Nuclear powered container ships?

Why are they not a thing? It would massively cut down on oil usage, be better for the environment, allow petrol to be cheaper for us drivers due to demand being lower and would eventually lower the price of shipping stuff all over the planet. If they can do it with submarines then surely the technology is already available? Or am I just being a plonker?

And the big US aircraft carriers.

Didn’t a US president try this with Atoms for Peace?! I think they made a cargo ship SS Savannah if memory serves but it wasn’t commercially viable so that was that. Money is king. Until we work out we cannot eat it 😒

Nuclear power in the hands of private individuals/companies?

What could possibly go wrong?

Why are they not a thing?

I can think of a few.

The main one being security of the nuclear payload.

Basically what your suggesting is a floating nuclear bomb in the public domain controlled by non armed personnel working with access to sensitive populated areas.

Yup was NS Savannah (which makes more sense as wasn’t a steam ship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

It is a good idea though especially now ships are so much larger

Nuclear power in the hands of private individuals/companies?

It already is.

Too expensive and too heavily regulated for that application right now though I’d guess.

US Aircraft carriers are nuclear powered eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H.W._Bush

The technology is there, but the military are not willing to share it with the private sector for a variety of reasons.

nuclear bomb

No, not really at all.

edit: yes, dirty bomb

but not a nuclear one

It’s not going to be economically viable if the owners are liable for the whole-life costs including decommissioning and disposal. You couldn’t just run them up on an Indian beach when you’re done with them…

Do we need another thread “Wind powered container ships?”

The cost of securing and maintaining it would be too much for the private industry, they aren’t driven by a need to not replenish or dock for months, they have to dock all the time anyway, so no real benefit in that term.

Security is a big one though, if it’s widestream then how do you stop someone having a go at turning it into a massive dirty bomb, or any incident causing contamination.

Why are they not a thing?

As others have said – the US has a number of nuclear powered aircraft carriers – so the technology is there.

For me there are a few reasons –
Obvious issues with security of radioactive material

Obvious issues with safety when being maintained by commercial crews in a very cost-competitive market.

Cost/complexity – currently container ships have a couple of huge/low tech diesel engines plodding away at low revs, powering the ship via a simple gearbox – they can run for months at a time.
They can be maintained at low cost with low skill level.

A nuclear reactor creates heat, which in turn is used to generate electricity via a steam turbine/alternator. This electricity is then used to power propulsion motors, via loads of switch gear, etc.
This level of complexity/cost is totally unwarranted just to move cargo around.

Russians have a LASH / container vessel running the northern sea routes. It’s very effective at smashing through ice, but a bit of an arse to keep running long term though. If its like the other vessels they’ve built it won’t tolerate warm water.

edit: forgot the Germans built a small bulk carrier, the NS Otto Hahn .

Do we need another thread “Wind powered container ships?”

This is a thing

Why are they not a thing?

Too expensive. Decades ago, the U.S. Navy used to operate other nuclear powered ships beyond carriers and subs but it was so expensive they scrapped them all.

Russians powered everything by nuclear….all sorts of ships and vessels including ice breakers. Technically possible. Probably not economically viable. The crap these large cargo vessels burn as fuel resembles nothing like the diesel we put in our cars…is low grade crap and as a result probably costs next to nothing.

The Russians have a number of nuclear powered ice breakers, but these are state owned/run – like our RFA ships.

What happens when the nuclear powered ship runs aground and turns into a shipwreck?

I’d rather a few thousand gallons of bunker diesel washed up to degrade in the surf than a nuclear reactor sitting rotting on the foreshore / shallow water.

It already is

Fair, but that’s much more easily monitored and heavily government controlled/regulated than a ship could be.

No, not really at all.

edit: yes, dirty bomb

Semeantics Asside it’s much more lucrative to terrorists and easier than trying to blow up bunker diesel and much more damaging/ wide spread contaminating

You couldn’t just run them up on an Indian beach when you’re done with them…

Ooh maybe Britain could offer this as a service in future, post-Brexit and with no meaningful trade deals we can’t afford to be too picky

Semeantics

I believe you mean seamantics

*claps*

be better for the environment,

True but since the shipping companies arent currently charged for the damage why should they care?

allow petrol to be cheaper for us drivers due to demand being lower

I dont think it would. The bunker fuel used in shipping is completely separate from diesel/petrol. I dont think there is any easy way to convert between them at least not cost effective.
As others have mentioned nuclear transport ships have been tried but the downsides outweigh the positives.

We probably ought to make better use of summer other new, and some old tech, though. I saw and article about fitting large wing like sails on consumer ships. I wonder if battery, solar and wind could be combined into an effective solution? For now though oil is very cheap.

Too expensive, security too low

allow petrol to be cheaper for us drivers due to demand being lower

They don’t use petrol that we put in our cars, they use the gloop left over once we’ve taken diesel and petrol and all the rest.

Wind, though, that’d be good. Sure, you might need smaller ships, but they’d be cheaper to run and the market could absorb a bit of cost for zero emissions.

Container ships sink with regularity, due to them being worked to death. Navy vessels undergo multiple refits and have a tax payer funded body of maintenance engineers looking after it at all times, and I dont see shipping companies shelling out for that level of care.

Really hope Boris doesn’t read this thread.

Or the WW2 protect to build aircraft carriers out of ice. Pretty interesting idea actually, have a look on wiki.

I mean, they wouldn’t get built but millions would be gifted to consultancy firms.

They can be maintained at low cost with low skill level.

I know a lot of marine engineers that would disagree with that.

The crap these large cargo vessels burn as fuel resembles nothing like the diesel we put in our cars…is low grade crap and as a result probably costs next to nothing.

True up to a point. It’s cheaper than marine gas oil (diesel) but only about 30% cheaper. Fuel is a massive expensive for shipping.

The heavier fuel oils, the thick gloopy tarry stuff is being phased out for shipping. What they are going to use it for I have no idea.

I know a lot of marine engineers that would disagree with that.

Arguably they would but it is a lower skill set than that of being a self suffient nuclear team on a floating establishment.

When an engine malfunctions it’s a pretty straightforward operation to shut it down and deal with the issue in a timely manner.

There’s a whole number of ways a nuclear system could fail and your next move be critical…..

Anyway. I’ll go loop in our resident marine engineer turned nuclear tech (yes we have one of those)

I know a lot of marine engineers that would disagree with that.

Arguably they would but it is a lower skill set than that of being a self suffient nuclear team on a floating establishment.

That was the point i was trying to make – not wanting to take anything away from regular marine Engineers (most of which are considerably better than naval Mech-Engineers) but looking after a nuclear reactor is a different skill set entirely.

I know a lot of marine engineers that would disagree with that.

How many nuclear reactor engineers do you know?

Another alternative is to keep the nuclear reactors on land and use them to make ammonia as fuel. It’s not got as high a power density as oil but there’s lots of experience handling it and marine diesel engines can be adapted to run on it.

https://www.man-es.com/discover/two-stroke-ammonia-engine

What about solar powered aeroplanes?

There’ve already been buses:

The compact reactors in nuclear submarines run on highly enriched uranium, which is much closer to weapons grade uranium than the low enriched uranium in power stations. So it needs a bit of security around it – which is implicit in a military vessel. All the countries that have nuclear powered ships already have nuclear weapons – but Australia is going to be the exception.

More history at World Nuclear Association

The Ever Given situation could have been more exciting if it had enriched uranium onboard

The Ever Given situation could have been more exciting

Not possible. That was the peak of excitement in terms of how much excitement Humanity can take, individually or even collectively.

The situation certainly had a long half-life

I’ll go loop in our resident marine engineer turned nuclear tech (yes we have one of those)

Aha! *cracks knuckles*

Having had the benefit of working in both industries I’ll try and work through this. It’s a bit all over the palce as I tried to structure it but lost the thread and it’s been an hour now so I’m done.

It would massively cut down on oil usage, be better for the environment, allow petrol to be cheaper for us drivers due to demand being lower and would eventually lower the price of shipping stuff all over the planet. If they can do it with submarines then surely the technology is already available?

Okay there’s a lot at play here so let’s work through this.

It would massively cut down on oil usage

Correct, for the majority of the running time at any rate.

be better for the environment

There is obviously embedded CO2 in the mining, transport and refinement but the last stage at least could be done using low carbon power so theoretically, yes.

allow petrol to be cheaper for us drivers due to demand being lower

Here’s the first problem – it wouldn’t. In fact if the marine industry stopped running on oil tomorrow you would probably barely notice. As already explained bunker fuel is not what you put in a car. In fact it’s not what you would use for anything, it’s the crap left over once you have removed even the bitumen and tar. You need to keep it heated at high temperatures or it sets like tar.

Closer to shore they use low sulphur IFO (Intermediate Fuel Oil) but it’s still heavier than anything you would run in a car.

and would eventually lower the price of shipping stuff all over the planet

For reasons you have probably grasped by now it wouldn’t, not by a long shot. SHipping prices are low because fuel prices are low. Nuclear fuel is not cheap.

If they can do it with submarines then surely the technology is already available

Of course, but it’s not as simple as just bunging it in a ship and waving it off, you need a lot of legistation, compliance and training which again, won’t come cheap.

Cost/complexity – currently container ships have a couple of huge/low tech diesel engines plodding away at low revs, powering the ship via a simple gearbox – they can run for months at a time.
They can be maintained at low cost with low skill level.

I’ll take it as read you just made that up based on Derek down at the arches working on taxis. None of that is particulalrly true.

Another breakdown:

currently container ships have a couple of huge

Nope. Just the one.

You’re not fitting two of those in ANYTHING.

low tech diesel engines plodding away at low revs

Low revs yes, low tech no. Common rail diesel was an invention of teh shipping industry, as was getting rid of the camshaft entirely and replacing it with ultra high pressure electronic injection and timing.

powering the ship via a simple gearbox

No they don’t, they’re coupled straight to the shaft with a fixed propellor and reverse start. Only medium speed and steam turbine use gearboxes and neither of those power large container ships. Maybe the small river going ones but nothing serious.

A nuclear reactor creates heat, which in turn is used to generate electricity via a steam turbine/alternator. This electricity is then used to power propulsion motors, via loads of switch gear, etc

Again, no. You’re right in that you could do that and in fact it would probably be more sensible to do it that way for reasons I’ll explain next.

The cost of securing and maintaining it would be too much for the private industry, they aren’t driven by a need to not replenish or dock for months, they have to dock all the time anyway, so no real benefit in that term

The two above present the biggest technical issue. A reactor is deigned to run at full power or as close to it as possible, they don’t like being run at low power. As an illustration the lowest our AGR’s go is 150MWe which is about a quarter of their rated output. Obviously the running of a PWR will be different but regardless they are very unstable at low power so would only be suited when under way. That means you need an alternative propulsion system for harbour manouvering, either another boiler and associated systems if you’re running it off the shaft or generators if you’re running it electrically.

As far as those options go an electrical solution is the best way forward, steam needs time to heat up and get a decent quality of output (wet steam is not good for turbine blades) whereas a generator can be on the bars in seconds. ELectrical output to azipods (pod driven propellors like on cruise ships and ferries) would also mean better manouverability but I’m not sure how they handle rough sea.

Arguably they would but it is a lower skill set than that of being a self suffient nuclear team on a floating establishment.

When an engine malfunctions it’s a pretty straightforward operation to shut it down and deal with the issue in a timely manner.

There’s a whole number of ways a nuclear system could fail and your next move be critical…..

This is also true, your engineers need to be trained to run a reactor as well as an engine room. Practically speaking you would have someone else to do that with oversight by the chief but that requires training, knowledge and experience.

There also isn’t the same culture of procerdural adherence (hell, I never even used one) at sea nor professionalism as an overall team. Too much lone wolf working and not enough teamwork. You can’t have folk getting carried or just not doing their job properly.

Other stuff:

Nuclear power in the hands of private individuals/companies?

What could possibly go wrong?

Well given most of the nuclear industry seems to be run that way these days you tell me.

The main one being security of the nuclear payload.

Basically what your suggesting is a floating nuclear bomb in the public domain controlled by non armed personnel working with access to sensitive populated areas.

As already discussed that’s not how it works, in fact a ship PWR is probably more secure than a land based reactor by virtue of the fact there is no fuel kept on board barring what’s in the reactor. That’s what terrorists are really after, to try and do anything with a reactor would probably be more bother than it’s worth and would get sunk (where it would be safe) before they could really do anything.

Semeantics Asside it’s much more lucrative to terrorists and easier than trying to blow up bunker diesel and much more damaging/ wide spread contaminating

You think? A reacor is going to be in a sealed compartment in the centre of a ship with a variety of fail safes. Bunker fuel is on the side and bottom of the ship where it’s much easier to get at.

It’s not going to be economically viable if the owners are liable for the whole-life costs including decommissioning and disposal. You couldn’t just run them up on an Indian beach when you’re done with them…

That’s another issue however when [if] the reactors and associated cooling circuits are removed at the end of life then the rest can be disposed of as normal. Or dumped in Fife. Whatever.

I’d rather a few thousand gallons of bunker diesel washed up to degrade in the surf than a nuclear reactor sitting rotting on the foreshore / shallow water.

It wouldn’t sit there that long but it would probably be a write off via an an overheated reactor.

Container ships sink with regularity, due to them being worked to death.

No they don’t.

Navy vessels undergo multiple refits and have a tax payer funded body of maintenance engineers looking after it at all times, and I dont see shipping companies shelling out for that level of care.

Sorry to burst your bubble but, they do. The level of maintenance obviously depending on the service age of the ship and company running it. Same as the bangernomics crowd.

That was the point i was trying to make – not wanting to take anything away from regular marine Engineers (most of which are considerably better than naval Mech-Engineers) but looking after a nuclear reactor is a different skill set entirely.

It’s actually not. Most of it is either mechanical, C&I (control and instrumentation) or electrical, same as on a ship. Obviously the weighting towards those different specialisations would be different but it’s not really a dark art. The rest is health physics which is, again, not particulalrly difficult IF you know what you’re dealing with (and the technical stuff can be done shoreside anyway).

Want to know something that will really blow your mind – marine engineers are better qualified than a nuclear maintech. I walked out with an HND before they introduced the foundation degree, the minimum qualification for an engineer or maintech is an HNC.

How many nuclear reactor engineers do you know?

Hunners!

Didn’t a US president try this with Atoms for Peace

They tried to make a nuclear powered plane as well.

Thanks @squirelking

It is possible to build a reactor that changes power fast – that’s what the submarine reactors do but it’s a different set of requirements. Would that be suitable for a container ship? I don’t know.

The nuclear aircraft program was mad. The NERVA nuclear rocket was madder still but much more practical – “A series of experiments were carried out between of 4 December 1968 and 11 September 1969, during which the reactor was started 24 times, and ran at full power for 1,680 seconds.” Amazing materials science to make it work.