# NUCLEAR SHIPS: New Job opportunity for european seafarers?



## FILIPVS (Apr 20, 2011)

I have been reading this article and it seems like new developments in nuclear reactors for civil ships are expected. Perhaps in next future we will see nuclear merchant ships. 

Would it be a good job opportunity for seafarers (and shipyards) in europe?

[/quote] 
_MOTORSHIP magazine

Class society explores the return of nuclear propelled merchant ships
30 Dec 2009

The German cargo ship Otto Hahn operated successfully under nuclear power from 1968 to 1979

Research is focused on the application of nuclear propulsion to tankers, bulk carriers, container ships and cruise ships

Early in 2007, Lloyd’s Register began research into the implications of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships.

This initiative was built on Lloyd’s Register’s claimed extensive experience in the traditional nuclear industries and from studies which led to the formation of its Rules for the Nuclear Propulsion of Ships.

The Rules, available from 1966 until 1976, were developed in response to the interest shown in nuclear propulsion in the early 1960s, which resulted in ships such as Savannah, and Otto Hahn, two ships that were technically successful.

At that time, operational and economic conditions were not conducive to commercial success of nuclear propulsion. But both ships, nevertheless, traded worldwide for some years.

Over the years, there has been a steady, slow development of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships - principally with ice breakers - but also extending to a lash barge carrier and a containership. Indeed, two nuclear ice breakers presently are used on popular passenger cruises.

The steady increase in the price of fuel oil - and the probable introduction of either a carbon emissions trading scheme or a related tax - now presents the possibility that nuclear propulsion could again be competitive.

Lloyd’s Register says that its research programme is revisiting the technical challenges of nuclear propulsion for ships, as well as refuelling and waste-disposal issues. The scope of the programme has been expanded to include public health, manning, training, operational, risk and regulatory requirements. The principal maritime sectors of focus are how these propulsion systems could benefit tankers, bulk carriers, container ships and cruise ships, although a range of other ship types may also benefit.

”The technology is there to commence building nuclear ships. The issues regarding their acceptability and the need for a cultural step-change in shipping still need to be addressed so that society is comfortable any risk is being managed”, commented John Carlton, global head of marine technology and investigations at Lloyd’s Register.

Most nuclear-powered ships and submarines to date have relied on pressurised water reactor (PWR) technology and they have demonstrated an enviable record for reliability and safety when operated correctly. However, other nuclear technologies soon may be available, including a range of high-temperature reactors, the pebble-bed concept, and designs developing on the original PWR concept.

Modern reactor technology has, since the early designs, progressively introduced enhanced safety and control features which make their use increasingly attractive and practical for merchant marine operations. Nevertheless, *the types of unmanned machinery spaces common in many modern ships are unlikely to be acceptable for nuclear-propelled vessels*. Methods of crew-training also will need to undergo considerable modification. In fact, a cultural shift will be essential in the marine engineering community if the lifecycle and environmental benefits of nuclear propulsion are to be realised, while managing the risks – both real and perceived.

Business models for ship purchases and operations also are likely to change significantly, since the majority of the costs are incurred earlier, during the build and commissioning stages.

In a nuclear-propelled ship, the fuel cost is included in the cost of the reactor. Ships that use conventionally enriched uranium then will be able to trade for up to five years before refuelling. This refuelling period is not inconsistent with conventional survey periods, except the refuelling process would take about 30 days for a ship featuring a conventional PWR plant, under controlled conditions. The management of spent fuel, although established for the current industry in line with the conventional nuclear cycle, would also need to be thoroughly reviewed. With conventional propulsion, the cost of the ship is broadly defined by its structure, outfitting and machinery; fuel costs are distributed throughout the lifecycle at frequent intervals.

The greenhouse gas challenge

Public concern for the environment in recent years has focussed on the way greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate. Although the marine industry contributes a relatively small proportion of those greenhouse gases in relation to the amount of goods and raw materials it transports, shipping’s CO2 contribution from exhaust emissions is of growing concern.

A number of research initiatives have been introduced to mitigate this component of emissions from low and medium speed diesel engines. Lloyd’s Register has been actively looking for the technological solutions to the challenges arising from ship propulsion to help the marine industry reduce its carbon footprint. Nuclear propulsion is one such technology, one that nullifies the industry’s CO2 contribution._[/quote]


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

It does seem the obvious solution, however, the problem is which Port's/Countries will accept them.


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

The U.S. built a nuclear-powered cargo ship back around 1960 (the NS Savannah). Many foreign countries wouldn't allow it into their ports because they thought it was dangerous. Also, the ship's engineers were required to be licensed nuclear engineers, meaning that they were far more highly qualified than normal marine engineers as well as being more scarce than normal marine engineers, which in turn meant that their pay scales were also much higher than normal marine engineers. For those, and other reasons, the ship proved to be a brilliant technological showcase, but an operational dead end.


----------



## Leratty (Jun 3, 2012)

Klaatu83 I recall seeing her she was a good looking ship too & painted white from memory? I believe she is sitting somewhere down south as a if you museum. It makes one think of the Luddite's does it not? Not too sure how such vessels would be helpful for the British or European MN now.


----------



## FILIPVS (Apr 20, 2011)

I attach here another article regarding the viability of nuclear merchant ships.

I think at this moment only USA, Russia, Japan, UK, France and Germany have technological capacity to build nuclear reactors. 
If the civil use of nuclear reactors is increased, probably other countries will develop their capacities to build and repair this type of installations. So I think this will create a lot of jobs in shipyards and engineering industry.

In other hand, nuclear ships have to be managed by highly qualified crews so some shipping companies would be interested in recruitment of european crews. 

=============================

//QUOTE// 
*Could LNG ships be powered by nuclear energy?
*
22 Sep 2010 / THE MOTORSHIP

Nuclear powered LNG ships in the arctic? Quite likely, says Babcock

Babcock International Group Marine Division reports that it has completed a study to investigate the commercial implications of developing a nuclear-powered LNG carrier, something it claims as a first.

Among its findings, the study has identified that recently updated legislation and available classification society rules allow for a fresh approach to the design of nuclear powered vessels.

Babcock says that its study has been undertaken at a time when the industry has shown renewed interest in nuclear powered commercial ships. The first nuclear propulsion in merchant ships was introduced in the 1960s, following successful exploitation in submarines and aircraft carriers, but while these were technically successful, they were commercially less so. Recently, Babcock believes that a number of factors have led to renewed interest. These factors include environmental concerns (notably over CO2 emissions and other air pollutants), and the rising price of fossil fuel (beginning to make nuclear power far more competitive), along with the development of nuclear propulsion that has been on-going over the years (largely centred on icebreakers but also including other merchant ship types) with recent papers concluding that the adoption of nuclear propulsion for high speed container ships is technically feasible. According to Lloyd’s Register, some 600 or so nuclear reactors are operating worldwide today, of which about one third are serving at sea.

Babcock’s study was undertaken to determine the commercial feasibility of using nuclear power for main propulsion and auxiliary power generation on board an LNG carrier. The company believes that a number of benefits could be realised by the use of nuclear powered vessels for LNG transport. The nuclear plant would eliminate CO2, NOx and SOx emissions. Additionally, the vessel’s large power generation requirements would be supplied by a relatively compact power source compared to normal power methods for this vessel type – a space saving that would maximise cargo capacity. Further benefits would include a significant reduction in noise generation, reducing the environmental impact of the vessel.

Babcock’s investigation covered key aspects ranging from engineering and design issues, recent technical developments, and statutory regulations, to operational aspects, through-life maintenance, training requirements, and vessel disposal.

Babcock’s Integrated Technology arm within the Marine division claims many years’ experience in complex vessel concept work and on LNG projects, and the Marine division has been sole UK in-service support contractor for the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine flotilla for several years, undertaking refits and upgrades, supporting operational submarines, and providing engineering design and technical support services. Personnel involved in ship design, nuclear plant systems installation, maintenance, and decommissioning were involved in undertaking the feasibility study.

Babcock’s Integrated Technology commercial projects director David Dobson said that the study indicates that particular routes and cargoes lend themselves well to the nuclear propulsion option, and that technological advances in reactor design and manufacture have made the option more appealing. It has also confirmed significant benefits in terms of environmental impact and sustainability. Further, in reviewing the latest updated legislation, it is evident that newly issued design codes from Lloyd’s Register allow the design of nuclear powered vessels to be re-visited. On the other hand, initial capital costs are high (although they will reduce significantly when more applications for commercially produced marine reactors are found) and commercially available building and maintenance facilities would need to be established if significant numbers of these ships were to be planned.

“Nuclear power for commercial vessels is becoming significantly more attractive on a number of counts, not least from an environmental perspective, but there are a great many issues to weigh and consider in determining the feasibility of nuclear propulsion for any commercial vessel,” Dobson says. “Our knowledge and experience puts us in a particularly strong position to identify and advise operators on these issues. We have worked with several of the major operators in the marine and oil and gas sectors on a number of ground-breaking developments in FPSOs and LNG vessels over the years, and are delighted to be again investigating new ground.”
//QUOTE//


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Filipvs,

Mongst a host of difficulties and dangers I do see one potential beneficial attribute that may have been missed.

The present pressure on efficiency is to cut down on fossil fuel consumptions due to cost and on emissions by convention.

There will be no emissions (assuming an accident free lifetime) and the cost of the fuel will not figure in the main (the number of refuellings required will impact).

So by and large we can abandon the enormous efforts at improving efficiency - limited by thermodynamics anyway and which has seen scantlings reduced and positively dainty contraptions put to sea and concentrate on reliability.


----------



## FILIPVS (Apr 20, 2011)

Leratty said:


> Not too sure how such vessels would be helpful for the British or European MN now.


These ships (nuclear ships) requires big crews. I think that tendency of last decades to remove crew members from ships to save costs could be inverted and no longer valid if nuclear propulsion is finally developed. The high fuel costs paid today could be used to pay bigger crews and at the same time save money.

Regarding jobs on shipyards: Shipyards in Europe are in clear difficulties so a new market of nuclear ships could be used to impulse again this important sector here. There are not too much shipyards available to work with nuclear reactors, so an investiment in innovation would be neccesary with positive effects in labour market for engineers and other high qualified staff.


----------



## FILIPVS (Apr 20, 2011)

Varley said:


> Filipvs,
> 
> Mongst a host of difficulties and dangers I do see one potential beneficial attribute that may have been missed.
> 
> ...


interesting point of view Varley:

Energy efficiency seems to be the new mantra to come. I think it is a path that can lead us to work with unreliable ships . I have read on new vessels without ballast, generators installed in the dobble bottom to gain cargo capacity, etc.. Moreover, as you say, seems to have physical limitations that make it impossible to achieve the objectives set by the IMO ...
Yes, all this could be a new argument for the use of nuclear reactors. But any turbine ship would be exempted of comply with energy efficiency rules, so also conventional steam ships, could be an option to evade all this mess. The same would be valid also for diesel electric ships.


----------



## Norm (Jun 21, 2006)

Terrorists hijacking a nuclear ship could sail it anywhere and threaten a nuclear explosion/melt down


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Filipvs,

But both the conventional technologies you mention would need a commercail environment where the cost of fuel had no impact.

(I also have to say that steam ships are not the reliable beast we must both remember if one tries to run them with only a minimum number of the properly educated and trained).

You would expect me to advocate diesel electric (or most-anything-o-electric) out of self interest but one canot escape that the double conversion, prime mover-electric, electric-propulsion reduces overall efficiency by as much as 10% (? in that order anyway) over direct drive.

All the risks of nuclear and the savings on obviated efficiency & emissions features would have to be balanced by the lower cost of fuel and fuelling (or ready fuelled nuclear 'cell' exchange).


----------



## Leratty (Jun 3, 2012)

Norm, ugh that would be a serious threat. I note in that regard there is little if any talk about the unsecured nuclear weapons etc situation in Russia & its satellites? What has if anything in regards the Russian nuclear sub fleet, the pensioned off ones I mean? There was some very big worries thereto as somewhere up the icy regions they were just rusting away?


----------



## forthbridge (Jun 28, 2007)

Leratty said:


> Norm, ugh that would be a serious threat. I note in that regard there is little if any talk about the unsecured nuclear weapons etc situation in Russia & its satellites? What has if anything in regards the Russian nuclear sub fleet, the pensioned off ones I mean? There was some very big worries thereto as somewhere up the icy regions they were just rusting away?


Like the nuclear submarines rusting away in Rosyth?


----------

