[Starvid]

If we would leave the peak uranium talk for the peak uranium thread and return to commercial nuclear shipping.


What is the state of shipping today?

Are ships built?

Where are they built?

Is the demand strong or weak?

Are increasing fuel costs burdening the shipping industry?

How much would a nuclear ship cost?

At what oil price will they be competitive?

Which companies have the rather specialized competence needed to build a nuclear ship?

Are there any legal stumbling blocks for commercial nuclear shipping?

What kind of reactors would be used?

What kind of commercial ships will be the first to adopt nuclear reactors?


Et cetera.

Post sources if you have them or if you are going to state anything radical.

[clv101]

Wind is the solution for energy efficient shipping - either with traditional sails or new designs with monstrous kites pulling the ships along. I expect modern engineering could produce some fantastic wind powered ships. The 19th century tea clippers were incredible machines.

A degree of relocalisation and new wind powered ships solves the shipping side of peak oil I think

[Starvid]

Wind is the solution for energy efficient shipping - either with traditional sails or new designs with monstrous kites pulling the ships along. I expect modern engineering could produce some fantastic wind powered ships. The 19th century tea clippers were incredible machines.

A degree of relocalisation and new wind powered ships solves the shipping side of peak oil I think

Yes very nice, but if you want to discuss tea clippers do it in another thread. This is the nuclear shipping thread.

[Dezakin]

Indeed one could reasonably expect that nuclear shipping would be vastly more competitive than attempting to go retro with some neo-sailing ideal.

[cube]

I have a slight fascination with nuclear powered ships. To me it seems like the perfect marriage. A nuke reactor needs lots of water to stay cool and you may notice that a lot of nuke plants on land are situated next to rivers for this reason. But a ship obvioulsy has no shortage of water.

I think we should build nuclear powered super oil tankers, if not for practical reasons then just to annoy the greenies...would all make it worthwhile IMO.

[cube]

.......

Which companies have the rather specialized competence needed to build a nuclear ship?

........

At this point the overwhelming majority of nuke ships are naval vessels...so I'm guessing the only companies out there with this type of experience are "defense" contractors. I don't see a nuke shipping industry happening in the US. Besides the US is no longer a major ship building nation anymore.

South Korea is the current number 1 ship builder. Next Japan, and third China. (???) But the Chinese are catching up fast and they want to knock South Korea from the top post. If nuclear shipping comes into style it will be China leading the pack. Realistically speaking, I just don't see a democratic nation being able to pull this off. Too much NIMBY attitude guarantees it to be DOA.

[geronimo]

One thing to remember is that shipping is a global industry, so some countries that have a no nuke policy (say New Zealand for example) would be unavailable to a nuclear-powered vessel. Also consider the implications for terrorism when what you have is a portable nuclear reactor : forcing a meltdown or even just destroying with chemical explosives in the port of any large city would be a very real threat.
I honestly don't see the need for nuclear with all its associated risks & legacy of waste management for future generations when renewables could supply our needs. Save nuclear power for space where the energy density is needed and radiation is ubiquitous anyway

[Andy]

I honestly don't see the need for nuclear with all its associated risks & legacy of waste management for future generations when renewables could supply our needs. Save nuclear power for space where the energy density is needed and radiation is ubiquitous anyway

Spot on Geronimo. Energy efficiency alone can shave 40 - 50% of present world energy consumption. The renewables can supply the reduced requirement. Ships can have wind assisted propulsion and are one of the few areas where efficient mobile fuel cell propulsion may be feasible. No need for the complexity and risk of nuclear reactors on commercial ships. Large fuel cells running on solid oxide, especially when hybridized with gas turbines can be 60+ % thermally efficient.

[emersonbiggins]

Britain and other European governments have been accused of underestimating the health risks from shipping pollution following research which shows that one giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars.

Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles.
...

Unsurprisingly, the low-grade bunker fuel oil that most ships use is to blame. Of course, the costs of upgrading the fuel to low-sulfur standards (if that is even technically feasible) would quickly increase the low cost of global shipping to something exorbitantly out of reach for all but the most precious of cargo.

Could this potentially be another indictment and nail in the coffin of globalization?

Guardian (UK)

[Schmuto]

I remember when I first went rural and I was looking into tractors.

My neighbor had a great tractor from overseas. 60 Horse. I ask him how much for it, new. 13 grand. I say, Yow! That's a deal."

I run into the dealership.

Ask the woman about that model.

She looks up fondly in recollection - "Ah yes. I remember those well. Sold like hot cakes. Don't have 'em anymore. New diesel emissions standards."

And I think of all of the vehicles out there on the highways spewing crap all over, and I think about how ridiculously small the impact of 60 horse tractors must be . . .

. . . and the equivalent John Deere costs about 35 grand.

[Caffeine]

Interesting. I didn't know that container ships were such polluters.

I figure that some kind of transoceanic shipping will continue in an ideal post-cheap-oil world, though.

[35Kas]

At least this could be fixed if container ships were as big as supertankers and had nuclear reactors to power them (and adequate defense systems ans crew to protect them).

[JudgieReloaded]

At least this could be fixed if container ships were as big as supertankers and had nuclear reactors to power them (and adequate defense systems ans crew to protect them).

They are as big if not often bigger these days (in dimensions, but not tonnage), the largest Maersk Line classes being between 365 and 398 meters long.

See Emma for what i'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Maersk

Her and her 8 sisters are the largest vessels in active service on the planet today (Jahre Viking does not count, as she now serves as an FPSO). Due to their size, they could be easy candidates for conversion to Helium Cooled Gas Turbine reactor plants, while retaining the economies of scale that their size permits (if the global economy were not tanking like it is. Interestingly they are still in service while many smaller vessels have been laid up).

Regarding defence, many shipping companies find it cheaper to payoff pirates in high risk areas to not attack their vessels. Maersk in particular is guilty of this in the Malacca Strait regions.

[Cabrone]

Britain and other European governments have been accused of underestimating the health risks from shipping pollution following research which shows that one giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars.

Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles.
...

Unsurprisingly, the low-grade bunker fuel oil that most ships use is to blame. Of course, the costs of upgrading the fuel to low-sulfur standards (if that is even technically feasible) would quickly increase the low cost of global shipping to something exorbitantly out of reach for all but the most precious of cargo.

Could this potentially be another indictment and nail in the coffin of globalization?

Guardian (UK)

Does that mean that the high sulphur fuel these ships are burning is significantly adding to global dimming?

If so - could attempting to clean up via a large scale switchover to low sulphur fuel ironically increase global temps?

We are living in a fools climate now (IMO).

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[emersonbiggins]

I certainly suppose that's possible, but I've not seen anything to that effect.

[Keith_McClary]

Interesting. I didn't know that container ships were such polluters.

I figure that some kind of transoceanic shipping will continue in an ideal post-cheap-oil world, though.

The "bunker" oil that ships burn is the dregs of the refining process, containing heavy metals, sulphur ... they need to heat the gunk to get it to flow to the engines.

The reason ships use it is because no country will allow it to be burned in their territory - so it is cheap.

(PS) I think luxury cruise ships also burn this gunk. That's why they have those tall chimneys ("funnels") - so they don't poison their 5-star guests enough to attract lawsuits.

[Tanada]

Interesting. I didn't know that container ships were such polluters.

I figure that some kind of transoceanic shipping will continue in an ideal post-cheap-oil world, though.

The "bunker" oil that ships burn is the dregs of the refining process, containing heavy metals, sulphur ... they need to heat the gunk to get it to flow to the engines.

The reason ships use it is because no country will allow it to be burned in their territory - so it is cheap.

(PS) I think luxury cruise ships also burn this gunk. That's why they have those tall chimneys ("funnels") - so they don't poison their 5-star guests enough to attract lawsuits.

Actually bunker D and C are becoming much less common and funnels are bcoming rare, most modern ships use large Marine Diesel engines, not steam boilers. Diesel 4 is the most common fuel, though it is less refined than the Diesel 1 and 2 used in road diesel its not that far down the scale either.

[dohboi]

"We are living in a fools climate now (IMO).
Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

Indeed, we have passed the many tipping points. There are probably two degrees of warming waiting to kick in when or if we stop dumping the massive amounts of sulfur into the air everyday from dirty coal and other sources. But if we keep dumping it, we will further acidify the oceans and other waters, poison our kids, and cause various other kinds of havoc.

We are indeed damned, but there is no "if we don't." We are dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere every year that had been safely sequestered deep in the earth. We need to stop this very foolish and terracidal activity immediately, whatever the short effects. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia. This is the real long term damage.

[Tanada]

Montreal has gotten approval from the Canadian Coast Guard to receive container ships of the Post Panamax size into their port facilities. These are the ships the Panama Canal expansion project is intended to allow through the Canal, they can not fit the 1914 Panamax locks because they are too large.

Montreal is the furthest west on the Saint Lawrence Seaway an ocean cargo ship can pass without having to go through the locks further west on the system, as long as the channel is deep enough and the Coast Guard gives permission any ocean going vessel can travel this far.
http://www.porttechnology.org/news/mont ... x_vessels/

The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) has expressed its delight with the decision by the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) to authorise the passage of vessel measuring up to 44 metres wide in the Quebec - Montreal section of the St. Lawrence navigation channel.

The new provisions will make it possible for all post-Panamax vessels, including 6,000 TEU container ships, to reach Montreal. The previous authorised width was 32.1 metres without restrictions.

The CCG has made the provisions following a study commissioned by the MPA in conjunction with Transport Canada, the CCG, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority and the Corporation of Central St. Lawrence Pilots.

“I would like to thank everyone who has collaborated on this project,” said MPA president and CEO Sylvie Vachon.

“This initiative will allow the Port of Montreal to strengthen its position as North America’s leading port for container traffic with Europe, and it will reinforce Montreal’s strategic position as a logistics and transportation hub of choice for all types of cargo.”

“Shipping lines, no matter what type of cargo they carry, will be able to substantially increase capacity on their services to Montreal, which will inevitably lead to benefits for the port’s broad customer base,” Ms. Vachon said.

The Port of Montreal handled 1,375,327 TEUs in 2012, representing 12,032,966 tonnes of cargo.

There have been discussions every decade or so about increasing the size of the locks and channels on the rest of the Seaway to accommodate larger ocean going vessels but so far nothing has come of it but more talk. This move by Montreal might motivate the governments of the USA and Canada which each own some of the locks to get moving on expansion. Given the sorry state of planning in the US Government Canada would probably have to take the lead for anything to actually happen. Right now the largest vessels that can travel west of Montreal are called Seawaymax and they are the smallest of the international cargo shipping sizes.

They are narrower of beam, lower in draft, lower in air space and lower in overall length than any of the other cargo ship international canals. Expanding Seawaymax up to Post Panamax or even larger would be a great boon for the Great Lakes region, as is only small ocean freighters (by modern standards) can get to Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Green Bay or Chicago. As far as that goes there are a number of freighters that ply the four upper lakes which can not fit through the locks at the Welland canal that pass ships from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario around Niagara Falls. The latest version of the canal was sized the same as the rest of the Seawaymax standards for uniformity.

[Subjectivist]

JULY 18, 2014 — Algoma Central Corporation reports the arrival in Canada and the christening of its second Equinox Class bulk cargo vessel, the Algoma Harvester.

Mrs. Kathy Baske, wife of Jim Baske, the President and CEO of ArcelorMittal Dofasco, a major Algoma Central customer, imparted the traditional blessing. As is customary for these ceremonies, a bottle of champagne was broken against the bow of the ship, a banner revealing the ship's name was unveiled, and Father David Mulholland of the Mission to Seafarers offered prayers and other words of inspiration to the Canadian crew of the ship.

Algoma Central owns and operates the largest Canadian flag fleet of dry and liquid bulk carriers operating on the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Waterway. The Equinox Class represents the next generation of Great Lakes - St. Lawrence bulkers. The ships have been designed to optimize fuel efficiency and operating performance thus minimizing environmental impact.

A 45% improvement in energy efficiency over Algoma's current fleet average is expected, resulting from the use of a modern Tier II compliant engine, increased cargo capacity, and an improved hull form. In addition, a fully integrated IMO approved exhaust gas scrubber will remove 97% of all sulfur oxides from shipboard emissions.

http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?opti ... Itemid=231

Algoma's second brand new Seawaymax ship arrived and started working three weeks ago. With all the distractions in the news it snuck right past me. I have toured two different lake freighter museum ships and find ships in general interesting so I have been checking periodically for newly built great lake ships.