But determining what to do with the ship’s reactor is not the only hurdle. People must be convinced in regards to the safety of nuclear energy and technology, says Alves de Andrade. Despite the superb safety record at many nuclear facilities all over the world, public opinion understandably stays dominated by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, in addition to concerns in regards to the handling of radioactive waste.
And although there are numerous nuclear reactors operating at sea today, they are frequently situated on ships with a few of the highest security on this planet. Merchant ships are sometimes subject to piracy and accidents, including big fires AND explosions— the thought of adding nuclear fuel to such scenarios is unlikely to be met with enthusiasm.
The task of transitioning to a world where nuclear-powered ships are widely welcomed in industrial ports shouldn’t be “trivial”, says Stephen Turnock, professor of marine fluid dynamics on the University of Southampton. “You have to have protocols in place to find out what’s going to occur within the event of a nuclear-powered ship emergency,” he explains.
Simon Bullock, a shipping researcher on the University of Manchester, says there shouldn’t be enough regulatory framework to find out how nuclear ships will operate globally within the industrial sector, including details of who’s responsible for any mishaps. Would or not it’s the shipowner, ship operator, nuclear reactor manufacturer, or the country where the ship is registered, often known as the flag state? He says there are six “a long time of problems” of this type involving nuclear ships that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other agencies would wish to handle if nuclear-powered merchant ships were ever to turn out to be widespread.
Liz Shaw, an IMO spokeswoman, says “IMO has an extended history of working with and coordinating with other actors where mandatory.” It adds that there are guidelines on how Member States can submit proposals to update existing laws.
Crews on nuclear ships would also require special training and knowledge, increasing the fee of operating such ships. Is it price facing all these challenges, given the necessity to decarbonise now? Probably not, says Bullock. “The next 10 years are the important thing here,” he says, referring to the urgency of tackling emissions and climate change now. “The kernel update cannot do anything about it.”
Even Norway’s NuProShip project won’t convert its first demonstration vessel until not less than 2035. Meanwhile, ships are already using other low- or zero-emission fuels, from methanol to ammonia, electric batteries and hydrogen. None of them are perfect and all will fight for supremacy in the approaching years. Nuclear power, with its many complications, is “probably a dangerous distraction” from the important horse race, says Bullock.
For what it’s price, Turnock’s money goes to hydrogen. Last month, sportswear brand Nike launched a hydrogen-powered barge in Europe and lots of others hydrogen-powered ships of comparable size already sailing.
However, looking further ahead, perhaps shipowners will finally take nuclear technology seriously. Here’s a fun fact. Original Savanna, a steamer, was also a technological pioneer. Built in 1818 within the USA, she was the primary steam-powered ship to cross the Atlantic. But its huge engines meant it could carry almost no cargo and due to this fact considered unprofitable. However, over the a long time, the couple ruled the waves.
So while NS Savanna may look like a temptingly short-lived experiment, shrouded within the long-faded atomic idealism of the Fifties, perhaps nuclear-powered merchant ships will in some way dominate. As President Eisenhower learned, dreams are one thing. Then there’s the long run.
[mailpoet_form id="1"]
