When Cardiff resident David Richardson first floated the idea of developing offshore nuclear power in 1981, his boss, a nuclear engineer at University Mechanical, wasn’t thrilled.
The inspiration for Richardson’s floating nuclear power plant came after reading a news article about the islands of Kauai and Oahu receiving emergency power from a U.S. Navy nuclear submarine during a blackout following Hurricane Iwa. In between beers with his superior, Richardson casually suggested that floating power plants made sense.
“I told him that’s the way you should do nuclear power — float submarines offshore,” Richardson told The Coast News. “My boss got very serious and said that if I continued with that idea, he’d have to fire me and I’d never work in mechanical engineering again.”
Born in Sacramento in 1950, Richardson earned a bachelor’s degree in business management from Cal State Fullerton. He began his career in 1980 with University Mechanical, where his first project was a $1 billion development for Hughes Aircraft’s Electro-Optical and Data Systems group in El Segundo — a sprawling complex that housed 10,000 workers and scientists, complete with its own golf course.
Richardson, 74, began sketching designs for a floating power plant in his spare time but kept the idea under wraps, shelving it for decades until the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, a catastrophic nuclear meltdown triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that disabled the plant’s cooling systems.
“If (Fukushima) had a floating system, they likely wouldn’t have lost power, the nuclear facility wouldn’t have been compromised, and they would have received an earlier warning about the tsunami,” Richardson said. “After Fukushima, I got the drawings out again and started playing with the idea.”
The disaster, which many in the scientific community believe was avoidable, inspired Richardson to revisit his tightly held plan to develop an affordable, sustainable, carbon-free and safe means of power generation.
After years of perfecting his prototype, Richardson submitted his first patent application in 2014, but the submission was rejected. Around the same time, scientists Jacopo Buongiorno and others at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering were developing plans for floating offshore nuclear power plants with capacities ranging from 50 to 1,000 megawatts.
Richardson decided to consult with San Diego patent attorney and nuclear engineer Timothy Fitzwilliam, who eventually helped him secure a patent for a semi-submersible nuclear power plant and multi-purpose platform on April 23, 2019 — a scalable station capable of producing 3,000 megawatts (3 gigawatts) or more.
Big plans
While Richardson’s design closely resembles the oil and gas industry’s existing offshore spar platforms — picture a high-rise apartment complex in the middle of the sea with massive, weighted, cylindrical hulls deep below the surface — he drew primary inspiration from FLIP (Floating Instrument Platform), a large research vessel developed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in support of the Navy’s submarine weapons program.
The ballasted platform, shaped like a giant baseball bat, “flips” into a vertical position by flooding special tanks with seawater, causing one end of the vessel to sink while the other end rises into the air. (While it looks like a ship, FLIP was classified as a platform since it lacked its own propulsion system and was towed out to sea by tugs.)
The design allows it to remain stable at sea by submerging its lower section. For example, imagine holding an empty soda bottle horizontally in a pool. If water fills the bottom half, the bottle slowly tips upright and stands on end. FLIP works the same way — only it’s 355 feet long and weighs 700 tons.
“I thought, take that and put (nuclear) reactors down in the water, anchor it to the sea floor, run a power cord to the mainland, and you’re done,” Richardson said.
Richardson’s design proposes a floating spar platform moored to the seafloor and outfitted with marine nuclear reactors using uranium enriched up to 90%. The reactors, modeled after naval technology, are each capable of operating independently or in conjunction with the others. Each reactor is enclosed within reinforced steel containment structures, designed to withstand natural disasters, potential acts of terrorism and other security threats.
Designed to be assembled in a shipyard, the modular cylindrical structure contains multiple levels above and below sea level. Above the water, the plant comprises 20 to 30 acres of modular topside decks for command operations, crew housing, and additional support systems. Below the surface, a watertight hull contains the nuclear reactor decks, the main control room and other critical components.
The nuclear power plant would be anchored in deep water, away from shipping lanes, and would be able to withstand Category 5 hurricanes, cyclones, tsunamis and seismic shocks. The rig would be surrounded by floating mines and outfitted with redundant safety systems, including an anti-ramming barrier, passive cooling and remote shutdown capabilities.
The plant, situated 5 to 10 kilometers offshore and far from the general population, would be connected to the local power grid via an underwater transmission line.
Fully immersed in frigid ocean water, the nuclear power plant would be virtually immune to catastrophic meltdowns similar to those experienced by land-based plants at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
The facility would also be capable of hydrogen extraction and water desalination, with the ability to produce more potable water than the Claude “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant.
According to Richardson, a single platform outfitted with 10 nuclear reactors would generate at least 3,000 MW (3 GW) of electricity continuously for 50 years without refueling, easily meeting the power needs of Orange and northern San Diego counties, or roughly 2.5 million homes at any given time.
Richardson said the design could be scaled up to produce even more power, if desired.
By comparison, the now-decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was operating at 2,200 MW, sufficient to power approximately 1.4 million homes. Richardson envisions a network of these offshore plants deployed along U.S. coastlines, providing a stable energy source as aging fossil-fuel facilities are phased out.
Numerous designs for offshore nuclear power plants — including fixed, floating and submersible options — have been granted patents over the years. Many of the designs, however, are hamstrung by issues related to cost, functionality or both. For example, one early concept (U.S. Patent No. 3,962,877) proposed a fixed offshore platform powered by gas or petroleum-fired turbines. The design failed to address natural disaster threats and relied on fossil fuels.
Another design (U.S. Patent No. 4,302,291) envisioned a submerged triangular platform with spherical nuclear pressure vessels, requiring the crew to remain underwater for extended periods. Since personnel and supplies would be transported by submarine, the concept was considered logistically impractical and financially unsustainable.
The beauty of Richardson’s modular design is its simplicity and efficiency. Every part of the semi-submersible nuclear power plant — from marine nuclear reactors to vertical hulls, risers, crew decks and mooring systems — is either already in existence, readily available or easily manufactured for quick assembly.
Richardson’s proposal doesn’t reinvent the wheel; instead, he maximizes existing technology, time and costs to develop a high-output generating station that won’t produce spent fuel for 50 years.
“It’s the cheapest, cleanest way to make power on Earth,” Richardson said. “Conceivably, you could build 10 platforms and run all of California. I’d love to see it in action because I know it works.”
High-enrichment uranium
Keith E. Holbert, professor and director of the Nuclear Power Generation Program at Arizona State University, said Richardson’s plan represents an “interesting approach” to nuclear power and reminded him of reports emerging from MIT in 2014.
Holbert said a possible point of contention in Richardson’s plan may revolve around his call for using weapons-grade high-enrichment uranium, typically only authorized for use in the Navy’s nuclear aircraft carriers and submarine reactors.
Commercial nuclear reactors use low-enriched uranium, which contains between 3% and 5% of the fissile isotope U-235. The low enrichment helps provide a more stable and controlled source of fuel for most civilian nuclear power plants. Getting one’s hands on weapons-grade uranium without military involvement may be a tougher sell, Holbert said.
“…The use of 90% enriched uranium by the civilian nuclear power industry would be a very difficult and perhaps unwise practice,” Holbert told The Coast News. “However, if the design were only used by the military, then that might be more achievable, although even the Navy has been encouraged by some to reduce enrichment significantly.”
Richardson acknowledges that using high-enrichment uranium would limit civilian use of the platform, requiring some level of military involvement in plant operations.
“The Navy has a perfect record of never having a nuclear accident on any of their marine reactors. So, that’s the way you do it,” Richardson said.
James Conca, a scientist and trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation, praised Richardson’s design and noted that the biggest obstacle to expanding nuclear energy isn’t technical — it’s public fear, a fear that Conca said has no basis in history or reality.
For a world increasingly concerned about climate change and carbon emissions while simultaneously growing hungrier for more energy to power electric cars and bikes, nuclear power has always offered a clear, reliable and safe alternative, Conca says.
“California uses gas plants to buffer wind and solar, but they’re dirty and expensive. Many idle all day and fire up at night for just a few hours. That costs a lot of money, and yet, nobody talks about it,” Conca says. “If you’re serious about climate change, you have to include nuclear. It’s ridiculous not to. We’ve been doing nuclear for 70 years without a major incident, and the nuclear Navy is the unsung hero of the industry.”
A recent study by the International Atomic Energy Agency, an independent organization within the United Nations, found that nuclear power ranks as one of the safest energy sources, with a lower death rate per unit of electricity produced than natural gas, hydroelectric power and wind energy.
And while the Fukushima incident was serious, the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that no deaths resulted from radiation exposure during or since the meltdown.
“Without something like Richardson’s design (or other nuclear options), renewables will only make the grid more unstable,” Conca said. “The best mix is 70% nuclear, 30% hydro, solar and wind. That’s the only realistic path forward. Otherwise, we’re toast.”
Nuclear future?
Richardson’s design, born in the early 1980s, remains as relevant today as it ever was. In February, U.K.-based company Core Power announced plans to mass-produce floating nuclear power plants at U.S. shipyards as part of a new international initiative aimed at bringing offshore nuclear energy to market by the mid-2030s.
The “Liberty” program, launched during a Feb. 12 summit, will utilize modular construction methods and advanced reactor designs, such as molten salt technology, to build power barges that can be deployed near coastal or offshore locations.
According to Core Power, the project’s first phase focuses on the production of floating nuclear plants, with future phases supporting nuclear propulsion for commercial vessels.
Unlike a mobile fleet of boat-like plants, Richardson’s moored nuclear power platform, estimated to cost approximately $5 billion, would not require refueling during its expected 50-year lifespan and could eventually generate electricity for less than 1 cent per kilowatt-hour.
Richardson even proposed a financing plan that would allow ratepayers to cover construction costs by paying 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first three years after the plant goes online.
This temporary rate would repay investors, along with a 20% tax-free return, in under four years, according to his proposal.
After the debt is cleared, Richardson said the utility would be owned by ratepayers, and electricity costs could drop to as low as 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. A 3,000 MW plant running 24/7 at full capacity and selling electricity for $0.01 per kWh would generate approximately $263 million annually.
“Let the money people know — this is a way to make more power and more money,” Richardson said. “But I don’t think they know it exists.”
