nearer to more dense populations of people.

    But the article itself is largely devoid of real data. It’s more like Popular Mechanics which has for years talked about “concepts” that “could”.

    There is a Russian floating nuke – and those nukes are modified ship reactors and I’ll be honest, I have no idea if military ship reactors are “safe” and cost-effective and feasible to use for civilian purposes like many islands that currently rely on imported diesel fuel.

    And as pointed out before, other than a few pilots , there are few actual wind/solar generating facilities for islands, not even ones that are co-located with diesel plants which are almost universally the power plant of choice for most islands.

    In that regard, a floating nuke does not have to even beat coal for cost-effectiveness – imported diesel is 3 times more costly than coal.

    At this point , neither wind, nor solar nor nukes “beat” imported diesel.

    1. If my father were still alive I could get some insights for this article. With Westinghouse Bettis Labs he designed the nuke sub reactors and participated in testing some of Rickover’s ideas, I think sodium cooling was one test. Dad’s first project was the start-up of the Shippingport, Pa. plant, the world’s first full-scale atomic electric power plant devoted exclusively to peacetime uses. I know he found it mind boggling the huge size of utility current day nuke reactors.

      1. They were huge, those utility-scale reactors, because only the economics of scale could finance and amortise the huge up-front costs imposed by all that micromanaged regulatory overhead that one had to go through in those days to get anything with “nuclear” in its name licensed. Plaudits to Bill O’Keefe and his cohorts for their willingness to re-examine politically unpalatable but intrinsically cost-effective alternatives to generate bulk electricity — if the anti-nuke lobby would simply give it a fair chance to be considered on the merits.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        And folks might remember the Savannah , a nuclear-powered non-military ship – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

        and as far as I know , none of the worlds current shipping fleet is nuke-powered – virtually all of them burn diesel.

        One would think if nuclear works on a barge and it works in military ships, it ought to work in civilian ships – and in fact, if it did, it would be easy to – right now – “park” one to provide power to islands and developing nations as proof of concept if nothing else.

        I support BOTH nukes and offshore wind – I don’t see them as competitors or advocate nukes as “better” than offshore until and unless real data backs that up.

        The start-up claims they can build a nuclear barge in 2 years also.
        Is that true? Can that actually be done?

        The Chinese, by the way, are building and deploying floating nukes to these islands they have claimed but not much data is available in terms of cost, how long to build, design, etc… they’re more akin to military ship reactors than civilian.

  31. LarrytheG Avatar

    Why hasn’t Dominion proffered these smaller , safer nukes as an alternative to NA3 ?

    Said it before. I support Nukes – done right but opposed to promoting Nukes as alternatives to Wind – offshore or onshore and solar.

    All 3 – wind, solar and smaller nukes would lead to a more decentralized grid – a more modern grid – all good and all not fossil fuels.

  32. LarrytheG Avatar

    Why hasn’t Dominion proffered these smaller , safer nukes as an alternative to NA3 ?

    Said it before. I support Nukes – done right but opposed to promoting Nukes as alternatives to Wind – offshore or onshore and solar.

    All 3 – wind, solar and smaller nukes would lead to a more decentralized grid – a more modern grid – all good and all not fossil fuels.

  33. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Offshore oil platforms have been designed to withstand hurricanes, 100 foot waves, and even icebergs. Being 27 miles off shore provides a margin of safety.
    If that concept is more costly than 2oo windmills covering 176 square miles than the story is over. Until then, Dominion customers are probably being ripped off.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I think when Dominion itself is not advocating nuclear, the modern nuclear, smaller, modular, safer, etc.. if they are not going to propose , then it’s probably not going to happen.

      But again, it does not need to be Nuclear versus offshore. It can be both and if nuclear proves superior then it will win and we go forward with nukes.

    2. ….”Being 27 miles off shore provides a margin of safety.”

      I guess you mean margin of safety from public exposure if it was a small nuke plant.

      I was not sure if you meant margin of safety for any structure to be that far out, for weather reasons such as lack of hurricane spawned-tornados, water spouts which apparently ia a near-shore or on-shore phenomenon.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        I think it’s more of a trade winds thing… well, at least on the east coast. It’s a long way to Europe.

  34. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Offshore oil platforms have been designed to withstand hurricanes, 100 foot waves, and even icebergs. Being 27 miles off shore provides a margin of safety.
    If that concept is more costly than 2oo windmills covering 176 square miles than the story is over. Until then, Dominion customers are probably being ripped off.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I think when Dominion itself is not advocating nuclear, the modern nuclear, smaller, modular, safer, etc.. if they are not going to propose , then it’s probably not going to happen.

      But again, it does not need to be Nuclear versus offshore. It can be both and if nuclear proves superior then it will win and we go forward with nukes.

    2. ….”Being 27 miles off shore provides a margin of safety.”

      I guess you mean margin of safety from public exposure if it was a small nuke plant.

      I was not sure if you meant margin of safety for any structure to be that far out, for weather reasons such as lack of hurricane spawned-tornados, water spouts which apparently ia a near-shore or on-shore phenomenon.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        I think it’s more of a trade winds thing… well, at least on the east coast. It’s a long way to Europe.

Leave a Reply