Nuclear Propulsion for Merchant Ships

Mar 11, 2010, 11:36AM EST
Lloyd’s Register’s recently announced a research program into nuclear propulsion of ships. After the 1960’s Savannah and Otto Hahn there were only two more commercial ships produced with nuclear propulsion: there were also nuclear ice breakers built by the Soviet Union. Opposition to nuclear power in the light of the problem of greenhouse gases is changing opinions. Nuclear propulsion technology has continued to develop but the high initial cost has to be paid up front. Radioactive waste is an unresolved problem, yet there are few problems man is unable to solve when the necessity is strong. The greatest nuclear benefit is in zero exhaust emissions.

Late last year Lloyd’s Register announced a research program revisiting the technical challenges of nuclear propulsion for tankers, bulk carriers, container ships and cruise ships, as well as refueling and waste-disposal issues.
After the experiments in the 1960’s of the Savannah and Otto Hahn there were only two more commercial ships produced with nuclear propulsion. There were also some very capable nuclear ice breakers built by the Soviet Union some of which are now carrying paying passengers on specialized cruises, for example the 50 years of Victory being one of the few ships able to punch its way through the ice to the North Pole.

Major accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl encouraged strong opposition in the past to nuclear power production for power stations but in the light of the problem of greenhouse gases opinions are changing.

Meanwhile nuclear propulsion technology has continued to develop and be used successfully in large warships and submarines of several nations.

One of the factors that makes nuclear propulsion less attractive for commercial applications is the high initial cost where the “fuel bill” for the next 5-20 years has to be paid up front. This is a financing dilemma but there are many models available whereby long term costs can be spread over many years and it provides a constant cost, rather than a variable one, which most businesses prefer. If the price of oil drops then the cost calculation is upset – but can we really expect the oil price to drop in the decades ahead?

Yes, there is the, as yet, unresolved problem of radioactive waste, yet there are few problems man is unable to solve when the necessity is strong. How often today, with modern techniques and materials, are we able to solve problems that were unsolvable in the past?

The greatest nuclear benefit is in zero exhaust emissions, not only underway but in harbor suggesting that cruise ships would be ideal candidates. There is however the prejudice hurdle with history repeating itself. "Never before in history, society was confronted with a power that is so full of possible danger and at the same time so full of promises for the future of humankind and for peace in our world ….." The statement was made in the Congress of the United States in 1875 and they are not talking about nuclear power, but the internal combustion engine!
 
 
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Ron Oyer
There is a group here in the US which I believe is headed up by Stan Wheatley, working on a conceptual design for a nuke container vessel. Stan's motto was always "work the problem" so if anyone has some creditable insight, it's him. The initial cost could be substantiated if "enhanced longevity" was built into the hull of a vessel for long haul liner service such as container ships. Passenger ships might be a long shot due to the security issues. I suggested to Lloyd's they contact Stan however, don't know how that went.
3/11/2010 12:45:42 PM
 
Mark James
I would think the shipwreck scenarios would need to be addressed - what happens if the ship hits the rocks & breaks up in bad weather or has a collision with another vessel that caused the vessel to sink? It will make the Exon Valdese Clean up look easy.
3/18/2010 10:31:33 AM
 
Steve Toby
This is a good balanced post that hits all the important pros and cons. There seems to be considerable interest in nuclear power for containerships -- in addition to the group cited by Mr. Oyer, I'm aware of another one in the US. I would also agree that passenger ships seem a questionable application for a variety of reasons, including the public's fear of radiation hazards to themselves. However, if we remember the early days of steam navigation, the public was certainly intimidated by the threat of boiler explosions and eventually came to accept passenger steamboats anyway because of their speed and comfort. That could happen to nuclear cruise ships too.

There is a parallel in economics to the fuel cost being up front. Furthermore it's one many of us have dealt with in our private lives: whether to rent or buy our living accommodations. Like the rent or buy decision, the nuke or fossil decision is not solely economic, and even in that narrow economic aspect, its cost/benefit analysis depends on future prices you won't know about till it's too late. If you think the first cost of a nuclear plant will eventually be offset by the fuel costs of conventional power, and then the price of oil declines, you'll look stupid (and conventional competitors will undercut your prices and you'll also be bankrupt). If the price of oil increases, the reverse will happen: you'll look smarter and smarter with time and you'll want to extend the life of your ship as long as possible as you rake in the profits. But, again like buying a house, this all depends on the availability of up-front funds, that is, a mortgage, something that's in short supply in today's economic conditions. I think nuclear power still has a high hill to climb before it gets installed in merchant ships.

Has anyone looked into what France, the leading user of nuclear power for electricity production, does with its nuclear waste? They don't have the space to merely isolate it as the US and Russia can, so maybe they have a better solution.
3/18/2010 10:45:54 AM
 
Don Holland
Steve,
There has been consideable publicity given here in Australia regarding the French wanting to dump nuclear waste in our desert centre. I'm sure the U.S. would not condone this French nuclear dumping around Nevada.
3/18/2010 7:27:33 PM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

2/4/2012

dilipan thomas
well there is no job for most people who has finished studi...

2/2/2012

Saunders Jones
Joe, You are right on regarding both GMATS and the Super...

1/25/2012

Joseph Keefe
Mark: You get the prize, indeed. Thanks for weighing in....

1/24/2012

Mark Sales
An apt and appropriate view of the situation. It also shou...

1/24/2012

Eric Goldring
I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has...

1/20/2012

Shiran Senanayake
I believe that Cruise Masters are fatigued with so many por...

1/19/2012

Alan Loynd
Absolutely correct. With the largest passenger ships now...

1/19/2012

James Lynch
Well stated. The need for regulation is obvious in any fie...

1/19/2012

Eugene (Gene) Horton
Dear Greg, I read your article on “size matters” and found...

1/19/2012

Laurie Thomas
Joe, to add to John's comment, here's another gem/bad news ...