US Electricity Production in 2019

Links and References

US Energy Information Administration

US Electricity Production in 2018 by Source

US Energy Information Administration

Deploying Ocean Nuclear Energy Flotillas into International Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synthetic Fuels, Industrial Chemicals, and Fertilizers

Artist’s rendition of the Russian floating nuclear power plant “Akademik Lomonosov” (Credit: SevMashZevod)

by Marcel F. Williams

Floating Nuclear Reactors

Floating nuclear reactors in the form of nuclear submarines,  aircraft carriers, and nuclear icebreakers have been in existence since 1953. And more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operations has been accumulated since the 1950s.  Also, two American and seven former Soviet Union nuclear submarines have sunk into the ocean-- with their nuclear material-- because of accidents or extensive damage.  So nuclear reactors are no strangers to the Earth's marine environment since the 1950s. Currently,  more than 180 small reactors power more than 140 sea vessels in the Earth's oceans.

In 1968, the US military deployed the first floating nuclear power reactor, the Sturgis (MH-1A). Supplying 10 megawatts of electric power to the Panama Canal Zone, the Sturgis operated without incident for over eight years until it reached the end of its service.

Now, Russia has deployed its first floating nuclear power reactor. Recognizing the advantages of floating nuclear power plants, Russia plans to replace nuclear reactors located on land with the new floating reactors.

China also has plans to develop and deploy 20 floating nuclear power plants of its own, the first destined for the South China seas.  

Since water is what keeps nuclear material from melting down in light water nuclear reactors, floating nuclear reactors deployed to the oceans virtually infinite heat sink are viewed as inherently safe.   Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, however,  suggest that a tsunami could push a coastal floating nuclear reactor on land where the reactors fuel could be damaged and allowed to melt down-- poisoning the local environment with radioactive material. Such a scenario, of course,  couldn't possibly occur for floating  nuclear reactors that are-- remotely sited-- in ocean territories hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away from coastlines.

International Waters

Stationary underwater nuclear reactors would be beneficial to Nations that possess extensive   Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in remote territorial waters, could take advantage of stationary underwater nuclear reactors.  Such remote regions in the world's oceans  could utilize nuclear electricity for the production of carbon neutral synthetic fuels, industrial chemicals, and fertilizers that could be shipped by tankers around the world.

Dark blue areas represent EEZ territories; light blue represents international waters (Credit: Wikipedia)

In international waters, nations that don't possess remote territorial waters could still produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels, industrial chemicals and fertilizers-- on the high seas.    But this would require mobile fleets  of floating nuclear reactors and synfuel producing barges.  Since no nation can legally claim a particular area of-- international waters-- a nuclear synplex flotilla could only occupy an area  within  international waters-- on a temporary basis.

Under this scenario, floating nuclear synplexes would produce hydrocarbon commodities in a particular area of international waters for three to six months before moving a few hundred kilometers away to another region of international waters.  Such fuel producing flotillas would also have the advantage of being able to quickly redeploy to another region of the ocean in order to avoid   hurricanes and typhoons. Tug boats would be used to deploy and to redeploy the barges within international waters.

 Nuclear flotillas could  be accompanied by floating plasma pyrolysis plants and electrolysis plants for converting urban and rural hydrocarbon waste into methanol, gasoline, diesel fuel, dimethyl ether, and jet fuel.

Housing for nuplex and synplex workers could be accommodated aboard cruise ships perhaps modified to use methanol or methanol fuel cells.   

The colored areas  are regions where cyclones and hurricanes are most frequently created in the world's oceans (Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Using the new generation of passively safe small nuclear reactors such as the NuScale type of units,  a floating nuclear barge could consist of twelve 60 megawatt reactors producing 720 megawatts of total electricity. Eight floating nuclear barges could, therefore, produce about 5.7 gigawatts of electricity.

Tug boats could transport garbage barges from a coastal town or city to a floating garbage processing barge equipped with cranes  that would separate metals from biowaste and plastics. Afterwards the waste processing barge would use its  cranes to deploy biowaste and plastics to the plasma arc pyrolyis plant where the garbage would be converted into syngas (mainly carbon monoxide and hydrogen). Additional hydrogen would be added to the process by adding hydrogen derived from the electrolysis of distilled water. A catalyst would be used to convert the syngas into methanol.

Production of methanol from hydrocarbon waste

To enhance safety, the  electric powered synfuel barges could be deployed about five kilometers (3 miles) away from the floating nuclear reactors. At $150 per meter, a five kilometer submarine cable connecting the barge to the floating nuclear power plant should cost less than $800,000.

Methanol could be shipped by  tankers to coastal towns and cities to be utilized in natural gas electric power plants cheaply modified to use methanol.  Methanol electric power stations would  actually produce electricity more efficiently than natural gas. It would also be much safer to ship  methanol to coastal towns and cities than liquid natural gas.

Japanese Methanol Tanker (Credit: SHIN KURUSHIMA DOCKYARD CO)

The imported methanol could also be converted into dimethyl ether (a diesel fuel substitute) or be used to make biodiesel. Methanol can also be converted into high octane gasoline that can replace or be easily blended with gasoline derived from petroleum.

Even more methanol can be produced  if the CO2 from the flu gases of  methanol electric power plants is captured and transported by tanker back to the floating nuclear synplex.

Ammonia and urea could also be produced by remote floating nuclear synplexes, allowing fertilizer to be supplied by tankers to the coastlines of islands and countries around the world.

The abundant oxygen produced from the electrolysis of water by the accompanying synplexes could be utilized  for the manufacturing and processing of steel from iron ore.

Coast Guard Cutter (Credit: Wikipedia)

Protection from Pirates and Terrorist 

Floating nuclear power plants and synplexes would still have to be accompanied by at least some naval defense presence in order to protect against being taken over or damaged by pirates or potential terrorist on the high seas. The added expense of naval security  would probably favor large Ocean Nuclear  flotillas capable of generating at least 3000 megawatts  of electricity for the accompanying synplex flotillas. The largest land based nuclear power facilities have electric capacities of nearly 8000 megawatts. The largest land based nuclear power facility in the US (Palo Verde) is capable of generating 3300 megawatts of electricity.

If Coast Guard protection of a nuclear flotilla in international waters cost $100 to $200 million a year, it could cost $10 to $20 billion a year to protect 570 gigawatts of electric power and associated synfuel, fertilizer,  and industrial chemical production in international waters.   However, if such flotillas were congregated in just a few remote US EEZ areas, the cost of Coast Guard protection could be substantially reduced. And it  should be noted that the US military currently spends about--$81 billion a year-- protecting greenhouse gas polluting global oil supplies on the world's oceans. So protecting Ocean Nuclear synfuel production could be a lot cheaper than protecting oil supplies. 

Utilization within and beyond the EEZ by the US and other Nations

Coastal nations that lack remote EEZ areas such as  Singapore, South Korea, Israel, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Eritrea, etc. could utilize floating nuclear synplexes in remote international waters  to export their garbage and sewage for the production of synfuels, fertilizers, and industrial chemicals through floating nuclear synplexes without the political and environmental complications of having nearby nuclear facilities.

The United States could also use floating nuclear synplexes within its remote EEZ areas without the need of frequent redeployment until they've developed underwater nuclear facilities for their remote EEZ areas.  The US Navy would could especially benefit from the production of jet fuel from floating nuclear synplexes in the Wake Island EEZ.  This could allow US nuclear aircraft carriers attempting to counter the growing power of China and Russia in the Pacific to be supplied with jet fuel at the Wake Island EEZ-- in a region near the areas of global tension.

 
Links and References

Nuclear Powered Ships

Catalytic conversion of synthesis gas to methanol and other oxygenated products

 MH-1A

Both reactors on Rosatom’s floating nuclear plant now operational

US spends $81 billion a year to protect global oil supplies, report estimates

NuScale Power

The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

Siting Ocean Nuclear Power Plants in Remote US Territorial Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synfuels and Industrial Chemicals

Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?

The Case for Remotely Sited Underwater Nuclear Reactors

Methanol as a Marine Fuel

The Production and Utilization of Renewable Methanol in a Nuclear Economy

10.7 MWe rated methanol electric power plant at Point Lisas, Trinidad (Credit: Mendenhall Technical Services)

Terrestrial and off-shore nuclear power plants could safely and economically provide all of the base load electricity requirements for future carbon neutral  industrial economies. The additional-- peak load-- electrical demands for an industrial region could also be supplied by carbon neutral methanol electric power plants-- if nuclear electricity was also utilized to produce renewable methanol derived from biowaste and waste water resources

Methanol (CH3OH) is, of course, the simplest alcohol, producing only carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after combustion with oxygen. The production of methyl alcohol through the pyrolysis of carbon based materials and their distillation has been known since the time of the ancient Egyptians. Modern techniques of methanol production utilize pyrolysis to produce syngas (synthetic natural gas),  a gaseous mixture of consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen  that is then converted into methanol.

Since approximately 65% to 75% of the CO2 content is wasted during the  synthesis of  syngas into to methanol, introducing additional hydrogen into the synthesis process could potentially increase the production of methanol by three to four times. Sources of carbon neutral hydrogen could, therefore, be produced through nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar electric power through the electrolysis of water.

Plasma arc pyrolysis plants, a commercial technology that's already in existence,  could be used for the conversion of urban and rural biowaste (garbage and sewage) into syngas.  Additional hydrogen can be added to the mix through the production of hydrogen through the electrolysis of water at an electrolysis plant. The syngas and additional hydrogen can then converted into  methanol at a  alcohol methanol synthesis plant.

Diagram of a methanol biowaste complex for the production of methanol and electricity.

Carbon neutral sources of electricity could come  from nuclear, hydroelectic, wind, and solar power plants.  Because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, wind and solar facilities only offer intermittent supplies of carbon neutral electricity to the electric grid.  While hydroelectric power plants can supply carbon neutral electricity to the grid 24/7, this renewable energy source  has already reached its maximum capacity in the US and can actually supply less power to the grid during periods of drought-- as is currently the occurring in drought stricken California.

Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, can supply carbon neutral electricity to the grid 24 hours per day.  Except during periods of refueling (once every three years), current light water nuclear power plants in the US have an electrical capacity exceeding 90%. Nuclear power currently produces about 20% of America's electricity supply. But there is currently enough room-- at existing US nuclear sites--  to increase nuclear power production  in the US by at least four to five times the current nuclear capacity without the need to add new locations within the continental US. This could easily be done by gradually adding the next generation of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) to existing sites over the next twenty to thirty years.

A methanol complex using carbon neutral electricity from nuclear and renewable energy could produce methanol from the pyrolysis of urban and rural garbage and sewage-- solving the problems of urban and rural refuse while also producing clean energy. The production of hydrogen from the electrolysis of water could substantial increase methyl alcohol production. Domestic sources of carbon neutral methanol could then be used to fuel methanol electric power plants during peak load demands.  The production of electricity from a methanol electric power plant could be further increased if the waste oxygen from the production of hydrogen were  utilized during fuel combustion instead of air which contains only 20% oxygen and  80% nitrogen. 

While the CO2 produced from a methanol electric  power plant could be exhausted into the air without increasing the net amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, the waste carbon dioxide from the  flu gas could also be recycled.   Post combustion and pre- combustion CO2 capture facilities can collect 85 to 90% of CO2 from flu gas. And power plants that used oxygen can capture as much as 90 to 97% of the CO2 produced from flu gas. Pumping the waste CO2 into the methanol synthesis plants could nearly double  the production of  renewable methanol if even more hydrogen is added to the mix.

Any excess production of methanol from a methanol electric complex would be a valuable commodity that could be exported. Exported methanol could be used  for the base load production of electricity in areas with no access to nuclear power or it could be converted into gasoline or dimethyl ether for trucks and automobiles. Methanol would also be of value to industrial chemical companies.
 

TVA’s, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (Credit TVA).

Despite the accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl, terrestrially based commercial nuclear power are still the safest source of electricity production ever invented. But floating commercial nuclear reactors deployed several kilometers off marine coastlines or even deployed far out into the ocean could enhance nuclear safety even further.

The Earth's oceans, of course,  are certainly no strangers to nuclear power. There are over 140 nuclear powered ships and submarines roaming the Earth's oceans and seas  with more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operations  accumulated since 1954. 

More than 100 million Americans currently  live within 80 kilometers of a commercial nuclear reactor. But undersea electric cables more than 1000 kilometers away from coastlines  are possible.   Floating nuclear power facilities  could be deployed more than  300 kilometers from an American coastline while still being within the US's  200 nautical mile (370 kilometer) exclusive coastal economic zone.  Such floating reactors could, therefore, be deployed far beyond the 80 kilometer exclusion zone recommended by the United States during the height of the  Fukushima nuclear accident.

Of course, a Fukushima type of incident would be impossible for a floating nuclear facilities located in the open ocean since water  is a natural coolant for light water reactor fuel. Ocean waters would serve as an infinite heat sink for fissile material-- essentially making nuclear meltdowns impossible for floating reactors  placed below the water level. Floating nuclear reactors placed dozens of  kilometers offshore would also be immune to potential damage from earthquakes and tsunamis.

The safety of floating nuclear facilities from potential harm from terrorist or other hostile political groups could be enhanced by naval security from  US Coast Guard or other US government authorized security forces. Potential damage to the reactor from a  torpedo could also easily be prevented with an extensive network of  torpedo nets surround the nuclear power facilities.

But, again, even if an attack on a floating nuclear facility was successful, the ocean water would immediately prevent any melting of the nuclear material to occur.  Water also acts as a natural radiation shield. Just a few meters of water can  reduce ionizing radiation to harmless levels of exposure near the radioactive material.

Japanese Methanol Tanker (Credit: SHIN KURUSHIMA DOCKYARD CO)

Ocean Nuclear power plants could also be remotely deployed, more than a thousands of  kilometers away from coastlines for the production of electricity. Methanol powered ships could transport garbage from coastal towns and cities to floating biowaste pyrolysis, water electrolysis,  and methanol synthesis plants remotely powered by underwater electric cables from Ocean Nuclear Power plants just a few kilometers away. The methanol could then be shipped to coastal towns and cities all over the world for the production of electricity or for conversion into gasoline or dimethyl ether for diesel fuel engines.

First Methanol Fueled Ferry (Credit Stena Line)

Combined with nuclear and renewable energy, renewable methanol fueled peak load power plants  could finally end the need for  greenhouse gas polluting coal and natural gas power plants in the US and in the rest of the world.

 Links and References


How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

Plasma gasification

Plasma Arc Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste 

Some Processes for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste

Waste to Energy

Fuel Synthesis from Syngas

Capturing CO2

Market and Economic Assessment of Using Methanol for Power Generation in the Caribbean Region

Sustainable fuel for the transportation sector

Methanol to Power Demonstration Project

Simple Cycle Power Plants: Trinidad

The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

 MIT Floating Nuclear Power Plant Design

The Methanol Alternative

Northumberland building world's longest undersea cable

Stena Line to Convert Passenger Ferry to a Methanol Fueled Sea Vessel

The Methanol Alternative: 2012 Methanol Forum

 

Nuclear Synfuel Economy

The Methanol Economy

Gasoline from Air & Water

The Future of US Energy Production