Nuclear Cruise Ships Ahoy?

Welcome aboard the cruise ship of the future: shuffle board, casino, ballroom, and….nuclear reactor?

Today Lloyd’s Register, the international standards organization for the classification and design of ships, announced that it has begun a two-year project with a consortium of companies to look into the feasibility of nuclear-powered commercial ships. The primary application will be for cargo ships, but all large vessels, including cruise ships, could use the technology if Lloyd’s Register endorses it.

Atomic propulsion is already widespread in the world’s oceans — in nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and Russian ice-breakers. But the idea of bringing small reactors on to privately owned ships is a throw-back to the heady days of “atoms for peace,” the era shortly after the Manhattan Project in which nuclear enthusiasts imagined nuclear powered cars, fridges, ships and spacecraft. With climate change such an urgent concern, companies and governments are now dusting off some of those old dreams for carbon-free nuclear–and shipping, which accounts for roughly 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, seemed to Lloyd’s Register like a logical place to start.

(Click here for TIME’s list of the 50 best inventions of 2010)

The nuclear golden age never transpired, of course, in part because safety concerns. On nuclear-powered military vessels even to this day, for example, crew members wear dosimeters at all times to measure radiation exposure. Will Mr. and Mrs. Vandecamp be required to do the same as they play bingo?

Another barrier to nuclear-propulsion was that the minitiarization of nuclear technology (the reactor that propels a submarine for example is no bigger than a garbage can) required uranium fuel to be highly enriched. And highly enriched fuel is dangerous–it can be used to build atomic bombs.

But a new generation of small reactors avoids this concern. Hyperion Power Generation, a spin-off from Los Alamos National Laboratory in the U.S. and a member of the Lloyd’s Register consortium, has developed a “small modular reactor” that produces 25 MW of electricity (traditional power plant reactors produce up to 1,500 MW) using low enriched uranium. The company has big plans for its little reactors—which it calls “nuclear batteries.” They hope their little atom splitters can be used to power everything from American subdivisions to desalination plants in the developing world. Their design has Lloyd’s Register interested.

The other consortium members are ship designers BMT Nigel Gee and Greek shipping company Enterprises Shipping and Trading. Beyond the technical challenges, one of the primary obstacles will be how the ships can be used in countries that are currently unfriendly or have statutory prohibitions of nuclear power. BMT Nigel Gee will be looking at the feasibility of a physical separation of the ship, meaning that the portion of the ship with the nuclear propulsion would be used for deep-sea transit but then remain in international waters while a large module with the cargo (or passengers) enters port under battery power.

Small modular reactors such as Hyperion Power’s “nuclear battery” do not have universal support, however. Some environmentalists say their small size makes them vulnerable to terrorist sabotage or theft. And it’s unclear how investors will view a fleet of nuclear ships. Nuclear power requires political support, and a single accident (a maritime equivalent to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island) could at anytime swing sentiment against the technology. But Nick Brown, Maritime Communications Manager at Lloyd’s Register, says that, like nations themselves, the shipping industry has been forced by climate change to look at all alternatives to fossil fuels. “There is this perception that nuclear represents an increased risk but really it needs to be one of the options we consider in how to manage the much larger risk of global climate change.”

In other words, cruise ship enthusiasts should think about packing sun screen in the future. I can hear my Mrs. Vandecamp now: do you have the SPF 500, dear?

(Click here to read about the U.S. Navy’s plans for hybrid ships)

Related Topics: Hyperion Power Generation, Lloyd's Register, Nuclear propulstion, Carbon Policy, Energy, Transportation
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Don Farrall

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the U.S.

    Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn’t seem to be as high as many initially feared. Take the Pacific Ocean, for example, where most of the radioactive fallout from the plant eventually ended up. Nicholas Fisher, a marine science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University, took samples of the seawater three months after the accident. He found levels of radiation that were elevated, but still just a fraction of the amount of radioactivity sea life is exposed to from naturally occurring potassium in seawater.

    Nick M Do

    Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline

    It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

    Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands “Game Over” for the Climate? One Study Says No

    There are no shortage of reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a hot button issue for environmentalists. Many worry about the risks the project could pose to the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, where the pipeline was originally designed to pass. Indeed, when President Obama rejected Keystone XL in January, his stated concern was the potential threat to local water supplies.

  • jimp25210

    Crews on US nuclear submarines and surface ships get less total dose working down in the engineering spaces daily than their families get from background radiation back on shore over the same time

  • http://crabel99.wordpress.com crabel99

    Dosimetry is only required for access into the engineering spaces aboard US Navy nuclear vessels. My wife went underway with me on my submarine for a “Dependents Cruise” and she did not have dosimetry. The only personnel aboard aircraft carriers that wear dosimetry are those nuclear and non nuclear people who require access to the engineering spaces.

    In 10 years of service aboard three different reactor types, I accumulated just under 500 mrem. This is on the high side for non maintenance personnel. To put this in perspective an airline flight attendant in one year receives as much exposure as I did in ten years. Keep in mind I lived within 150 feet of a reactor 24/7 for 6 of those ten years!

  • harrywr2

    Loss of Coolant has always been the biggest risk in nuclear reactors. A ship in the sitting in the ocean seems to be a pretty big safety feature.

  • http://spentnuclearfuel.wordpress.com grlcowan

    As I predicted July 4, 2006: the QM3 will be full in seasons when other passenger liners aren’t, because it will be nuclear.

  • http://blackbeard79.wordpress.com blackbeard79

    I agree with the consensus that the author does a poor job giving perspective on the risks associated with radiation exposure and perpetuates some unfounded paranoia for the sake of humor (SPF 500, dear?). I received 287 mrem during my 14 years (what Joe 6 pack receives in a year), though I think a lot of that is based on the Naval Reactors approach to conservatism, adherence to standards, and the engineering and training programs to minimize personnel exposure. Since the cruise ships will be multinational in nature, it will be interesting to see what caliber of engineers and operators they will hire, what regulations they will adopt, and who will enforce them. The long term success of the program will hinge on that, and hopefully they won’t just choose the path of least resistance, like many companies are doing nowadays.

blog comments powered by Disqus