Core Power, major proponents of nuclear-powered commercial ships (NPS), argue that the two key challenges for shipping are atmospheric pollution and the slow speed of vessels.
In last week’s press briefing Mikal Boe Chairman and CEO at Core Power, that the swing towards nuclear powered vessels was strong and gathering increasing momentum because nuclear power offered abundant and clean energy at a competitive price.
“Nuclear is set to become mainstream,” declared Boe.
It is debateable whether speed and pollution are the only two challenges facing the nascent maritime nuclear industry. Commercial challenges for maritime nuclear power will be prominent, including fuel costs, environmental impact, decommissioning and storage will need to be developed.
Technology, including ship designs, will need to be developed that can demonstrate safety, security and environmental advantages from Earth to berth, which will require regulatory developments to meet particular challenges of NPS.
A start was made this year to develop the regulatory regime to meet the requirements of NPS.
The member states affiliated to the IMO and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are working together to develop a regulatory framework for NPS.
Mark Tipping, Lloyd’s Register’s Global Power to X director, explained that the complex nuclear regulatory framework further challenges the implementation of maritime standards, which led the IAEA to develop its Atomic Technologies Licensed for Applications at Sea (ATLAS) project which was launched earlier this year.
"The maritime industry's current regulatory framework for nuclear applications is fragmented and not fit for purpose," said Tipping.
Current regulations do not cover developments of modern nuclear technology according to Tipping, adding, “ATLAS aims to bridge this gap by creating a new structure that addresses modern needs while ensuring the highest standards of safety and security."
In its recent White Paper, entitled Maritime Nuclear Power, DNV out lines some of the challenges that the regulators face. These include protection against collision, groundings and recovery after sinking. And must also include, “detailed considerations on the environment when a vessel sinks and the recovery option is gone”.
Moreover, regulators must consider alternative power options should an emergency situation emerge that requires the shutdown of the reactor.
In addition, DNV points out that security and sabotage must be a consideration for any NPS.
“In modern terms, this means that all associated risks, i.e. terrorism, piracy, etc., must be included in the assessment,” argued DNV.
According to DNV’s regulatory roadmap a new role is required to meet these elevated safety concerns, that of a licensee.
“The licensee holds overall long-term responsibility for the nuclear installation and its fuel, and is subject to legally-binding requirements regarding organizational quality, safety and security competence, and financial solidity,” claimed DNV.
In line with the IMO’s stated view that alternative fuels, should not have detrimental environmental impacts in their production, as with biofuels from palm trees, ATLAS will also need to consider the environmental impact of the production of uranium fuels, including open cast mining or the deep mining with a milling and fuel production and purification processes that can major impacts on workers and local communities.
Current regulations were developed when the dominant NPS technology was pressurised water reactors, modern small reactors such as molten chloride fast reactors (MCFR), as developed by Core Power’s partner TerraPower.
MCFR’s operate at low pressure with the molten chloride salt solution, which has a very high boiling point, acting as a fuel and coolant, while the 700 degrees centigrade heat in the reactor will create the steam necessary to drive a turbine and generate the electricity necessary to power all the systems aboard the vessel.
This technology will allow an 11,000 teu container ship to operate at speeds of up to 30kts for 25 years without refuelling and without using the atmosphere as an “open sewer” said Boe.
Moreover, Boe estimated that the lifetime capital and operational costs for an 11,000 teu nuclear powered vessel, that is the cost of building plus fuel costs only, would be $500 million.
A senior maritime engineer, who preferred not to be named, said that a similarly sized conventionally powered ship costs would amount to around $400 million, including fuel and maintenance costs.
Charlotte Vere, Core Power’s group head of market development a former Conservative transport minister who now sits in the Lords, focused on a Hitachi presentation on ammonia power, commenting: “I just looked at his numbers and I thought mate, they are 100% reliant on massive carbon levies, what happens if they don’t happen, why would you invest?” She asked.
Looking at the rough figures given by Core and the engineer nuclear may also have to rely on environmental charging to make the commercial case for maritime nuclear power. While the mining and milling processes for producing various isotopes of uranium, which can include in situ leaching (ISL), with sulphuric acid or hydrogen peroxide according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA).
“ISL can be applied where the orebody's aquifer is confined vertically and ideally horizontally. Certainly, it is not licensed where potable water supplies may be threatened. Where appropriate it is certainly the mining method with least environmental impact,” WNA.
Another leaching method is to pile ore rocks up to 30m high on an impermeable pad which is then “irrigated” with acid for some weeks.
“After the material ceases to yield significant further uranium, it is removed and replaced with fresh ore,” said the WNA, “The depleted material has the potential to cause pollution so must be emplaced securely so as not to affect surface water or groundwater.”
In addition, DNV highlights the fuel cycle in any NPS, with production and use considered the ‘front end’, while decommissioning and storage come at the ‘back end’ of the vessel’s operational span.
Costs for decommissioning and storage of nuclear waste will need to be calculated into the lifetime operational budgets, as will crew training, elevated insurance premiums and the cost of refuelling and delivering the infrastructure to handle maintenance for NPS.
Moreover, with the IMO pushing to achieve net zero by 2050, Boe argues that full production of NPS could start by 2040, which would be far too late to positively affect atmospheric pollution from shipping.
