France Unveils Subsea Nuclear Prototype

[FBaggins]

France’s DCNS unveiled the first small offshore nuclear power plant prototype that could be deployed by small coastal countries within the next five years. Flexblue is a 12,000-metric-ton, cylinder with a diameter between 40 and 50 feet and measuring 328 feet in length. A small nuclear reactor, steam generators, turbines and a generator are contained within the submarine-like housing. The units could generate between 50 and 250 megawatts of power.

The mini-reactors would be installed at depths up to 300 feet several miles offshore and connected by subsea cables to land-based power stations. Electricite de France and Areva have expressed interest in Flexblue’s modularity and standardization. The three companies will now begin a two-year development phase, according to a DCNS statement.

A market is emerging for smaller units, according to World Nuclear News. Paris-based Areva is actively pursuing a small reactor program for land-based facilities. Currently, the Tennessee Valley Authority is analyzing the feasibility of smaller units at its Clinch River site in Roane County, and the U.S. Department of Energy is looking at small units for its Savannah River site in Georgia.


http://www.breakbulk.com/nuclear/france-unveils-subsea-nuclear-prototype

[wtmusic]

1. This sounds like a really bad idea. nt

[FBaggins]

3. Because?

n/t

[wtmusic]

6. Spill potential

Hard to tell without details. Is it staffed on-site or remotely? How is it protected from attack?

If they prove impractical, who's going to pay to have it hauled out of the ocean - or is it going to sit down their and rust, leaching radioactivity for hundreds of years?

[FBaggins]

7. They've dealt with most of that on submarines for decades.

How is it protected from attack?

By putting it under a couple hundred feet of water, not advertising it's position, and limiting the impact of an attack to little more than destroying the power generation.

If they prove impractical, who's going to pay to have it hauled out of the ocean

That really wouldn't be an issue. Moving them would be easier than any land-based reactor and they've been decommissioning sub reactors for a long time. They'll know whether they're "practical" or not long before there are any significant number of them out there. Again... the technology isn't exactly new.


leaching radioactivity for hundreds of years?

I suspect that the offshore placement is specifically to decrease such concerns. Ignoring the "leave it there" error already dealt with, an accident at sea is obviously far less dangerous than one on land.

[wtmusic]

8. "limiting the impact of an attack to little more than destroying the power generation"

Curious how you would achieve that.

[FBaggins]

10. Nobody lives nearby.

Ocean-floor disposal of nuclear material is hardly ideal, but it isn't close to the same problem as a nuclear accident on land near populated areas. The water absorbs essentially all radiation and these reactors are comparatively small. The now (more)radioactive sea water is massively diluted before it can get anywhere close to land (and sea water is already active).

Nations used to dump nuclear waste in the oceans and the russians (at least) have lost a couple nuclear subs (including at least one with warheads)... and, of course, we used to test underwater nuclear explosions... so there has been a fair amount of research done on the radiological impact. They've even measured the impacts of fallout from Chernobyl and how that activity has flowed from (amonh other spots) the Baltic sea into the Med.

In short, it isn't that it's without ANY risk, but the environmental danger isn't as large as an offshore oil rig and there are thousands of those.

[wtmusic]

11. The Kursk was about the same weight and depth

and they were able to pull that up without too much of a problem.

You make a good argument. :thumbsup:

[FBaggins]

12. Well... yes... but the reactor wasn't damaged in the accident and shut down.

So it doesn't directly address the prior poster's concerns.

I think that the basis of the question is "what would happen if terrorists were to acquire a mini-sub with torpedoes and attack the thing... cracking the reactor vessel and spilling material into the sea?"

We can ignore the fact that this is not as easy as it sounds for someone other than a nation with a trained submarine force (you don't go from box cutters to acquisition and targeting of submersed vessels in just a decade). The question is "what's the worse-case scenario?" and I don't think that that "worst case" is particularly dangerous - especially compared to already accepted energy sources.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. It's designed to be pulled up - even for refuelling if desired

From a longer article:

If a problem developed with the reactor, it could be brought to the surface and taken to DCNS' shipyard in Cherbourg for repair, Boissier said.

It could be refueled in the same way, and at end of life would be repatriated to the shipyards for decommissioning, which would resemble decommissioning of nuclear submarines, which DCNS has already done, he said.

Areva has already begun developing a small modular reactor, or SMR, of about 100 MW, based on the experience of its Technicatome unit in building reactor plants for submarines and France's nuclear-power aircraft carrier, the Charles De Gaulle. Such a reactor could be embarked in a FlexBlue power plant, Boissier said.

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/8434914

As far as attacks on it go, however, this wouldn't need a submersible - amateur civilian divers can go down to 60m, eg http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/159184/big_guns_of_jutland.html . So I'd want to know what the security measures would be.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. So it's a nuclear submarine without the torpedoes and bombs?

Interesting idea.

--d!

[FBaggins]

4. And without all the bells and whistles necessary to target/use those torpedoes/missles

"Bombs", of course, would be pretty rare. :-)

That's what it sounds like. There's quite a bit of expertise out there for developing and running reactors of that sort and a very high safety level historically. It makes some sense.

[damntexdem]

5. This report leaves me positively glowing.

And just wait until the seas are negatively glowing.

[madokie]

9. Fish tells no lies

[hunter]

13. Bwahahaha... stealthy nuclear power plants.

Do you really know where your electricity comes from?

[pscot]

14. Eh voila

Instead of waiting for the carbon cycle to warm the oceans, the French have found a way to apply large amounts of direct heat.

[FBaggins]

15. You're kidding, right?

I think you need to work on your conception of scale.

[pscot]

16. You're right

The sea is so vast that our puny efforts to bring it to a boil can have no impact.

[FBaggins]

You think you're being sarcastic... but yes, that's correct.

The sea is so vast that we couldn't possible heat the ocean directly with nuclear power.

We believe that we're raising it indirectly with carbon emissions, but, if anything, a reactor's reduction of total emissions would more than offset any direct heating.

What you're missing is the massive difference in scale. One undersea volcano (of which there are many) puts out many millions of times as many calories as the heat from a submarine-sized reactor. You're off by many MANY orders of magnitude.

[pscot]

18. Taken in isolation

this is a trivial event. But there are seven billion of us and nothing we do occurs in isolation. Our billions of trivial actions, in concert, scale up nicely and are heating the oceans. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x272568

At this point, one or a hundred, small offshore nukes probably won't matter.

[FBaggins]

17. Dupe

[joshcryer]

20. I am 99% certain that this was sarcasm.

[FBaggins]

21. 16 cleaerly was

He seems to stick with the theme of 14.

[txlibdem]

22. Russsia is building a nuclear power plant that floats on a barge

Towable to any location offshore then connected with undersea power cables. I like the idea of the submersible nuclear power better (not going to go down in a storm, etc) but any technology that makes nuclear power plants as plug-and-play as possible is a-ok with me.