Nuclear Propulsion for Merchant ships: Is there a future?

[LEONAM]

We are hearding about the "renaissance" of commercial nuclear propulsion concepts - papers, comments, news ... - mainly related to fast container ships.
What the community think about this?

BRAZIL! OWN TECHNOLOGY IS INDEPENDENCE!

 

[TheBlacksmith]

I don't see this as likely. As a Navy commander, I'm sure you are familiar with the active piracy in some areas, targeting the cargo and occasionally the ship (for illicit uses). Adding a nuclear reactor just increases the risk and necessary security to prevent the fuel falling into the wrong hands. Just as I stated in the thread on nuclear powered cars, I don't see the governing authorities going for this. Landbased plants are easier to condone off and protect.


Blacksmith

 

LEONAM, Do a search on the web for the N.S. Savannah. This was the first commercial ship built with a nuclear propulsion system. It was retired in 1971. Due to regulations and the idea that it is "cheaper" to run ships on fossil fuels no more were ever built?????????

 

[xnuke]

I'm with TheBlacksmith on this one.

 

[LEONAM]

ROBULAS: Do you really think that regulations and costs are the only reasons to this ? What about "raison d'état" motivations ? BRAZIL! OWN TECHNOLOGY IS INDEPENDENCE!

 

[Imagineer]

As to the "raison d'etat"... It's been done. The US did the N.S. Savannah which you can visit at Charleston, SC. The Soviet Union built several, mostly for raison d'état because the USSR wasn't profit driven. Don't have the latest Jane's to see if the cargo ships are still being used. They were NOT profitable nor operationally better than conventional power. They have a couple (2,3,4?) nuclear powered icebreakers still in service.

Yes, you can build one but the big question is, "Do you have a better use for a couple hundred million dollars?"
Imagineer

 

[nukejava]

Nuclear propulsion could be possible for high performance ships (high power demand and/or very long hauls). In such case, fuel consumption becomes the driving cost, just where nuclear power has an advantage. There are a few high-speed concepts in which nuclear power could make a difference (integral PWRs or gas reactors are not supposed to be very expensive). Stability of fuel price is another pro for the mid term. The current nuclear stigma might enforce a limited use in the beginning, perhaps high frequency runs between selected hubs (I do not see nuclear ships everywhere).
I don´t agree with a few previous comments: a) Savannah operation costs: it was simply not the right ship for such power plant. b) What about protection? I really do not see burglers (modern pirats chasing large high-speed vessels), taking away the ship to a satellite hidden port, or opening the reactor in the middle of the ocean with portable (?) wrenches (if they really could remove the fuel without getting cooked). Such hypothetical event may be engineered to prevent reactor compartment intrusion.