A Comprehensive Report on Submarine Nuclear Power Plants for the World's Clean Energy Future

by Matthew Formby

Clean Base Load Energy

Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are set to remain substantially more cost competitive over renewable forms of energy even into 2050 according to BP technology chief David Eyton, despite anticipated advancements in wind and solar energy⁽¹⁾.

Yet if we continue to use these carbon intensive energy sources, we'll only keep accelerating the damage done to the environment and eventually will run out of these cheap fuels. While renewable energy will take time and continued investment to be competitive, nuclear has been massively underutilized as a source of clean energy. In the shadows of events like Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island it's understandable that we are cautious--but the safety of new nuclear reactor designs has been consistently improving. In addition, with how much we still rely on carbon intensive fuels, nuclear power has been estimated to have prevented seventy-six thousand air pollution related deaths each year⁽²⁾. Regardless of all advancements in safety, fuel efficiency, and capacity, the U.S. still relies on decades old reactors--modifying old reactors to meet new safety standards and waiting for renewables to catch up to carbon intense energy. As difficult as reversing carbon emissions in the developed world is, the more daunting (and even more pressing) task is finding a stable, cheap, form of energy to replace coal and the like for developing nations.

Imagine never seeing a coastal power plant to interrupt your view, or cause worry if the next disaster will take it down or not. Using ocean real estate it's possible to significantly replace fossil fuel dependence; like the over 30% of energy production that coal represents in the U.S. or the roughly 70% in China⁽³⁾. Hundreds of feet under water around the coast dozens of power plants supply clean energy, distilled water, and hydrogen. When one needs to be maintained, another plant replaces it as it goes to dry dock for complete, safe, centralized repair. The idea isn't as science fiction as it sounds. I discussed the idea with naval nuclear expert and Professor in Practice of Nuclear and Engineering Physics Dr. Sreepada at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He supported the concept's technical feasibility; "Otherwise, we wouldn't have such things [nuclear submarines]," while cautioning that there are many technical considerations that need to be made. In the past U.S. and Russian nuclear ships have been used, temporarily, to provide civilian power. The first floating nuclear power plant ever (MH-1A) was a converted U.S. Liberty ship that provided 10 MWe to the Panama Canal region for eight years since 1968. It was eventually replaced by more conventional fuels when the ship could no longer meet a growing demand. But a similar project, headed by the French naval defense company DCNS, called Flexblue proposes 250 MWe underwater nuclear power plants⁽⁴⁾. Enough to support "a population of 100,000 to 1,000,000" depending on power rating, living standards, and industry needs. The plan calls for stationary power plants that will be towed to and from location for repair or decommissioning. Even larger offshore nuclear projects have been considered in the U.S. before, with the Atlantic Generating Station⁽¹⁵⁾. This and similar plans are being developed by the nuclear energy community to address safety concerns and the world's energy future.

Tragedies and Safety

In the midst of growing concern about global warming, incidents like what happened at Fukushima Daiichi a few years ago push most of the world away from nuclear energy⁽⁵⁾. The incident reminds us that "nothing can be made absolutely safe" as Dr. Richard Muller says in his book Energy for Future Presidents⁽⁶⁾. In his analysis of the incident and reports on the aftermath, he points to reasonable estimates of about 100 cancers caused by radiation exposure. Some studies have predicted worse scenarios, with as many as 1,500 additional cancer related deaths, if nothing was done to slow leaking radiation. Inundation was the main cause of the meltdown in Daiichi, and could have been mitigated or completely prevented given a greater regard for tsunami risk projections that indicated a need for higher sea walls. In response, the use of passive safety features in reactor designs has been more seriously emphasized. Such as the recent proposal by MIT associate professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering Jacopo Buongiorno-- which intends to use ocean waters as an "infinite heat sink." On the other hand, coal, oil, and natural gas provide a major portion of world energy that will always release some level of pollution (while coal includes waste more radioactive than spent fuel⁽⁷⁾).

A nuclear submarine essentially represents a power plant. The differences are scale and accountability; while submarines tend to only need about 30 MWe, a median civilian power plant provides 971 MWe. But something should be learned from the Navy's 5,700 reactor years (in arguably more dangerous and uncertain conditions) without a single incident⁽⁸⁾. Naval reactors are thought to be designed with greater safety and redundancy than a civilian reactor, but this isn't the only reason for their safety. While we were discussing underwater nuclear power, Dr. Sreepada (careful not to go too in depth regarding Naval practices) did indicate that of bigger impact on the Navy's record are their practices and standards of maintenance. Similarly, public U.S. fact sheets regarding nuclear powered warships point mostly to reliable monitoring, crew training and alertness as the foremost margin of safety. According to a release by the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo "The NPW crew fully trained and fully capable to respond immediately to any emergency in the ship. Naval operating practices and emergency procedures are well defined and rigorously enforced; and the individuals are both trained for dealing with extraordinary situations and subject to high standards of accountability."

This doesn't mean that commercial power plants have relaxed standards⁽⁹⁾. Civilian nuclear power plants uphold very high standards of safety in construction and operation. If there is a difference, it's that corporations are primarily accountable for commercial viability to investors and a naval warships costs are secondary to its safety in combat. Everything from what level of safety precautions are implemented to number of employees and their hours must be within acceptable costs for the business. While the crew of a submarine is accountable for safely completing its mission. Profit doesn't need the reactor to withstand something beyond reasonable estimates, but a nuclear submarine's mission is expected to involve dangerous waters (or combat) and potential risk of a radiation leak. Everything goes into the primary objective, cost or safety, with only enough to get by going to the other. Is it possible, then, to responsibly straddle the line of profit and safety, and who should manage a Submarine Nuclear Power Plant (SNP)? It's possible that the answer may be with the U.S. Merchant Marine (or similar groups in other nations), which straddles the line between commerce (during peacetime) and military (at times of war and emergency). Regardless of what kind of group operates the SNP, what's essential is that an SNP should be operated with priorities that mirror the Navy's safety measures.

Submarine Nuclear Power: Large-Scale Clean Energy

World energy consumption is increasing swiftly, especially in developing nations. Rapid construction of large, often coal, gigawatt power plants in China isn't just an issue for China. But the options are limited, when living standards need growth in the economy and energy access. Done right, Nuclear can represent the large scale, clean energy that is needed. Breeder or fast reactors, which use other plants' spent uranium fuel, produce immensely less waste. But two things are certain where power is in high demand. The first is very simple; land is also in demand. In an email interview Dr. Arthur Motta, chair of Penn State's Department of Nuclear Engineering, said that, like most experts would, "putting plants under would raise all kinds of other - harder to solve safety questions." He expressed that while it is "a good idea technically" to rely on the naval example, "the easiest measure is to build the power plant high enough that it won't get inundated in the first place." But stable hillside property near a city is expensive and scarce, and the problems with underwater power plants have already been examined by the navy. The cost benefits of a standard design can readily be put into ensuring safety in harsher environments than the SNP should encounter, which, in addition to mobility to avoid disasters that might affect them (such as powerful hurricanes) makes the SNP surprisingly robust.

The second issue is one of mass demand - if a local economy is rapidly expanding, energy demand will need to keep up. Fossil fuels are the fastest and most universal way to meet that growth. The issue can also be seen in developed nations, where a choice must be made between replacing coal or aging nuclear power plants. With the exception of the Watts Bar unit 2 reactor (which is only just nearing final stages of construction and approval) the newest nuclear power plant in the U.S. is over 30 years old. Yet these aged nuclear plants represent nearly 20% of our annual net electrical generation⁽¹⁰⁾. The mobility of a SNP means that any number of standardized plants could be produced at a central drydock construction site anywhere in the world, equipped with fast reactors like those described below, and sent to where it is needed for any amount of time. Meaning they could be leased while renewable power plants are being built--allowing a more prompt change over from fossil fuel power, or more vigorous growth in a developing city.

The submarine power station would be moored in about 100 meters of water, and a few kilometers offshore. This is similar to the Flexblue proposed by DCNS group, and is decided on to keep the reactor safely away from the city it powers and from most hostile weather. This places it a safe distance away from coastal traffic and allows the location to be kept clear by patrolling security boats. Being 100 meters under water not only provides security from intentional and unintentional damage, but also safety from hurricanes which could damage or destroy even the best safety plans of a floating or land based power plant. Even this safety isn't perfect though, as some strong hurricanes have been known to cause seafloor scarring even below 100 meters. For such an extraordinary disaster, it would be best for the population to evacuate, and that's just what the Submarine Nuclear Power Plant can do as well; saving itself to come back and provide power during the recovery. A SNP could also use this kind of event to go to drydock for early maintenance while being replaced after the storm. We may mistakenly think that a power plant (like Fukushima Daiichi) can weather the coming storm, but if our main concern is human life, the unique ability to avoid coming disasters is invaluable.

Though compared to land based plants the SNP is in a harsher environment, the risks are consistent and known. Repairing corrosion damage may be a tough pill to swallow, but not knowing how safe you need to make the plant (as with Daiichi's seawall) can be much worse. With conventional power plants, even when the general layout is established, like with Westinghouse's AP1000 PWR, adjustments need to be made for each location as each plant is built separately. But the SNP can have one design that is approved for a range of locations, and mass produced up to how many plants are needed to match the approved locations. The process of tailoring conventional nuclear power plants to each location varies how much they ultimately cost (average cost per kilowatt average being $5,000/KWe). The SNP would be saved from these kinds of added costs. Mobility also means that central locations with experienced workers in a controlled environment can take care of maintenance and repairs every 70 days, similar to the amount of time a naval submarine remains at sea. This maintenance cycle ensures that the crew are rested and in good form, and the plant is well maintained. When necessary the submarine can go in for drydock overhauls, estimated by our student correspondents at RPI to be needed once every 4 years at a cost of about $600,000. These costs are small compared to the total operation, and may need to be readdressed with a closer look at the materials. Yet even if full repairs became necessary every other year for $1.5 million, the $4.7 billion it would cost (in the plant's lifetime) is less than 1/4th of a percent of investment. Additionally, during maintenance potential revenue doesn't need to be lost like it would for a typical power plant. As one leaves during a low load part of the day, another SNP could come in to replace it. If maintenance took an average of 10 days, this would mean an additional SNP could be dedicated to preventing the revenue loss of 7 other plants.

Worst Case Scenario

What is the worst case scenario for this power plant, and how can it be avoided and resolved? Nuclear power plants take into account the absolute worst case scenario: a meltdown without any active, mechanical, interference possible. The best kind of safety, given these kinds of scenarios is passive safety - to rely on natural laws to prevent radiation leak. Buongiorno's floating power plant moors the reactor below sea level, allowing the reactor hull to be flooded with seawater once an emergency is detected. The core itself is within a pressure vessel within a steel reactor containment, so while heat is conducted through these layers, the reactor is never in contact with seawater. With the SNP, there are two risks - leak of radiation into the ocean, and inability to recover the crew and nuclear reactor. Some reactor designs could passively prevent the chance of the first - either by using seawater to cool the reactor to prevent a meltdown like the MIT proposal, or by naturally encasing the reactor core in a solid form of it's coolant if intervention stops as some fast reactors do. The second concern is really two. To protect the crew it's possible for individuals to ascend using pressure moderating diving equipment. But another, safer, resolution may be needed. Likewise, recovering the reactor if an SNP sinks should be a high priority, and resolving such an issue may never be easy. But if the reactor used has a liquid metal coolant, a significant safety principle, relying on the physical properties of the coolant, is the coolant's propensity to solidify around the reactor. And when discussing possible advanced reactors, Prof. Weston Stacey of Georgia Tech's Nuclear Engineering Program, indicated that "Because of the different value of the reaction cross sections for fast and thermal neutrons, it is generally agreed that breeder reactors must have fast neutrons (i.e. neutrons that have not been moderated by collisions with low atomic mass materials such as water), so this leaves liquid metals or gases (which are not dense enough to moderate the neutrons). Since gas is a poor coolant, a lot of surface area is needed for gas cooling, which translates into very large reactors, so for a mobile fast reactor you are probably stuck with a liquid metal coolant."The fast reactors below each has it's own passive safety in the event that human intervention becomes difficult or impossible, which allows time for recovery without significant radiation leak.

Reactor Designs

There are two important technologies being advanced in the current generation of nuclear reactors--Small Modular Reactors and Breeder reactors. The reason for SMR advancement is largely for the same standardization, mass production, and scalability that the SNP benefits from. A SMR can be built in a central facility and shipped to location, benefiting from reliable and predictable levels of safety, reduced costs from mass production, and centralized maintenance or decommissioning when necessary. Though "small" refers to the output of the reactor rather than its size (under 300 MWe), many SMR are the right size for one or more to be housed in a Submarine Nuclear power Plant, while they have self contained cooling and safety systems. The second technology, fast breeder reactors, is essential for world energy sustainability. Instead of burning low enriched uranium (often about 3% U235) fast reactors can be developed to use unenriched or spent uranium fuel, or plutonium from spent fuel. Such a reactor produces a fraction of the spent fuel "waste" of Light Water Reactors (LWR, water cooled reactors typical of the worlds aging nuclear power plants). A review of potential reactors that could be used in this kind of project include the Westinghouse SMR, Transatomic Power's fast reactor, GE-Hitachi PRISM, and Brest 300.

The SMR proposed by Westinghouse stands on the principles of established Light Water Reactor designs and passive safety similar to a naval reactor, which makes it the most ready for deployment out of all the reactor designs reviewed here.⁽¹¹⁾ A battery of the 225 MWe reactor could be used to compete with larger land based reactors. Each modular reactor, with all of it's independent safety systems has an outer diameter of 32 feet and a height of 89 feet. While for reference, the Ohio class submarine and the Flexblue proposal are 560 ft long by 42 ft draft or 328 ft by 30 ft, respectively. Since the SNP wouldn't need the same weapons systems as an Ohio class submarine (such as the 24 88 inch diameter Trident Missile tubes), the vessel could be smaller, like the Flexblue, or economically hold multiple Westinghouse SMRs. The SMR design itself boasts a number of advantages over a conventional LWR. During normal operation each unit relies on natural flow of water through condensation and evaporation for cooling, and even claims "passive safety features designed to shut the plant down automatically and keep it cool without human intervention or AC power for seven days." In addition to safety, Westinghouse notes reduced operational costs from minimized chemistry change requirements. Westinghouse also indicates that capital costs will be "greatly" reduced for one of their SMRs. These kind of reduced costs are the main reason to consider, at least temporarily, the use of such an SMR. And finally, in the event of a worst case like the one above, the reduced fuel used in each individual reactor means "reduced radioactivity amounts released" should one experience an accident. More in depth information on Westinghouse's SMR can be found at: http://westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/Small-Modular-Reactor.

As useful as the Westinghouse SMR is, building more LWR can't be a long term plan for energy security. Burning the same uranium fuel can't be maintained, both because supply will eventually dwindle and because we will continue to stockpile spent fuel which, containing plutonium, could be used through intention or accident to spill toxic amounts radiation. Transatomic Power has developed a reactor using a liquid salt coolant-fuel mixture⁽¹²⁾. Rather than use typical fuel rods, the TAP reactor uses a liquid (LiF based) salt fuel compound in which to suspend dissolved uranium or spent fuel. This coolant-fuel mixture allows a number of potent results. First, being suspended in a liquid lets it stay in the reactor longer, making use of more of its energy. And while a typical reactor uses only about 3-5% of the energy in it's uranium fuel, being in the reactor longer allows the capture of 96% of that unused energy. Additionally, since the fuel is liquid, a rapid cooling shutdown can be achieved as soon as connection to external power is lost. Within the core is essentially a frozen salt plug, artificially cooled, behind which is be an auxiliary tank that the fuel will flow into when outside power stops. Once inside the auxiliary tank, the reaction stops and rapid cooling can be achieved passively through a cooling stack. Replacing a cooling stack requires additional investigation, however it may be possible to use the same kind of flooded double hull proposed in Buongiorno's floating power plant, or seawater piped through (not into) the auxiliary tank. Like TAP's planned air cooling, there would be a natural convection flow of the water as the hottest water rises away from the plant. However this passive cooling difference is resolved, once the fuel is cooled it will remain in a solid, non-critical state, ready to be recovered after resolving whatever initiated the problem. Transatomic Power has more information on their reactor design on their website at http://transatomicpower.com/.

The TAP reactor is perhaps the best reactor for this scale of project, so long as adaptations like those above can be achieved. Transatomic Power estimates that a 520 MWe power plant would cost about $2 billion. In her research Amanda Gallo, Nuclear Engineering student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Naval ROTC midshipman, who developed the preliminary cost feasibility, found that compared to a typical land reactor, the SNP would cost approximately $250 million for complications in building the mobile underwater powerplant. But, even if the cost of complications doubled while using the TAP salt cooled reactor; compared to the average land based reactor (explained in more detail below), the SNP would return 0.6% of its investment, or $312 million each year, above a typical land based reactor. In a 60 year lifetime, the TAP reactor in a SNP would return over $5 billion more than the typical land based reactor, after paying all investment costs. There is a large margin of error for such a preliminary assessment, but even erring on the side of caution the SNP appears competitive especially if an adaptation of the TAP salt cooled reactor could be used.

Another promising design is the PRISM reactor developed by the collaboration General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH)⁽¹³⁾. "I would offer the Integral Fast Reactor developed by Argonne and adapted by GE for their PRISM concept" says Dr. Stacey when we discussed fast reactors being developed which could be adapted for a SNP. "The ANL and GE designs can be fueled with low enrichment U (uranium) and Pu (plutonium) and can be designed to be self-sustaining (i.e. breed fuel at the same rate they burn it). These reactors are all Na-cooled, which is probably not smart for a reactor to be sited on the seabet, but PbBi (lead bismuth) can replace Na, although the inherent safety of the IFR may not be retained with PbBi" Dr. Stacey explains. GEH is focusing on production for England, which already has a stockpile of processed plutonium from spent fuel (which currently just poses an environmental and security risk as it would be easier for a hostile nation or terrorist to make use of for an attack). While being able to use what once was waste, like the TAP and BREST reactors, PRISM offers it's own innate, passive safety. If the reaction were to increase towards unsafe measures, the metallic core would naturally expand and decrease density-- which will slow the fission reaction. The main challenge with this reactor, especially for any near water application like a SNP, like Dr. Stacey said, is the use of sodium coolant. Liquid sodium has been used before, to mixed results since any exposure to air or water will cause spontaneous ignition or a violent, hydrogen producing, chemical reaction respectively. GEH say they have resolved these risks in the way they construct the power plant. The number of adaptations and considerations needed to apply something like the PRISM reactor to the SNP would prevent it from such application, but the design is still promising for future energy sustainability. More information on the PRISM reactor can be found here: http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism.

Worth mentioning is the BREST reactor, developed by NIKIET, which uses a lead based coolant (lead-bismuth, PbBi) like Soviet nuclear submarines used to use. And while there were reactor incidents with old Soviet nuclear submarines, the BREST reactor advances this technology into safer and more stable operation. Using molten lead as a coolant is not reactive to air and water like sodium, and though lead is toxic "most industries know how to deal with it," says Kevan Weaver, director of technology development at TerraPower in Bellevue, Washington, which is developing another kind of fast reactor (the Traveling Wave Reactor). Russian experience with lead cooled nuclear submarines gives them an advantage in building on this technology. Using the same principles, NIKIET, are constructing both a 300 MWe reactor and a 1200 MWe one, in an effort to match different market demands for both smaller and larger reactors. This attention to scaling also means that NIKIET would be the most prepared out of any company to adjust design safely for something like the SNP. Additionally, the BREST 300 design was recently completed (in early September), with construction at the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk expected to begin in 2016. The relatively soon project means perhaps the earliest impact on the environment and nuclear sustainability.

Waste Fuel Management

When talking reactors, the next question is waste fuel management. Even the most efficient breeder reactor will produce waste fuel, albeit a fraction both in quantity and reactivity compared to a light water reactor. One major benefit of the SNP is that waste can go directly from the power plant to a centralized holding facility built near the dry dock or port with minimal travel and smaller storage. Looking back at the incident at Daiichi, stockpiled waste fuel exacerbated the disaster that was already bad enough. Constantly moving spent fuel from each power plant to a centralized facility concerned only with safely storing or reprocessing spent fuel would only increase the risk of a radioactive incident where people might not be prepared. Because of this, over its lifetime, many power plants accumulate waste fuel in onsite spent fuel pools which add an extra concern during operation, disaster, and decommissioning. But a mobile power plant could, when it comes to land for refueling and maintenance, leave waste fuel directly at a centralized waste management facility the way the U.S. navy manages its own spent fuel. This could make nuclear waste storage safer and more efficient than at land reactors. But, depending on the reactor used and the length of time each SNP would be out between maintenance, it could be necessary for a part of the submarine to be dedicated to storing waste fuel and coolant. This could affect the size, efficiency, and returns of the plant, but a more thorough investigation is needed to develop the reactor for the SNP.

Cost Feasibility

The biggest concern for this kind of power plant is the balance of cost and safety. "We consider three things (designing a nuclear power plant) economics, safety, and nuclear non-proliferation" Dr. Erickson, Georgia Tech Assistant Professor of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering said when we discussed the multiple goals and unique nature of this project. In her example, a nuclear plant in the Middle East would emphasize non-proliferation above all else, whereas one in the U.S. could focus on safety and then cost first. Using a fast reactor and centralized waste storage these power plants could not only effectively meet any level of non-proliferation desired, but can also be safe and cost competitive at the same time.

The additional costs of such a project seem staggering compared to the already complicated and expensive challenges of building a land based power plant. We worked with Amanda Gallo to assess costs compared to a typical power plant; and with Lucas Tucker, a Nuclear Engineering student at RPI, to analyze benefits and risks of the plant. Both students were also in communication with Drs Sreepada and Liu of RPI's Nuclear Engineering program during the project. In Amanda's feasibility study data including average costs of nuclear reactors and naval submarines were used to estimate a collective of four 250 MWe SNPs compared to a typical land based plant (most having 1 reactor with a median output of 971 MWe). The average cost of a nuclear power plant is $5,000 per KWe, and her research of naval submarine costs lead to an expected additional cost of $250 million per SNP (for complications or additional underwater features). Additional costs considered were 67 facility personnel including operators, technicians, and security with average salaries ranging from $87.5k to $28k per year, and lifetime repair costs for both power plants. While for the SNP cost of food, undersea cable laying⁽¹⁴⁾ (recurring from expected damage), and royalties and licensing were also added into considered. It was expected that the SNP would need regular maintenance, and a cost of $600 thousand every four years was expected to be enough to cover appropriately safe repairs. But as mentioned above, even if this cost were dramatically increased to account for some oversight in our research, the bottom line wasn't changed much.

So what was the bottom line, and how does it compare to the example land reactor? The cost analysis assumed both plants were constructed fully financed on loans with 5% interest, which would be paid over 30 years of a 60 year operation, that each reactor would provide a base load of 70% of its full output on average, and that each KWh provided would return 10.8 cents. Other than the loan (which favors the smaller start up cost), each of these assumptions would affect the power plants equally. Four 250 MWe SNP would cost $10 billion to compete with a 971 MWe land power plant costing $4,855 million. At the end of each year, the land based reactor would return 4.79% ($232.6 million) of the investment (after the cost of loans) while the SNP would return only 2.88% ($173.8 million), a difference of about $58.9 million. But there are two things this initial review doesn't take into account-- the first is that the example considers using a light water reactor of a similar size to the DCNS Flexblue project. If the SNP could use multiple or larger reactors, especially a fast reactor like the TAP salt cooled reactor above, it would be more profitable and potentially better than the average land based reactor. The second thing that can't be calculated is perhaps even more significant. The entire submarine power plant can be mass produced more cheaply than initial, single construction estimates indicate once the concept is developed and proven through an initial run of submarine nuclear power plants.

New Possibilities

As beneficial as reclaiming land, avoiding disasters, and standardizing nuclear production might be, we don't really have such a massive demand for energy. We don't have an energy crisis that calls for such power production, but what we have a shortage of is transportation fuel. There are two ways we can use all of the energy produced by SNPs. With this much power we could completely replace oil through highway electrification. A number of methods are being researched and put into practice to overcome one of the biggest weaknesses of electric cars - battery life.

Adding a charging lane to existing major highways (which in the U.S. about 90 percent of the population lives within four miles of) would allow a purely electric car to travel anywhere in the country - eliminating the past range limitation. These lanes could also be much safer, allowing the road itself to detect obstacles, damage, traffic jams, and the like. At the same time, electric cars charging on these lanes could be made to detect when they are veering off course and make (or suggest) corrections. It doesn't need to be all roads being completely revamped, just a lane or two on some major highways would make an immense difference for the prospects of purely electric cars. But if Highway Electrification seems too far off, the plants could hydrolyze some of the water readily available to generate hydrogen gas for an alternative clean fuel. Using ocean water, we could also reclaim wasted heat energy for desalination, producing clean water as well as hydrogen gas" which could be used for countless humanitarian and civil engineering purposes together.