209 
equipment compartments. Access for operating and maintenance 
personnel would be provided by a causeway, while docking facilities 
could be constructed if boat transportation is more economically 
attractive. 
To protect the plant against extreme environmental effects, such 
as 30-foot storm waves, 7-foot. tidal waves, and 200-mile-per-hour 
winds, a rock breakwater can be constructed in depths less than 50 
feet. This breakwater can also serve as the basis for the mooring 
system and as a collision shield for the barge. Protection from seismic 
disturbances is provided by the fact that the barge is floating, while 
“air springs’ can be designed which will shield the barge from vertical 
shocks. All these issues are more widely discussed in a study by 
Harold M. Busey at the Donald W. Douglas Laboratories(26). 
It should be noted at this point that determinations of the tech- 
nological feasibility of the offshore concept should not be restricted 
to consideration of nuclear plants alone. In many respects, the issues 
are independent of the type of powerplant that is located offshore. 
It may be that locating fossil plants offshore might be desirable if the 
atmospheric dispersion conditions are favorable enough to avoid air 
pollution in nearby cities. This report has based the analysis on 
nuclear technology since the literature related to the offshore concept 
has been developed primarily in this area. 
The literature describing variations of the offshore concept has 
focused on primarily three designs: manmade island, submersible sta- 
tions, and floating barge-mounted facilities. The general consensus is 
that all of these concepts are technologically feasible, (27) the ulti- 
mate determinant being that of cost. Of the three, the manmade 
island concept appears to be the least desirable due to reasons cited 
previously, while the floating and submersible designs each have 
singularly attractive features. For example, both designs appear to 
provide near absolute protection from seismic disturbances. (28), (29) 
In addition, it is thought (30), (31) that underwater containment of 
nuclear reactors would provide much better postaccident fission- 
product retention than is now possible in land-based plants. Also, 
floating stations offer a relatively limitless choice of locations since 
they would be unaffected by. ocean depth or bottom contour. The 
possibility of moving stations at some future time in response to 
changes in population or consumption patterns might be a factor in 
favor of floating stations. 
It seems at this point that the offshore concept contains a number 
of extremely attractive features that go a long way toward eliminating 
the twofold problems faced by the power industry—construction de- 
lays and site selection and approval. While it is, not the purpose of 
this paper to go into the details of the technological and economic 
aspects that require careful examination, it, would be useful to set 
forth the major tradeoff variable (economic, technological, political, 
and legal) that must be considered in any comprehensive analysis of 
this concept. If the technology andthe economies of this proposal do 
not provide new obstacles of comparable complexity with today’s 
problems, the realization of the offshore concept could be hailed as 
one of the most significant adyances,in the history of electric power 
production. ) 
