Submarines built to generate electric power is an opportunity for Electric Boat and a realistic carbon free power alternative

       April’s headline Connecticut to benefit from increased Submarine production celebrated biting off a piece of the fatted cow that is our military industrial complex. The Navy wants more nuclear submarines, though with our focus on landlocked terrorists its difficult to understand their usefulness other than for another Tom Clancy film, and New London’s Electric Boat wants to build them. It’s a shame to grovel for the privilege of building multi billion dollar toys when nuclear submarines could have a marketable commercial purpose and be a major industry for Connecticut. Consider the B 52 bomber was a prototype for the Boeing 707 and the leap forward of commercial aviation. Submarines built to generate electric power would do the same for carbon free power generation.
      Nuclear fuel requires just thirty feet of surrounding water to make it safe to handle. It’s water not big lead barriers one imagines that allows the crew of a submarine to live aboard a nuclear powered submarine. Congressman Joe Courtney as head of the Armed Services Seapower Committee should suggest the Navy build some real sea power by commissioning nuclear submarines specifically built to generate electricity to secure the energy independence of its bases around the world. With a few solid examples built then a commercial version could be developed with known costs to power coastal cities.
       Nuclear power’s current problem is the cost of a big landlocked facility. The Southern Company’s Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant is a latest design that promised to be economical because it was to be the standard. But with estimates for its completion ballooning to $25 billion no other utility will ever build such a facility. On the other hand reconfiguring a $2 Billion Navy submarine by eliminating rocket launchers and reducing speed and deep underwater capabilities it’s reasonable to estimate a standard commercial version would cost about $500 million. Five of these working together would have the power within the same factor as Southern’s facility but at one tenth the price. That and they could be deployed where the power is needed, say on the mouth of Hudson River connected to Manhattan and Brooklyn minimizing transmission costs, which can be 25% when considering very far away sources such as that of Hydro Quebec, further solidifying these five units placement within the same power range as the large Vogtle unit. Extra reliability and resiliency from a sixth one built to be put into a revolving maintenance schedule of plug and play submarines and with refurbishing happening up the line at Electric Boat..
      These generators resolve the density issue where cities are dense with people and businesses that require energy supplied abundantly to a small geographic area and which is exactly the opposite characteristic of renewable solar and wind that require large geographic areas to gather significant power. What is not considered by Green Power proponents is spread out projects smack high up in the steep upward curve of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) resistance and will stall them out. Martha's Vineyard was an early example of this resistance where homeowners rejected a proposal to put offshore wind towers that spoiled their view but who otherwise favor renewable energy in general. In politics Green Power support is best described as a mile wide and an inch deep.
      For New York City a series of nuclear generating submarines docked underwater along side the Island would give the city a base of clean, safe and steady energy to power far fetched vegetables gardens dreamed about for cities down to prosaic instant hot water generators for every dwelling. Also they could power massive pumps to drain the overflow in an emergency of rising seas breaching city barriers. Yes there would be NIMBY resistance initially but with commercial districts accepting and living safely with it residents would see the actual benefits over illusory costs. Ultimately keeping energy production local fits best with a sustainable future of clean bright cities coexisting next to large natural open spaces like our national parks, a vision which requires propagating to better direct us toward realistic projects to reduce carbon emissions.