TRANSPORTATION | MARITIME POWER
● ‘very fast steaming’ at negligible cost increase, which would reduce the necessary fleet size. The lifetime of nuclear units could lead to vessels with a design life closer to 50 years than the current 20-30 years, but makes retrofits less likely.
LR also notes that at the end of its operational life at sea “reactor owners will be equipped to redeploy these valuable materials to other assets”.
Above: The ability to operate for long periods without docking to take on fuel gives nuclear shipping operators more options
Transformational technology As regards the nuclear technology likely to be used in shipping, LR’s technology assessment says reactor types that use highly enriched uranium (HEU) are not suitable for commercial use. It notes the maturity of PWR designs like those currently in use in submarines, but it looks forward to the new generation of small modular or advanced nuclear reactors being developed for applications on land as well as at sea. It says SMRs “represent a leap forward in reactor design, emphasising safety, efficiency, and modularity for streamlined production. Regulatory frameworks are evolving to accommodate the unique characteristics of SMRs and their application in maritime settings.”
Comparing the cost
In considering the cost of a nuclear shipping fleet LR had to consider deployment models, as they affect capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX). Onshore operating models suggest the reactor is likely to be owned and operated by a third party with a proven track record with nuclear regulators. LR says this has two benefits for the marine operator: they do not need to develop in- house nuclear capability and nuclear regulatory approach; and the nuclear asset owner is responsible for the CAPEX. If the reactors are operated as sealed units the operating and maintenance cost will be well known and ship owners can buy power on a megawatt hour contract. The insurer also notes other nuclear operating
characteristics that could affect ship operation, for example: ● Fuel price volatility is largely eliminated. ● Nuclear could allow ships to operate
But changing the shipping industry to one that is nuclear- fuelled will be a major transformation, rather than an incremental or even step change improvement, LR says. “It will not be a direct replacement for oil-fired systems like some alternative fuels, but rather a primary catalyst to fundamentally reshape the shipping industry. Part of the transformation would be safer, more reliable, emissions free, longer-lived, and more productive ships. Another part of the transformation will be in the ship operator’s structure, including technical management, procurement, approach to quality, and an elevated safety culture.” The general tone of LR’s report suggests that the
transformation is possible, partly because the ability to operate for long periods without docking to take on fuel gives nuclear shipping operators more options. Whereas some decarbonisation options require a network of facilities within reasonable reach of each other, nuclear- powered shipping does not need global infrastructure; instead it could return to a single home port without the fear of running out of fuel. And where one leads, another may follow. ■
46 | October 2024 |
www.neimagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
