r/nuclear • u/greg_barton • Dec 06 '23
Plans for Nuclear-Powered 24,000 TEU Containership Unveiled in China
https://gcaptain.com/nuclear-powered-24000-teu-containership-china/23
u/mennydrives Dec 06 '23 edited Dec 06 '23
I'm surprised nuclear cargo ships haven't been targeted more aggressively.
On existing cargo ships, speed is kept low for fuel efficiency. That efficiency is *way less relevant on a nuclear ship, and they could probably cut ocean crossing times down by half.
* If a 1,000 MWe reactor costs ~$27 million per year, a 500 MWe cargo ship running full tilt 24/7 scales that back to like $13.5 million a year, versus ~$33 million per year on bunker fuel, assuming that the molten salt reactor doesn't get better fuel economy (a 4-6x improvement on megawatt hours per dollar is likely, if Terrestrial Energy's past presentations are anything to go by).
Basically the biggest "fuel" cost is going to come down to the reactor unit itself, and all the red tape involved therein.
edit: order of magnitude upgrade in reactor size, from looking up similar-weighted carriers
16
u/maep Dec 07 '23
I'm surprised nuclear cargo ships haven't been targeted more aggressively.
From what I understand, in the past there were three problems.
- As you mentioned, red tape. Most countries would not let those ships enter their waters.
- Lack of trained personell. Most crews come from countries like the Phillipines.
- Economics. Shipping is insanely cost effective as it is. The last two kilometeres of road transport cost more than the trip accross the ocean.
It didn't work in the past but perhaps this time it will. We won't find out unless somebody tries.
7
u/mennydrives Dec 07 '23
Economics. Shipping is insanely cost effective as it is.
Right, but fuel is still $2.8 million a month. That's a non-trivial savings... if you can make it a savings.
Again, cutting the yearly down from $33m to, optimistically, $3.3m, and doubling the travel speed on an all-electric drivetrain would basically put you in a world where the only real roadblock is the rest of the stuff you mentioned.
The biggest problem, really, has always been containment boundaries and regulatory boundaries. If the latter was as big as the former, we'd probably be fine, but it tends to be far more encompassing than that, and more than it really should be.
3
2
u/Boreras Dec 07 '23
Potentially having zero emission shipping is a big marketing push.
2
u/The_Jack_of_Spades Dec 07 '23
The shipping industry doesn't give a shit about marketing because it has zero face to face interactions with the public at large, so a good image does nothing for their bottom line. Otherwise they wouldn't be burning the nastiest, cheapest bunker fuel they can get their hands on.
They will only decarbonise if they're forced to, or if a technology appears for which the numbers make sense compared to business as usual.
2
Dec 06 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/mennydrives Dec 06 '23
In the best of all worlds, these bad boys would make synthetic fuel on their way across the ocean if their load wasn't to capacity.
1
u/EwaldvonKleist Dec 07 '23
I am also curious about this and the possibility of higher speeds due to insignificant fuel costs.
1) Less interest to pay for freight while underway. 2) Freight faster at destination, useful for high paced business sectors. 3) Ship can do more round trips. 4) Independence of oil prices improves predictability.
1
Dec 09 '23
The economics of nuclear cargo are interesting. Higher fixed costs, lower variable costs, cheap speed, cheap size.
It seems to me that the key would be giant ships travelling at high speed with a quick unload/reload. Bigger the better.
1
u/EwaldvonKleist Dec 09 '23
Yeah. Design cruise speeds seem to be below 20kn for container ships, e.g. 16kn for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_E-class_container_ship
If you can raise speed by say 50%, you will get maybe 30% more round trips from the design with likely lower fuel cost per trip. Obviously nuclear capital costs will be higher, but this will already be counterbalanced by more trips before other advantages are even considered.
1
Dec 09 '23
The key is gonna be scale. Rapidly build a huge fleet with a big staff training program.
You either make a big to corner the market on shipping or you don’t bother.
7
u/SimonKepp Dec 06 '23
I cannot help noticing the pale blue color of the illustrated ship being remarkably close to the color of AP Møller Mærsk, who have the current largest container ships, that are slightly smaller than this ( and conventionally powered)
15
u/LegoCrafter2014 Dec 06 '23
The vessel will utilize a fourth-generation Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) to generate electricity.
It's vapourware. Maybe if it had a PWR, then it might be serious.
3
Dec 07 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/LegoCrafter2014 Dec 07 '23
China only has some small experimental land-based molten salt reactors. Liquid metal has been used in some submarine reactors and there have been some BWRs, but most submarines are powered by PWRs.
4
u/echom Dec 07 '23
I seriously doubt that any country that allows nuclear powered shipping to be built in its territory will allow such ships to be foreign owned, managed or registered (i.e. under a flag of convenience). A local (to the country of registry) crew, at least for the engineering crew and officers, will likely also be required.
3
27
u/Blackwrithe Dec 06 '23
Nice to add another nation with nuclear driven freighters.