This episode is brought to you by Wren
Alternative fuels like methanol, ammonia and hydrogen are being explored to help reduce
carbon emissions from the shipping industry, but is it enough? At the United Nations Climate
Change Conference, often called, COP26 this past year, nuclear power was brought up as
a promising solution when it comes to fuel cost and performance. With countries like
the U.S., China, and South Korea developing molten salt reactors, as well as small modular
reactors for ships, submarines, and offshore power plants, could nuclear energy be the
answer? Let’s explore nuclear power for shipping and when, or if, it can be the future
of shipping.
I'm Matt Ferrell. Welcome to Undecided
Renewable solutions for energy storage, electric vehicles, and sustainable homes are centerpieces
to drive our world towards net-zero. However, achieving a carbon-free future will also require
the decarbonization of industries that may not have as much of a significant share in
carbon emissions, like shipping.
Today, shipping accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, and although this figure looks
kind of low, it corresponds to 940 million tons every year. So, in order to pull that
down, several alternatives have been proposed, like biofuels, hydrogen, ammonia, and even
wind propulsion that I explored in a previous video
Last year at COP26, world leaders met in Glasgow, UK, to discuss measures to solve the climate
crisis. U.S. Climate Envoy, John Kerry, mentioned that nuclear propulsion could be a great alternative
to decarbonize shipping and achieve net-zero by 2050.
Even though nuclear power has a stigma around it, due to past disasters and challenges with
managing nuclear waste disposal, innovations like small modular reactors (SMR) and molten
salt reactors have been changing the way we see nuclear power when it comes to cost, safety,
and sustainability. Nuclear could be the power source to produce green hydrogen and ammonia
or even be the main fuel for propulsion in shipping, and some companies around the globe
are planning to do just that. But before we dive into the recent news around these technologies,
it’s good to put them into context.
Like several other technologies, nuclear power for marine propulsion really spawned from
war. Increasing conflicts between the US and the Soviet Union, inspired the US to build
stronger military assets. In July of 1951, Congress approved the development of a nuclear
propulsion plan, in which Captain Hyman G. Rickover headed the Naval Reactors Branch
of the Atomic Energy Commission to develop a nuclear submarine. Four years later, a nuclear
propulsion reactor was used in the USS Nautilus submarine, which was able to sail ten times
longer than any other previous submarine and two times faster than most submarines during
World War II.
By 1962 the US Navy had 30 of these submarines under construction and 26 already operational.
Nuclear propulsion was also developed in England, France, Russia, and China. Germany also employed
nuclear power for shipping, developing the *Otto Han*, a nuclear-powered cargo vessel
that was launched in 1964. It was deactivated in 1979 in favor of diesel engines.
One of the main reasons for that shift to diesel was because of issues around liability
and nuclear waste storage. Fossil fuels proved to be cheaper and less hassle for commercial
operations. However, with the increasing need for cleaner technologies, nuclear propulsion
is back on the radar for companies and governments.
Just like any conventional nuclear power plant, powering ships and submarines with nuclear
energy depends on nuclear fission. Just as a quick refresher, nuclear fission is a process
where a material is bombarded with neutrons, which split atoms and release energy. When
the atoms split, additional neutrons are generated, hitting other atoms, feeding a chain reaction.
The energy is then used to heat water, turning it to steam, and the steam is used to turn
turbines to generate electricity.
The most common type of nuclear reactor for marine applications is a pressurized water
reactor. In these systems, the heat produced from the chain reaction is used by the primary
water circuit, which feeds a steam generator at temperatures around 250 ~ 300ºC (482 ~ 572
°F). The steam is used to drive a turbine's generator, which powers the propeller to make
the ship move forward. After that, the steam is cooled, condensed, and transferred back
to the steam generator via pumps. Any energy surplus not used in propulsion is stored in
batteries to provide power for all the electric needs on board, as well as for emergencies.
There are several benefits to using nuclear power for marine propulsion.
Before I get to the benefits of that, I'd like to talk about another way each one of
us, as individuals, can help reduce our own CO2 impact on the environment. We all have
varying carbon footprints just from living our lives, and today's sponsor, Wren, can
help you calculate yours by answering a few simple questions, and then showing you ways
to reduce and offset it.
You can also sign up for a monthly subscription to fund your choice of different climate projects.
Wren supports a wide range of things like biochar in California that permanently stores
carbon and prevents future wildfires, or other projects like planting trees in east Africa.
You'll receive monthly updates on the projects you support, see where your money is going,
right down to photos and details on every tree planted. For me, I'm currently backing
The California Fund because I have family and friends that live out there and I want
to try and help the wildfire situation.
What I really like about Wren is that it's completely tailored to you, the way you live,
and what your goals are. We all have a carbon footprint, and Wren can help you find ways
to reduce that impact by changing banks, where you buy your groceries from, and by backing
impactful projects.
To learn more about how you can help end the climate crisis, check out the link in the
description. The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their
name! A special thanks to Wren and to all of you for supporting the channel. Now back
to those nuclear power benefits for shipping...
First, the power density of the nuclear reactors is much higher than that of diesel engines,
so you can travel for a longer period of time, even at higher speeds. Power density is the
amount of power generated divided by the weight of the power system; higher power density
means a more compact power plant can drive a ship farther. For example, the US Navy nuclear-powered
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier can run for 20 years without refueling, and military submarines
can run for months submerged without refueling. In comparison, submarines that are powered
with diesel use batteries and only run underwater for a few days at low speeds, or as little
as just for a few hours at top speed.
In addition, the higher power-to-weight ratio allows nuclear ships to sail longer ranges
while carrying a heavier load. For example, compared to its diesel sibling, a nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier is able to take twice the volume of aircraft fuel, 30 percent more weapons,
and 300,000 cubic feet of additional space due to the high power density within a compact
design --- no space is taken up by fuel storage, air intakes and exhaust trunks.
Although nuclear power has a stigma around it from disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima,
nuclear power is still considered a very safe power source. Over the greater part of a century,
the US Navy has run more than 6,200 reactor years and sailed more than 240 million miles
without radioactive leakage or accidents.
Similar to nuclear power plants, reactors used for marine propulsion also produce clean,
renewable energy, but they have several differences from land-based nuclear reactors. First, they’re
much smaller because in shipping, the limitations in volume and weight are higher --- while
a nuclear reactor of a conventional power plant can produce thousands of megawatts,
reactors for marine propulsion have power ratings around a few hundred megawatts. Due
to the smaller volume, nuclear reactors for shipping need to produce more power per cubic
foot, increasing stress in mechanical components.
Currently, the fuel in land-based reactors is less concentrated than in marine nuclear
reactors. A highly enriched fuel results in a smaller core, silent operation, and long-life
service, but it's also more expensive and raises issues around nuclear proliferation.
In the event of an accident, large areas of water could be contaminated with nuclear fuels,
damaging both human and marine life.
Like in land-based power plants, the main risk of nuclear-powered ships lies in the
condensation process. Similar to what happened in the Fukushima disaster, if the electrical
power grid goes out, the high-temperature steam doesn’t go back to the liquid state,
overheating and increasing the system's pressure, leading to an explosion. These power plants
need to have several backup systems in order to keep the condensation system operational.
. Reactors for marine propulsion need to be extremely trustworthy and require little maintenance
that must be performed at port. Add to this the challenges of corrosion due to the salty
sea water, the need for limited vibration, and other considerations.
When it comes to economics, the upfront costs for building and fueling a nuclear powered
ship are higher when compared to building a diesel-powered ship. However, after making
the initial investment in nuclear, you don’t have to worry about fuel costs … for years.
With the long times between refueling, nuclear ships are less prone to market volatility
than diesel ships. If diesel costs rise in the future, the nuclear fuel savings could
compensate for the higher upfront costs --- in addition to releasing far less CO2 into the
atmosphere.
A study made by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the cost-effectiveness of nuclear
propulsion for the US navy. It considered an increased rate for oil prices per year
of 1% above the rate of general inflation through 2040. The result was a total life-cycle
cost for a nuclear fleet 19% higher than a diesel fleet if oil prices continued to rise.
Another analysis suggested that a fleet of nuclear-powered destroyers would become cost-effective
if oil prices rate of growth went over 3.4%. Developing a nuclear fleet would save 5 million
barrels of oil annually, and as a consequence, avoid tons of carbon being released into the
atmosphere.
So how does this approach look for commercial use?
In commercial shipping, nuclear’s high power density could allow for bulk carriers, which
carry minerals, grains, and coal, as well as container ships carrying more cargo at
higher speeds and traveling longer distances. Although nuclear powered ships have mostly
been used for military application, they have been used for commercial cargo ships.
Russia, for example, dispatched the 61,000 dwt nuclear-powered cargo ship Sevmorput to
Vladivostokto to help carry metal structures and equipment to Bangladesh. The Sevmorput
started operating in 1988, but was retrofitted in 2015.
A single KLT-40 nuclear reactor with a thermal output of 135 MWth is used to propel the ship,
and it can transport 20 and 40-foot containers with a total capacity of 1,328 TEUs when operated
as a boxship.
The ship’s captain said:
“...The transport potential of our vessel is unique. We are . . . capable of taking
on board oversized and heavy cargo, which allows us to reduce the number of vessels
involved in sea transportation…”
The UK-based CORE POWER has been developing engine room layouts and propulsion systems
utilizing a marine molten salt reactor (m-MSR). This technology is basically a replication
of the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR) that's been developed by a collaboration between
TerraPower, CORE POWER and a few other companies.
The m-MSR is more efficient and compact than conventional rector designs. In this reactor
type, more than 95% of the energy in the fuel is harnessed, while in traditional reactors
it’s around 1%. Over the course of 25 years a Capesize bulk carrier would consume less
than 200 kg of fuel, running 2.7 million nautical miles without refueling, without polluting,
and producing very little waste.
From the economic viability perspective, the m-MSR has some benefits versus diesel engines.
In an interview for North, Mikal Bøe, CEO of Core Power, said:
“Diesel engines are cheap but maintenance and fuel over the lifetime of the ship is
expensive. On VLSFO, the total propulsion costs, including CAPEX and OPEX, of a very
large container ship can be more than $1.4 billion over a 30-year period sailing at full
service-speed. The marine MSRs are fuelled for life so the initial cost is higher, but
OPEX over the lifetime of the ship is very low. A 20,000 TEU container ship would be
as much as 50% cheaper to run on full service-speed with a marine MSR.”
“When carbon taxes for fossil fuels are introduced, either through carbon trading
systems or a global levy, the economic case for MSR technology becomes even greater.”
Regarding safety, MSR uses liquid fuel, which rules out the possibility of a meltdown. Also,
water isn't used in the process, so MSR wouldn't form hydrogen, which reduces the risk of an
explosion. They also work at lower pressures than other nuclear reactors, further reducing
the risk of an explosion. While the waste from traditional nuclear reactors needs to
be stored safely for up to 10,000 years, the spent nuclear waste for an MSR would need
to be stored for "only" 300 years.
South Korea is also investing in small modular reactors, which could be used for submarines.
The project named "Advanced Reactor for Multiple Applications" has been developed by Korea
Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), and the 70MW output SMRs could be powering
South Korea’s next-generation 4,000-ton submarines. The project is planned to be finished
by 2027.
KAERI also partnered with Samsung Heavy Industries, aiming to build vessels powered by molten
salt reactors. The agreement includes the design of a small modular reactor-based offshore
nuclear product, its technology, performance verification, as well as the economic assessment
and business model development. Unfortunately, there's no information about when this project
will be completed.
While it’s not directly related to nuclear powered shipping, we did come across another
use of SMRs for marine use that’s worth bringing up. There’s also plans floating
around for off-shore nuclear power plants … literally floating nuclear reactors. Prodigy
Clean Energy from Canada has teamed up with NuScale, a leader in SMR technology, and Kinectrics
in order to develop a marine power station. In the proposed project, twelve 77 MW-SMRs
produced by NuScale would be installed in the power station, moored off-shore, and then
connected to the existing shore-side transmission system. The SMRs would be used to produce
electricity, generate heat and clean fuels, such as hydrogen and ammonia, as well as desalinate
or treat water. Regarding timelines, we still don't have one for this project, but NuScale's
first commercial SMR power plant is planned to start operating in 2029 in the U.S.
To sum up, there are several challenges that must be overcome before cost-effective and
safe nuclear reactors will be used to power commercial ships. The hurdles left to overcome
encompass safety and technological issues, as well as regulatory and political issues.
Although there are a few projects ongoing to decarbonize the shipping industry with
nuclear power, and there are several benefits in doing it, it’s still not clear about
when, or even if, we'll be seeing commercial ships being powered by MSRs or SMRs. Political
will and costs versus the benefits will drive the future of nuclear powered commercial ships.
So what do you think? Do you think nuclear for the shipping industry is a good idea?
Jump into the comments and let me know. And thanks as always to my patrons. All of your
direct support really helps with producing these videos and helps to reduce my dependence
on the almighty YouTube algorithm. Speaking of which, if you liked this video be sure
to check out one of the ones I have linked right here. And subscribe and hit the notification
bell if you think I’ve earned it. Thanks so much for watching and I’ll see you in
the next one.