18 December 2010

Container Ships And Bulk Tankers To Go Nuclear?  

Ambitious Project to Validate the Atomic Option

backlink: back
email
printlink: print this news article
news archivelink: news archive
Shipping News Feature

UK – WORLDWIDE – Just two weeks after two senior executives from the BMT Group Ltd., specialists in maritime design, engineering and risk management, were invited to become members of Lloyd's Register's Technical Committee came the announcement that the two organisations were joining with Greek bulk tanker and container ship operators Enterprises Shipping and Trading S.A. and US based atomic energy experts Hyperion Power in a bid to investigate the practicability of small modular nuclear reactors as the power plants for freight vessels of the future.

The project was announced in mid November and executives at Lloyds Register have publicly stated they anticipate seeing nuclear powered ships plying the commercial cargo routes in less time than most people imagine. To accommodate the anticipated development Lloyds are to change their rules regarding the certification of the new generation vessels and draft proposals for the technical format are under consideration at the moment.

To the surprise of some none of this is new ground; most people of course are familiar with the capabilities of the nuclear powered submarines and most in the shipping world know of the small Russian fleet of atomic icebreakers which are currently making the new ocean trade routes around the top of the world a possibility. Fewer however will remember the ill fated Mutsu, a Japanese vessel built in 1972 which sailed eventually, after reported radiation leaks and in the face of environmental protests, in 1974.

The Mutsu never carried any commercial cargo however unlike the Otto Hahn, another of the only four nuclear powered merchant freighters so far constructed. After launching for sea trials and intensive tests in 1964 the German vessel traded successfully between 1970 to 1979 when she exchanged her power plant for diesel and carried on in service until scrapped on the Alang beaches only last year.

The first of the nuclear ‘freighters’ was the US built NS (note the initials)Savannah in the late 1950’s. More of a test bed and demonstrator than a practical cargo carrier she currently lies in Baltimore awarded the status of National Historic Landmark and awaiting her final fate.

The latest and last addition to this elite club of four is the Sevmorput, named after the Northern passage and still in service, since commissioning in 1988 but not as a freight carrier. The Russian fleet is to be extended and many see the nuclear option as the only truly emission free option at a time when pollution from shipping is firmly in the spotlight.

One of the gang of four involved in the new project, Hyperion, are a company devoted to commercialising the small modular nuclear reactor type developed by the scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The system runs on low-enriched uranium and consists of a factory sealed unit and, similar to a modern car battery, contains no user serviceable parts. The principle is to provide the unit, suitably shielded against the rigours of ocean travel, which is then returned to the manufacturers after around seven years for refuelling.

Obviously any marine application holds more risk than a land based use where the power plant can be buried to avoid interference, but Lloyds have an exemplary track record of examining technological advances and incorporating into a regulatory framework. This latest venture will no doubt prove one of their stiffest challenges given the unique risks of the elements involved and the regulator will doubtless consider all relevant factors from longevity of hull and components to collision factors and shipwreck scenarios.

Photo:- Two non military nuclear ships in port together. The Russian cargo ship Sevmorput to the left of the discarded nuclear powered Arktika class icebreaker NS Sibir. Photo courtesy of Терский берег.

Bookmark and Share
To comment on this Story, click here
Your comments
1. 20/12/2010 02:11:00thomas anzalone wrote:

Would it not have been smart to include something on the economic difference between nuclear power and bunkers? Isn''t that the reason for the change?
2. 20/12/2010 08:21:31Ed wrote:

Editors Note: I think the economic balance is something to be considered ut initially I imagine Lloyds are involved because it is essential to have an industry standard for these vessels. Hyperion obviously want to sell reactors,and Enterprise want to provide the test bed. The driving forces will obviously be the IMO''s pollution reduction targets and the cost of utilising the system. Obviously fuel prices are rising and it will become more scarce in time, hence the Australian drive to use natural gas as a rail locomotive power source but initially it is essential to prove that the nuclear option is a realistic, and non polluting, safe alternative.
3. 25/12/2010 22:51:56Randal Peart wrote:

Is there any reason that the pebbles of pebble bed reactors could not be used individually to power closed circuit steam turbines? This would bring nuclear power to freight trains and even to heavy trucks (triples on freeways). When not hauling, the system could feed into the grid. Next step, nuclear airplanes!
Got something to say?

We welcome any comments to this story, to be posted after a website editor's review.
Please stay on topic, provide credible information or insight that moves the discussion forward, be convincing and try to be brief. Please note you are giving us licence to amend or edit any comments.
Aliases are acceptable but comments may be taken more seriously if real names are used.

Name *
* = required field
Email * (will not be published)
Comment *
 

keep up to date with the
latest shipping news...
get the inside track
check out the blog...
check out the latest
industry events

Advertise with Handy Shipping Guide