Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
There is a significant lack of civilian nuclear propulsion systems available, that's the issue. The only country that runs a nuclear freighter is Russia. Torque isn't an issue, look at the aircraft carriers the US runs with nukes, it's all regulation and an industry that is historically military-focused. That may be changing though.
A Russian freighter, never heard of her....‚
Fair point on the torque though, I forgot about our nuclear powered carriers. But there is more than one issue preventing proliferation of nuclear powered vessels.
Google "nuclear free zones". Countries like Italy and Japan and New Zealand and parts of Australia I believe, prohibit the docking of nuclear powered vessels. Many port cities in Canada, like Vancouver BC, are nuclear free.. parts of the UK like London are nuclear free zones. Everywhere you parked a nuclear powered commercial vessel requiring massive security cuzz you'd likely be swarmed with protestors and creating a big headache for local authorities, that I suspect before too long they'd tell you you're no longer welcomed.... And that's just the beginning of your problems.. just wait till Somali pirates hijack your pretty nuclear powered liner (you're a floating nuclear liability) and are now selling it on the black market to dirty bomb makers in the middle East. You'd be going out of business yesterday... Lloyd's of London ain't gonna insure your cargo even using somebody else's money....‚
No way no how will nuclear powered commercial vessels become a thing anytime soon, certainly not in my lifetime anyhow.
(fwiw I'm no tree hugging anti nuclear protestor. Quite the contrary, I think we should be investing more in nuclear power technologies)
I don't think we'll see it in the cruise ship industry, at least not anytime soon, but I do for freight transport, with the necessary precautions. While I can't imagine Somali pirates having the wherewithal to extract anything of value, they'd probably just kill themselves with radiation, I can see that being a liability issue, though I'd expect sufficient armament would be more than paid for both the lack of fuelling costs.
The port issue is definitely something that'd need to change.
The US operated a nuclear freighter back in the day too, but the only country with one currently in operation is Russia, and its usage has generated some interesting headlines (concerned Norway in this trip):
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019...ed-with-seafood-approaches-norway-a67218
This is a good read:https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx
Important excerpts:
Quote
In 2018 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by 50% by 2050, compared with 2008. In 2017 global bunkering totalled 8.9 EJ, with 82% being heavy fuel oil and the balance marine gas oil and diesel. In 2018 the global shipping fleet had a capacity of 2 Gt and it transported 8.9 Gt of freight. Russia's 61,900 tonne Sevmorput is the only nuclear-powered freighter in service. The head of the large Chinese shipping company Cosco suggested in December 2009 that container ships should be powered by nuclear reactors in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. He said that Cosco was in talks with China's nuclear authority to develop nuclear powered freight vessels. However, in 2011 Cosco aborted the study after three years, following the Fukushima accident.
Quote
In November 2010 the British maritime classification society Lloyd's Register embarked upon a two-year study with US-based Hyperion Power Generation (now Gen4 Energy), British vessel designer BMT Group, and Greek ship operator Enterprises Shipping and Trading SA "to investigate the practical maritime applications for small modular reactors." The research was to produce a concept tanker-ship design, based on a 70 MWt reactor such as Hyperion's. Hyperion (Gen4 Energy) had a three-year contract with the other parties in the consortium, which planned to have the tanker design certified in as many countries as possible. The project included research on a comprehensive regulatory framework led by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), and supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and regulators in countries involved.In response to its members' interest in nuclear propulsion, Lloyd's Register has rewritten its 'rules' for nuclear ships, which concern the integration of a reactor certified by a land-based regulator with the rest of the ship. The overall rationale of the rule-making process assumes that in contrast to the current marine industry practice where the designer/builder typically demonstrates compliance with regulatory requirements, in the future the nuclear regulators will wish to ensure that it is the operator of the nuclear plant that demonstrates safety in operation, in addition to the safety through design and construction. Nuclear ships are currently the responsibility of their own countries, but none are involved in international trade. Lloyd's Register said it expected to "see nuclear ships on specific trade routes sooner than many people currently anticipate."
