Power in the Sea

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

their surface, the oceans have tremendously influenced man’s progress.

From confinement to migration, from food to devastation, and from pro- ^lve isolation to invasion, the seas have had a central part in man’s dramatic ution. Yet, only slightly has man entered this vast expanse of his world and ^as hardly touched the potential of its resources.

1966, The President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) reported on the ective Use of the Sea.” The Committee recommended for a national ocean gram the ultimate objective of making “use of the sea by man for all purposes ently considered for the terrestrial environment: commerce; industry; ^eatlon and settlement; as well as for knowledge and understanding.” From ^ls °bjective they specified four goals:

0) Acquiring the ability to predict and ultimately control phenomena affecting the ety and economy of seagoing activities.

' Undertaking measures required for fullest exploitation of resources represented ^y’ ^{ln ar}>d under the sea.

tzing the sea to enhance national security.

(3) Util!

(4) Pu,

]/ ^Ursuing scientific investigations for describing and understanding marine enomena, processes and resources.

_are^C ^^{lrst an}d last goals deal mainly with the science of the sea itself and, as such, the K^rcrecl^uisites and auxiliaries to the ultimate progress that can be achieved on _a ^en<^ ^aPplications” implicit in the second and third goals. In various stages, I_n ^les f^re quickening which are aimed toward realization of all of these goals.

surveying these happenings, one common observation is apparent to the im- Piost ff P^a.^rtlc*P^ants—^e complexity in co-ordinating these diversified activities ^naturafl^eCtlVe ^ °^{nC an} engineering and naval background, attention is the ³ ^^rawn to the two “end applications” goals concerned with exploiting ene ^resources and national security. Further, experience in the nuclear source • ^a^^or<^^s the opportunity to visualize the close coupling of this energy ^{CC Wlt}^ oceanic programs leading to the realization of these two goals.

dur'^ ^tWe D^emand- Two sociological phenomena have become manifest .^e P^ast century which give every indication of accelerating their effect in ^corning decades.

^a trir ?-^^{rst t}*^{le we}U publicized world and national population explosion. With billio ⁿ^’ ^t0 ^ billion, of population in the past 100 years, estimates of a six- years'¹ f ^Vj°^r^ P⁰P^ul^at‘^on in 2000 A.D. would mean a doubling in the last 50 has nc ^{1S ccntury}' [The United States, with a population of 23 million in 1850, Year 2000 f t? ^mhlion today. The forecast is for 340 million U. S. citizens by the P^revio_us ^ "^e *^ncrease in world population in the last 55 years equals all its >s growth from recorded time. In a similar manner, the U. S. population

growth in the last 50 years equals all its previous growth.

The second phenomenon has been the standard of living “explosion” in the more de­veloped countries of the world. The U. S. Gross National Product per capita (in con­stant dollars index) has increased threefold in the past 40 years. Predictions are that in the next 30 years it will have increased to 1.5 times the current level. While not as impres­sive on a dollar basis, the rate of change in others of the more developed nations has been similar in making giant strides in living standards during the first half of the 20th century. The United Kingdom, for example, shows a comparable threefold increase in the past 40 years, and the Soviet Union has nearly doubled in less than ten years. The commanding advantage of the U. S. standard of living index over other nations varies from a ratio of 1.5 over Canada, the next highest, to 35 times over India, and about 10 times over the combined average of the world.

Figure 1 shows the current relative indices of the per capita GNP standard of living for a number of countries. Correspondingly, there is shown also in this Figure a similar index of the electrical energy used in these countries- The similarity between the relative magnitude of GNP and electrical energy indices will be emphasized later.

These phenomena of population growth and a concurrent increase in standard °f living are generally recognized as being the basic factors that set the primary demands now challenging the ingenuity of the world ^s leaders (and perhaps even threatening the survival of civilization).

There are, however, a number of corollary observations that should be made regarding the population explosion before considering programs for meeting these primary demands-

• The world’s people are largely situated on the periphery of the land masses. For in' stance, over 20 per cent of the population ol

Figure 1

WORLD

(less U. S. and China)

□ Per Capita Electric Energy (expressed in megawatt hours).

Per Capita GNP (corrected to 1954 dollars).

INDIA

* 1965 figures—otherwise, 1963 figures.

s all its

een the nore de­e U. S.

(in con- hrecfold

at in the 1 to 1.5

impres- rnnge in ons has in living he 20th :xample> se in the lion has irs. The standard ■ies front ghest, to nes over

e indices ing for a ly, there index of ountrieS. agnitude s will be

growth

idard °f leing the

demands ; world’s ning the

corollary

egarding

isidering

lemands-

situated

. For in' lation of

Approx. % of Land Mass Adjacent to Seacoast Within 50 mi. Within 250 mi.

63

789

880

226

133

300

441

675

Average Population Density

{people per sq. mi.)

Table 1

Coi

>95

21

* ^{e cont}fnental United States is located within miles of the coastline, an area which is only 8 per cent of our land. Over half the Population lives within 250 miles of the coast, ^w rch is 35 per cent of our land. Not sur­prising, but nevertheless pertinent, 95 per ^Cent of the population of England is within 50 ¹¹¹¹ es of the coast. Similarly, other large Populations are situated within relatively close proximity to the seas in countries like Bel­gium, France, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, and Japan. Table 1 shows this aspect of the geo­graphical distribution of population. _r * ^he population density on the land passes varies extremely. The present average ^opulation density of the world, and of the _s ^nitecf States, is about 60 to 65 people per Ouare mile. Even with the population ex- h°r’ ^averaS^e population density of 20tt, ^ ^crowded countries at the end of the century will still be far below that of _0l.^any P^resent day cities. Even with a tenfold -- increase, the world-wide average will or F ^C,^{CSS t}f^{lan t}i^le present density in Belgium les ttf ^an<^ ^ancf ^wiii have orders of magnitude 25^on¹'^{1 an area suc}'f^{1 as} New York City (with ’ People per square mile).

hi i ^{C rec}ognize, however, that while these the i ^ens^y areas can “house” the people, peonl'!¹’¹¹⁶^³¹⁶ ^^an<^ ^{area cannot} “service” the terial'' l^hnirements for food, fuel and ma- the ^S ”^{eSe £}i^emands must be furnished by nrrounding areas of hinterland.

Food^                ^^nerSy ^{as a} National Resource.

^uPon th l ^pr‘^{me serv}iee demand placed abilit ¹f ^aU<^’. ^Power i^{s a} Fey factor in the y o a nation’s farm land to provide food

untry

U. S. ^^elgium England France Indonesia Israel Italy J^apan

for its people. Table 2 shows the basis for correlating food production with power to support this contention. U. S. farm mecha­nized horsepower has increased almost four times in the past 25 years. During this same time period, productivity per man-hour on the farm has also increased almost fourfold, whereas crop production per acre has in­creased only about 1.5 times. Statistics would indicate that “farming methods improve­ment factors,” even given full credit for the increase in acreage productivity, would represent only 1.5 of the fourfold increase, while “labor utilization improvement factor” would still represent a 2.5 increase that must be associated directly with increased farm mechanization (horsepower).

Even without statistics, the key effect of power on the productivity of gathering and processing raw materials and in transporta­tion can be easily accepted. The conclusion seems evident that energy is a primary re­source needed to service the logistic demands of a high density population.

The emergence of energy as a basic resource began with the Industrial Revolution. Sub­sequently, there appears to have resulted a close correlation between electrical energy production capacity of a country and its standard of living. Presumably, electrical energy must be highly indicative of the level of service development. Figure 2 shows the growth in the per capita electrical energy of the United States, other selected countries, and the world during the first part of this century. The highly industrialized countries like the United States, Canada, and more recently, the Soviet Union, show a steep

Approx. Population Adjacent to Seacoast Within 50 mi. Within 250 mi.

53

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

growth of electrical energy usage which coin­cides with a similar steep growth in per capita GNP.

Per capita electric megawatt-hour con­sumption in the United States has multiplied fifteenfold in the past half-century. Another fourfold increase is predicted during the re­mainder of this century, for a staggering sixtyfold total increase during the 20th cen­tury. Per capita electrical energy consump­tion in the Soviet Union increased six times in the past two decades; whereas for the world at large, excluding the United States, the in­crease of six times has taken 35 years.

Figure 1 shows the relative per capita usage of electrical energy for several countries as well as their relative per capita standard of living. Comparison of the two factors reveals their close similarity which reasonably should have been anticipated for a modern society where satisfaction of man’s needs is tied so closely to mechanical multiplication of his muscle power.

Assuming previous growth rates, some in­dustrial nations of Europe, including the Soviet Union, may attain the present U. S. standard of living near the end of the 20th century. Similarly, consumption of electrical energy of these countries will equal our rates at about the same time. From this might be inferred that currently there is not more than a 30 to 40-year time lag between the U. S- state of development and these countries, with this gap probably decreasing with time- Strikingly displayed in Figure 3 is the gross power capacity of a highly developed nation such as the United States. My reason for saying “strikingly” is the relative magnitude of installed central station power to the total- This chart shows that in the past 25 years there has been a fivefold in­crease in the total installed horsepower of prime movers- While it is understood that the average on-stream power level of central station elec­tric plants is much larger than for vehicles, the in­stalled horsepower of vein' cles is overwhelming in com­parison to central station capacity. Considering the trends in air pollution in ur­ban areas and the likelihood of electrification of vehicular power as a remedy, the fo' ture demand for central sta­tion electric generating ca­pacity could increase con­siderably over current prC' dictions. And more signify candy, these needs would b^e geographically near the sea- coasts where the majority of the populous metropolitan areas are located.

National Security Needs. Th^e PSAC report stated that “th^e most urgent aspect of Fed­eral involvement in ocean science and technology f°^r the next five to ten years re'

; tied so n of his

some in- ling the

it U. s.

the 20th ■lectrical Kir rates night be ore than le U. S.

ountries, ith time- the gross d nation ason for agnitude he total- 25 years efold in- installed ; movers- ood that m power ion elec- :h larger the in-

of vehi- l in com- I station -ing the on in ur-

ikelihood

vehicular the fo' ntral sta­rting ca- ase con- -ent pre- e signifr would be • the sea- majority

ropolitan

Table 2

'eeds. Th^e :hat “th^e of Fed' n ocean >logy fo^r years re'

ates to national security in the narrow, ^s nctly military sense.”

Recent Congressional testimony by former avy Secretary Paul Nitze indicates that over f the programmed U. S. deterrent strategic l_₎^{UC ear} ballistic missile re-entry vehicles will _&^{C sea}'based in nuclear submarines (Polaris ⁿ oseidon missiles) with the remainder on a tonary land-based platforms (such as l_a^^uteman). If this mix of land and sea a 'nc mg platforms is considered optimum

hearT* ³ P^otent^^a^ target in the Eurasian a art and, the argument is even stronger that

lai ^ P^{er cent}’ tf not more, of an enemy’s cont^ ^ln^ ^caP^ab>lity against an insular sub­fro ^lne?^{t sucb} as the United States should be submerged submarine platforms. ^can >^..3^on§'^ranS^e comprehensive detection has³ * "k ^{rabar b)r} atmospheric targets .^{not x}‘^cn duplicated by sonar in a water can-m-?-^{1 Thu}s, to duplicate the detection _Would* ^{lty a} “Dew Line” in the ocean mult- ^ta. ^{a ITUIC}b more complicated and i-stationed system.

^a sysf⁶ ^^art^^{er out} R°^m the coastline that such i_n„ _a ^ ?^an P^^ace<d> the earlier the warn- terce^- ^^{CSS tbe} difficulty and cost of in­any d !‘^{ng a submarin}e launched missile. For °ffsho^et>^CCti°^{n system at a} significant distance RlodeTi’ °^Cal P^{ower mus}t be supplied. q_Llj ,^S ^ ^S'^Zeb power plants would be re-

techn 1 ^{3t t}*^{1C start;} however, much of the apnlir k?^V developed would be directly for u ^a, ^c to larger sized plants at a later date electric ^{nU ltary s}y^stems and for economic Ob ^generation.

ously the farther offshore the detection

system, the more costly it is likely to be. Thus, a compromise can arise between a tolerable cost and military effectiveness.

The Continental Shelf is defined as a sub­merged platform upon which the continental area stands in relief. The volume of the hy­drosphere, being just a little too great for the true ocean basins, runs over and covers the borders of the continents. This border sur­rounding the land masses of the earth amounts to 10.2 million square miles, or about 20 per cent of the continental land masses. The aver­age width of this border is 44 miles. The aver­age depth of sea at which the shelf terminates is 450 feet, but generally the term “shelf’ is applied even where depths may be as much as 1,000 feet. Table 3 details the continental shelf areas for various land masses. The shelf bordering the United States is about 17 per cent of its land area. For insular countries like England, Japan, and for the populous East Indies Islands the adjacent shelf nearly equals their land area. The Netherlands have al­ready reclaimed parts of the adjacent shelf for “growth land,” and for land-locked countries like Israel, the shelf is the outlet for “new land.”

Although Hugo Grotius’ 17th century thesis of a Mare Liberum, reinforced over the centuries by the maritime powers, argued that the high seas were free for navigation by all nations, the seaward extension of a nation’s shoreline by use of the peripheral oceans has become accepted through the years by inter­Table 3

Antarctica)

national law. The belt of waters adjoining its coastline and over which states have exercised sovereignty has varied from 3 miles (one sea league) to 6, 12, 130 and “up to the limits of eyesight.” Russia has long claimed that a state is free to set the breadth of its territorial waters to any limit up to 12 miles, and so claims for herself. China also claims a 12-mile limit. Indonesia has adopted a straight base line system in conjunction with a 12-mile territorial sea that converts the waters of the entire archipelago into internal waters. The United States has long held to the 3-mile territorial sea limit adopted in 1793. In 1964, however, we ratified the 1958 Geneva Con­vention on the Continental Shelf. This Con­vention states that a coastal nation exerts over

13

Figure 3          12

11 10

3 1

its continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploiting its natural resources. History has demonstrated that control of the sea has been effected not merely by control of the shores but by occupation of the sea itself— formerly the surface sea, but more probably in the future by occupation and use of the in­ternal sea.

Untapped Natural Resources. A conservative estimate of the mineral producing potential of the continental shelf is 20 per cent of that from the land above water. This may not be as significant as the fact that in some cases the water apparently has garnered some minerals into extremely rich deposits. Also, it is esti­mated that the continental shelves contain an oil reserve of one trillion barrels, or an amount equal to that above water. Present U. S. off­shore oil production is about 250 million bar­rels per year, with a similar amount being produced for the rest of the world. Significant deposits are being mined now at offshore sites of such minerals as sulfur, potassium, phos­phate, tin, gold, platinum, and diamonds.

The continental shelf areas are a major food reserve, being abundant in sea life and organic production. Chronic world deficiency in pro­tein production can probably only be solved by marine aquaculture.

Many upwelling areas exist where deeper cold water is brought up to, or near, the sur­face. Because of the cold surface water, verti­cal temperature gradients are made during upwelling and a subsurface isothermal layer develops. As a result, upwelling is slow in its action. Nevertheless, these waters exert a significant influence on meteorology and on sea life conditions—they are conducive to high organic production since large quantities of nutrients (phosphates and nitrates) are brought into the sunlight zone. Thus, ex­tensive fishing areas and kelp beds are found in upwelling areas. In addition, con­siderable bird populations, whose guano is of economic importance, occur, as off Peru. other seas, such as the North Atlantic, the abundance of nutrients supports an unusually large standing crop of diatoms and flagellates, which, in turn, ultimately support krill, th^e main food of the whale.

Settlement and Security. The concepts of aO

for the sources. >1 of the jntrol of i itself— irobably f the in-

ervative ential of tat from )t be as ases the ninerals t is esti- ntain an amount

'. S. off- ion bar- tt being jnificant ore sites n, phos- londs. ijor food organic r in pro- e solved

; deeper the sur- ;r, verti- : during lal layer tw in its exert a and on ucive to uantities tes) are hus, ex- ieds are on, con­ano is of Peru. It ntic, the nusually

igellates,

trill, the

tio_n of act b

Nor does it necessarily invite destruc- any such establishments, since such an

its of a¹¹

undersea service area adjacent to a nation’s ^c°ast, the exploitation of the continental shelf’s natural resources, and the problem of ^an adequate defense against missile launching submarines are highly complementary from geographical considerations, from a cost effectiveness viewpoint, as well as in respect f° the technology which must be developed.

If it were possible to extend the “effective” borders of a nation off its coastline by the use °f the continental shelf “service area” in supplying additional resources, this area then Provides, as a corollary of its existence, a zone Potential interdiction capability. The use of rontier settlements as peripheral contact ^areas in our own Western expansion (and the similar concept of Israel’s Kibbutzim along its astern border) served as warning—and, ence, deterrent—centers against surprise attack. (Consider, for instance, that the con­tinental shelf along the Eastern U. S. sea- °ard averages 110 miles wide.)

Where it is possible to accelerate, by me- anical or thermal energy, the upwelling Process in selected areas (by the introduction ° deep warm waters) the local food produc­ts could be significantly increased. The use ⁰ Power plants in the ocean can be 100 per rent thermally efficient in this regard, since

^e normal 30 per cent mechanical or elec­trical        .

m energy conversion can be used for se-

^Ccted service tasks and the 70 per cent waste ^energy, usually thrown away at considerable P^ense, can be used to create thermal cur­, ^ts' Thus, power brought into the ocean on " ^ ^{even more} effective than it has been tur^r ^^an<^ ^{t0 convert} the present aquacul- <_tf^re ‘hunting” process into an aquaculture arming” process.

^Slng the coastal shelf as a service zone with in ^en<^^ant “settlements” for aquaculture, min- sets ^°^{Wer an}d the like, almost automatically _tr ^S ,^UP necessary facilities for detecting in­.            II- IN Or flflPC it nproccoril lmnfA rlpotriiP.

. y itself automatically serves to provide the ^des»-ed alert notice.

Power on the Continental Shelf. The the ^2lmPhcations to our national security, the              ^lancement of our natural resources, and

expansion of a service area for our dense ^u ation areas previously discussed, all re­quire power in the ocean. And, just as under similar conditions on the land, the power must be available at the desired location “in the ocean,” rather than “on the surface.” Long transmission lines are expensive on land and even more so in the sea. Physical problems associated with surface-to-seabed transmissions are formidable.

With the recent exponential increase in the building of nuclear power plants for land- based central station electric power needs in the United States and the world’s industrial­ized nations, one may tend to overlook the area where nuclear power was born. The obvious first application of nuclear power was into the ocean, and the conversion of many units of the U. S. submarine fleet from fossil to nuclear propulsion is the classic example of its utility.

Aside from providing a highly condensed fuel form (one pound of U-235 provides equiv­alent energy to 3 million pounds of oil), more importantly, for underseas use, the fission process does not require the 20 pounds of air necessary to combust each pound of oil. Thus, nuclear energy has completely freed the fossil plant requirement of being located on or near the surface of the ocean. The placing of the nuclear plant in the ocean, on the continental shelf, or at any other point becomes merely a housing problem. The depth of a nuclear sub­marine is limited by its hull, not its plant.

Manned power plants can be placed in pressure-resistant underseas structures such as those proposed by General Electric’s “Proj­ect Bottom Fix” (See page 18). As more relia­ble equipment is developed less elaborate un­manned nuclear plants can be placed in the ocean taking direct advantage of the heat sink, shielding, system pressurization and contain­ment provided by the ocean itself.

Many considerations favor nuclear power in the ocean:

(1)As discussed earlier, the continental shelf provides a large “service area” readily adjacent to the high population density areas of the land mass. It would appear to be ideally suited as a “power service area.”

(2)The ocean is practically an infinite isothermal heat sink which can efficiently, and in many cases usefully (for food produc­tion), use the 70 per cent thermal energy normally rejected as waste in a power plant.

If it were possible to use this waste heat effec­tively, an automatic threefold multiplication of energy resources would result with corre­sponding improvement in energy economics.

(3)     The ocean is also an infinite radiation shield obviating the need for costly shielding construction.

(4)     It is a far more effective radiation and pollution container, in event of an untoward accident, than is the atmosphere.

(5)The depth of the water at the con­tinental shelf plant site provides an external pressurizing atmosphere. Since the present nuclear plants operate with a pressurized pri­mary coolant system, the pressure differential for which the plant piping and pressure vessel must be designed, could be significantly re­duced if full use of the environment potential is realized.

A review of the capital costs of a nuclear plant indicates that about one-fourth is spent for equipment that ultimately might be obviated or reduced in complexity by an ocean application such as discussed above. When it is possible to place unattended power plants into the ocean, further economic sav­ings in plant housing designs should be possi­ble. The great strides made in recent years in equipment and plant reliability give hope that such a possibility can be made a reality. The Nimbus Weather Satellite is still func­tioning effectively after over a year of un­attended operation. The time between over­hauls of commercial jet engines has been in-

A graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy with the Class of 1941, Mr. Naymark served in the USS Saratoga (CV-3) from 1941 to 1944. He at­tended the Postgraduate School at M.I.T. from 1944 to 1946, following which he was Repair Superintendent, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, for two years. He then became Senior Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory, and Chief, Naval Reactor Division, Chicago Office, AEC, working on the design and development of the Nautilus’ nuclear plant (1948-1952). He was Chief, Naval Reactors Division, Schenectady Office, AEC, working on the Seawolf’s nuclear plant from 1952 until his transfer to the U. S. Naval Reserve in 1954. He has since managed a variety of nuclear projects for the General Electric Company.

creased to over 10,000 hours from the 1,000 to 2,000-hour interval on reciprocating engines of a decade ago. And the operating availabil­ity time (excluding an economic motivated yearly refueling cycle) of present day central station nuclear reactors is about 98 per cent, compared to a slightly lower ratio for the con­ventional fossil energy burners.

The development and learning that would be associated with operating machinery, building plants, and placing people with them in this new ocean environment should not be minimized. Almost every piece of equipment which has been designed or evolved for a land environment needs rechecking and redesign for a new environment. This is expensive both in time and development cost. But as a tech­nologically oriented nation, the United States has embarked on a number of complex pro­grams in the last few decades when the end result gives promise of a positive pay-off. Cer­tainly the returns from using the continental shelf and the sea above promise a fantastic pay-off, yet one which is most credible.

Technology for Underwater Development. The simultaneous advances in multiple fields of science and technology have made possible the realization of singular applied engineering successes. The submarine-based Polaris mis­sile system evolved in the late 1950s only be­cause: nuclear fission was discovered and engineered into weapons in the late 1940s; nuclear fission was engineered into power engines in the early 1950s; inertial guidance systems were invented and engineered in the same period; missile technology was con­verted to reliable devices; computers and memory circuit technology could be en­gineered into highly accurate and quick re­sponding control systems; and materials de­velopment made high strength hull structures possible—all these reaching the required state of engineering development during the same decade.

Similarly, we have seen in the recent past how concurrent research and development advances in multi-disciplines have made pos­sible the successful realization of such complex systems as the atomic bomb, nuclear energy for central station power plants, and space flight. The time span from basic invention of discovery to practical application has nar-