Cargo ships, especially container ships, form the backbone of the modern economy, with approximately 90% of all non-bulk cargo carried by cargo ships. This is in addition to a large number of tankers and gas carriers. Unfortunately, due to the use of diesel engines, they emit about 3.5% of the world’s CO2 emissions in addition to 18-30% NOx and 9% SOx.
While the switch to Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and the use of speed limits have reduced some of these pollutants, the shipping industry believes it is facing the need to decarbonize to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement. Essentially, this means finding a way to switch from diesel engines to alternatives that have comparable or lower fuel costs, produce little or no pollution, and do not have a negative impact on logistics.
As a highly competitive and competitive industry, this seems to put shipping companies in a stalemate. However, existing proven technology already exists and can be upgraded on existing cargo ships.
Because most cargo is not perishable, the main driver of investment in the shipping industry is to carry more cargo on a single ship. Among the sailing freighters (iron-hulled sailboats) that survived until the last decades of the early 20th century, they managed to compete with the steamships of the time, mainly due to lower operating costs. The largest so-called Windjammer (Moshulu) was built in Scotland in 1903 and still exists.
As steam engines were quickly replaced by diesel engines in the 1960s, in the shipping and railroad industries, diesel engines have become the workhorse of the modern world, powering everything from trucks to trains to the largest container ships. Around the same time, a giant leap in our understanding of the atomic world led to many experiments using nuclear fission reactors as direct replacements for the steam boilers of the past.
One of the most famous early nuclear-powered cargo ships was the NS Savannah, launched in 1959. As a mixed passenger and cargo demonstration ship, it should not be profitable. The shipping industry will collectively choose this method of propulsion due to the much simpler rules governing diesel engines and the low price of diesel, prioritizing other factors.
At that time, the Russian container ship Sevmorput (launched in 1986) was the only nuclear-powered cargo ship in operation in the world. It is currently used alongside the Russian fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers to resupply Russian Antarctic research stations.
The new Project 22220 icebreaker is equipped with a RITM-200 SMR (small modular reactor) with a 7-year refueling cycle similar to the Sevmorput’s multi-year fuel cycle. In this environment, it can be beneficial to eliminate refueling costs, increase payload capacity, and simplify logistics.
As mentioned earlier, shipping companies are not interested in risk if it can be avoided. With the near-zero mid-century deadline approaching, people are willing to invest in change, but only for the time being. This is where sweeping claims — such as the 2018 IEEE Spectrum paper on the transition to hydrogen and fuel cells — face very difficult demand.
The document states that a modified cargo ship full of fuel cells, batteries and hydrogen storage tanks could theoretically have enough power to get to the next port. This points to a number of negative factors, hydrogen leaks that can cause cargo ships to run aground, the need to replenish high-compressed hydrogen at every port, and (thick-walled) compressed hydrogen taking up a lot of tank space. It is also not a turbo-electric transmission compatible system that would require extensive retrofitting of existing freighters.
The final nail in the coffin is the lack of infrastructure for bunkering at ports around the world, the fact that almost all hydrogen is currently produced from fossil methane (“natural gas”) through steam reforming and similar sources. In essence, this transition will be one of many unknown, high-risk, costly global investments and uncertain payoffs if it goes according to plan.
While the shipping industry has largely preferred to use cheap marine fuel for its cargo ships, the use of nuclear propulsion has been an integral part of the world’s most powerful military since the 1950s. While a diesel submarine is useful, it cannot stay submerged for days and needs to be refueled every week, not every few decades. Similarly, CATOBAR-type carriers require both power and refueling, which can make conflict quite awkward when a precious carrier runs out of fuel.
If adopted to a cargo ship context, and assuming marine reactors like those used in Russia’s RITM SMRs with 20% low-enriched uranium-235 (compared to >90% for some US naval reactors), the logistics of refueling would be limited to a single refueling stop roughly once every seven years, during which the fuel would be swapped. If adopted to a cargo ship context, and assuming marine reactors like those used in Russia’s RITM SMRs with 20% low-enriched uranium-235 (compared to >90% for some US naval reactors), the logistics of refueling would be limited to a single refueling stop roughly once every seven years, during which the fuel would be swapped. Если принять условия грузового корабля и принять морские реакторы, подобные тем, которые используются в российских ММР РИТМ с 20% низкообогащенного урана-235 (по сравнению с >90% для некоторых военно-морских реакторов США), логистика перегрузки будет ограничена до разовая остановка для дозаправки примерно раз в семь лет, во время которой топливо будет заменено. If cargo ship conditions are accepted and marine reactors like those used in Russian RITM SMRs with 20% low enriched uranium-235 (compared to >90% for some US naval reactors) are accepted, refueling logistics will be limited to a one-time shutdown for refueling approximately once every seven years, during which the fuel will be replaced.如果采用货船环境，并假设像俄罗斯RITM SMR 中使用的船用反应堆，含有20% 的低浓缩铀235（相比之下，一些美国海军反应堆> 90%），燃料补给的物流将仅限于一次加油大约每七年停止一次，在此期间将更换燃料。如果采用货船环境，并假设像俄罗斯RITM SMR 中使用的船用反应堆，含有20% 的低浓缩铀235（相比之下，一些美国海军反应堆> 90%），燃料补给的物流将仅限于一次加油大约每七年停止一次，在此期间将更换燃料。 Если принять среду грузового корабля и предположить, что морской реактор, подобный тому, который используется в российском ММР РИТМ, содержащем 20 % НОУ-235 (по сравнению с > 90 % для некоторых реакторов ВМС США), логистика дозаправки будет ограничивается одной заправкой примерно каждые семь лет, в течение которых топливо будет заменено. Assuming a cargo ship environment and assuming a marine reactor like that used in the Russian SMR RITM containing 20% LEU-235 (compared to >90% for some US Navy reactors), refueling logistics would be limited to one refueling roughly every seven years during which the fuel will be replaced. If molten salt or pebble bed reactors are used, refueling can be done more flexibly, reducing the time spent on the process.
Another advantage of using a nuclear propulsion system is that the fuel has a very high power density, so there is no need for a fuel tank. Instead, reactors and steam turbines could replace building-sized diesel engines on container ships such as the 13.5-meter-tall, 26.5-meter-long Wärtsilä RT-flex96C. Therefore, a nuclear upgrade would place the engine and fuel in the same space as the original engine block, thus increasing the carrying capacity.
Because countries have used marine reactors in a variety of situations since the 1950s, the risks and benefits are well known, making them as famous as the diesel engines they will replace.
Over the past few years, the use of nuclear energy has taken on a new dimension in the shipping industry. A major hurdle, industry insiders point out, is the lack of International Maritime Organization (IMO) legislation in this area, with the use of nuclear propulsion on warships currently under consideration. However, that could change quickly, said Andreas Sohmen-Pao, chairman of shipping company BW Group. According to him, the advantages of a nuclear power plant are obvious, especially low operating costs.
Without having to deal with recurring refueling costs, nuclear-powered cargo ships will be effectively free of charge after an upfront investment. This will allow cargo ships to move faster, in some cases up to 50 percent faster, without taking into account pollutant emissions or fuel costs. Or, to put it more simply, assuming a transit time for a container ship from China to the US is three weeks, a 50% speed increase would cut that time by a whole week.
Economics aside, the fact remains that the shipping industry must rapidly reduce emissions. Because the industry is risk-averse, any change should be gradual and well-planned, and temporary solutions are more likely to be welcomed than revolutionary failures. Here, reliable and proven technologies, such as nuclear propulsion, can provide what is needed. These facts were recognized by the British marine classification society Lloyd’s Register when they rewrote the rules after receiving feedback from their members. Lloyd’s said it expects to “see nuclear-powered ships along certain trade routes sooner than many currently expect.”
Depending on how things go, we may see the shipping industry not only go carbon-free in record time, but make shipping routes faster and more reliable than ever before. Since cargo ships are free to move based on weather and local traffic, ordering a few gadgets from the other side of the world can take much less time, all without considering the environmental impact of shipping today.
There is another type of “shipping” – a cruise ship, which is also very unclean, especially when the port is idle. If these ships would stop spewing black diesel exhaust as they sail past idyllic islands, the cruise might seem less decadent.
One thing you didn’t mention is the number of countries that say there are no nuclear ships in my waters/ports. At least I haven’t seen specific instructions.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that there are only a few places that say “no, not in my city.” See how companies cut budgets left and right by registering their ships in dubious locations for cheaper operations.
It is unfair to say that many places are afraid to have an experience like the one Beirut had earlier this year. (Even if the ship’s reactor was not built to build a bomb, politics and public opinion are often stronger than engineering when it comes to what’s practical/unacceptable.)
Not to mention all the countries that blame other countries and say that nuclear ships cannot enter the ports of other countries. (If you get tangled up in international nuclear diplomacy… international shipping probably won’t get any easier…)
Nuclear-powered navies/warships are easier because one country cannot directly drive a warship to another country’s port without special permission. (This is usually considered highly suspicious and sometimes regarded as an act of war. That is, the international diplomacy of the situation is more obvious, or permission has not been received, and there is a high probability that a war is going on, or there is permission to take a nuclear boat through the waters of a Foreign country. But if this is not a war and a person drives a war machine into foreign territory without permission, then it is better to have a silver tongue, or a good explanation / justification, and go back out unless permission is given.)
> It wouldn’t be unfair to say that a lot of places would be afraid of having a similar experience to what Beirut went through earlier this year. > It wouldn’t be unfair to say that a lot of places would be afraid of having a similar experience to what Beirut went through earlier this year. > Было бы несправедливо сказать, что многие места боялись бы получить подобный опыт, который Бейрут пережил в начале этого года. > It would be unfair to say that many places would be afraid to have the same experience that Beirut had earlier this year. > 可以说很多地方都害怕有与贝鲁特今年早些时候经历的类似的经历，这并不公平。 > 可以说很多地方都害怕有与贝鲁特今年早些时候经历的类似的经历，这并不公平。 > Несправедливо говорить, что многие места боятся получить опыт, подобный тому, что пережил Бейрут в начале этого года. > It’s not fair to say that many places are afraid to have an experience like the one Beirut had earlier this year. (Even if the ship’s reactor was not built to build a bomb, politics and public opinion are often stronger than engineering when it comes to what’s practical/unacceptable.)
It doesn’t have to be a bomb. Even melting, conventional explosions and dispersal or flooding of nuclear material can cause significant damage. This remains a serious risk.
It will also lead to the proliferation of nuclear materials in large quantities, and all uses of nuclear materials are now well protected. And cargo ships are not very safe and visit troubled countries. No, fission bombs cannot be made from this material. But you can use it to make dirty bombs.
Sea water is a good shield against radiation. If the reactor starts to melt, there is a system that can submerge the entire core into the depths of the ocean. It can be hung there and then restored using specially equipped containers. Looks dirty, but it’s not.
I’m pretty sure we have a melt-proof reactor somewhere on the drawing board. So this might be a moot point.
> If the reactor starts to melt, there is a system to submerge the entire core into the ocean depths.
You need to manage it from a computer with a voice interface. “Computer, pop warp core. Authorize Janeway Omega Seven Nine”
Both the US and Russia have nuclear reactors that have sunk to the bottom of the ocean without any ill effects, and they are harmless and have been around for decades.
> pretty sure we have meltdown-proof reactors on the drawing board somewhere. > pretty sure we have meltdown-proof reactors on the drawing board somewhere. > Почти уверен, что у нас где-то на чертежной доске есть защищенные от расплавления реакторы. > Pretty sure we have melt-proof reactors somewhere on the drawing board. > 很确定我们在某处的绘图板上有防熔毁反应堆。 > 很确定我们在某处的绘图板上有防熔毁反应堆。 > Почти уверен, что у нас где-то на чертежной доске есть защищенный от расплавления реактор. > Pretty sure we have a melt-proof reactor somewhere on the drawing board. So this might be a moot point.
* Automatically fill with bur if there is a problem * Automatically eject from the boat if there is a problem * Store in a “sarcophagus” made of lead or any other material, where there is only water and control cable in/out (and any pipe with automatic valves, etc.) ).
This (and others like it) makes it so that if something goes wrong with the reactor, it just falls to the bottom of the ocean, the reaction stops, it does not pollute the environment in any way, it just sits inert until it is repaired (or, if it’s deep enough, it can stay there…). If it is surrounded by glass or concrete, it can sit there for thousands of years without endangering the environment…
You can also easily implement a “return” function in case you need to eject: * Automatically releases the line along with the buoy, so it’s easy to find and you don’t have to look for it on the seabed * Preliminary additional buoyancy unit, upon request Aeration (or in a month), probably using some kind of chemical system/reaction.
So if it is thrown out, all you have to do is: 1. Grab a line attached to the buoy and haul it to the surface with a lifeboat, or 2. Wait (or request) for the float to inflate when it is afloat. surface restore it
All of this is very cheap compared to the benefits in terms of fuel economy and increased speed, which I hope can make it all very safe.
The properly designed low-power reactor that is needed here can be easily made and will not melt even if you try to destroy it. It can still be used as part of a dirty bomb, etc., but the accidental release of nuclear material from a properly built reactor would easily make this “impossible”.
Any flooding doesn’t really matter – the ocean depth around the crash site will be slightly warmer than it should be for decades/centuries – this happens all over the seabed for other reasons. The very small amount of radioactive material in the deep ocean doesn’t really affect the water’s ability to absorb it.
If you manage to spray it into an aerosol, it won’t do much harm to the health of the affected area, nor will it provide any benefit to those unfortunate enough to inhale it. But it’s never that bad, because the reactors would be very small – the world is already full of radioactivity, and the spread of such a small amount of radioactivity over any significant area would be relatively fast not much worse than the normal background, but in smaller areas and in at the same time it’s bad for quick lethality compared to simpler methods – if you really want to intimidate you with a simple explosive distributed gas attack – you can do it off the shelf Land something so you don’t have to delay the boat and dig out its core to make your dirty bomb – just be careful enough to sell large amounts of common reagents so you don’t get caught.
In my opinion, the easiest marine fuel is probably metal powders – they have space and fuel to retrofit, and metal powders can easily be converted to metal powders in large quantities, ready to be re-oxidized from excess electricity from the grid. There are no objections to nuclear ships, and I see their positive aspects, but mainly for political and social reasons, they have to overcome significant obstacles, and the more nuclear materials you provide in bulk, the more likely they will be misused. the stealth killer is really scary.
“Any flooding doesn’t really matter – the ocean depth around the crash site will be slightly warmer than it should be for several decades/centuries.”
I think they sink most often in shallow water near the coast or in places like fishing grounds (after all, boats don’t sink for no reason, most of the time it’s because they hit something like a rock).
I’m not sure if the inhabitants of a port city will be happy to know that a shipwreck has been spewing nucleotides off the coast for decades / centuries.
I can’t imagine what problems a group of nuclear ships in the hands of a private commercial company that has decided to register their ships in Côte d’Ivoire to save money will have.
Unless it sank in a river delta or in a port itself so shallow it didn’t really matter, the water would absorb all the radiation so people would be safe. Fishing may suffer, but since local fish must be uncomfortable in hotter water, they also do not stay in hot areas, fishing boats do not fish where there is none, and their nets get stuck in sunken ships.
However, I fully agree with notspam that if it is not well controlled and regulated internationally, less cautious companies will pose a danger – although the reason why coal plants are not being replaced by nuclear is because of the sheer complexity and complexity. needed to produce GW. A potential weapon… designing a reactor to generate power that stays hot enough to power the turbines needed to power the ship takes orders of magnitude less time and would not be weapons-grade power generation (I mean maybe, but no one does not want to work with it has nothing to do with the ship, or in this case close to its waters)
Just use a molten salt reactor like the LFTR, any damage to it will melt the cork discharge reactor and fall into the containment below where it will solidify. Clean it, cut it into small pieces and pump it back into some other LFTR reactor. As for cargo ships visiting dubious countries, oh my god, we’re not talking about lost cargo ships, we’re talking about ships like the Emma Maersk or the CSCL Globe, which are twice the size of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz. They don’t go to problem areas, they have busy schedules and schedules on fixed routes, and even the number of ports that can serve these places is very limited.
Post time: Sep-16-2022