Nuclear power: ‘clean’ alternative to wind?

For shipowners operating the largest container ships, nuclear power may be a more attractive energy source than wind. An interview with Lloyd’s Register brings that pregnant to the fore.

Certainly the big boys will be able to save at most 10, 15% with wind support. Even complete new builds with wind propulsion instead of wind support will never deliver emission-free shipping, and scaling down to ships that can is unlikely, in an industry that has taken ‘bigger and faster’ as its guiding mantra since the beginning.

This week, classification society Lloyd’s Register announced a collaboration with ship designer Seatransport for a floating nuclear reactor vessel to provide emergency power to coastal communities. A working vessel, then – but Mark Tipping of Lloyd’s Register (LR) says a nuclear-powered container ship, the most obvious business case for merchant shipping, will not be far behind.

Speed

Nuclear propulsion means no need for bunkering and independence from OPEC. It also short-circuits the tendency to slow down the energy transition to save money.

Moreover, the first nuclear-powered container ships will have to sail very fast to capture market share, leading to a market dichotomy that will force slow, conventional ships to lower their rates.

“When you look at higher speeds, there are a few challenges,” said Mark Tipping. “You have to consider noise in the marine environment, which can be limited by the shape of the hull and propeller. In some locations, you have to watch out for things like whales. However, there are plenty of opportunities to go hard.”

Chinese powerhouse

The recent CSSC KUN-24AP concept (header photo) made this clear, with a huge, fast Chinese powerhouse that would crush the competition. But the technology is still some years away, says Tipping.
“I definitely think we will see container ships with molten salt reactors…. but they are unlikely to be available before 2035. That technology will probably be in the second tranche, not the first.”

US protectionism

Since the unveiling of the KUN-24AP, the US has been suddenly interested in building and operating its own fleet. A protectionist tendency, and a proven disregard for shipping regulators – but as a result, a sector-disrupting nuclear container ship may be closer than we think. “The recent moves by the US are certainly conducive to any US ship considering nuclear power,” saysTipping.

Need for political stability

However, a stable investment landscape is also needed. “Yes – fixed trade routes for a long period of time,” according to Tipping. “But this is what you need anyway, with all the other alternative fuels, the confidence that you can refuel on both sides. That requires political stability.

Smaller and simpler

Technically, much depends on the small modular reactor (SMR), which is supposed to be much more self-sufficient than the reactors of the past. SMR is an umbrella term for any number of reactor types, but the key is simplification.

SMRs are built on production lines, in standardised sizes. Tipping: “Pressurised water reactors (PWRs) have been tried and tested by navies and generate steam to drive a turbine and propeller shaft, but they require a lot of manpower to operate.”

Old technology

Our precedent for nuclear power are submarines, aircraft carriers, Russian icebreakers… they use technologies that are out of date,” explains Tipping. “It’s a bit like flying across the ocean in a biplane.”

Why navies still accept that old technology has to do with the missed opportunities of the 1970s, when the N/S Savannah was decommissioned two years before the oil crisis that would have made it the queen of the ocean. This was exacerbated by the Chernobyl disaster in the 1980s, which quickly ended investment in the development of new nuclear reactor technology.

Climate change new momentum

However, this is changing due to climate change. Tipping alludes to Project Pele, a US initiative to provide miniature reactors, transportable by truck or plane, to power military bases. These could be operated by people with just six months’ training.” But we won’t see that in the shipping industry – no regulator will accept such an approach. But it does give you a feel for the trajectory.”

There is no way in the commercial shipping market we are going to have 20 or more crew members watching a reactor,” he adds. “So the design basis for these reactors is that they require minimal presence. Yes, capable people, well-trained – but you don’t need an army of them and they don’t need to be PhDs.”

Source: an article by Charlie Bartlett in The Loadstar.
Image: Elnion.com

Windassist sponsor