Mark Tipping, LR's Global Power-to-X Director, believes that nuclear power is certain to be one of shipping’s future fuel options in the decades ahead. And, to emphasise his point, this interview took place just a few days before LR announced a major project, together with CORE POWER and A.P. Møller–Maersk, to assess the viability of a nuclear-powered feeder container ship that could be deployed in European waters.
The joint study will investigate how an updated regulatory framework and safety rules should be developed to address the introduction of nuclear-powered merchant vessels. And the involvement of one of the world’s largest container lines shows just how seriously some of shipping’s most proactive players are taking the pressing decarbonisation pathway.
There are many issues to address. What about the long-running negative sentiment, for example, that has beset nuclear power in the wake of disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima? Many experts believe that the nuclear sector has failed dismally to stand its corner.
These catastrophic events involved early nuclear infrastructure that was developed decades ago and bears no resemblance to the advanced systems that are now being designed or the small-scale installations that would be suitable for marine applications in the future. These work on completely different technologies and will be relevant for a wide range of projects on land and sea.
Generation four
“First, let’s clear up some misconceptions,” Tipping says. “We are talking about generation-four micro-reactors that use passive safety systems and, in the event of a malfunction, shut down automatically in safe mode, requiring no human intervention. They are likely to be deployed on land before 2030, before being tested in the marine environment.”
He explains how the backdrop has recently changed. When nuclear energy for ships was considered in the past, fossil fuels were obviously much cheaper, and no-one could foresee a future without them. But two things have changed since then: technology and climate change.
This, Tipping says, has resulted in a radical shift in opinion. “Many who were nuclear-negative just 12 months ago are changing their position. I wouldn’t call them exactly ‘pro’ but they are hedging their bets. Even organisations which have not, until now, supported nuclear in shipping, have realised that this source of energy is very likely to have a role in shipping’s multi-fuel future. Some are even gearing up to work in the sector.”
Seven decades of nuclear knowledge
He points out that LR has been involved in the assurance of nuclear-powered assets since the 1950s. In a marine context, it provided assurance services for the world’s first nuclear submarine, HMS Dreadnought, which was first put to sea in 1963. In the current context LR provides a site team of seven surveyors at BAE System site in Barrow in Furness, where they build the Astute and Dreadnought nuclear powered submarines. Also LR provides inservice support to the UK submarine fleet.
He highlights the LR’s recent report, ‘Fuel for Thought: Nuclear’, which analysed three aspects of readiness, addressing technology, investment, and community issues. There is still a long way to go, Tipping states, but as shipping decarbonises, the prospect of a multi-fuel future in which fuels cost a multiple of prevailing prices today, means that all options are on the table.
Having outlined the significance of new reactor technology, Tipping addresses the issue of capital. “What we see from our partners is that for many maritime applications, the cost of nuclear power for ships is comparable with fossil fuels at today’s prices taking a through-life approach.
“And it’s important to note that it will not be shipowners who pay for development of the technology,” he continues. “By the time they are ready to take definite steps, the developers will already have done their job. There will be credible products available and technology that works.”
Widespread misconceptions
On the third issue of societal readiness, Tipping stresses that people generally have little knowledge about nuclear energy, citing only the headline-grabbing disasters based on 70-year-old boiling water reactor technology.
“I talk to people who are on both sides of the fence – for and against – and there are generally a multitude of misunderstandings,” he says. “I don’t want to preach that nuclear is ultimately safe, but it has an excellent track record in safety, even before the latest advances in fourth-generation reactor technology. And we have been a leader in the nuclear assurance business for decades.
“No-one has ever allowed an unsafe reactor in the West. And nobody is going to be allowed to operate a reactor that is unsafe, whether it be on shore or at sea, and whether it be an old technology or a new one. What will be available is a new generation of more economically viable reactors which shut down without human intervention if there is a problem,” he states.
Far-reaching implications
What is really exciting about the early stages of commercial shipping’s current nuclear journey is its likely impact on future ship design and operations, and its potential to decarbonise all three ‘scopes’ of shipping emissions. Initially, Tipping suggests that the first applications are likely to be specialist vessels able to employ simpler regulatory models in the early 2030’s, from this point we would expect a larger range of reactors to be deployed with an expanding range of ship type application.
“There are many different designs,” Tipping explains. “But although it’s a lot bigger, you can compare some of the smaller reactor designs with a double-A battery. When it’s depleted, you take it out and replace it with a new one. It’s more complicated and takes a bit longer, but it is likely to be achievable within a five-yearly docking cycle.”
Further into the future, reactors could be designed with 10 or 20-year operating lives. Ships are likely to be designed for two or three refuelling cycles – with operating lives extended to 40 or even 60 years. A new generation of seagoing engineers would be required, but their role would be entirely different, and fewer personnel would be needed.
Taken a couple of stages further, if the power required for the ships’ steel were produced with shoreside nuclear energy, and the shipyards building the vessels used fourth-generation reactors for their energy, shipping’s emissions profile in Scopes 1, 2 and 3 would be dramatically different.
Then there is the issue of asset efficiency. Today’s exponential relationship between fuel burn and speed would no longer apply. With far more power potentially available onboard, ships could operate at higher speeds, without delay or deviation for bunkering, and without connecting to shoreside power systems. Survey schedules might change, take less time, adding further to a ship’s through-life productivity.
Tipping claims there are many more implications for ship design and operation, but in the early stages, classification societies, financiers, insurers, and regulators are likely to take a step at a time in assessing the role of nuclear power in the maritime value chain. He concludes: “While nuclear power in commercial shipping has been limited so far, and there are challenges with public perceptions to be overcome, it could provide immense value as the maritime sector progresses on its decarbonisation journey.”
