are modern cruise ships nuclear powered

Could cruise ships eventually run off nuclear power? This company is working on it

Nuclear-powered ships could be coming to the world of cruising — but with a twist.

Norwegian shipbuilder Ulstein this week unveiled a new concept for a cruise vessel that would run on electricity generated at sea using a nuclear reactor.

The twist is that the reactor wouldn't be located on the cruise ship itself, but on a separate service vessel. The service vessel would recharge electric batteries on the cruise ship every few days.

For more cruise news, guides and tips, sign up for TPG's cruise newsletter .

If the idea moves forward (something that will require both regulators as well as cruise lines to get on board), it will result in the arrival of what has long been something of a Holy Grail for the cruise industry – cruise vessels that are entirely emission-free.

Cruise ships have traditionally been powered with bunker oil, also known as heavy fuel oil, or another grade of oil called marine gasoil. Additionally, some ships in recent years have been designed to run on Liquefied Natural Gas, which is touted as a cleaner fuel than traditional marine-grade oils. However, using all such fuels results in emissions.

"Where you are going very long distances [with a cruise ship], you will never be able to be zero emissions with the fuel we have today," Ulstein senior naval architect Torill Muren told TPG on Tuesday at Seatrade Cruise Global, the cruise industry's annual meetup in Miami. "We want to start a discussion [about using nuclear power]."

Muren spoke one-on-one with TPG moments after Ulstein revealed the concept at the company's booth at Seatrade Cruise Global, which is taking place this week at the Miami Beach Convention Center.

The company unveiled an outline of its concept for both an all-electric cruise vessel and the nuclear power-generating service vessel that would keep the all-electric cruise vessel charged. It also showed off artist's renderings of what the two vessels would look like.

As depicted in the renderings, the cruise ship the line is proposing would be a small, hardy vessel of the sort that is used for expedition cruising — a type of cruising that involves traveling to hard-to-reach and often environmentally sensitive places such as Antarctica and the Arctic. It's a type of vessel that is a specialty for Ulstein.

The company recently built two new expedition ships for Lindblad Expeditions that are considered among the most advanced expedition ships currently at sea.

Related: Is this the ultimate Antarctica cruise ship? Our take on Lindblad's new vessel

Muren said Ulstein's idea is that one service vessel with a small nuclear reactor could serve as a floating power station for up to four small, all-electric expedition ships sailing in a region such as Antarctica.

As Ulstein conceives it, the service ship would feature a rarely built type of nuclear reactor that uses a thorium molten salt mixture. Such reactors are considered safer than conventional nuclear reactors because they operate with fuel in a molten state. In the event of an emergency, the fuel would drain into a containment vessel and solidify, preventing the sort of uncontrolled nuclear meltdown that can happen with a more traditional uranium-fueled reactor.

Norway-based Ulstein is calling its concept for the service ship Ulstein Thor — a nod to the thorium fuel that will be used in the vessel's electricity-producing reactor that also evokes the power of the Norse god of the same name.

Muren told TPG the concept could become a reality within 10 years if the industry and politicians signed on to the idea.

She said rapid advancements in battery storage happening now could mean that electric batteries with a high-enough capacity to run a small cruise ship for many days will be available in "five or six years." Add in electricity generated by a thorium-fueled reactor, and there could be a revolution in how ships are powered, she suggested.

"A very small amount of thorium can power a ship for 25 years," Muren said.

The all-electric cruise vessel that Ulstein proposes would be about 328 feet long and carry up to 80 passengers and 80 crew. It would be built extra tough to operate in polar areas with ice (it would have a 1C ice class rating).

The power-generating service ship would also be built as a rescue ship that could aid vessels in distress in remote areas such as Antarctica, the company said.

"Thor enables replenishment of energy and supplies on site, while also boasting the technology to facilitate rescue operations, as well as conducting research tasks," the line said in a press release issued at the time of the announcement. "It is, in effect, a crucial piece of infrastructure to support sustainable and safer operations. Thor literally has the power to change our entire industry."

The service ship would have helicopter pads, firefighting equipment, rescue booms, workboats, autonomous surface vehicles and airborne drones, cranes, laboratories and a lecture lounge, the company said.

Muren noted that thorium has relatively low radioactivity and produces radioactive waste that is easier to manage than the radioactive waste from more traditional uranium reactors.

"Thorium is a much nicer substance, and it produces very little waste compared to uranium [used in other reactors]," she said. "With uranium, you have a lot of waste that you have to take care of for ... thousands of years. For thorium, it is a couple of hundred years."

Nuclear power plants have been used on military ships but almost never on passenger ships. A single nuclear-powered cargo vessel that also carried a small number of passengers, the NS Savannah, debuted in 1959 and operated for several years. It was built as a demonstration project with funding from the U.S. government.

Muren acknowledged that it could take some time to get cruise operators and political authorities comfortable with the idea of using nuclear power for cruise ship-related operations. However, she expects the cruise world will eventually embrace the idea of battery-run vessels charged with nuclear-generated energy.

"I think you will at some point see that we will go to batteries [for cruise ships], as we did with cars," she said. She added that it's important for the industry and authorities to begin talking about it now, even as the technology that could make it happen is still being developed.

"It's so important to start now, because the more we wait, the longer it will [take] before we are there," Muren said.

Planning a cruise? Start with these stories:

• The 5 most desirable cabin locations on any cruise ship
• The 8 worst cabin locations on any cruise ship
• A quick guide to the most popular cruise lines
• 21 tips and tricks that will make your cruise go smoothly
• 15 ways cruisers waste money
• 12 best cruises for people who never want to grow up
• What to pack for your first cruise

Here's what our members say

"I live in D.C. and want local news."

"I believe in local journalism."

"Y'all are doing  real  local D.C. journalism."

" Washington City Paper has made me feel like I am part of the D.C. community."

If you agree with our members, will you support our work and keep City Paper going?

Washington City Paper

Why Not Nuclear-Powered Cruise Ships?

Share this story:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

We know D.C. Get our free newsletter to stay in the know.

Unsubscribe any time.

Modern ships run on fuel—a lot of fuel. Why not make large ships, like cruise ships and cargo transports, nuclear-powered? —Xodiac

Good news, Xodiac: The future is now. As soon as this weekend, you yourself can set sail on the Russian craft 50 Years of Victory , the largest nuclear-powered icebreaker in the world, which, as a side gig, takes passengers cruising over the sunny North Pole. A stateroom’s yours for a cool $26,995, and the two-week package includes an open bar, hot-air balloon rides, and the chance to see firsthand just how quickly climate change is rendering icebreakers obsolete. No wonder they’re turning to tourism.

There is indeed something of a global existential need for technological advancement in this arena. And admittedly the non-Russian, non-icebreaking pickings are a little slim, as far as civilian nuclear-powered ships go, but there’s reason to think that’s about to change.

Of course, there’s been reason to think it’s about to change since the 1950s, when the idea made its public debut, courtesy of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. World War II was over. Having let the nuclear horse out of the barn, the United States was now trying to keep the reins as tight as possible. To that end, Ike introduced his Atoms for Peace program, the aim of which was to spread globally the promise of a kinder, gentler split nucleus. We note here that Atoms for Peace has since been appropriated as the name of an alt-rock supergroup led by Radiohead’s Thom Yorke.

Atoms for Peace was also propaganda—the Eisenhower initiative, that is, not the band. Ike hoped that by offering countries assistance in developing their nuclear-energy capabilities, the U.S. might keep their sympathies firmly on the side of the West. He made recipient countries pinky-swear they wouldn’t use the technology to develop a nuclear weapon, a geopolitical strategy that worked out about as well as you’d expect: the assistance set Iran down the weapons path, and also helped Israel, India, and Pakistan cook up bombs of their own.

But I digress. Ike was also keen to prove the myriad ways nuclear could benefit everyday Americans. Thus one stateside AFP project was the NS Savannah , a civilian nuclear ship launched in 1959 as a harbinger of America’s rosy atomic future.

Well, sort of, but honestly more like a preview of how slow the whole nuclear-merchant-marine concept would be to gain any kind of traction. Currently the Savannah  is gathering dust in Baltimore, having remained in useful service for only ten years. The vessel did fine technologywise, but, configured as a hybrid of passenger ship and cargo ship, it fell short in both capacities—not really providing a model worth replicating.

What’s been holding back nuclear merchant ships? There’s a matter of, for instance, customer queasiness. Talking to the magazine Maritime Executive  in 2015, one industry consultant said, “When you ask educated, professional groups whether they believe we should become more reliant on nuclear power, 30-40 percent are positive. When you ask the same group if they would be prepared to take their family on holiday on a nuclear-powered cruise ship, the number drops to below 10 percent.” Crew members on military nuclear ships, safe though they may be, wear dosimeters at all times, just in case—hardly a reassuring sight for your typical Caribbean vacationers, I’d imagine. 

Otherwise, the challenges look logistically complex but certainly not insurmountable: rejiggering regulatory regimes, retrofitting ships, trying to figure out what to do with the nuclear waste (a problem, of course, not specific to shipping). And the benefits are significant:

• Ship owners nowadays have resisted switching to cleaner-burning natural gas because of a lack of in-port infrastructure for refueling, and so commercial craft continue to burn the dirtier fossil fuels. Nuclear avoids the issue altogether: not only zero emissions, but no refueling for five to seven years at a time.
• The startup costs of nuclear aren’t nothing—besides the reactor itself, there’s security, insurance, etc—but Nuclear Engineering International estimates that, factoring in lower fuel costs, a given ship could break even within 10 to 20 years. The economics should continue to improve, too, as the world sees heavier regulation of fossil fuels, in the form of carbon taxes and the like. 
• Cheaper fuel means ships can travel faster—a boon in ways obvious (getting goods to market) and subtle (less susceptibility to pirate attacks).

The technology is basically there, too. As I pointed out in a 2009 column, the bite-size nuclear reactors that may one day revolutionize power generation are still in early stages on land, but not at sea—the U.S. Navy’s been successfully powering submarines with small nukes for decades. And though there have been plenty of maritime accidents over those years, no leakage has ever resulted from a sunk nuclear reactor. We’ve seen increasing interest in the possibility of nuclear propulsion over the last several years, and one imagines companies will feel a further push from the Paris climate accord of 2015, which encouraged the development of nuclear technologies. So maybe hold on to that 27 grand for now, Xodiac—I suspect you’ll see your options expand, and cheapen, after not too long.  —Cecil Adams

Have something you need to get straight? Take it up with Cecil at straightdope.com .

Recommended Stories

Featured local savings.

Cruise FAQs

Why aren’t cruise ships nuclear powered.

Standing on the expansive deck of a vast cruise ship, in awe of its immense scale and cutting-edge technology, I find myself pondering the reason such colossal vessels do not utilize nuclear energy. The stark contrast between their luxuriousness and the dependence on conventional fuels strikes me as odd in an era where nuclear power has been established as a reliable, effective, and environmentally friendly energy option.

This article aims to delve into the reasons behind the absence of nuclear-powered cruise ships, examining the safety concerns and risks associated with nuclear energy, the public perception and fear surrounding it, as well as the logistical challenges and infrastructure requirements. Additionally, we will explore alternative energy sources for cruise ships, consider the economic implications, and delve into the regulatory and legal hurdles that must be overcome.

By analyzing case studies, historical context, and future possibilities, we hope to shed light on the potential for nuclear-powered cruise ships and the technological advancements that may make them a reality in the future.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

• Safety concerns and risks associated with nuclear power have contributed to the reluctance to use nuclear power in cruise ships.
• Public acceptance of nuclear power is a significant factor in the decision to not use nuclear power in cruise ships.
• Alternative energy sources such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and advanced hybrid systems are considered more feasible options for cruise ships.
• Financial considerations, including high upfront costs and uncertainty of fuel prices, make nuclear power less financially viable for cruise ships.

Safety Concerns and Risks Associated with Nuclear Energy

Nuclear-powered cruise ships aren’t used due to the safety concerns and risks associated with nuclear energy. Public acceptance of nuclear power is a major factor in the decision-making process, and the potential dangers outweigh the benefits.

One major concern is nuclear waste disposal. The long-term storage and management of radioactive waste pose significant challenges, both in terms of technical feasibility and public perception.

The fear of potential accidents and the release of radiation into the environment is another reason why cruise ships have not adopted nuclear power. The public’s perception of nuclear energy is largely shaped by historical events such as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. These incidents have left a lasting impression on society, creating a deep-rooted fear that cannot be easily overcome.

Therefore, cruise ships continue to rely on other forms of energy, prioritizing safety and public preference.

Public Perception and Fear of Nuclear Energy

In discussing the subtopic of public perception and fear of nuclear energy, it’s important to address the stigma and negative public opinion that surrounds this form of power generation.

There is a lack of trust in nuclear technology, primarily due to the high-profile accidents and disasters that have occurred in the past.

Additionally, the fear of radiation and its potential health risks plays a significant role in shaping public opinion and attitudes towards nuclear energy.

Stigma and Negative Public Opinion

Imagine the public’s reaction if cruise ships were powered by nuclear energy – it’s no wonder they haven’t gone down that route! The stigma and negative public opinion surrounding nuclear power have created significant barriers for its implementation in various industries, including the cruise ship industry.

Here are four reasons why the public is hesitant to embrace nuclear-powered cruise ships:

Safety concerns: The potential for accidents and radiation leaks creates fear and anxiety among the public.

Environmental impact: Many people associate nuclear power with the production of hazardous waste and worry about the long-term consequences for marine ecosystems.

Lack of trust in nuclear technology: Past incidents, such as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, have eroded public trust in the safety and reliability of nuclear energy.

Perception of risk: People tend to overestimate the risks associated with nuclear power, making it difficult to change their perception and accept it as a viable alternative.

Considering these factors, it’s crucial to address the lack of trust in nuclear technology to explore alternative fuels and evaluate the economic viability of nuclear-powered cruise ships.

Lack of Trust in Nuclear Technology

Addressing the lack of trust in nuclear technology is crucial for evaluating alternative fuels and the economic viability of using nuclear energy for cruise ships. The public opinion shift towards nuclear energy acceptance has been slow and hesitant due to historical incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. These incidents have left a lasting impression on people’s minds, fueling fear and skepticism regarding the safety of nuclear power.

However, it’s important to note that advancements in technology and stricter regulations have significantly improved the safety measures in place for nuclear reactors. Public education and transparency about the benefits and risks of nuclear power can help alleviate concerns and build trust. By highlighting the advancements in safety protocols and the potential for clean and efficient energy production, the cruise industry can pave the way for a more sustainable future.

Transitioning into the subsequent section about the ‘fear of radiation and health risks’, it’s imperative to address these concerns head-on and provide evidence-based information to dispel any misconceptions.

Fear of Radiation and Health Risks

Confront your fears head-on and embrace the truth about the potential health risks and radiation associated with nuclear energy.

When it comes to cruise ships, one of the main concerns is radiation exposure and its long-term health effects. Many people worry that being on a nuclear-powered ship could lead to higher levels of radiation exposure, which could have detrimental effects on their well-being. However, it’s important to understand that modern nuclear technology is highly regulated and designed to minimize these risks.

Stringent safety measures are in place to ensure that radiation exposure is kept at a safe level for both passengers and crew members. Additionally, studies have shown that the long-term health effects of radiation exposure from nuclear-powered ships are minimal.

As we delve into the subsequent section about logistical challenges and infrastructure requirements, it becomes clear that the fear of radiation should not be a barrier to exploring the potential benefits of nuclear-powered cruise ships.

Logistical Challenges and Infrastructure Requirements

One of the main reasons cruise ships aren’t nuclear powered is because the logistical challenges and infrastructure requirements would be incredibly complex. The installation and maintenance of a nuclear power system on a cruise ship would require specialized facilities and expertise that aren’t currently available in the industry.

The size and weight of nuclear reactors would also pose significant challenges for the design and construction of cruise ships. Additionally, the transportation, storage, and disposal of nuclear fuel and waste would require extensive safety measures and regulatory oversight.

These logistical challenges and infrastructure requirements would result in significant costs and time delays, making it impractical for cruise ship companies to adopt nuclear power. Therefore, alternative sources of energy, such as liquefied natural gas or advanced hybrid systems, are being explored as more feasible options.

Transitioning into the subsequent section about ‘regulatory and legal hurdles’, it’s important to consider the additional complexities and considerations that arise in the nuclear power industry.

Regulatory and Legal Hurdles

When considering the use of nuclear power on cruise ships, it’s important to address the regulatory and legal hurdles that come with it.

International and national regulations for nuclear-powered vessels must be taken into account to ensure compliance and safety.

Additionally, liability and insurance concerns, as well as compliance with environmental standards and treaties, need to be carefully considered and addressed.

International and National Regulations for Nuclear-Powered Vessels

Although there are international and national regulations in place for nuclear-powered vessels, cruise ships haven’t adopted this technology. Compliance challenges and the need for comprehensive environmental impact assessments are some of the reasons behind this decision.

Nuclear-powered ships require strict adherence to safety protocols, including regular inspections, extensive training for crew members, and potential risks associated with nuclear waste disposal. Additionally, the potential liability and insurance concerns associated with nuclear accidents may deter cruise ship operators from pursuing this technology.

Transitioning into the subsequent section, the focus shifts to exploring the implications of liability and insurance concerns in further understanding why cruise ships haven’t embraced nuclear power as a viable option.

Liability and Insurance Concerns

If you’re considering the use of nuclear power in vessels, it’s important to be aware that liability and insurance concerns play a significant role in the decision-making process. Studies show that the potential cost of a nuclear accident could reach billions of dollars.

When it comes to liability coverage for nuclear-powered ships, the insurance industry faces unique challenges due to the high risks associated with nuclear energy. Insurers must carefully assess the potential consequences of a nuclear accident and the resulting damage to both human life and the environment. As a result, insurance premiums for nuclear-powered vessels are significantly higher compared to conventional ships.

Additionally, obtaining liability coverage for nuclear accidents can be difficult due to the limited number of insurers willing to provide adequate protection. These concerns contribute to the decision to opt for conventional power sources in cruise ships.

Moving on to the next section about compliance with environmental standards and treaties, it is important to consider the impact of conventional fuel consumption on the environment.

Compliance with Environmental Standards and Treaties

The liability and insurance concerns surrounding nuclear-powered cruise ships have been a significant barrier to their adoption. However, another crucial factor that needs to be considered is compliance with international regulations and environmental standards.

Cruise ships operate in various regions worldwide, and they must adhere to stringent guidelines set by international bodies such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). These regulations aim to minimize the environmental impact of maritime activities, including emissions and waste disposal.

Nuclear power, although a low-carbon alternative, presents challenges in meeting these standards due to concerns about the disposal of radioactive waste. Additionally, economic considerations play a role in the decision-making process. The high upfront costs associated with building nuclear-powered cruise ships, coupled with the uncertainty of long-term fuel prices, may make it less financially viable compared to other alternatives.

Moving forward, exploring alternative energy sources for cruise ships becomes imperative to meet both environmental and economic requirements.

Alternative Energy Sources for Cruise Ships

When it comes to alternative energy sources for cruise ships, there are several key options to consider.

First, the use of low-sulfur marine diesel fuel has gained popularity as a cleaner fuel option, reducing emissions and environmental impact.

Second, LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) has emerged as an attractive alternative, offering lower carbon emissions and better air quality.

Lastly, the exploration of hybrid and electric propulsion systems is underway, aiming to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve sustainability in the cruise industry.

These advancements in alternative energy sources are crucial in addressing environmental concerns and meeting regulatory requirements in the maritime sector.

Use of Low-Sulfur Marine Diesel Fuel

Imagine cruising on a luxurious ship powered by low-sulfur marine diesel fuel, ensuring a cleaner and more environmentally-friendly voyage. The use of low-sulfur marine diesel fuel has become increasingly popular in the cruise industry due to its reduced sulfur content, which helps to minimize air pollution and improve air quality.

Here are four key reasons why cruise ships are embracing this alternative fuel option:

Compliance with regulations: Low-sulfur marine diesel fuel meets the stringent emission requirements set by international regulations, such as the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) sulfur cap of 0.5%.

Health and environmental benefits: By reducing sulfur emissions, low-sulfur marine diesel fuel helps to mitigate the negative impacts on human health and the environment, including respiratory diseases and acid rain.

Cost-effectiveness: While low-sulfur marine diesel fuel may be slightly more expensive than traditional fuels, the long-term benefits outweigh the initial costs, as it reduces the risk of fines and penalties for non-compliance with emission regulations.

Compatibility with existing infrastructure: Cruise ships can easily transition to low-sulfur marine diesel fuel without major modifications to their existing engines and fuel systems, making it a practical and convenient option.

Transitioning into the subsequent section about ‘lng (liquefied natural gas) as a cleaner fuel option’, we can explore further alternatives that cruise ships are considering to reduce their environmental impact.

LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) as a Cleaner Fuel Option

If you’re looking for a cleaner fuel option, consider LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) for your cruise ship. LNG, which is a cleaner-burning fuel compared to traditional marine diesel, has gained attention as a potential alternative for powering cruise ships.

The environmental impact of LNG is significantly lower, with reduced emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter. By utilizing LNG, cruise ships can contribute to a healthier and more sustainable maritime environment. Moreover, LNG has the potential to enhance energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, further reducing the carbon footprint of cruise ships.

Transitioning to LNG as a fuel option aligns with the industry’s commitment to reducing environmental impacts. Looking ahead, the exploration of hybrid and electric propulsion systems will continue to drive advancements in sustainable cruise ship operations.

Exploration of Hybrid and Electric Propulsion Systems

The exploration of hybrid and electric propulsion systems has opened up new possibilities for the future of cruise ship operations, creating opportunities for greater energy efficiency and reduced environmental impact. Hybrid propulsion systems combine traditional fuel sources with electric power, allowing for more flexibility and optimization of energy usage. Electric propulsion technology, on the other hand, relies solely on electricity to power the ship, eliminating the need for fossil fuels altogether. This shift towards cleaner and more sustainable propulsion systems is driven by the industry’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. By incorporating these advanced technologies, cruise ships can significantly reduce their carbon footprint and contribute to a more sustainable future for the maritime industry. Moving forward, it is essential to further explore and develop these hybrid and electric propulsion systems to address the growing concerns about environmental impact and sustainability in the cruise ship industry.

Environmental Impact and Sustainability

Although cruise ships contribute significantly to environmental pollution, there’s a pressing need to explore sustainable alternatives to conventional fuel sources. In order to address this issue, the cruise industry is increasingly turning to low carbon alternatives for propulsion systems.

Sustainable tourism is a growing trend, and cruise companies are under pressure to reduce their carbon footprint. One potential solution is the use of electric propulsion systems, which can significantly reduce emissions compared to traditional diesel engines. These systems utilize batteries or fuel cells to power the ship, resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality.

Additionally, the use of renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power can further enhance the sustainability of cruise ships. By adopting these low carbon alternatives, the cruise industry can contribute to a cleaner and more environmentally friendly future.

Transitioning into the subsequent section about economic considerations and cost-benefit analysis, it’s important to evaluate the financial implications of implementing these sustainable technologies.

Economic Considerations and Cost-Benefit Analysis

When considering the economic considerations and cost-benefit analysis of cruise ships, there are several key points to examine.

First and foremost, the initial investment and construction costs of a cruise ship can be substantial, with billions of dollars required to build a new vessel.

Additionally, operational expenses and maintenance can also be significant, as cruise ships require constant upkeep and fuel costs can be high.

Lastly, return on investment and profitability are important factors to consider, as cruise lines must generate enough revenue to cover their expenses and make a profit in order to remain sustainable in the long term.

Initial Investment and Construction Costs

You could save a significant amount of money by considering alternative propulsion systems for cruise ships. When it comes to initial investment and construction costs, nuclear-powered cruise ships face several logistical challenges and regulatory hurdles.

The construction of a nuclear-powered vessel requires specialized infrastructure and expertise, which can significantly drive up costs. The installation of the necessary safety measures and containment systems further adds to the expenses. Additionally, strict regulatory requirements and inspections are necessary to ensure the safe operation of nuclear reactors on board. These factors contribute to the higher construction costs associated with nuclear-powered cruise ships.

However, it’s important to consider that while the initial investment may be higher, the long-term operational expenses and maintenance costs of nuclear-powered ships can be significantly lower compared to traditional propulsion systems. This transition into the subsequent section about operational expenses and maintenance highlights the financial benefits of alternative propulsion systems.

Operational Expenses and Maintenance

To keep the alternative propulsion systems running smoothly, regular maintenance and operational expenses can be a drop in the bucket compared to the initial investment. Cruise ships are complex machines that require constant upkeep and adherence to environmental standards. Logistical challenges arise when it comes to sourcing fuel and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. This includes managing the disposal of waste and emissions control. The table below highlights some of the key operational expenses and maintenance tasks involved in running a cruise ship powered by alternative propulsion systems:

Ensuring smooth operations and meeting environmental standards requires significant investment, both in terms of time and resources. However, these expenses are necessary to ensure the long-term viability of alternative propulsion systems in cruise ships. The next section will explore the return on investment and profitability of nuclear-powered cruise ships.

Return on Investment and Profitability

Investing in alternative propulsion systems for cruise ships can lead to significant returns and ensure profitability in the long run. By exploring alternative fuels, such as nuclear power, cruise ship operators can reduce their dependency on expensive and polluting fossil fuels. This shift towards cleaner energy sources not only benefits the environment but also has a positive impact on local economies.

Reduced fuel costs: Nuclear-powered cruise ships would eliminate the need for traditional marine fuels, which can be a major expense for operators. This cost savings can contribute to higher profitability in the long term.

Increased operational efficiency: Nuclear propulsion systems offer higher energy efficiency and longer operating ranges compared to conventional engines. This allows cruise ships to travel longer distances without refueling, opening up new routes and expanding their customer base.

Positive image and market demand: Embracing nuclear power would position cruise ship operators as environmentally responsible and attract environmentally conscious travelers. This can lead to increased demand and higher ticket prices, further driving profitability.

Transitioning to the subsequent section about ‘international regulations and agreements’, it’s essential to understand the impact of these factors on the decision-making process.

International Regulations and Agreements

Imagine cruising the open seas on a massive ship, powered by nuclear energy, but unfortunately, due to international regulations and agreements, cruise ships aren’t currently allowed to be nuclear powered.

This restriction is primarily due to liability implications and concerns about the environmental impact. Nuclear power plants require strict safety measures to prevent accidents and potential radiation leaks. The liability associated with such accidents would be immense, as cruise ships carry thousands of passengers and crew members.

Additionally, the environmental impact of nuclear power is a significant concern. While nuclear energy itself is a clean and efficient source of power, the storage and disposal of nuclear waste pose long-term environmental risks.

As a result, international regulations prioritize the use of alternative energy sources for cruise ships.

Transitioning to the next section, exploring case studies and historical context, provides insight into the challenges faced by the industry.

Case Studies and Historical Context

When discussing the topic of nuclear-powered naval vessels, it’s crucial to mention the USS Nautilus as a significant case study. This submarine holds a prominent place in history as the first operational nuclear-powered vessel.

Additionally, exploring past proposals and feasibility studies for nuclear cruise ships offers valuable insights into the challenges and considerations involved in adopting this technology.

Finally, it’s important to examine the lessons learned from nuclear accidents and disasters to understand the potential risks and safety measures associated with nuclear-powered vessels.

The USS Nautilus and Nuclear-Powered Naval Vessels

Although you might think that nuclear-powered naval vessels would be the norm, the USS Nautilus was the first of its kind, paving the way for future innovations in maritime propulsion. This groundbreaking submarine, commissioned in 1954, introduced the world to the immense potential of nuclear propulsion technology. It revolutionized naval warfare, thanks to its ability to remain submerged for extended periods without the need for frequent refueling.

The USS Nautilus was a game-changer for several reasons:

• It was the first submarine to complete a submerged transit of the North Pole.
• It set numerous speed and endurance records, demonstrating the superiority of nuclear power over conventional propulsion.
• Its success sparked a global race to develop similar nuclear-powered vessels.
• The USS Nautilus showcased the immense power and versatility of nuclear propulsion technology, proving its value in military operations.
• It laid the foundation for the development of future nuclear-powered naval vessels.

With the successful deployment of the USS Nautilus, the stage was set for exploring the possibility of nuclear-powered cruise ships, as we’ll explore in the subsequent section on past proposals and feasibility studies.

Past Proposals and Feasibility Studies for Nuclear Cruise Ships

The exploration of nuclear propulsion technology for maritime transportation has included past proposals and feasibility studies for incorporating this innovative technology into cruise vessels. Feasibility assessments have been conducted to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of nuclear-powered cruise ships. Technological advancements have been made in reactor design and safety measures, which have increased the viability of nuclear propulsion systems for cruise vessels. However, there are several factors that have hindered the implementation of nuclear power in the cruise industry. These include concerns about public perception and safety, the high initial cost of nuclear propulsion systems, and the limited availability of infrastructure to support nuclear-powered cruise ships. Despite the potential advantages of nuclear propulsion, these challenges have led to the continued reliance on conventional fuel sources in the cruise industry. Moving forward, it is important to consider the lessons learned from nuclear accidents and disasters to ensure the safe and responsible use of nuclear technology in maritime transportation. [SUBTOPIC TRANSITION]

Lessons Learned from Nuclear Accidents and Disasters

Take a moment to reflect on the valuable lessons you can learn from past nuclear accidents and disasters, which can help ensure the safe and responsible use of this technology in maritime transportation. Some of the lessons learned include:

Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters highlighted the importance of robust safety protocols and emergency response plans.

Public perception of nuclear power can greatly influence its acceptance and implementation.

Environmental impact of nuclear accidents can be long-lasting, with effects on ecosystems and human health.

Proper waste management and disposal are crucial to prevent contamination and minimize long-term environmental damage.

The need for continuous monitoring and maintenance to detect and prevent any potential issues.

Looking ahead, future possibilities and technological advancements in nuclear power generation can pave the way for a more sustainable and efficient maritime industry.

Future Possibilities and Technological Advancements

One exciting possibility for the future of cruise ships is the potential for nuclear power. With future innovations and technological advancements, it may become feasible to harness nuclear energy to propel these massive vessels.

The use of nuclear power on cruise ships could offer numerous benefits, including increased efficiency and reduced reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear reactors can generate large amounts of power with minimal fuel consumption, making them a sustainable option for long-distance travel. Additionally, the compact size of nuclear reactors could allow for more space onboard, potentially leading to enhanced amenities and passenger comfort.

However, there are several challenges to overcome, such as ensuring the safety of nuclear technology and addressing public concerns. Nonetheless, exploring the possibilities of nuclear-powered cruise ships could lead to groundbreaking advancements in the future of maritime transportation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are there any existing nuclear-powered cruise ships in operation.

No, there are no existing nuclear-powered cruise ships in operation. However, nuclear power offers several benefits for cruise ships, including greater fuel efficiency, longer cruising range, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

How do alternative energy sources compare to nuclear power for cruise ships?

When comparing alternative energy sources for cruise ships, it’s like weighing the efficiency and cost of different engines. Nuclear power offers high efficiency, but its high cost and safety concerns make it less attractive for cruise ships.

What are the potential environmental benefits of using nuclear power in cruise ships?

Using nuclear power in cruise ships has several potential environmental benefits, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. However, it also comes with drawbacks and risks, including the disposal of radioactive waste and the potential for accidents. Compared to traditional fuel sources, nuclear power offers a more sustainable and efficient option.

Are there any international regulations or agreements that restrict the use of nuclear power in cruise ships?

There are no international regulations or agreements specifically prohibiting the use of nuclear power in cruise ships. However, concerns about safety, waste management, and public perception have deterred the adoption of nuclear power in this industry.

What are some potential future technological advancements that could make nuclear power more feasible for cruise ships?

Advancements in nuclear technology, such as compact and safer reactor designs, as well as improved waste management systems, may address safety concerns associated with nuclear power. These advancements could make nuclear power more feasible for cruise ships in the future.

In conclusion, the decision to not utilize nuclear power on cruise ships stems from a myriad of factors. Safety concerns, public perception, logistical challenges, regulatory hurdles, and economic considerations all play a significant role in shaping this decision.

While alternative energy sources are being explored, the potential for future advancements in technology may pave the way for nuclear-powered cruise ships. However, it’s essential to acknowledge the historical context and international regulations that influence this industry.

By carefully weighing the risks and benefits, we can continue to navigate towards a sustainable and efficient future for cruise ship travel.

Meet Asra, a talented and adventurous writer who infuses her passion for exploration into every word she writes. Asra’s love for storytelling and her insatiable curiosity about the world make her an invaluable asset to the Voyager Info team.

From a young age, Asra was drawn to the power of words and their ability to transport readers to far-off lands and magical realms. Her fascination with travel and cultures from around the globe fueled her desire to become a travel writer, and she set out on a journey to turn her dreams into reality.

Why Do Cruise Ships Have To Stop In Canada

Which Of The Following Best Describes Pollution Discharged By Cruise Ships?

Meet Asra, a talented and adventurous writer who infuses her passion for exploration into every word she writes. Asra’s love for storytelling and her insatiable curiosity about the world make her an invaluable asset to the Voyager Info team. From a young age, Asra was drawn to the power of words and their ability to transport readers to far-off lands and magical realms. Her fascination with travel and cultures from around the globe fueled her desire to become a travel writer, and she set out on a journey to turn her dreams into reality.

You may like

What fresh seafood collaborations does rudi's catch offer?.

Yearning for a seafood experience like no other?

In the realm of new seafood partnerships, Rudi’s Catch has decidedly elevated standards. The complex interplay between area fishers and the kitchen crew culminates in a flavor experience that is absolutely remarkable.

But what sets their offerings apart goes beyond the catch itself. Stay tuned to discover the secret ingredient that makes Rudi's Catch a must-visit for seafood enthusiasts and culinary connoisseurs alike.

• Rudi's Catch collaborates closely with local fishermen for fresh seafood sourcing.
• The partnership ensures sustainable and authentic dining experiences.
• Chef Rudi Sodamin showcases his culinary prowess through innovative seafood dishes.
• Global influences are infused into the menu for an elevated dining experience.

Rudi's Catch and Local Fishermen Partnership

Collaborating closely with local fishermen, Rudi's Catch consistently sources the freshest seafood from nearby ports of call to ensure a sustainable and authentic dining experience for our guests. Our partnership with these fishermen isn't just about procuring ingredients; it's a commitment to supporting local communities and promoting responsible fishing practices. By prioritizing sustainable sourcing, we guarantee that every dish served at Rudi's Catch not only meets the highest quality standards but also contributes to the well-being of our oceans.

This collaboration goes beyond just business; it's a shared passion for preserving marine ecosystems and providing our guests with an unparalleled freshness that can only come from seafood caught just hours before reaching their plates. The direct relationship we've with local fishermen allows us to hand-select the best catches of the day, ensuring that each bite is a testament to the dedication and hard work of those who make our unique dining experience possible.

Join us at Rudi's Catch and taste the difference that supporting local fishermen can make in every savory bite.

Innovative Seafood Fusion Creations

Crafting an exquisite symphony of flavors, our innovative seafood fusion creations at Rudi's Catch redefine culinary boundaries with each delectable bite. Our menu showcases contemporary interpretations of classic dishes with international influences, reflecting Chef Rudi Sodamin's creativity and expertise.

Guests can indulge in a variety of options, from signature beef classics to sustainably sourced seafood delights. The interactive dining experience is elevated with the seafood trolley, offering fresh lobster, shrimp, oysters, and more for a personalized touch.

Throughout the meal, diners can anticipate surprises like unique desserts and special gifts, adding an element of excitement to their culinary journey. Vegetarian options are also available, ensuring that all preferences are catered to.

At Rudi's Catch, we aim to provide not just a meal but an unforgettable experience where every bite tells a story of innovation and passion.

Celebrity Chef Collaborations at Rudi's Catch

Excitingly showcasing the culinary prowess of renowned Culinary Chef Rudi Sodamin, Rudi's Catch offers a tantalizing array of fresh seafood collaborations that redefine the dining experience. The menu, curated through a celebrity chef collaboration, replaces mundane seafood offerings with contemporary interpretations and innovative dishes. Drawing from global influences, Chef Rudi Sodamin infuses each dish with a touch of his expertise, providing guests with a truly elevated dining experience. These collaborations bring fresh perspectives to the table, allowing diners to savor seafood in ways they may have never imagined.

The fusion of Princess Seafood and Catch by Rudi results in a menu that showcases the best of both worlds, where traditional meets contemporary, and flavors from around the globe harmonize to create an unforgettable dining experience.

Sustainable Seafood Sourcing Practices

In sourcing our seafood, Rudi's Catch prioritizes sustainability by carefully selecting fresh offerings from local ports of call to uphold our commitment to quality and environmental responsibility.

• Sustainable Seafood: We're dedicated to sourcing seafood in a sustainable manner to ensure the long-term health of marine ecosystems.
• Local Ports: By sourcing from local ports, we support nearby communities and reduce our carbon footprint by minimizing transportation distances.
• Freshness: Our focus on freshness guarantees that the seafood dishes we offer are of the highest quality and flavor.
• Responsible Sourcing: We take pride in responsibly sourcing our seafood, aligning with Chef Rudi Sodamin's values and Princess Cruises' commitment to ethical practices.
• Environmentally Conscious: Supporting environmentally conscious fishing practices isn't just a choice for us; it's a responsibility we embrace to protect our oceans for future generations.

Exclusive Seafood Pairings Menu

With an unwavering dedication to excellence, our exclusive seafood pairings menu at Rudi's Catch epitomizes a harmonious blend of fresh, sustainably sourced ingredients meticulously crafted to delight the senses. Chef Rudi Sodamin's innovative touch shines through in dishes like Asian-fried calamari and lobsters with garlic butter, offering a symphony of flavors.

Alongside these seafood delights, guests can savor vegetarian options and signature beef classics, ensuring a diverse and flavorful dining experience for all preferences. Our menu aims to provide a fresh perspective on seafood dining, emphasizing quality and taste in every dish presented.

Each creation is a testament to our commitment to providing a culinary journey that excites the palate and leaves a lasting impression. At Rudi's Catch, we invite you to indulge in our exclusive seafood pairings menu, where every bite tells a story of passion and dedication to the art of fine dining.

What Is the New Seafood Restaurant on Princess Cruises?

'The Catch by Rudi' is the new seafood restaurant on Princess Cruises, showcasing contemporary interpretations of classic dishes and international fusion influences. Priced at $39 per person, it's part of the Princess Premier package.

Which Princess Ships Have the Catch Restaurant?

On Princess ships, The Catch by Rudi sets sail, gracing Enchanted, Majestic, Sky, and Discovery. It's a seafood delight, with innovative dishes like Tower of Taste and Beauty on the Plate. Join us for an oceanic feast!

Why Is Sky Princess Going Into Dry Dock?

We're excited about Sky Princess heading to dry dock for routine maintenance and upgrades. This downtime allows us to enhance amenities, ensure top performance, and guarantee an exceptional guest experience. Technical inspections and necessary repairs will be conducted to maintain our high standards.

What Is the New Restaurant on Sky Princess?

The new restaurant on Sky Princess is 'The Catch by Rudi,' offering a three-course meal experience at $39 per person. Curated by Chef Rudi Sodamin, the menu showcases fresh seafood like lobster and oysters.

In conclusion, Rudi's Catch offers a tantalizing array of fresh seafood collaborations that truly elevate the dining experience at sea.

From the innovative fusion creations to the exclusive pairings menu, every dish showcases the dedication to quality and sustainability that sets Rudi's Catch apart.

In the world of seafood dining, Rudi's Catch truly hits the nail on the head, providing a culinary journey that's both exciting and satisfying.

Claire, a creative soul with an unquenchable thirst for storytelling, is an integral part of the Voyager Info team. As a dedicated writer, she weaves captivating narratives that transport readers to enchanting cruise destinations and beyond.

Claire’s love affair with writing began at an early age when she discovered the magic of words and their ability to craft worlds and emotions. Her innate curiosity led her to explore various literary genres, but it was travel writing that truly captured her heart. Drawing inspiration from her own globetrotting adventures and encounters with diverse cultures, Claire embarked on a journey to become a travel writer par excellence.

The Impact of Hurricane Dorian on Bahamas' Famous Swimming Pigs: Before and After

Discover the resilience of the Bahamas' iconic swimming pigs post-Hurricane Dorian, uncovering a tale of survival and hope amidst devastation.

As we move closer to understanding the consequences of Hurricane Dorian for the Bahamas’ renowned swimming pigs, it feels like we’re revealing a story of endurance in the face of devastation. The effect of the hurricane on these cherished animals has led to widespread speculation about their outcome.

Stay tuned as we explore the challenges faced by the swimming pigs before and after the catastrophic event, shedding light on their survival, rehabilitation efforts, and the future of this iconic population in the Bahamas.

• Catastrophic impact on habitats led to widespread devastation on Pig Beach.
• Local volunteers and global donations crucial for rescue and recovery efforts.
• Rehabilitation efforts focus on collaborative care, aided by global support.
• Long-term plans prioritize establishing resilient habitats to protect the swimming pigs.

Hurricane Dorian's Devastation on Swimming Pigs

Hurricane Dorian's impact on the swimming pigs of the Bahamas was catastrophic, leading to widespread devastation in their habitats across the islands. Particularly on Pig Beach, a popular spot for the famous swimming pigs, the Category 5 storm wreaked havoc. The storm surge resulted in the loss of many pigs in areas like Grand Bahama and the Abaco Islands. Concerns quickly arose regarding the welfare of the surviving pigs as they struggled to cope with the aftermath of the extreme weather conditions. Tragically, some of the pigs perished due to the harsh conditions brought on by Hurricane Dorian.

The situation was further compounded by the disappearance of Reginald Curry, who was responsible for caring for a colony of pigs. His absence added to the distressing circumstances faced by the already vulnerable swimming pigs. The impact of Hurricane Dorian on the swimming pigs of the Bahamas was profound, necessitating urgent rescue and recovery efforts to address the devastation caused to their habitats.

Rescue and Recovery Efforts

Following the devastating impact of Hurricane Dorian on the Bahamas' swimming pigs, the focus has shifted towards implementing comprehensive rescue and recovery efforts to safeguard the surviving pig population and rebuild their habitats.

Local volunteers played a crucial role in rescuing the surviving swimming pigs post-Hurricane Dorian, providing essential care, food, and temporary shelters. Additionally, global donations poured in to support the recovery efforts for the swimming pigs in the aftermath of the hurricane.

The swimming pigs aren't only beloved by locals but are also considered vital for The Bahamas' economic recovery, symbolizing resilience for the Bahamian people. Long-term plans include rebuilding a more resilient habitat for the swimming pigs, implementing safety measures, and collaborating with experts to protect them.

Lessons learned from Hurricane Dorian emphasize the importance of better disaster preparedness for animals, community support during crises, awareness of climate change effects, and the global impact of natural disasters.

Rehabilitation of the Pigs

In the ongoing efforts to rehabilitate the swimming pigs in the Bahamas post-Hurricane Dorian, a collaborative approach involving local volunteers, global support, and expert consultation is crucial for ensuring the long-term well-being and safety of these beloved animals. Workers tirelessly served the surviving pigs, providing essential care and temporary shelters. Donations from around the world poured in, aiding in the rehabilitation process. Efforts are underway to rebuild a more resilient habitat for the pigs, incorporating expert advice to protect them from future natural disasters. To highlight the significance of this rehabilitation, a table showcasing the progress made so far is provided below:

The collaborative efforts demonstrate a united front in ensuring the well-being of these unique animals, vital not only for their sake but also for the economic recovery and tourism industry of The Bahamas.

Impact on Tourism Industry

Amidst the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian, the impact on the Bahamas' tourism industry, particularly the allure of the Exuma's swimming pigs, stands as a critical focal point for economic recovery and visitor engagement. The devastation caused by the hurricane has disrupted the tourism landscape, affecting the famous swimming pigs and their contribution to the local economy. Here's a closer look at the impact:

• Abortion of Tourist Arrivals : The hurricane's aftermath led to a significant decrease in tourist arrivals to the Exumas, with many visitors rerouting their travel plans to less affected areas.
• Disruptor of Cruise Line Donations : While cruise lines have been supportive of recovery efforts post-Dorian, the disruption in the tourism sector has influenced the allocation of these funds, potentially impacting the preservation of attractions like the swimming pigs.
• Serving an Eviction Notice to Economic Growth : The temporary decline in tourism activities post-hurricane served as an eviction notice to the anticipated economic growth, underscoring the vulnerability of the tourism industry in the face of natural disasters.

Long-term Outlook for the Pigs

The recovery efforts post-Hurricane Dorian are focusing on establishing a more resilient habitat for the swimming pigs on Big Major Cay, emphasizing collaborations with experts to ensure long-term protection and safety measures for these iconic animals.

The rebuilding process includes enhancing the swimming pigs' habitat to better withstand future natural disasters, such as hurricanes. Implementing safety measures like reinforced shelters, early warning systems, and emergency evacuation plans are key components of the long-term outlook for the pigs.

Disaster preparedness is a crucial lesson learned from the impact of Hurricane Dorian, highlighting the importance of proactive measures to safeguard the well-being of the swimming pigs and other wildlife in the region.

What Happened to the Swimming Pigs in the Bahamas?

We observed the fate of the swimming pigs in the Bahamas post-Hurricane Dorian. Some pigs survived, but many perished due to the storm surge. Efforts were made to rescue survivors and rebuild their habitat for safety and economic recovery.

How Was the Bahamas Affected by Hurricane Dorian?

We experienced extensive devastation in The Bahamas from Hurricane Dorian. The storm, a Category 5 with 185 mph winds, brought a storm surge over 25 feet in areas like Grand Bahama and the Abaco Islands, causing severe flooding and destruction.

Who Helped the Bahamas After Hurricane Dorian?

We all helped the Bahamas after Hurricane Dorian. Donations poured in from cruise lines and international organizations. Local volunteers and NGOs worked tirelessly. Nations and agencies assisted in recovery efforts. The global community united to support the Bahamas.

How Do the Pigs in the Bahamas Survive?

We believe the pigs in the Bahamas survive by relying on natural instincts and group dynamics. Their feral nature and family bonds help them weather storms successfully. Adult pigs protect piglets, showcasing their resilience and ability to endure harsh conditions.

In conclusion, the impact of Hurricane Dorian on the Bahamas' famous swimming pigs was devastating, with many perishing and their habitat suffering severe damage. However, efforts to rescue and rehabilitate the surviving pigs have been successful, highlighting their resilience and importance to the country's tourism industry.

One interesting statistic is that the swimming pigs contribute an estimated $20 million annually to the Bahamas' economy, emphasizing their significance for the country's long-term recovery and future prosperity.

The Ultimate Red Sox Experience: Luxurious Air Travel With Crystal Skye

Embark on the Red Sox's opulent journey aboard Crystal Skye, where extravagant luxury meets unparalleled service – a lavish experience like no other awaits.

As we embark on the lavish Crystal Skye, we are immersed in an unparalleled realm of luxury and comfort, offering a unique travel experience.

The Red Sox's choice to opt for this lavish mode of transportation not only speaks to their commitment to excellence but also sets the stage for a journey filled with unparalleled luxury and sophistication.

From the exquisite interiors to the bespoke services, every detail on this extraordinary aircraft promises an experience that transcends the ordinary, leaving us eager to discover more about this ultimate Red Sox adventure.

• Red Sox chartered a Boeing 777 with Crystal Skye for a London trip, offering exclusive luxury travel.
• Crystal Skye's amenities include Michelin-star dining, spacious lounges, and attentive service for comfort.
• Passengers enjoyed 88 flat first-class seats, gourmet meals, and top-notch entertainment on the luxurious aircraft.
• The journey showcased unparalleled luxury with a dedicated butler, executive chef, and exquisite bathroom facilities.

Red Sox Chartered Crystal Skye Details

Chartering the Crystal Skye Boeing 777, the Red Sox indulged in a luxurious airborne experience unlike any other for their London excursion. The sheer opulence of the Boeing 777, with its 88 flat first-class seats, full bar, dining room, and individual 24-inch entertainment screens, set the stage for an unforgettable journey.

At a price tag of approximately $500,000 for a mere six-hour flight, the Red Sox spared no expense to ensure their comfort and satisfaction. Passengers were pampered with top-notch amenities, including the services of an executive chef providing Michelin-star quality dining, a dedicated butler catering to their every need, and luxurious bathroom facilities rivaling those of a high-end hotel.

The exclusivity and grandeur of the Crystal Skye jet exemplify the epitome of luxury travel, with air cruises often costing up to $159,000 per person for global trips, offering a truly lavish and exclusive experience that only a select few can savor.

Luxury Amenities on Crystal Skye

Indulging in the opulent realm of luxury travel, Crystal Skye's lavish amenities redefine the airborne experience for passengers seeking unparalleled comfort and extravagance. With 88 flatbed seats that convert into 70.5-inch beds, ultimate comfort is guaranteed throughout the flight. Each seat features a 24-inch touchscreen display for entertainment, allowing passengers to immerse themselves in a world of movies, music, and games.

The butler service and full-time executive chef elevate the dining experience to new heights, promising Michelin-star quality meals that satisfy even the most discerning palates. From complimentary wifi to a fully stocked bar and a spacious lounge with dining tables, Crystal Skye ensures that every aspect of the journey is tailored to provide the ultimate comfort and luxury. The promise of luxurious bathroom facilities further enhances the overall travel experience, setting a new standard for opulence in the skies.

With Crystal Skye, every moment spent aboard is a testament to the epitome of luxury travel.

Crystal Skye's Michelin-Star Dining Experience

Embarking on a culinary journey of unparalleled excellence, Crystal Skye's Michelin-star dining experience elevates luxury air travel to new heights. On this luxurious jet, passengers are treated to a gastronomic delight curated by a full-time executive chef, ensuring gourmet meals that rival those of top-rated restaurants. The high-end dining on Crystal Skye isn't just about sustenance; it's a symphony of flavors, textures, and presentations that showcase the finest ingredients and culinary expertise.

Each dish served onboard reflects a commitment to excellence, offering passengers top-notch cuisine that's both visually stunning and palate-pleasing. The culinary offerings go beyond mere sustenance; they're a celebration of the art of food, meticulously prepared to tantalize the taste buds of even the most discerning connoisseurs.

The dining experience on Crystal Skye isn't just a meal—it's an event, a luxurious indulgence that enhances the overall luxury travel experience. From the first bite to the last, every aspect of the dining experience reflects the commitment to providing passengers with a truly unforgettable journey through the world of high-end dining.

Red Sox London Series Travel Highlights

Experiencing the opulence of Crystal Skye's luxurious amenities, the Red Sox embarked on a journey to London for the MLB games, setting the stage for unforgettable travel highlights. The Boston Red Sox arrived in style aboard the Crystal Skye Boeing 777, indulging in the epitome of luxury travel. The flight provided a remarkable experience with 88 flat first-class seats, a full bar, and a dining room, ensuring the team's comfort throughout the journey. Passengers were treated to 24-inch entertainment screens, top-notch dining curated by an executive chef, and the impeccable service of a dedicated butler. With a reported cost of $500,000, this exclusive charter elevated the Red Sox's travel to London, adding an extra layer of extravagance to their trip. The combination of exceptional service, luxurious amenities, and a sophisticated atmosphere on the Crystal Skye jet truly made this journey a remarkable highlight for the team.

Behind the Scenes: Crystal Skye Aircraft

Glimpsing into the inner workings of the Crystal Skye aircraft reveals a world of unparalleled luxury and sophistication. Here's why we believe the Crystal Skye stands out:

• Boeing 777-200LR Jet : This aircraft from Crystal AirCruises is a symbol of elegance and comfort, providing a smooth and opulent flying experience.
• Luxurious Interior : Transformed into a stylish luxury oasis, the Crystal Skye boasts a roomy lounge, dining tables, and 88 flatbed seats for maximum relaxation during the journey.
• Cutting-Edge Features : Each seat is equipped with a 24-inch entertainment screen, ensuring passengers are entertained throughout the flight. Additionally, complimentary wifi is available to keep everyone connected.
• Michelin-Star Quality Dining : With access to a full-time executive chef and a promise of Michelin-star quality dining, passengers on the Crystal Skye are treated to a culinary experience that surpasses expectations.

The Crystal Skye isn't just a means of transport; it's a gateway to a world where luxury, comfort, and exceptional service converge to create an unforgettable travel experience.

What Is the Red Sox Plane on Jetblue?

We fly on JetBlue's official plane, which provides comfort and convenience. The journey is always smooth, and the service is top-notch. It's a great way for us to travel to our games with ease.

What's so Special About Fenway Park?

We adore Fenway Park for its storied past and the legendary Green Monster. The intimate atmosphere, rich history, and iconic moments make it a shrine for baseball fans. Fenway embodies the soul of baseball.

How Tall Is the Green Monster?

The Green Monster at Fenway Park stands 37 feet tall. Its imposing presence challenges hitters to aim for the skies. The wall's iconic color and proximity to home plate create a unique aspect of baseball history and lore.

How Much Did Fenway Park Cost to Build?

Like a treasure chest of history, Fenway Park, our beloved home, was built in 1912 for $650,000. Its enduring charm and iconic status in Major League Baseball make it a testament to timeless beauty.

As we soared through the skies in unparalleled luxury, it was clear that the Red Sox spared no expense in ensuring our comfort.

Yet, amidst the opulence and extravagance, it became apparent that true success lies not in the plush seats or gourmet meals, but in the unity and determination of a team striving for greatness.

In the end, it's not the crystal skies above us, but the unwavering spirit within us that defines our ultimate journey.

Affiliate disclaimer

As an affiliate, we may earn a commission from qualifying purchases. We get commissions for purchases made through links on this website from Amazon and other third parties.

Ted Lange's Isaac Love Boat Inspired Cocktail How-To Guide

10 Epic Rivers in Asia to Explore by Bike

Which Celebrity Cruise Ships Have Been Refurbished

What Drinks Can You Bring On Princess Cruise

How To Turn On Cruise Control Tesla Model 3

How To Set Cruise Control Tesla Model Y

What Is The Weather Like On A Transatlantic Cruise In April

Azamara Onward: Origins, Renovation, and Future Plans

Anthony Bourdain: Unconventional Culinary Icon and Global Influencer

Arctic Adventure: Uncharted Destinations With Le Commandant Charcot

Atlas Ocean Voyages Welcomes World Traveller: A New Chapter Begins!

Are Luxury Cruises Worth the Price? Comparing Amenities, Staff Services, Gratuities, Beverages, Dining, Itineraries, Shore Excursions, and Special Memories

How To Check Weather For A Cruise

How To Get From Venice To Chioggia Cruise Terminal

How Do You Qualify For An Ultra Cruise On Carnival

Retrotechtacular: The Nuclear Cruise Ship Of The Future Earns Glowing Reviews

The average modern cruise ship takes about 250 tons or 80,000 gallons of fuel daily. But can you imagine a cruise ship capable of circling the globe fourteen times before it needed to top off? That was the claim for the NS Savannah , a nuclear-powered cruise ship born out of President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” initiative.

The ship was a joint project of several government agencies, including the US Maritime Administration. With a maiden cruise in 1962, the vessel cost a little more than $18 million to build, but the 74-megawatt nuclear reactor added nearly $30 million to the price tag. The ship could carry 60 passengers, 124 crew, and over 14,000 tons of cargo around 300,000 nautical miles using one set of 32 fuel elements. What was it like onboard? The video below gives a glimpse of nuclear cruising in the 1960s.

If you want some more modern views of the vessel, NPR recently toured it at its current home in Baltimore and they have great photos.

Nuclear propulsion for warships is nothing new, of course. But the Savannah is one of only a handful of civilian ships to carry a reactor, and most of those were either Russian icebreakers or cargo ships. Unlike a military reactor, Savannah’s power plant was not made to be especially compact or shock resistant but had safety and serviceability in mind.

The reactor compartment was near the center of the vessel. It was possible to refuel the reactor from access above the compartment. The reactor was a tall cylinder inside a 50-foot-long containment vessel that was 35 feet in diameter. The steel vessel was up to 4 inches thick and could handle up to 186 PSI. Shielding included four feet of concrete, six inches of lead, and six inches of polyethylene. There was also 24 inches of collision shielding built from steel and redwood.

The fuel was low-enriched uranium. Each of the 32 fuel elements had 164 uranium oxide pellets contained in helium. The elements around the edge of the array were enriched to 4.6%, but the central elements were at 4.2%. A set of 21 control rods could fully insert into the core with electric motors in less than two seconds. The entire thing was 17 feet high.

The ship’s screw runs on steam generated by the heat from the nuclear reactor. A 35 ton gear that drives the screw is a precision-machined beast you can see in the video below. Watching the ship being built in that same video, you’d hardly know the ship had a nuclear reactor onboard.

The ship had 30 staterooms for passengers. That seems small by today’s super ship standards, but at the time, that was a respectable number for a luxury cruise ship. The dining room could seat 100 passengers, and many rooms, like the library, could convert to a movie theater or pool. The ship was a demonstration and was heavy on style but short on cargo capacity.

One of the problems with the ship is that it required a larger crew, many with unusual special training. In fact, the normal deck officers became unhappy that the nuclear engineering staff were paid better, and a strike stopped the ship for a while in Galveston. This caused the Maritime Administration to select a new operator, leading to further delays as they had to train a new crew.

The ship was named after the SS Savannah , the first steamship to cross the Atlantic. Both ships were not commercially successful but paved the way for new technology. In fact, as the world seeks to reduce carbon emissions, there is talk of civilian ships using nuclear power again .

Where Is It Now?

The Savannah traveled about 450,000 nautical miles during its lifetime. By 1965, passenger service ended after carrying a total of 848 passengers. For three more years, the ship carried cargo, being refueled once in Galveston, Texas. Once the ship was removed from service in 1972, it bounced around a bit. The city of Savannah was going to make it into a hotel. When that fell through, the ship rested in Galveston for a bit before winding up a museum ship in South Carolina. Eventually, the ship would need nearly a million dollars of renovation and wound up in Baltimore.

The fuel pellets left the ship in 1975, and the reactor found a final resting spot in Utah in 2022. Indeed, disposing of fuel and the power plant may be the largest expense of operating a ship like this.

Was the ship a success or a failure? It depends on your criteria. As a goodwill ambassador, it was a success. As a technology demonstrator, we think it worked well. It hasn’t ushered in the atomic age of shipping, but that may be just because it was a little too early. New smaller and safer reactors may well bring Savannah a lot of technological cousins in the future.

33 thoughts on “ Retrotechtacular: The Nuclear Cruise Ship Of The Future Earns Glowing Reviews ”

There were 2 nuclear powered Arktika-class vessels that took passengers until recently. These were icebreakers used for scientific exploration and later for high-paying passengers who wanted to go to the north pole. ex. https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/expedition-ships/50-years-of-victory

Not sure why these are no longer available for trips… lots of potential reasons, some of which this article brings to mind.

Couldn’t be Putin’s misadventure in Ukraine…

I recall the promise that nook lee yar was going to make power generation so cheap it would be almost free while being perfectly safe. Must have missed it playing army in ‘Nam

nook you lar, shirley

Let’s make it happen. It can just undock and forever cruise the world, founding a new civilization. When everything else collapses, it can be used as a base for pirate-raider descendants in search of Mount Everest.

They open it up for tours each year for National Maritime day. I’ve been a few times and it’s very interesting.

“Unlike a military reactor, Savannah’s power plant was not made to be especially compact or shock resistant but had safety and serviceability in mind”

I think Admiral Hyman Rickover would viscerally disagree with you !

Not to say USN’s reactors are not safe. But they are small and from what I understand not as easy to service. And certainly made to take more of a beating which is, of course, safe for its purpose.

It takes some major cutting to open up US military nuclear ships for refueling. CVNs (nuclear aircraft carriers) were being designed for a 50 year lifetime with one mid-life refueling. But advancing technology used in the Ford class will be seeing off the Nimitz class ships before they get to 50 years old.

Some wanted the first CVN, Enterprise, preserved as a museum ship since it was the first CVN. It had been refueled once and there shouldn’t have been any reason the reactor section couldn’t have been opened up the same way then given a cosmetic closing up after all the reactor parts had been pulled. But nope. Had to be scrapped. Enterprise was also a victim of advancing technology. Intended to be the first of a class of ships it ended up being a one-off with 8 small reactors when the next CVN, Nimitz, established a new class (that ultimately grew to 10 ships) with two, larger reactors. Nimitz was retired in 2017 and has begun the scrapping process.

It seems unlikely that the Navy will allow any CVN to be made into a museum ship. :(

The “Big-E” was at Newport News Shipbuilding a few months ago. She was moored next to CVN-79 (new Ford class under construction). No one there (Navy reps included) really wanted to go aboard her since several areas are still reportedly “hot”.

Would’ve been nice to preserve her for posterity (given her storied history going back over half a century).

However, in keeping with Captain Picard’s statement “Let’s make sure history, never forgets the name – Enterprise”, a new one is being built – CVN-80.

If you missed the link to the NPR tour of the ship, you’re missing the absolutely best photos.

Just sayin’.

Also checkout the virtual tour on the ship’s website: http://www.ns-savannah.org/

Cool, thank you

Whats with all these babaric units. C’mon hackaday editors!

I must have missed the references to an elephant in the article :)

Yeah! Everything should be in cubits and omers.

Our scout troop visited it and the Yorktown a couple of times. It was pretty cool because you could see the goods in a circular window walk. Man we went all over that ship. Found old coast guard water and civil defense kinda blue fiberglass helmet liners from that era. I recall they had rad badges in the corridors. The food fight on the Yorktown was the thing of legends though. Yet another place our troop of idiots was not allowed to return to.

It was defueled in 1971, not 1975…

I’ve been visiting the NS Savannah every year since 2017 (excepting the pandemic). They know me as the guy with the old camera. My NS Savannah page is at http://www.bobdbob.com/~tjohnson/savannah/ . I got about a foot of documentation off ebay a few years ago, as well as two 16mm films (one documenting the construction, one documenting the defueling) which I have digitized. My cow orkers are really tired of Savannah trivia…

> My NS Savannah page is at http://www.bobdbob.com/~tjohnson/savannah/

That’s a great archive, thank for taking the time to digitise all this, and for putting it in a nice clean compact website! Bookmarked for future reference :-)

I guess I missed the references to an elephant in the article :)

Savannah’s fuel was reprocessed, not disposed-of.

When the containment vessel was cut-open, in addition to the concrete and metal, there were some crushed beer-cans tossed-in as fill.

Presently, I and a handful of other people are working on getting the reactor control-room powered up, and at least a few of the instruments working. We hope to have something to show by next Maritime Day. About half of the instruments in the control-room are pneumatic; there is a rat’s nest of copper tubing inside the instrument cabinets.

Here’s a video of me pressing the “Lamp Test” buttons with the panel powered.

D’oh: https://youtu.be/UMOFP8V8dLU

NS Savannah was in part doomed by coming along too soon. Not long after she entered service, CONEX or containerized freight came along and rapidly made all break bulk freighters like NS Savannah obsolete.

In short order there were four main types of cargo ships. Container. Bulk carrier (grains, ore, rock, dirt etc. Tankers (subtypes for liquids, gasses, or liquefied gasses). Obsolete, soon to be scrapped.

Even if NS Savannah had been built for containers, her service life wouldn’t have lasted much longer due to the rapid size increase container ships went through, up to the Panamax size for the Panama Canal locks, and other *max sizes for the Suez and other major canals’ locks.

Converting the ship to all passenger space would also have been a failure because by the mid 1970’s the trans-ocean cruise market was pretty much dead thanks to faster airliners, while the regional cruise market wasn’t yet a big thing. That didn’t really get going until the late 1970’s and that 9 year long TV commercial for Princess Cruise Lines called “The Love Boat” helped popularize it.

The only hope for NS Savannah to have stayed in service would have been an all passenger conversion then taking advantage of having been a US built ship to be able to do direct revenue service between American ports without having to make stops in between at foreign ports. But other than one (IIRC some more may be built) ship cruising around Hawaii, there haven’t been any Jones Act compliant US built passenger ships in over 50 years. The SS United States could be refurbished for US to US passenger service but nobody wants to pony up the $$$$ to fix it up and there’d be fights over modernizing VS preserving its historic style, and the fact that it wouldn’t carry 5,000+ passengers and a thousand crew.

Many (USA) ships have Liberia registry. Cheaper crews, tax evasion, liability insurance, etc.

They can’t carry passengers directly between two US ports without a stop in a foreign country, thanks to the Jones act. The act was intended to boost American building of ships but that didn’t happen.

Recommissioning the reactor would also be a huge challenge as it would have to meet current safety standards, and then go through approval and licensing. The cost would far outweigh any potential revenue.

If the ship hadn’t been retired, it wouldn’t need recommissioning.

That’s curious. I just read about these vessels a few weeks ago. From what I recall, one of the reasons it failed was that the ship was not allowed to “sail?” “drive?” … float? into most of the harbors.

You could say “steam into harbour” and be technically correct as it’s still steam-powered, but with a nuclear reactor heating the water, rather than coal.

Yup, the ignorant know-nothing people who equate everything nuclear with bombs. They’ve held back use of the cleanest power source there is.

> that the nuclear engineering staff pay were paid better, engineering staff pay was better or -> engineering staff were paid better

Or is this some English turn of phrase I’m not aware of?

>The Nuclear YACHT could carry 60 passengers, 124 crew, and over 14,000 tons FTFY The average Carnival ship includes 1,225 employees and has a passenger to staff ratio of 3.3 to 1 for ~4000 passengers.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. ( Comment Policy )

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Never miss a hack

If you missed it.

Wrencher-2: A Bold New Direction For Hackaday

Tech Support… Can AI Be Worse?

Japan’s First Commercial Rocket Debuts With A Bang

How Does Time Work On The Moon?

User Beware: The Fine Line Between Content And Code

Our columns.

How Star Trek Breached The Defences Of A Major Broadcaster

6502 Hacking Hack Chat

Hackaday Links: March 31, 2024

Too Much Over-optimization Is Never Enough!

Retrotechtacular: The IBM 7070

By using our website and services, you expressly agree to the placement of our performance, functionality and advertising cookies. Learn more

Maritime industry explores nuclear power for ships as technology opens up

• Pressure growing on shipping sector to decarbonise faster
• Nuclear fuel options being seen as cleanest solution
• Any nuclear solutions seen at least 10 years away

RISK ASSESSMENTS

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Reporting by Jonathan Saul; Editing by Sharon Singleton

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Sustainability

Swedish steelmaker SSAB will invest 4.5 billion euros ($4.83 billion) in building a fossil-free mini-mill in Lulea, Sweden, the company said on Tuesday, more than previously expected as inflation and higher contingencies added to costs.

• Digital Noon Report
• Voyage Optimization
• Vessel Performance
• Maintenance prediction
• Fuel Optimization
• IT Consulting
• ESG Consulting

N.S. Savannah is a nuclear-powered cruise ship

The nuclear ship savannah.

Cruise ship tours: The nuclear-powered Savannah

April 02, 2024 74 °F PBS Passport .st0{fill:#0A145A;} .st1{fill:#5680FF;} .st2{fill:#FFFFFF;} UH Search for: Search MENU CLOSE News & Information Features Hello Houston inDepth Topics Local News Statewide News Business Education News Energy & Environment Health & Science Immigration Politics Transportation All Stories >>> Arts & Culture Arts & Culture Main Classical Music Music Opera & Musical Theater Dance Visual Art Literature Theatre & Film Voices and Verses: A Poem-A-Day Series Awareness Hispanic Heritage Pride Month: Better Together! Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Black History Women’s History Education Programs & Podcasts Local Programs Party Politics Houston Matters with Craig Cohen I SEE U with Eddie Robinson Texas Standard UH 100 Years of Houston Bauer Business Focus Briefcase Engines of Our Ingenuity Health Matters UH Moment Features Dead and Buried Career Frontier Podcasts Below the Waterlines: Houston After Hurricane Harvey Party Politics Skyline Sessions Encore Houston All Podcasts >> About About Us Meet the Team Join the Team Contact Us Ethics and Standards Reports & Financials Press Room Support Membership Update Payment Method Upgrade Your Monthly Gift Give a Gift Membership Giving Programs Affinity Council Studio Society In Tempore Legacy Society Innovation Fund Volunteers Foundation Board Young Leaders Council Mission Ambassadors Donations Giving Opportunities Vehicle Donation Employee Match Program More Ways to Give Partnerships Corporate Sponsorship Listen Watch Donate Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Linkedin Mastodon googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1488818411584-0'); }); article .entry-content .fullattribution img { max-width: 1px; max-height: 1px; } Weekly Dose of Wonder | NPR

Step inside the world's only nuclear-powered passenger ship — built in 1959.

The Nuclear Ship Savannah offers a snapshot of a nuclear future that never quite came to pass.

Deep inside the Port of Baltimore, past stacks of shipping containers and a plant that makes wallboard, sits the world's first, and only, nuclear-powered cruise ship – the NS Savannah.

The Savannah is the only nuclear-powered merchant ship the U.S. ever built, and the only nuclear vessel in the world designed with passengers in mind. As NPR's chief correspondent for all things atomic, I've wanted to see her for years.

So when the opportunity came up to take a tour recently, I climbed aboard.

Savannah's origin story began in the darkest days of the Cold War. In December of 1953, the very future of the world seemed to be in question. The Soviet Union had just detonated its first thermonuclear weapon. A year before, the United States had tested its own ten-megaton device on a remote Pacific island. The blast was so powerful, it wiped the island from the face of the Earth.

In a speech before the United Nations, then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower acknowledged the peril facing the world, but he refused to accept that the atom's only purpose was to vaporize mankind.

"The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future," Eisenhower told the assembled diplomats. "The capability, already proved, is here today."

By the end of the decade, the U.S. Government had built the Savannah as part of a program known as "Atoms for Peace," which sought to demonstrate the good that nuclear energy could do.

The ship was launched in 1959, and its 74-megawatt nuclear reactor was powered up in 1961.

"Anybody could buy a ticket," says Erhard Koehler, the Senior Technical Advisor for the Savannah at the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration, which owns the ship.

The ship was more of a proof-of-concept than an actual cruise ship. It could carry just 60 passengers, and it also had cargo holds for transporting goods.

Still, Koehler says, the ship was popular. "It was fully booked throughout its history." That history was brief – Savannah only carried passengers from 1962 to 1965.

Koehler says the decision to stop carrying passengers wasn't about safety. It was economic.

"If you stopped carrying passengers, you could reduce the number of stewards and reduce the cost of the program," he says.

The ship did see plenty of other visitors. Over its history, Savannah traveled to some 45 foreign ports in 26 countries. It's estimated that well over a million people boarded the ship to see its nuclear reactor at work. To facilitate the visitors, the Savannah sported an unusually large galley. "When it was in port, they would serve 500-700 people in a meal," Koehler says.

While the Savannah's nuclear reactor was revolutionary, the rest of the ship was actually unremarkable for the time it was built. "It wasn't very state-of-the-art," he says. "It's really a time capsule of what was the norm in the U.S. Merchant Marine in the 1950s and 60s."

Koehler takes me down to the reactor control room. It's located below, in the forward section of the ship.

It controlled a pressurized water reactor that used low-enriched uranium to produce heat. That heat was turned into steam that could run the ship's turbines, spinning the propeller and also producing electricity. The Savannah could cruise at 20 knots, which is similar to the speed of most cruise ships today.

We come down past the enormous turbines that once turned Savannah's propeller. The reactor control system is well lit. It's a small, one-of-a-kind system that allowed the ship's engineers to manage the reactor's power output as it plied the seas. Notably, the control room lacks any chairs: "By and large engineers in the 60s stood their watch; they didn't sit," Koehler says.

The operators could also command an emergency shut-down, or scram, of the reactor core. Scrams were rare aboard the Savannah, but one did take place in 1964, when the ship passed through a hurricane. A backup auxiliary motor run off of diesel power kept the ship going while engineers restarted the reactor.

Back in the ship's main lobby, Koehler shows me a small wooden cube. It represents the volume of uranium fuel needed to let the Savannah travel 454,000 nautical miles– enough to circumnavigate the world well over a dozen times. Traveling the same distance with conventional fuel would have required approximately 28 million gallons of it.

But despite its dazzling efficiency, Savannah was never economically viable. It required special fuel-handling facilities to load and unload its nuclear core. And decommissioning the ship has taken decades and cost far more than it could have ever made moving cargo or people.

In the early 1970s, the Savannah's reactor was shut down and de-fueled. By that time, the ship had done what it was supposed to do – demonstrate a peaceful use of nuclear energy. "The program was ended, rather than continue to spend money for no real net effect," he says.

The NS Savannah has never sailed again. In the 80s and 90s it was berthed at the Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum in South Carolina, before being put into storage. Decommissioning of the ship's nuclear components began in 2017.

In November of last year, its reactor was removed and taken to Utah for disposal. Koehler says full decommissioning of the ship's nuclear components will take another two years or so. At that point the Maritime Administration can dispose of the Savannah, Koehler says, but he hopes it will be protected.

"Our objective is not to scrap the ship," he says. "Our objective is to see the ship preserved somehow."

Transcript :

JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:

It's summertime. The kids are out of school, and many families are heading out of town. As part of our series delivering a Weekly Dose of Wonder, NPR's Geoff Brumfiel let us tag along on an unusual family outing.

GEOFF BRUMFIEL, BYLINE: I'm a big nuclear geek. So when I learned that the only passenger ship to ever run off of nuclear energy was sitting at the port of Baltimore, I got everyone in the car.

All right, kids. Who's ready to go see a nuclear-powered cruise ship?

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: Yeah, cool.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #2: Woo (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: Yeah.

BRUMFIEL: My wife was a little less enthusiastic.

NATASHA GILBERT: I mean, I think it just might be a bit boring (laughter). I don't know.

BRUMFIEL: Too bad. I'm driving.

All right. Let's go.

The NS Savannah was built by the U.S. government in the 1950s. It was the height of the Cold War. Atomic bombs were being tested all over the place. The Savannah was supposed to show that nuclear power could be used for good.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Proof that the mighty power which propels her, the atom, can help all men to enter a new era of peace, prosperity and progress.

BRUMFIEL: That was a long time ago. Since then, people have had second thoughts about putting nuclear power in things like cruise ships. By the time we rock up to the port, the ship's reactor hasn't run in decades. In fact, it was just removed last year.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: Is there still nuclear stuff on this thingy?

BRUMFIEL: No, no, they took it off.

My daughter and I walk up the gangway.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #2: We're so high.

BRUMFIEL: Don't be scared. You can hold my hand.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #2: I will feel a little more comfortable in the boat.

BRUMFIEL: Normally, the Savannah is closed to the public, but on this day, the government's maritime administration is showing it off to anyone who wants to take a look. On the deck, we run into Brian Murray. He's working as a docent.

BRIAN MURRAY: I always call the ship the future that never was, but it still looks like the future.

BRUMFIEL: Savannah was launched in 1959, and everything on board is from that era.

MURRAY: You know, that style - like, I guess early James Bond movie style, you know?

BRUMFIEL: We make our way down to the passenger lounge. It's filled with mid-century modern decor.

The whole thing - like, it's very, very stylish and very - oh, my gosh. Look at this. Right on the wall - chart of the nuclides.

The chart of the nuclides is like the periodic table on steroids.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: Why is there so many elements?

BRUMFIEL: Because it doesn't just have the elements. It also has their radioactive isotopes. Nuclear scientists use it. Having it in the passenger lounge is the first hint that this ship is something different. But to get a real look at what made Savannah special, we have to go below...

UNIDENTIFIED TOUR GUIDE: Hang onto the handrails. Watch your footing. OK?

BRUMFIEL: ...To where the ship's nuclear energy used to come from.

SCOTT GINTER: So inside here, you'll see the remnants of the 74-megawatt reactor. The whole purpose of this power plant was to take atoms, split them in half. And when you split an atom in half, you get two things. You get radiation. You get heat.

BRUMFIEL: The heat made steam, and the steam turned turbines that powered the ship. By the way, my son's getting really into it. He asks radiation safety officer Scott Ginter a question.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: You said something about that being, like, a neutron shield or whatever...

GINTER: Yep.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: ...It's called.

GINTER: Neutron shield tank.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: What does that exactly mean or do?

GINTER: Oh, now we're going to get technical.

BRUMFIEL: Technically speaking, nuclear power isn't really all that complicated. Remember Einstein's famous equation, E equals MC squared? When a uranium atom gets split in two, a tiny amount of its mass, M, is converted into an enormous amount of energy, E. And I mean enormous. A cube of uranium a little bigger than a Rubik's cube could send the Savannah around the world well over a dozen times, the equivalent of burning 28 million gallons of fuel.

That incredible power - that is why I am so obsessed with all things nuclear - well, partially, because I'm also obsessed with what this ship says about us. We turn a magic equation into a powerful bomb, build enough of them to destroy the world. And at the same time, we're like, hey; why don't we try doing something fun like build a cruise ship, see how far it can go? We're so smart as a species but also pretty confused. Anyway, enough of that.

Did you like the ship?

GILBERT: Yeah, it was fun.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #2: I'm bored. I want to go home.

BRUMFIEL: All right, let's go home. I think we've all had enough.

Geoff Brumfiel, NPR News.

(SOUNDBITE OF SALAAM REMI'S "SHILA'S PLAYGROUND") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

Resources like these are made possible by the generosity of our community of donors, foundations, and corporate partners. Join others and make your gift to Houston Public Media today! DONATE

Sign up for our daily weekday newsletter - hello, houston sign up now.

Javascript Required!

Javascript is required for this site.

Nuclear-Powered Ships

(Updated October 2023)

• Nuclear power is particularly suitable for vessels which need to be at sea for long periods without refuelling, or for powerful submarine propulsion.
• Over 160 ships are powered by more than 200 small nuclear reactors. 
• Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers.
• In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use. So far, exaggerated fears about safety have caused political restriction on port access.

Work on nuclear marine propulsion started in the 1940s, and the first test reactor started up in USA in 1953. The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus , put to sea in 1955.

This marked the transition of submarines from slow underwater vessels to warships capable of sustaining 20-25 knots submerged for long periods, independent of needing air for diesel engines to charge batteries.

Nautilus led to the parallel development of further ( Skate -class) submarines, powered by single pressurised water reactors, and an aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise , powered by eight Westinghouse reactor units in 1960. A cruiser, USS Long Beach , followed in 1961 and was powered by two of these early units. Remarkably, the Enterprise remained in service to the end of 2012.

By 1962 the US Navy had 26 nuclear submarines operational and 30 under construction. Nuclear power had revolutionised the Navy.

The technology was shared with Britain, while French, Russian and Chinese developments proceeded separately.

After the Skate -class vessels, reactor development proceeded and in the USA a single series of standardized designs was built by both Westinghouse and GE, one reactor powering each vessel. Rolls-Royce built Westinghouse-derived units for the UK Royal Navy submarines and then developed the design further to the PWR2.

Russia developed both PWR and lead-bismuth cooled reactor designs, the latter not persisting. Eventually four generations* of submarine PWRs were utilised, the last entering service in 1995 in the Severodvinsk class.

* 1955-66, 1963-92, 1976-2003, 1995 on, according to Bellona.

The largest submarines are the 26,500 tonne (34,000 t submerged) Russian Typhoon class, powered by twin 190 MWt PWR reactors, though these were superseded by the 24,000 t Oscar-II class (eg Kursk ) with the same power plant.

The safety record of the US nuclear navy is excellent, this being attributed to a high level of standardisation in naval power plants and their maintenance, and the high quality of the Navy's training program. However, early Soviet endeavours resulted in a number of serious accidents – five where the reactor was irreparably damaged, and more resulting in radiation leaks. There were more than 20 radiation fatalities.* Nevertheless, by Russia’s third generation of marine PWRs in the late 1970s safety and reliability had become a high priority. (Apart from reactor accidents, fires and accidents have resulted in the loss of two US and about four Soviet submarines, another four of which had fires resulting in loss of life.) In the US, UK and French navies there has never been a nuclear plant accident.

* The K-19 accident at sea in 1961 due to cooling failure in an early PWR resulted in eight deaths from acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in repairing it (doses 7.5 to 54 Sv) and possibly more later as well as many high doses. The K-27 accident at sea in 1968 also involved coolant failure, this time in an experimental lead-bismuth cooled reactor, and nine deaths from ARS as well as high exposure by other crew. In 1985 the K-431 was being refuelled in Vladivostok when a criticality occurred causing a major steam explosion which killed ten workers. Over 200 PBq of fission products was released causing high radiation exposure of about 50 others, including ten with ARS.

Lloyd's Register shows about 200 nuclear reactors at sea, and that some 700 have been used at sea since the 1950s. Other sources quote 108 reactors in US naval vessels in mid-2019. More than 14,000 reactor years of nuclear marine operation have been accumulated, Russia claims 7000 of these, and the US Navy has 6200 rector-years to 2021, with 526 reactors.

In 2021 the World Associationof Nuclear Operators (WANO) extended its peer-level pre-startup reviews – a normal procedure for power plants – to Russian icebreakers.

Nuclear naval fleets

Russia built 248 nuclear submarines and five naval surface vessels (plus nine icebreakers) powered by 468 reactors between 1950 and 2003, and was then operating about 60 nuclear naval vessels. (Bellona gives 247 subs with 456 reactors 1958-95.) For operational vessels in 1997, Bellona lists 109 Russian submarines (plus four naval surface ships) and 108 attack submarines (SSN) and 25 ballistic missile ones apart from Russia.

At the end of the Cold War, in 1989, there were over 400 nuclear-powered submarines operational or being built. At least 300 of these submarines have now been scrapped and some on order cancelled, due to weapons reduction programmes*. Russia and the USA had over 100 each in service, with the UK and France less than 20 each and China six. The total today is understood to be about 150, including new ones commissioned**. Most or all are fuelled by high-enriched uranium (HEU).

* In 2007 Russia had about 40 retired submarines from its Pacific fleet alone awaiting scrapping. In November 2008 it was reported that Russia intended to scrap all decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2012, the total being more than 200 of the 250 built to date. Most Northern Fleet submarines had been dismantled at Severodvinsk, and most remaining to be scrapped were with the Pacific Fleet.

** Late in 2019: USA 70, Russia 40, China 19, UK 10, France 9, India 3.

India launched its first nuclear submarine in 2009, the 6000 dwt Arihant SSBN, with a single 85 MW PWR fuelled by HEU (critical in August 2013) driving a 70 MW steam turbine. It is reported to have cost $2.9 billion and was to be commissioned in 2016. The second and slightly larger Arihant -class SSBN, the INS Aridhaman , being built at the Ship Building Centre in Visakhapatnam, was launched in 2017 and is due to be commissioned by 2022. It will have a more powerful reactor. Another three Arihant-class vessels launched by 2023 and then six SSBNs twice the size of Arihant class and six nuclear SSNs are planned, the latter being approved by the government in February 2015. The SSNs will be a similar size to Arihant-class SSBN and powered by a new reactor being developed by BARC. India is also leasing an almost-new 7900 dwt (12,770 tonne submerged) Russian Akula II- class nuclear attack submarine for ten years from 2010, at a cost of $650 million: the INS Chakra , formerly Nerpa . It has a single 190 MWt VM-5/OK-659B (or OK-650B) PWR driving a 32 MW steam turbine and two 2 MWe turbogenerators. A second Akula -class lease has been arranged.

The USA has the main navy with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, while both it and Russia have had nuclear-powered cruisers (USA: 9; Russia: 4). The USA had built 219 nuclear-powered vessels to mid-2010. All US aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear-powered. (The UK’s new large aircraft carriers are powered by two 36 MW gas turbines driving electric motors.)

The US Navy has accumulated over 6200 reactor-years of accident-free experience involving 526 nuclear reactor cores over the course of 240 million kilometres, without a single radiological incident, over a period of more than 50 years. It operated 81 nuclear-powered ships (11 aircraft carriers, 70 submarines – 18 SSBN/SSGN, 52 SSN) with 92 reactors in 2017. There were 10 Nimitz -class carriers in service (CVN 68-77), each designed for 50-year service life with one mid-life refuelling and complex overhaul of their two A4W Westinghouse reactors*. The Gerald Ford class (CVN 78 on) has a similar hull and some 800 fewer crew and two more powerful Bechtel A1B reactors driving four shafts as well as the electromagnetic aircraft launch system. It has an expected service life of 90 years. The Ohio -class SSBNs have a service life of 42 years.

* The seventh such vessel overhaul after 25 years is the Stennis , taking 4.5 years and costing $2.99 billion. It involves major upgrades to the propulsion plant, to the flight deck, catapults, combat systems and the island superstructure.

The Russian Navy logged over 6500 nautical reactor-years to 2015. It appears to have eight strategic submarines (SSBN/SSGN) in operation and 13 nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN), plus some diesel submarines. Russia announced that it would build eight new nuclear SSBN submarines in its plan to 2015. Its only nuclear-powered carrier project was cancelled in 1992. It has one nuclear-powered cruiser in operation and three others were being overhauled. In 2012 it announced that its third-generation strategic submarines would have extended service lifetimes, from 25 to 35 years.

In 2012 construction of a nuclear-powered deep-sea submersible was announced. This is based on the Oscar -class naval submarine and is apparently designed for research and rescue missions. It will be built by the Sevmash shipyard at Severodvinsk, which builds Russian naval submarines.

China has about 12 nuclear-powered submarines (about 8 SSN type-93 Shang class and type-95 Tang class, about 6 SSBN type-94 Jin class and type-96), and was building 21 more. In February 2013 China Shipbuilding Industry Corp (CSIC) received state approval and funding to begin research on core technologies and safety for nuclear-powered ships, with polar vessels being mentioned but aircraft carriers being considered a more likely purpose for the new development. Its first nuclear-powered submarine was decommissioned in 2013 after almost 40 years of service. In June 2018 China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) requested bids from shipbuilders for the country's first nuclear-powered icebreaker. (Its first domestically-built aircraft carrier Shandong is conventionally oil-powered.)

France has a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and ten nuclear submarines (4 SSBN, 6 Rubis class SSN), with six Barracuda class SSN coming online from 2021, Suffren being the first.

The UK has 12 submarines, all nuclear powered (4 SSBN, 8 SSN).

The occupational radiation doses to crew of nuclear vessels in very small. US Naval Reactors’ average annual occupational exposure was 0.06 mSv per person in 2013, and no personnel have exceeded 20 mSv in any year in the 34 years to then. The average occupational exposure of each person monitored at US Naval Reactors' facilities since 1958 is 1.03 mSv per year.

Civil vessels

Nuclear propulsion has proven technically and economically essential in the Russian Arctic where operating conditions are beyond the capability of conventional icebreakers. The power levels required for breaking ice up to 3 metres thick, coupled with refuelling difficulties for other types of vessels, are significant factors. The nuclear fleet, with six nuclear icebreakers and a nuclear freighter, has increased Arctic navigation from 2 to 10 months per year, and in the western Arctic, to year-round. In 2020 Rosatom said it has accumulated 400 reactor-years of operating experience with icebreakers.

The icebreaker Lenin was the world's first nuclear-powered surface vessel (20,000 dwt), commissioned in 1959. It remained in service for 30 years to 1989, and was retired due to the hull being worn thin from ice abrasion. It initially had three 90 MWt OK-150 reactors, but these were badly damaged during refuelling in 1965 and 1967. In 1970 they were replaced by two 171 MWt OK-900 reactors providing steam for turbines which generated electricity to deliver 34 MW at the propellers.  Lenin was retired in 1989 and   is now a museum.

It led to a series of larger icebreakers, the six 23,500 dwt Arktika class, commissioned from 1975. These powerful vessels have two 171 MWt OK-900A reactors delivering 54 MW at the propellers and are used in deep Arctic waters. The Arktika was the first surface vessel to reach the North Pole, in 1977. Yamal , commissioned in 1992, remains in service, with Sibir , Arktika , Rossija and Sovetskiy Soyuz decommissioned in 1992, 2008, 2013 and 2014 respectively. Nominal service life was 25 years (150,000 hours for the reactors), but Atomflot first confirmed 30-year life for it, then in 2020 following a service life extension programme, a further 50,000 hours was licensed, representing six years to 2028. The original  Arktika class were 148 m long and 30 m wide, and designed to break two metres of ice.

The sixth and largest Arktika -class icebreaker – 50 Years of Victory (50 Let Pobedy) – was built by the Baltic shipyard at St Petersburg and after delays during construction it entered service in 2007 (twelve years later than the 50-year anniversary of 1945 it was to commemorate). It is 25,800 dwt, 160 m long and 20 m wide, and is designed to break through ice up to 2.8 metres thick. Its propulsive power is about 54 MW.

For use in shallow waters such as estuaries and rivers, two shallow-draft Taymyr -class icebreakers of 18,260 dwt with one 171 MWt KLT-40M reactor delivering 35 MW propulsive were built in Finland and then fitted with their nuclear steam supply system in Russia. They – Taymyr and Vaygach – are built to conform with international safety standards for nuclear vessels and were launched in 1989 and 1990 respectively. They are 152 m long and 19 m wide, will break 1.77 metres of ice, and were expected to operate for about 30 years or 175,000 hours. OKBM Afrikantov was contracted to extend the operational lifetime of Vaygach to 200,000 hours, and the same was achieved for Taymyr . In 2021 Atomflot was working to extend the reactor life to 235,000 hours in both vessels.

In anticipation of decreasing ice and increased traffic, tenders were called for building the first of a new  LK-60 series of Russian icebreakers in mid-2012, as Project 22220 , and the contract was awarded to Baltijsky Zavod Shipbuilding in St Petersburg. The keel of the new  Arktika  was laid in November 2013, it was launched in June 2016 and it was due to be delivered to Atomflot by the end of 2017 at a cost of RUR 37 billion. In January 2013 Rosatom called for bids to build two more LK-60 icebreakers and a RUR 84.4 billion contract for the second and third vessels, Sibir and Ural , was let in May 2014 to the same shipyard, for delivery in 2019 and 2020. The project cost was quoted in mid-2016 at RUR 122 billion. Construction of the Sibir started in May 2015 and it was launched by the Baltic Shipyard in September 2017. The two RITM-200 reactors were installed at the end of 2017. A flag-raising ceremony was held for Sibir in January 2022 and the vessel has been escorting ships through ice in the Kara Sea and Gulf of Ob. Construction of Ural started in July 2016 and it was launched in May 2019.  Arktika was expected to be in service in 2019 but the date was pushed back to April 2020 due to a delay in manufacturing the steam turbines. It commenced sea trials in December 2019, but in February 2020 one of its propulsion motors was damaged by a short circuit, requiring complex replacement undertaken in September-October 2021. In November 2022 a flag-raising ceremony marked the  Ura l's entry to service and it was sent to the Kara Sea the following month for operational icebreaking. Construction of the fourth LK-60, Yakutia , started in mid-2020. In November 2022 the  Yakutia was launched into the water with a completed hull and is expected to be commissioned in 2024. Construction of the fifth icebreaker of Project 22220, Chukotka , began at the end of 2020 and is scheduled to be operational by the end of 2026. In total Russia plans to build seven vessels of this type with five either completed or under construction. Intended service life is 40 years. In February 2023 an agreement was signed between Baltic Shipyard and Atomflot for the construction of two more nuclear-powered icebreakers. The icebreakers have 60 MW of power (on shafts) and 40 years of expected service life, with commissioning scheduled for December 2028 and December 2030.

The LK-60 vessels are 'universal' dual-draught (10.5 m with full ballast tanks, minimum 8.55 m), displacing up to 33,540 t (25,450 t without ballast), for use in the Western Arctic year-round and in the eastern Arctic in summer and autumn. They are 173 m long, 34 m wide, and designed to break through 2.8 metre thick ice at up to 2 knots. Top speed is 22 knots. The wider 33 m beam at the waterline is to match the 70,000 tonne ships they are designed to clear a path for, though a few ships with reinforced hulls are already using the Northern Sea Route. There is scope for more use: in 2011, 19,000 ships used the Suez Canal and only about 40 traversed the northern route. This increased in 2013 – see below.

The LK-60 is powered by two RITM-200 reactors of 175 MWt each which together deliver 60 MW at the three propellers via twin turbine-generators and three electric motors. The LK-60 is designed to operate in the western Arctic – in the Barents, Pechora and Kara Seas, as well as in shallow water of the Yenissei river and Ob bay, for year-round pilotage (also as tug) of tankers, dry-cargo ships and vessels with special equipment to mineral resource development sites on the Arctic shelf. The Yamal LNG project is expected to need 200 shipping movements per year from Sabetta at the mouth of the Ob river. The vessel has a smaller crew than its predecessors – only 53. They will replace the older vessels Sovetskiy Soyuz and Yamal.

A more powerful Russian LK-120 (originally LK-110) icebreaker, Project 10510 , Lider ( or Leader ), will be powered by two RITM-400 reactors of 315 MWt each to deliver 120 MW propulsion through four 37 MW turbine-generators, four electric motors and four propellers. It is to be capable of breaking through 4.3 metre thick ice at 2 knots, or 2 m thick ice at 15 knots. It is for deep-sea use in the eastern Arctic and will be 209 m long, 50 m wide and with 13 m draft, with displacement of 69,700 dwt. Each of three planned vessels would have a crew of 127. Since they are too big for the St Petersburg shipyard, they are being built by the Zvezda Shipyard Complex in the Far East Primorye region near Vladivostok. Each vessel is expected to cost RUR 120 billion ($1.8-2.0 billion). A contract for the first one, Rossiya , was signed in April 2020, and the keel was laid in mid-2021. Commissioning is expected in 2028.

The LK-60 is too big for easy operation around the oil and gas fields, so Project 10570 is under development with an LK-40 intended for shallow water and the Arctic shelf, with a range of uses. It will displace 20,700 t and be 152 m long, 31 m wide, draft 8.5 m, using a single RITM-200B reactor of 209 MWt delivering 40 MW at the propellers. The reactor plant mass is 1453 tonnes.

Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the 1950s but on the whole has not been commercially successful. The 22,000 tonne US-built NS Savannah , was commissioned in 1962 and decommissioned eight years later. The reactor used 4.2% and 4.6% enriched uranium. It was a technical success, but not economically viable. It had a 74 MWt reactor delivering 16.4 MW to the propeller, but the reactor was uprated to 80 MWt in 1964. The German-built 15,000 tonne Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed some 650,000 nautical miles on 126 voyages in 10 years without any technical problems. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. However, it proved too expensive to operate and in 1982 it was converted to diesel.

The 8000 tonne Japanese Mutsu was the third civil vessel, put into service in 1970. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. It was dogged by technical and political problems and was an embarrassing failure. These three vessels used reactors with low-enriched uranium fuel (3.7-4.4% U-235).

In 1988 the NS Sevmorput was commissioned in Russia, mainly to serve northern Siberian ports. It is a 61,900 tonne 260 m long LASH-carrier (taking lighters to ports with shallow water) and container ship with ice-breaking bow capable of breaking 1.5 metres of ice. It is powered by a KLT-40 reactor similar to the OK-900 as used in larger icebreakers, but with only 135 MWt power delivering 32.5 propeller MW. It needed refuelling only once to 2003. It was to be decommissioned about 2014, but Rosatom approved overhauling it and the ship was returned to service in 2015. In 2019 it was used to ship fresh food from the Pacific across the northern sea route to Murmansk.

Russian experience with nuclear powered Arctic ships totals about 400 reactor-years to 2021. In 2008 the Arctic fleet was transferred from the Murmansk Shipping Company under the Ministry of Transport to Atomflot, under Rosatom. This became a commercial enterprise, with the 40% state subsidy of RUR 1262 million in 2011 phased out in 2014.

In August 2010 two Arktika -class icebreakers escorted the 100,000 dwt tanker Baltika , carrying 70,000 tonnes of gas condensate, from Murmansk to China via the Northern Sea Route (NSR), saving some 8000 km compared with the Suez Canal route. In November 2012 the Ob River LNG tanker with 150,000 cubic metres of gas as LNG, chartered by Russia's Gazprom, traversed the northern sea route from Norway to Japan accompanied by nuclear-powered icebreakers, the route cutting 20 days off the normal journey and resulting in less loss of cargo. It has a strengthened hull to cope with the Arctic ice. There are plans to ship iron ore and base metals on the northern sea route also.

In 2013 the Atomflot icebreakers supported freight transportation and emergency rescue operations along the Northern Sea Route (NSR), and freezing northern seas and estuaries of rivers. In the framework of the regulated activity paid for as per rates established by the Federal Tariff Service of Russia (FST), 151 steering operations were carried out for ships with cargo and in ballast to and from ports in the aquatic area of the NSR, including steering of ships with cargo for building Sabetta Port of JSC Yamal SPG to Okskaya Bay and steering of a convoy of Navy ships under a contract with the Ministry of Defence. Over the 2013 summer-autumn navigation season, 71 transit steering operations were carried out, including 25 foreign-flag ships. A total of 1,356,000 tonnes of various cargoes was shipped east and west through the aquatic area of the NSR.

In 2017 the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) for the first time carried out a corporate peer review of Atomflot, focused on safety culture. WANO routinely carries out such reviews of nuclear power plants worldwide.

Nuclear power and propulsion systems

Naval reactors (with the exception of the ill-fated Russian Alfa class described below) have been pressurised water types, which differ from commercial reactors producing electricity in that:

• They deliver a lot of power from a very small volume and therefore most run on highly-enriched uranium (>20% U-235, originally c 97% but apparently now 93% in latest US submarines, c 20-25% in some western vessels, 20% in the first and second generation Russian reactors (1957-81)*, then 21% to 45% in 3rd generation Russian units (40% in India's Arihant ). Newer French reactors run on low-enriched fuel.
• The fuel is not UO 2 but a uranium-zirconium or uranium-aluminium alloy (c15%U with 93% enrichment, or more U with less – eg 20% – U-235) or a metal-ceramic ( Kursk : U-Al zoned 20-45% enriched, clad in zircaloy, with c 200kg U-235 in each 200 MW core).
• They have long core lives, so that refuelling is needed only after 10 or more years, and new cores are designed to last 50 years in carriers and 30-40 years (over 1.5 million kilometres) in most submarines, albeit with much lower capacity factors than a nuclear power plant (<30%).
• The design allows for a compact pressure vessel with internal neutron and gamma shield. The Sevmorput pressure vessel for a relatively large marine reactor is 4.6 m high and 1.8 m diameter, enclosing a core 1 m high and 1.2 m diameter.
• Thermal efficiency is less than in civil nuclear power plants due to the need for flexible power output, and space constraints for the steam system.
• There is no soluble boron used in naval reactors (at least US ones) but boron may be a burnable neutron poison in the fuel.
• A submarine reactor is required to withstand the shock and vibration experienced by all warships in active service due to ocean turbulence and enemy action.

* An IAEA Tecdoc reports discharge assay of early submarine used fuel reprocessed at Mayak being 17% U-235.

The long core life is enabled by the relatively high enrichment of the uranium and by incorporating a 'burnable poison' such as gadolinium – which is progressively depleted as fission products and actinides accumulate and fissile material is used up. These accumulating poisons and fissile reduction would normally cause reduced fuel efficiency, but the two effects cancel one another out.

However, the enrichment level for newer French naval fuel has been dropped to 7.5% U-235, the fuel being known as 'Caramel', originally developed for research reactors and providing the possibility for greater fuel density, so helping to minimize the increased size of an LEU-fuelled core. It needs to be changed every ten years or so, but avoids the need for a specific military enrichment line, and some reactors will be smaller versions of those on the Charles de Gaulle . In 2006 the Defence Ministry announced that Barracuda class submarines would use fuel with "civilian enrichment, identical to that of EdF power plants," about 5% enriched, and certainly marks a major change there.

Long-term integrity of the compact reactor pressure vessel is maintained by providing an internal neutron shield. (This is in contrast to early Soviet civil PWR designs where embrittlement occurs due to neutron bombardment of a very narrow pressure vessel.)

The Russian, US, and British navies rely on steam turbine propulsion, the French and Chinese in submarines use the turbine to generate electricity for propulsion.

Russian ballistic missile submarines as well as all surface ships since the Enterprise are powered by two reactors. Other submarines (except some Russian attack subs) are powered by one. A new Russian test-bed submarine is diesel-powered but has a very small nuclear reactor for auxiliary power.

Early Russian submarines were powered by VM-A PWRs using 20-21% enriched uranium fuel and producing 70 MWt. These had full-power core life of 1440 hours. The VM-2 then VM-4 reactors, also using 20% enriched fuel and most producing 90 MWt, followed it in second-generation Russian submarines, with twin units in larger vessels. Twin VM-5 PWRs, each 190 MWt and delivering 37 shaft MW, powered the third-generation SSBN vessels, with a single unit in the SSNs. The small Losharik submarine (Project 210, AS-12) is a specialist vessel capable of reaching great depths and has an E-17 PWR reactor.

Seven Russian Alfa- class submarines had a single liquid metal-cooled BM-40A or OK-550 fast neutron reactor of 155 MWt and using very highly enriched uranium – 90% enriched in U-Be fuel. The steam generator delivered 30 shaft MW. These vessels with titanium hulls were very fast, but had operational problems in ensuring that the lead-bismuth coolant did not freeze (at 125°C) when the reactor was shut down. Reactors had to be kept running, even in harbour, since the external heating provision did not work. The design was unsuccessful and all the vessels were retired early – the lead vessel in 1974 and all but one of the others in 1990. The reactor of the last vessel to be retired (K-123, redesignated B-123 in 1992) was replaced with a VM-4 PWR following a 1982 accident where liquid metal coolant leaked into the steam generator.

Russia’s K-27 was an experimental predecessor to the Alfa class with twin VT-1 or RM-1 lead-bismuth cooled reactors. After a few years' service it suffered a multi-fatality reactor accident in 1968, was laid up at Gremikha Bay, then scuttled in 1979. It now needs to be raised and dismantled there.

Russian cruisers have used twin KN-3 reactors of 300 MWt.

The US Navy's 1955 Nautilus had a S2W PWR with 93%-enriched fuel, 900-hour core life at full power delivering 10 MW shaft power. Its second nuclear submarine, USS Seawolf, SSN-575, had a sodium-cooled S2G power plant and operated for nearly two years (1957-58) with this. The intermediate-spectrum reactor raised its incoming coolant temperature over ten times as much as the Nautilus ' water-cooled plant, providing superheated steam, and it offered an outlet temperature of 454°C, compared with the Nautilus’ 305°C. It was highly efficient, but offsetting this, the plant had serious operational disadvantages. Large electric heaters were required to keep the plant warm when the reactor was down to avoid the sodium freezing. The biggest problem was that the sodium became highly radioactive, with a half-life of 15 hours, so that the whole reactor system had to be more heavily shielded than a water-cooled plant, and the reactor compartment couldn’t be entered for many days after shutdown. The reactor was replaced with a PWR type (S2Wa) similar to Nautilus .

For many years the Los Angeles -class submarines built 1972-96 formed the backbone of the US SSN (attack) fleet, and 62 were built. They are 7000 dwt submerged, and have a 165 MW GE S6G reactor driving two 26 MW steam turbines. No refuelling is required for the 33-year service life. About one-third of these are now retired.

The Seawolf SSN in service from 1997 has an S6N reactor driving 34 MW pump-jet propulsion. They are about 9300 dwt submerged and require no refuelling during their 30-year service life. Only three (of 29 planned) were built to 1995, due to the high cost – $3.5 billion each.

The smaller US Virginia -class SSN submarine first commissioned in 2004 has has a S9G reactor of about 210 MWt driving a 30 MW pump-jet propulsion system built by BAE Systems (originally for the Royal Navy). The reactor does not need refuelling for the 33-year service life and can operate with convection circulation without pumps. The vessels are about 7900 dwt submerged, and 19 were in operation by mid-2021, with more being built – a total of 28 from initial contracts. In 2019 ten larger Block V versions (25 m longer, 10,800 dwt) were ordered for delivery 2025-29, costing $22.2 billion for the first nine. These are effectively a new class. 

The 14 US Ohio -class SSBNs (and four converted to SSGNs for guided missiles) have a single S8G nuclear reactor of 220 MWt delivering 45 MW shaft power. These require mid-life refuelling at about 25 years. The 12 slightly larger Columbia class to replace these will require no refuelling, hence shorter mid-life maintenance (2 years instead of 4). They will have an S1B nuclear reactor with electric drive (without reduction gears) and pump jet propulsion. They have been developed in collaboration with the UK, which will deploy them as Dreadnought -class SSBNs.

In April 2021 BWX Technologies was awarded $2.2 billion in contracts for reactor components for Virginia - and Columbia -class vessels, over eight years. 

Unlike PWRs, boiling water reactors (BWRs) circulate water which is radioactive* outside the reactor compartment, and are also considered too noisy for submarine use.

* Radioactivity in the cooling water flowing through the core is mainly the activation product nitrogen-16, formed by neutron capture from oxygen. N-16 has a half-life on only 7 seconds but produces high-energy gamma radiation during decay.

Reactor power ranges from 10 MWt (in a prototype) up to 200 MWt in the larger submarines and 300 MWt in surface ships such as the Kirov -class battle cruisers. A figure of 550 MWt each is quoted for two A4W units in Nimitz- class carriers, and these supply 104 shaft MW each ( USS Enterprise had eight A2W units of 26 shaft MW and was refuelled three times). The Gerald Ford -class carriers have more powerful and simpler A1B reactors* reported to be at least 25% more powerful than A4W, hence about 700 MWt, but running a ship which apart from the steam turbnine propulsion is entirely electrical, including an electromagnetic aircraft launch system or catapult. Accordingly, the ship has about three times the electrical capacity of Nimitz -class. Ford -class A1B reactors are designed to be refuelled in mid-operational life of 50 years.

* This is a ‘Bechtel’ reactor since it has taken over Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory from Westinghouse, and Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory from GE. These have always provided naval power reactors.

The smallest nuclear submarines are the six French Rubis -class attack submarines (2600 dwt) in service since 1983, and these use a CAS48 reactor, a 48 MW integral PWR reactor from Technicatome (now Areva TA) with 7% enriched fuel that requires refuelling every 7-10 years.

The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (38,000 dwt), commissioned in 2000, has two K15 integral PWR units of 150 MWt scaled up from the CAS48 design driving 61 MW Alstom turbines and the system can provide five years running at 25 knots before refuelling.

The Le Triomphant class of ballistic missile submarines (14,335 dwt submerged – the last launched in 2008) uses these K15 naval PWRs of 150 MWt and 32 shaft MW with electric drive and pump-jet propulsion and operating cycle 20-25 years.

The Barracuda -class (5300 dwt submerged) or Suffren -class attack submarines have hybrid propulsion: electric for normal use and pump-jet for higher speeds. Areva TA (formerly Technicatome) supplies 150 MWt reactors based on the K15 for the six Barracuda submarines, delivering about 21.5 MW shaft power. The first was due to be commissioned in 2020. Refuelling interval is about ten years. As noted above, they will use low-enriched fuel – about 5-6%.

French integral PWR system for submarine (steam generator within reactor pressure vessel)

UK: The Rolls-Royce PWR1 of about 78 MWt was used to power the first 23 British nuclear submarines. It was based on the Westinghouse S5W reactor, one of which was provided by the US Navy in 1958 under a mutual defence agreement. The PWR1 with high-enriched fuel required refuelling every ten years or so. The four British Vanguard -class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) of 15,900 dwt submerged have a single PWR2 reactor with two steam turbines driving a single pump jet of 20.5 MW, implying a reactor power of about 145 MWt.

UK Astute -class attack submarines of 7400 dwt submerged also have a PWR2 reactor of 145 MWt driving two steam turbines and a single pump-jet of 20.5 MW. The first of seven vessels was commissioned in 2010, and five were delivered by mid-2021 at a cost of £1.65 billion each. New versions of this with 'Core H' will require no refuelling over the life of the vessel, about 25 years*. In March 2011 a safety assessment of the PWR2 design was released showing the need for improvement, though they have capacity for passive cooling to effect decay heat removal.

* Rolls-Royce claims that the Core H PWR2 has six times the (undisclosed) power of its original PWR1 and runs four times as long. The Core H is Rolls-Royce's sixth-generation submarine reactor core.

The PWR3 for the  Vanguard  replacement  Dreadnought -class SSBNs will be largely a US design – presumably based on the 210 MWt S9G in the  Virginia -class – but using UK technology. It will be more expensive to build but cheaper to maintain than the PWR2. All UK submarine reactors use highly-enriched fuel, obtained from the USA.

Russia: Since 1959 Russia has used four generations of PWRs in its civil fleet:

• OK-150 in the Lenin until 1966 (3x90 MWt).
• OK-900 subsequently in the Lenin (2x159 MWt), OK-900A in the main Arktika -class icebreaker fleet (2x171 MWt).
• KLT-40 in the Sevmorput (1x135 MWt), KLT-40M in two Tamyr class icebreakers (1x171 MWt), and KLT-40S (2x35 MWe) in the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant (FNPP).
• RITM-200 in the LK-60 generation of icebreakers (2x175 MWt), RITM-200M in the second generation FNPP (2x50-55 MWe), and the RITM-400 under development for LK-120 icebreakers (2x315 MWt). The RITM-200B (209 MWt) is also being developed for smaller icebreakers.

The OK series of reactors was developed separately from VVER power reactors, by OKBM Afrikantov. They were originally designed not to be refuelled. The KLT and RITM designs are also from OKBM-Afrikantov.

Russia's main submarine power plant is the VM-5 PWR with OK-650 steam generator unit of 190 MWt, using 20-45% enriched fuel. This set-up is usually known simply as an OK-650 nuclear power system. The large ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and cruise missile submarines have two of these with steam turbines together delivering 74 MW, and its third-generation attack submarines (SSN) have a single VM-5 plus OK-650 unit powering a 32 MW steam turbine.

The fourth-generation  Borei -class SSBN with single 195 MWt OK-650 power plant is the first Russian design to use pump-jet propulsion. A fifth generation naval reactor is reported to be a super-critical type (SCWR) with single steam circuit and expected to run 30 years without refuelling. A full-scale prototype was being tested early in 2013.

Russia’s Project 885 Yasen-M class SSGN is said to be equivalent to the US Virginia class and will replace the Akula class. It is 13,800 dwt displacement and has a KTP-6 nuclear reactor of about 200 MW, an integral PWR. The Yasen class used a OK-650 system.

Russia's large Arktika -class icebreakers launched 1975-2007 use two OK-900A (essentially KLT-40M) nuclear reactors of 171 MW each with 241 or 274 fuel assemblies of 45-75% enriched fuel as U-Zr alloy and 3-4 year refuelling interval. They drive steam turbines and each produces up to 33 MW at the propellers, though overall propulsive power is about 54 MW. The two Tamyr class icebreakers have a single 171 MW KLT-40M reactor giving 35 MW propulsive power. Sevmorput uses one 135 MW KLT-40 unit producing 32.5 MW propulsive, and all those use 90% enriched fuel. (The now-retired Lenin's first OK-150 reactors used 5% enriched fuel but were replaced by OK-900 units with 45-75% enriched fuel.)

Most of the Arktika -class vessels have had operating life extensions based on engineering knowledge built up from experience with Arktika itself. It was originally designed for 100,000 hours of reactor life, but this was extended first to 150,000 hours, then to 175,000 hours. In practice this equated to a lifespan of eight extra years of operation on top of the design period of 25. In that time, Arktika covered more than 1 million nautical miles.

For the next LK-60 generation of Russian icebreakers, OKBM Afrikantov developed a new reactor – RITM-200 – to replace the KLT design. Under Project 22220 this is an integral 175 MWt, 53 MWe PWR with inherent safety features and using low-enriched uranium fuel (almost 20%) in 199 cermet fuel assemblies. Two reactors drive two turbine generators and then three electric motors powering the propellers, producing 60 MW propulsive power. Refuelling cycle quoted at 6-7 years, or at 65% capacity factor refuelling is every 7-10 years, overhaul at 20 years, over a 60-year operating lifetime. TVEL started making the fuel in 2016, with 4.5 TWh service life from each load (which would be 42% capacity over 7 years), but in 2020 the quoted service life is 7 TWh or 75,000 hours. The mass of two units is 2200 tonnes. The first icebreaker to be equipped with these ( Arktika , named after the lead Arktika-class icebreaker) was launched in 2016 and finished commissioning in 2020. The design concept allows for a third reactor to feed into motive power. The reactors with four integral steam generators (12 cassettes) are made by ZiO-Podolsk.

The RITM-200B is a version for single use in smaller icebreakers. It is 209 MWt and produces 40 MW propulsive power. Its dimensions are 6x7x16 metres and mass is 1453 tonnes. Service life is 40 years.

The barge-based version is the RITM-200M (see floating nuclear power plants section below). The land-based version is the RITM-200N.

The integral RITM-400 reactors powering the LK-120 icebreakers will be 315 MWt, 120 MWe each with two delivering 120 MW propulsion through four electric motors. Core energy content is 6.0 TWh over service life before renovation at 160,000 hours, with 10-year refuelling interval. The fuel is a new design.* The reactor plant mass will be 3920 tonnes for two and their containment will be 8.2 x 9 x 17 metres each. Service life is 40 years.

* Rosatom reports: "Unlike RITM-200 reactors that have hexagonal fuel assemblies with spacer grids and cylindrical fuel rods, RITM-400 units will have a channel-type core with cylindrical-shaped fuel assemblies and self-spacing complex-profile fuel elements."

The KLT-40S is a four-loop version of the icebreaker reactor for floating nuclear power plants which runs on low-enriched uranium (<20%) and has a bigger core (1.3 m high instead of 1.0 m) and a shorter refuelling interval of 3-4.5 years. A variant of this is the KLT-20, specifically designed for floating nuclear power plants. It is a two-loop version with the same enrichment but a 10-year refuelling interval.

OKBM has supplied 460 nuclear reactors for the Russian navy, and these have operated more than 6500 reactor-years.

Russia’s planned Shtorm aircraft carrier (Project 23000) will be fitted with RITM-200 reactors.

China developed its first submarine nuclear power plant in the 1970s, with some Russian help. The two-loop 300 MWe Qinshan reactor commissioned in 1994 is said to be based on early submarine reactors. The Type 91 Han -class SSN and Type 92 Xia class had a single PWR of about 58 MWt, probably based on Russia’s OK-150 and delivering about 8.2 MW shaft power. The Type 93 Shang -class SSN and Type 94 Jin -class SSBN have one or two PWRs of about 150-175 MWt total delivering about 25 MW shaft power. The Type 95 SSN and Type 96 Tang -class SSBN have improved reactors possibly with reverse-engineering from US civil equipment, but little is known of them. At least in earlier reactors, China is believed to use low-enriched uranium fuel.

India's Arihant (6000 dwt) SSBN has an 82.5 MWe PWR using 40% enriched uranium driving one or two 35 MW steam turbines and delivering about 12 MW shaft power. It has 13 fuel assemblies each with 348 fuel rods, and was built indigenously. The reactor went critical in August 2013. A 20 MW prototype unit had operated for several years from 2003. Further vessels in the class are expected to have a 100 MWt PWR reactor.

Brazil's navy was proposing to build an 11 MWt prototype PWR by 2014 to operate for about eight years, with a view to a full-sized PWR version – 2131-R of 48 MWt – using low-enriched uranium being in its 6000 tonne, 100 m long SNBR submarine to be launched by 2025. Apparently none of these plans have proceeded very far. Argentina’s Bariloche Atomic Centre is considering similar plans, for a TR-1700 submarine with nuclear power.

UK nuclear submarine layout

Dismantling decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines has become a major task for US and Russian navies. After defuelling, normal practice is to cut the reactor section from the vessel for disposal in shallow land burial as low-level waste (the rest being recycled normally). In Russia the whole vessels, or the sealed reactor sections, sometimes remain stored afloat indefinitely, though Western-funded programmes are addressing this and all decommissioned submarines were due to be dismantled by 2012. By 2015, 195 out of 201 decommissioned Russian submarines had been dismantled, and the remainder as well as 14 support vessels were to be dismantled by 2020. Decommissioned British submarines are laid up, France has dismantled several of its retired submarines at Cherbourg.

For the USS Enterprise , after defuelling was completed in December 2016, the eight reactor compartments and associated piping were removed and shipped to Hanford for burial with the submarine reactor compartments.

Marine reactors used for power supply, floating nuclear power plants

A marine reactor was used to supply power (1.5 MWe) to a US Antarctic base for ten years to 1972, testing the feasibility of such air-portable units for remote locations.

Between 1967 and 1976 an ex-army US Liberty ship of about 12,000 tonnes built in 1945, the Sturgis (originally Charles H. Cugle ) functioned as a floating nuclear power plant (FNPP), designation MH-1A, 
moored on Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone. It had a 45 MWt/10 MWe (net) single-loop PWR which used low-enriched uranium (4-7%). It used 541 kg of U-235 over ten years and provided power to the Canal Zone for nine years at 54% capacity factor. The propulsion unit of the original ship was removed and the entire midsection replaced with a 350 t steel containment vessel and concrete collision barriers, making it about 2.5 m wider than the rest of the ship, now essentially a barge. The containment vessel contained not only the reactor unit itself but the primary and secondary coolant circuits and electrical systems for the reactor.

There are credible anecdotal reports that decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines have been used to provide electricity for remote communities and for oil exploration companies in Siberian Arctic regions, probably in the 1980s. 

In the 1970s Westinghouse in alliance with Newport News shipyard developed an Offshore Power Systems (OPS) concept, with series production envisaged at Jacksonville, Florida. In 1972 two 1210 MWe units were ordered by utility PSEG for offshore Atlantic City or Brigantine, New Jersey, but the order was cancelled in 1978. By the time NRC approval was granted in 1982 for building up to eight plants, there were no customers and Westinghouse closed down its OPS division. Westinghouse and Babcock & Wilcox are reported to be revisiting the concept.

Floating power plants are well-established, especially around Africa. Turkish company Karpowership has 25 such vessels supplying over 4000 MWe and with more than 54 GWh delivered. The largest powerships supply 470 MWe.

Russia has built at St Petersburg the first of a series of floating power plants for its northern and far eastern territories. Two OKBM KLT-40S reactors derived from those in icebreakers, but with low-enriched fuel (less than 20% U-235), are mounted on a 21,500 tonne, 144 m long  barge. The refuelling interval is 3-4 years onsite, and at the end of a 12-year operating cycle the whole plant is returned to a shipyard for a two-year overhaul and storage of used fuel, before being returned to service. This first unit is designated as a floating power unit (FPU) to take in the cogeneration aspect supplying 210 GJ/h for desalination (40,000 to 240,000 m 3 /d capacity claimed). See also information paper on Nuclear Power in Russia .

Second-generation Russian FNPPs, known as Optimised Floating Power Units (OFPUs), will have two 175 MWt, 50 MWe RITM-200M reactor units, each with 241 fuel assemblies in a larger reactor vessel. These are lighter but more powerful than the KLT-40S, and thus on a smaller barge – 12,000 tonnes, rather than almost twice that. The mass of both reactor units is 2600 tonnes. Refuelling will be every 12 years over a 60-year service life. They can each supply 730 GJ/h thermal power. Four of these have been ordered to supply 330 MWe to the Baimskaya copper mining project south of Bilibino and Pevek from 2028.

China has two projects for FNPPs. In October 2015 the Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC), a China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) subsidiary, signed an agreement with UK-based Lloyd's Register to support the development of a floating nuclear power plant using CNNC’s ACP100S reactor, a marine version of the multi-purpose ACP100. Its 310 MWt produces about 100 MWe, and it has 57 fuel assemblies 2.15 m tall and integral steam generators (287°C), so that the whole steam supply system is produced and shipped as a single reactor module. It has passive cooling for decay heat removal. It has been subject to the IAEA Generic Reactor Safety Review process. Following approval by the NDRC as part of the 13th Five-Year Plan for innovative energy technologies, CNNC had planned to start building its ACP100S demonstration floating nuclear plant in 2016, for 2019 operation, but this has been delayed. Lloyd's Register will develop safety guidelines and regulations as well as nuclear standards consistent with offshore and international marine regulations.

China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) announced in January 2016 that development of its ACPR50S reactor design was approved by the NDRC as part of the 13th Five-Year Plan for innovative energy technologies. Construction of the first demonstration FNPP started in November 2016, with electricity generation expected to begin in 2020. CGN then signed an agreement with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) apparently to provide power for offshore oil and gas exploration and production, and to “push forward the organic integration of the offshore oil industry and the nuclear power industry,” according to CNOOC. The ACPR50S is 200 MWt, 60 MWe with 37 fuel assemblies and two loops feeding four external steam generators. Reactor pressure vessel is 7.4m high and 2.5 m inside diameter, operating at 310°C.

Earlier, SNERDI in Shanghai was designing a CAP-FNPP reactor. This was to be 200 MWt and relatively low-temperature (250°C), so only about 40 MWe with two external steam generators and five-year refuelling. This project has probably given way to the CNNC/NPIC one, though the reactor is similar to CGN’s ACPR50S.

In South Korea, KEPCO Engineering & Construction is developing the BANDI-60S as a 200 MWt/60 MWe two-loop PWR particularly for floating nuclear power plants. In September 2020 KEPCO signed an agreement with Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering to develop offshore nuclear power plants. The BANDI-60S is described as ‘block type’ with the external steam generators connected directly nozzle-to-nozzle. Initially the SGs are conventional U-tube, but KEPCO is working on a plate and shell design which will greatly reduce their size. Apart from the SGs, most main components including control rod drives are within the pressure vessel. Primary pumps are canned motor, and decay heat removal is passive. There are 52 conventional fuel assemblies, giving 35 GWd/t burn-up with 48-60 month fuel cycle. Burnable absorbers are used instead of soluble boron. Design operating lifetime is 60 years. The reactor vessel is 11.2 m high and 2.8 m diameter. In October 2023 the American Bureau of Shipping issued an in-principle approval for the nuclear power barge design.

Canadian commercial marine nuclear power developer Prodigy Clean Energy signed an agreement with NuScale Power in May 2021 to support business opportunities for a marine-deployed power station using the NuScale SMR. This followed three years of cooperation on conceptual design and economic assessment for floating nuclear power plants. 

Future prospects

With increasing attention being given to greenhouse gas emissions arising from burning fossil fuels for international air and marine transport, particularly dirty bunker fuel for the latter, and the excellent safety record of nuclear-powered ships, it is quite conceivable that renewed attention will be given to marine nuclear powered ships, it is likely that there will be renewed interest in marine nuclear propulsion. The world's merchant shipping is reported to have a total power capacity of 410 GWt, about one-third that of world nuclear power plants.

With a new focus on powering ships with hydrogen or ammonia, nuclear power also has a potential role in providing the hydrogen. See information page on Hydrogen Production and Uses .

Container ships deliver around 90% of all goods globally. With around 53,000 merchant vessels, the global shipping industry is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters globally, producing approximately 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) – while consuming around 6% of the total global oil production annually – accounting for about 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions. As the graph below shows, if the global shipping industry were a country, it would be the sixth largest emitter of CO 2 globally.

Annual highest carbon dioxide  emissions by country 2020

In 2018 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by 50% by 2050, compared with 2008. It estimated that shipping accounted for 2.6% of the world CO 2 emissions. In 2017 global bunkering totalled 8.9 EJ, with 82% being heavy fuel oil and the balance marine gas oil and diesel. In 2018 the global shipping fleet had a capacity of 2 Gt and it transported 8.9 Gt of freight. Russia’s 61,900 tonne Sevmorput is the only nuclear-powered freighter in service.

The head of the large Chinese shipping company Cosco suggested in December 2009 that container ships should be powered by nuclear reactors in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. He said that Cosco was in talks with China's nuclear authority to develop nuclear powered freight vessels. However, in 2011 Cosco aborted the study after three years, following the Fukushima accident.

In 2010 Babcock International's marine division completed a study on developing a nuclear-powered LNG tanker (which requires considerable auxiliary power as well as propulsion). The study indicated that particular routes and cargoes lent themselves well to the nuclear propulsion option, and that technological advances in reactor design and manufacture had made the option more appealing.

In November 2010 the British maritime classification society Lloyd's Register embarked upon a two-year study with US-based Hyperion Power Generation (now Gen4 Energy), British vessel designer BMT Group, and Greek ship operator Enterprises Shipping and Trading SA "to investigate the practical maritime applications for small modular reactors." The research was to produce a concept tanker-ship design, based on a 70 MWt reactor such as Hyperion's. Hyperion (Gen4 Energy) had a three-year contract with the other parties in the consortium, which planned to have the tanker design certified in as many countries as possible. The project included research on a comprehensive regulatory framework led by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and regulators in countries involved.

In response to its members' interest in nuclear propulsion, Lloyd's Register has rewritten its 'rules' for nuclear ships, which concern the integration of a reactor certified by a land-based regulator with the rest of the ship.* The overall rationale of the rulemaking process assumes that in contrast to the current marine industry practice where the designer/builder typically demonstrates compliance with regulatory requirements, in the future the nuclear regulators will wish to ensure that it is the operator of the nuclear plant that demonstrates safety in operation, in addition to the safety through design and construction. Nuclear ships are currently the responsibility of their own countries, but none are involved in international trade. Lloyd's Register said it expected to "see nuclear ships on specific trade routes sooner than many people currently anticipate."

* Chapter VIII of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 gives basic requirements for nuclear-powered ships. In 1981 the IMO adopted the Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships, Resolution A.491(XII), which is still extant and could be updated.

In 2014 two papers on commercial nuclear marine propulsion were published* arising from this international industry project led by Lloyd's Register. They review past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear propulsion and describe a preliminary concept design study for a 155,000 dwt Suezmax tanker that is based on a conventional hull form with alternative arrangements for accommodating a 70 MWt nuclear propulsion plant delivering up to 23.5 MW shaft power at maximum continuous rating (average: 9.75 MW). The Gen4Energy power module is considered. This is a small fast neutron reactor using lead-bismuth eutectic cooling and able to operate for ten full-power years before refuelling, and in service last for a 25-year operational life of the vessel. They conclude that the concept is feasible, but further maturity of nuclear technology and the development and harmonisation of the regulatory framework would be necessary before the concept would be viable.

* Hirdaris et al, 2014.

In 2021 it was suggested that modular molten salt reactors of about 100 MWt would be particularly suitable for marine propulsion due to ambient operating pressure and low-enriched fuel. Shipping company X-Press Feeders has invested in UK-based Core Power , which is promoting modular molten salt reactors for marine propulsion. Since 2020 Core Power has been involved with Southern Company and Terrapower in the USA developing the molten chloride fast reactor as a marine MSR which would never require refuelling during its operational life.

In June 2021 Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) announced that it would partner with Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) to develop compact molten salt reactors to power ships as well as market offshore power plants. In January 2023 SHI completed a conceptual design for the CMSR Power Barge – a floating nuclear power plant based on compact molten salt reactors. The design of between 200 MWe and 800 MWe, developed by Danish company Seaborg Technologies, would have an operational lifetime of 24 years. SHI plans to commercialize the CMSR Power Barge by 2028.

Apart from naval use, where frequency of refuelling is a major consideration, nuclear power seems most immediately promising for the following:

• Large bulk carriers that go back and forth constantly on few routes between dedicated ports – e.g. China to South America and NW Australia. They could be powered by a reactor delivering 100 MW thrust.
• Cruise liners, which have demand curves like a small town. A 70 MWe unit could give base-load and charge batteries, with a smaller diesel unit supplying the peaks. (The largest afloat today – Oasis class, with 100,000 t displacement – has about 60 MW shaft power derived from almost 100 MW total power plant.)
• Nuclear tugs, to take conventional ships across oceans.
• Some kinds of bulk shipping, where speed may be essential.

In mid-2021 the World Nuclear Transport Institute (WNTI) announced the launch of the Maritime Applications & Nuclear Propulsion Working Group, to discuss and develop rules frameworks for the deployment of next-generation reactors at sea. This is to include nuclear propulsion, floating nuclear power plants, offshore small modular reactors used for hydrogen production and maritime transport of SMRs.

There is a school of thought which says that using nuclear reactors to power ships raises too many questions around port access and security, so the main role of nuclear power for shipping is to make hydrogen and ammonia as carbon-free fuels. One estimate is that producing enough ammonia to fuel the world’s container ships and bulk carriers would require 2300 TWh/yr, nearly as much as total nuclear generation today and more than total wind generation.  

The OECD International Energy Agency's Energy Technology Perspectives 2020 in its Sustainable Development Scenario projects about 12% of marine transport being fuelled by hydrogen and 55% by ammonia by 2070, mostly in internal combustion engines rather than fuel cells, with these fuels increasing slowly from 2030 and more rapidly from 2050. Fuel cells with hydrogen are likely to be confined to short-range shipping due to storage costs.

In October 2020 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories was awarded a contract by Transport Canada to develop its Marine-Zero Fuel (MaZeF) assessment tool to analyse the energy ecosystem of marine transport. This to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the IMO 2018 target ( i.e. a 50% reduction by 2050, compared with 2008). It will include different technologies that can be used for the production, storage and handling of hydrogen for marine vessels.

Notes & references

General sources.

Jane's Fighting Ships, 1999-2000 edition J Simpson 1995, Nuclear Power from Underseas to Outer Space , American Nuclear Society The Safety of Nuclear Powered Ships , 1992 Report of NZ Special Committee on Nuclear Propulsion Rawool-Sullivan et al 2002, Technical and proliferation-related aspects of the dismantlement of Russian Alfa-class submarines, Nonproliferation Review , Spring 2002 Honerlah, H.B. & Hearty, B.P., 2002, Characterisation of the nuclear barge Sturgis, WM’02 conf, Tucson C. Thompson, Recovering the Kursk, Nuclear Engineering International  (December 2003) Mitenkov F.M. et al 2003, Prospects for using nuclear power systems in commercial ships in Northern Russia, Atomic Energy 94, 4 Hirdaris S.E et al , 2014, Considerations on the potential use of Nuclear Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology for merchant marine propulsion, Ocean Engineering 79, 101-130 Hirdaris S.E et al , 2014, Concept design for a Suezmax tanker powered by a 70 MW small modular reactor, Trans RINA 156, A1, Intl J Maritime Eng, Jan-Mar 2014 Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, Office of Naval Reactors, Occupational Radiation Exposure From Naval Reactors’ Department of Energy Facilities , Report NT-14-3, May 2014 Rosatom 2013 Annual Report US Navy propulsion systems Ford class aircraft carriers Naval Aviation Enterprise Air Plan Newsletter 33, Nov 2013 Ole Reistad & Povl Ølgaard, Russian Nuclear Power Plants for Marine Applications , NKS (Nordic Nuclear Safety Research), April 2006 Vladimir Artisiuk, Rosatom Technical Academy (Rosatom Tech), SMR Technology Development in Russia and Capacity Building Supports for Embarking Countries, presented at the IAEA Technical Meeting on Technology Assessment of Small Modular Reactors for Near Term Deployment held on 2-5 October 2017 in Tunis, Tunisia Viktor Merkulov, Analysis of advanced nuclear technologies applicable in the Russian Arctic , IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Volume 180, conference 1, 012020 (August 2018) Joint Stock Company 'Afrikantov OKB Mechanical Engineering', RITM brochure (2018) Peter Lobner, 60 Years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955-2015 , Part 4: Other Nuclear Marine Nations (August 2015) Peter Lobner, Marine Nuclear Power: 1939-2018, Part 2A, United States - Submarines (July 2018) Jeremy Gordon, Propelling Decarbonisation , Nuclear Engineering International (February 2021) Modular Molten Salt Nuclear Power for Maritime Propulsion , The Maritime Executive (14 May 2021) Magdi Ragheb, Nuclear Naval Propulsion (September 2011) Thomas Nilsen, Nuclear Reactors in Arctic Russia , The Barents Observer (June 2019) Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues , Congressional Research Service (19 October 2021)

Related information

Russia: nuclear power, you may also be interested in.

In Situ Leach Mining of Uranium

Is radiation safe?

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Chris Baraniuk

Nuclear-Powered Cargo Ships Are Trying to Stage a Comeback

President Eisenhower had a simple dream. While the US military was busy expanding its young arsenal of nuclear weapons and launching, in 1954, the world’s first nuclear submarine, Eisenhower dreamed up a ship that would symbolize peace. Propelled by the superlative power of the atom, this vessel would travel the world under the stars and stripes, carrying nothing but a few US officials and goodwill.

But his aides weren’t buying it. Why couldn’t this floating ego trip at least try to make a buck or two? In the end, Eisenhower agreed to authorize a nuclear-powered merchant ship that would carry both cargo and passengers. As well as goodwill, naturally.

The nuclear ship  Savannah , capable of hauling 14,000 tons of cargo, entered service in 1962. Its reactor was encased behind 4 feet of concrete, as well as thick layers of steel and lead. In the glitzy passenger lounge stood an 8-foot-long table topped with white marble—and an early CCTV system so passengers could keep an eye on the reactor while sipping martinis.

A zero-emissions cargo ship is a dream that might seem even more potent today, in an age when decarbonization is crucial to addressing  the climate crisis . Shipping currently accounts for  3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions and is viewed as a particularly difficult industry to decarbonize. Nuclear energy, at the point of use, produces zero emissions.

But heed this cautionary tale of nuclear hubris. The NS  Savannah was a failure. During its first year at sea, the ship dumped 115,000 gallons of radioactive waste into the ocean. It had inadequate cranes and poorly designed cargo hatches. Egregiously expensive to run, the vessel carried passengers for a mere three years, and cargo alone for another five, before retiring.

Other countries also tried—and struggled—to make nuclear merchant ships work during the 20th century. West Germany’s demonstration nuclear cargo ship, the  Otto Hahn , was refused entry to some ports and the Suez Canal  on safety grounds . The  Mutsu , a Japanese vessel, suffered a minor failure in its reactor’s radiation shielding in 1974, causing outcry. Indignant fishers blocked the ship’s return to port for several weeks.

Matt Burgess

R Douglas Fields

Kate O'Flaherty

As of 2023, there is only one active nuclear-powered merchant ship in the world, the Russian-built container-carrying  NS   Sevmorput . It is tiny compared to most fossil-fuel-powered container ships and has been plagued by breakdowns .

These four boondoggles handily illustrate why giant merchant ships still generally run on oil. And yet, for well over half a century, nuclear-powered  submarines and aircraft carriers , as well as  icebreakers , have been sailing the oceans with relatively little fuss. Hundreds of nuclear reactors have operated at sea and, given the urgency of reducing emissions now, one could argue that it is time to finally embrace nuclear cargo ships.

In February, a gaggle of organizations based in South Korea, including those behind multiple shipping lines, signed a memorandum of understanding with this in mind. The group aims to develop nuclear-powered merchant ships equipped with small modular reactors. But they won’t say much else about the project.

“We believe it is too early to mention details on the tangible results of this partnership,” Hojoon Lee, a spokesperson for HMM, one of the shipping lines involved, tells WIRED. “We still have a long way to go to achieve the commercial viability of nuclear energy sources.”

There is another project afoot, in Norway, called NuProShip (Nuclear Propulsion of Merchant Ships). The team behind it has come up with a short list of six possible reactor designs that could work in a demonstrator vessel, says project manager Jan Emblemsvåg of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. “The progress is quite OK,” he adds, via email. He and colleagues plan to convert a liquefied natural gas tanker called the  Cadiz Knutsen to run on nuclear power.

Both the South Korean and Norwegian efforts are considering molten salt reactors. Instead of solid fuel rods, the nuclear fuel in these devices is dissolved into, for example, molten fluoride salts. Such reactors first operated in the 1960s and are nothing new, but technical issues, including  corrosion occurring inside the reactors , have hampered their widespread rollout. Despite concerns from some over the viability of this technology, multiple countries are  pursuing it . Proponents say that, in principle, such reactors could have serious safety and efficiency advantages over other types, such as pressurized water reactors, which are used in the majority of nuclear power stations worldwide. Meltdowns—where reactions in the solid nuclear fuel get out of control, causing it to overheat, melt, and risk breaching the containment of the reactor—are made effectively impossible in a molten salt design because the fuel is already in a molten state and can be drained to prevent a runaway reaction.

Nuclear fuel is incredibly energy dense, stresses Luciano Ondir Freire of the Nuclear and Energy Research Institute in Brazil. Despite the significant upfront cost of building a new reactor, for the largest container ships, he estimates that switching from dirty fossil fuels to nuclear would be cost-effective in the long run.

Nuclear reactors can operate for many decades—take the one at Nine Mile Point in New York, which  has been running since 1969 . That sounds good, but for ship owners it could actually be a problem. A large container ship might only have a service life of  around 20 years , which means you wouldn’t get much use out of the expensive new reactor specially made for it. Plus, you would be left with the headache of removing the nuclear power plant components and making the vessel safe so that it could be scrapped—the NS  Savannah , now essentially a museum piece, has  yet to be fully decontaminated , more than half a century after it ended commercial operations.

Ondir Freire and Delvonei Alves de Andrade, who also works at Brazil’s Nuclear and Energy Research Institute, have published multiple papers on the history and possible future of nuclear-powered merchant shipping—and they have a solution in mind:  small reactors that can be detached from one ship and installed in another , or in some other kind of facility.

But figuring out what to do with a ship’s reactor is far from the only hurdle. People need to be convinced of the safety of nuclear energy and technology, says Alves de Andrade. Despite excellent safety records at many nuclear sites around the world, public perceptions remain understandably dominated by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, as well as by concerns around what to do with radioactive waste.

And while there are lots of nuclear reactors operating at sea right now, they tend to be on vessels with some of the highest security in the world. Commercial ships are occasionally subject to piracy and accidents, including  large fires and  explosions —the thought of adding nuclear fuel to such scenarios is unlikely to be met with enthusiasm.

The task of switching to a world in which nuclear-powered vessels are commonly welcomed at commercial ports is “not trivial,” says Stephen Turnock, professor of maritime fluid dynamics at the University of Southampton. “You have to have protocols in place to say what would happen in the event of an emergency associated with a nuclear-powered vessel,” he explains.

Simon Bullock, a shipping researcher at the University of Manchester, says that there is not enough of a regulatory framework to define how nuclear ships would operate globally in the commercial sector, including detail on who would bear responsibility for any mishaps. Would it be the ship owner, the ship operator, the manufacturer of the nuclear reactor, or the country where the ship is registered, known as the flag state? There are six “decade-long problems” of this kind regarding nuclear vessels that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other agencies would have to sort out if nuclear-powered commercial ships were ever to become widespread, he says.

Liz Shaw, an IMO spokesperson, says that “there is a long history of IMO cooperating and coordinating with other entities where necessary.” There are guidelines for how member states may submit proposals to update existing regulations, she adds.

The crews on nuclear ships would also require special training and expertise, which raises the cost of running such vessels. Is it worth dealing with all these challenges, given the need to decarbonize right now? Probably not, says Bullock. “The critical thing here is the next 10 years,” he says, referring to the urgency of tackling emissions and climate change right now. “Nuclear can do nothing about that.”

Even the Norwegian NuProShip project won’t convert its first demonstrator ship until at least 2035. Meanwhile, there are other low- or zero-emissions fuels already being deployed in vessels—from methanol to ammonia, electric batteries, and hydrogen. None of these is perfect, and all will jostle for supremacy in the coming years. Nuclear, with its many complications, is “possibly a dangerous distraction” from the main horse race, says Bullock.

For what it’s worth, Turnock’s money is on hydrogen. Last month, sportswear brand Nike  launched a hydrogen-powered barge in Europe, and there are various other  hydrogen-powered vessels of a similar size already sailing.

Looking further ahead, however, perhaps ship owners will eventually adopt nuclear technology in earnest. Here’s a fun fact. The original  Savannah , a steamship, was also a technological pioneer. Built in 1818 in the US, it was the first steam-propelled vessel to cross the Atlantic. But its huge engines meant it could carry hardly any cargo and  so was deemed unprofitable . Yet within decades, steam ruled the waves.

So while the NS  Savannah may appear a tantalizingly short-lived experiment, swathed in the long-faded atomic idealism of the 1950s, perhaps nuclear-powered merchant ships will somehow come to dominate after all. As President Eisenhower found out, dreams are one thing. Then there’s the future.

You Might Also Like …

In your inbox: The best and weirdest stories from WIRED’s iconic archive

A network of violent predators is extorting children to commit acts of abuse

Solar-powered farming is quickly depleting the world's groundwater supply

Can Reddit— the web’s most reliably human forum —survive its own IPO?

Battery-powered bikes: Enjoy the benefits of cycling , minus the sweat

Matt Reynolds

Beth Mole, Ars Technica

Rob Reddick

• CruiseMapper
• Ships and Lines

Cruise Ship Engine Power, Propulsion, Fuel

These are some of the most interesting cruise ship technology-related data and facts - engines , power , marine propulsion systems , fuel consumption of cruise ships , and something about pollution (in-article navigation links).

In 2020, IMO (International Maritime Organization) implements its global 0,5% sulfur cap on marine fuels. If not using scrubbers (pollution control devices), owners of older vessels must use as ship fuels either MGO (marine gas oil), ECA Category Fuels (low sulfur MGO), new modified fuels and blends, LNG (liquefied natural gas) or electric/battery power . Each fuel option is based on vessel type and age, routes/itineraries and powerplant. Most newbuild passenger ships are LNG-powered . World's largest seaports plus numerous smaller ports already have installed shoreside power capabilities providing shore-to-ship power supply to berthed vessels. In many ports, shorepower is in addition to LNG bunkering capabilities.

Cruise Ship Engine

Without a source of power, these huge cruise vessels would be nothing more than drifting aimlessly hotels. A large number of older ships use diesel reciprocating engines for generating power for propulsion. Cruise ship engine power is supplied through the transmission to the propeller shafts. These transmissions determine the revolutions of propellers. Modern ships use either diesel-electric engines or gas turbines as a source of power for propulsion, and for ship's systems. Some of the larger ships depend on two power sources - one for electrical power and one for propulsion.

Gas turbine engines (being aero-derivative) generate heat which is transformed from mechanical energy into electricity. To achieve this, compressed air is fired in a combustion chamber. Hot exhaust is made over a turbine that spins to drive mechanically a shaft. The power can be used to spin the generators. The same way works diesel-electric engines, yet they use a direct drive system, not a turbine. The output shafts, to produce electrical power, are connected to generators.

Both engine types need a lot of fuel. Cunard QE2 , for example, consumes daily 380 tons of fuel when traveling at 29 knots speed and carries fuel enough to sail for 12 days. Usually, ships fill up at various seaports and use fueling barges as floating gas stations. Vessels use lower-grade diesel which tends not to burn as purely as diesel-powered road-going vehicles.

All ships rely on propellers/screws to be pushed through the water, providing forward and reverse motion. Airplanes, for example, require tremendous propeller speeds to provide the forward motion, but ship propellers don't need to turn so fast and rely on torque power. Therefore, ships travel slowly and rarely top 30 knots (for more info follow our speed-link above).

Cruise ship engine room

The basic detail about the cruise ship engine room is its location. For stability, the ship's heaviest weights are at its lowest possible deck, and usually, engines are mounted above the keel. Ship's lowest decks are almost entirely full of machinery. An area creating enough power for driving such an enormous vessel through water needs to be really big - very often engine rooms occupy at least three decks. Rather than long halls stretching the length of hulls, machinery is almost always divided into smaller compartments - one for the main engines, another for the heating/air-conditioning system. This compartmentalization is for safety reasons. If a penetration to the hull or fire happens, multiple compartments help contain the damage. The next photo shows the engine room of RCI's Oasis-Class vessels.

Rarely, engines are not placed at the ship's bottom. RMS Queen Mary 2's four main diesel engines are above the keel, with two smaller gas turbines on top-deck (aft of the funnel). It was not unusual for older liners to have 2 engine rooms. Gradually, technology allowed the consolidation of these spaces. However, current maritime legislation requires vessels to have equipment duplication and 2 engine rooms.

In May 2015, Wartsila Corporation and Carnival Corporation partnered to optimize cruise ship engine room operations of all 101 ships across the corporation's 9 brands. The deal was signed by Micky Arison (Carnival's Chairman) and Bjorn Rosengren (Wartsila's President and CEO). The plan included installing Wartsila's latest marine solutions, first tested on several Carnival Cruise Line vessels in pilot projects. The new systems and technologies included engine control and monitoring systems, safety and fuel efficiency equipment.

Wartsila's "Asset Performance Optimization Solution" package allows obtaining optimal performance from Wartsila marine diesel engines, recommends how to deal with potential issues, maximizes ship performance, ensures full-capacity systems operations, increases the predictability of fuel management and maintenance needs. Wartsila's fuel engine package was specifically designed to reduce fuel consumption.

Wartsila Marine technologies aim to optimize ship performance, but also allow to locate deviations from normal parameters of equipment and engines. This allows emerging problems and engine fault sources to be fixed before they occur.

Conventional diesel cruise ship engine

Today's direct-drive diesels feature one main advantage - the option to use a shaft generator, which is a device using the circular motion of the propeller shaft in order to generate the electricity needed for hotel services, like cooking and lighting.

Shaft generators can be used only while the ship is moving with a fairly constant cruising speed. This is what the NCL Epic cruise ship engine looks like:

Diesel-electric cruise ship engine

Almost all new ships feature a diesel-electric propulsion form. On these ships, main engines are not connected to propeller shafts, and instead of it they are directly connected to big generators in order to produce electricity, which is sent in turn to electric motors, that then power and help turn the propellers. The main advantage of the diesel-electric cruise ship engine systems is efficiency as they allow main engines to operate near the most efficient speed, no matter if the ship is moving at 5 or 25 knots.

Losing electrical power is devastating to ships. Main engines and generators require electricity and it's needed to keep them going. Pumps that are driven electrically take in cold ocean water to cool the engines and electrical pumps get fuel from fuel tanks and supply it to the engine. Electrical power is vital for many operational functions - without it, ships come to a halt.

Large equipment (propulsion motor, bow thrusters) requires electricity of high voltage. As for smaller machinery (cabin lights, galley equipment), the electricity goes through the transformer and is thus stepped down into lower voltage. Large cables snake through all the ships to distribute electrical power. They carry power from generators to switchboards, through passageways, public rooms, crew and passenger cabins. Cabling can be a weak point in the distribution system. If the electrical cables aren't truly redundant, even ships that feature two engine rooms suffer power failure.

While ships are docked, generators and main engines produce more power than needed. They are turned off in port, and smaller generators supply "hotel" loads (lights, air-conditioning, galley, etc.). Moving through water takes up the vast majority of the ship's power needs - about 85% of all the diesel-electric powerplant production is consumed by the propulsion system. The above photo is of the Vista-class Carnival cruise ship engine room. The engine type is "MAN 2 times; 14V48/60CR" (common-rail diesel injection system):

Cruise ship Emergency Generators

All ships are supplied with emergency generators to maintain vital electrical power. Backup generators are located higher up and also outside engine room spaces to isolate them from damage or fire.

Big ships require much power, so they might have more than one emergency generator. Despite that, they don't have the capacity of main generators and engines, don't produce electricity enough to move the ship, and can't supply all the power needed in ports, because of constraints in space.

Emergency generators are instead used only for essential navigation systems - crucial communication equipment, critical pumps in the engine room, emergency lighting. Should they also fail, vessels are required to have a battery backup. 24 hours of power are at least provided by battery rooms to the smaller emergency equipment list.

Probably you've heard about Carnival cruise ship accidents related to power failures in 2013. At our Carnival Fun Ship 2.0 upgrades link you can learn how CCL battled with this "unmaintained ships" image and implemented revolutionary new technology initiatives fleetwide - including an additional emergency backup generator on each of their vessels.

Cruise Ship Propulsion

The new cruise ship propulsion systems ABB Azipods XO (below photo) are more fuel-efficient than traditional systems, also providing better maneuverability, maximizing speed, reducing bad emissions, which as a whole optimizes ship's performance and enhances passenger safety.

ABB Azipod propulsion systems have a major impact on the vessel's operating efficiency - reducing energy consumption and bad emissions by up to 20%.

In 2019, ABB signed a deal with Oldendorff Carriers (1921-founded, Germany's largest bulk shipping company with a fleet of ~700 ships) for the supply and installation of Azipod propulsion systems on two newbuild carriers. Both self-unloading dry bulk vessels were China-built (by Chengxi Shipyard Co Ltd / subsidiary of CSSC) and scheduled for deliveries in 2021. Each vessel was fitted with two Azipods (power output 1,9 MW per unit) plus various related electric and digital solutions (powerplant, diesel-electric generators, bow thruster motors, transformers, switchboards, power management system, ABB Ability global ABB real-time monitoring).

Azipod cruise ship propulsion system

Azipod cruise ship propulsion system is situated outside the hull in the aft of the ship. Azipod turns in all directions (360 degrees) by a rudder, providing thrust in any directions, not possible for conventional systems.

See at the first photo at right RMS Queen Mary 2 's propulsion system scheme.

QM2's Azipod is actually an electric propulsion system consisting of the following main components:

• Propulsion motor - used to produce or drive thrust. The propeller's rotating is powered by an electric motor.
• Supply transformer - power produced by generators is 6600 KV, which is stepped down to the necessary voltage by supply transformer and is provided to the motor in the pod.
• Frequency controller - used to change the frequency of supplied power so that the rotating motor speed can be controlled.

Azipod marine ship propulsion is a combination of both steering and propulsion systems. Conventional marine propulsion systems use a two-stroke engine connected to a shaft, that passes through a stern tube and shaft tunnel to connect to the propeller outside the hull in the ship's aft/stern. This system's steering is done by a rudder (in the propeller's aft).

The above photo shows Oasis-class ship propulsion Azipods (2 units) before being mounted onto the hull. The next photo shows the Azipods (both units) mounted on the hull.

The 3rd Oasis-class ship - Harmony of the Seas, is currently the most technologically advanced and energy-efficient cruise vessel ever built. It is equipped with a new-generation exhaust gas cleaning system (multi-stream scrubbers) and also features a hull lubrication system allowing the ship to float on air bubbles (created around the hull) thus reducing drag and increasing fuel efficiency.

However, the steering and propulsion systems in Azipod arrangement, are combined into one part and the system consists of a propeller (driven by an electrical motor) turned by a rudder connected to the azipod system. The motor is inside the sealed pod and connected to the propeller.

The following YouTube video is about ABB Azipods installed on the new Genting Hong Kong vessels (Star Cruises' new ships and on Crystal Cruises' polar-class boats).

These ships incorporate a complete ABB propulsion - Azipods, electric power plant, computer automation, and software. Crystal cruise ships are powered by two "Azipod D" units allowing navigation in polar destinations. Each of the Star Cruises "Global-Class" vessels have three "Azipod XO" thrusters. All ships have installed ABB's "Intelligent Maneuvering Interface" and the "OCTOPUS" software optimizing fuel consumption and energy management. All these ships were constructed by the German shipbuilder MV Werften. Currently, almost 2/3 of all large-sized cruise vessels, icebreaking ships, and high ice-class cargo ships are with Azipod propulsion.

Advantages of Azipod propulsion marine systems

• A lot of space is saved by the Azipod cruise ship propulsion system in the engine room - there is no propeller, engine, shafting or other arrangements. This saved space can be used for storing cargo.
• Great maneuverability - the propeller can turn in all directions and enables crash maneuvering stop distance that is better than the conventional systems.
• Azipod cruise ship propulsion system can be placed below the ship's height and provide more efficiency than conventional systems.
• In case the ships have large breadth, two (or more) azipod systems, independent from one another, can be used to provide subtle maneuvering.
• Side thruster's use is eliminated as pods can be used to provide side thrust.
• Low lube oil and fuel consumption.
• Lower vibrations and noise than conventional systems.
• Because emissions are low, it's environment-friendly.

Disadvantages of the Azipod marine propulsion

• It requires great initial cost.
• Many diesel generators are needed for producing power.
• The power produced by the motor is limited - the maximum available power now is 21 MW.
• Azipod cruise ship propulsion systems can't be installed in heavy cargo ships that need large motors and a lot of power.

Royal Caribbean Quantum-class cruise ships propulsion

In April 2012 ABB made a USD 60-million contract to provide the Azipod propulsion systems for the new Royal Caribbean ships of the Quantum-class (Quantum, Anthem, Ovation) and Quantum Plus-class (Pulse, Passion). The former name of this vessel design was "Project Sunshine". Builder is Meyer Werft (Papenburg, Germany).

ABB also supplies the power generation, distribution systems, bow thrusters, and of course, the 2 x 20,500 kW propulsion Azipod XO units (at the photo at right), transformers and drives.

NCL Epic ship pod-propulsion

When entering service in 2004, the Cunard's QM2 was the biggest in the world at 150,000 GR tonnes. Her designer Stephen Payne showed the advantages of pod-propulsion giving vessels increased maneuverability. The propellers (screws) of the QM2 ship are mounted on the pods which rotate 360 degrees and provide advanced maneuverability. He made the choice to put pods - though relatively new and yet untested for big ships. Royal Caribbean vessels of Oasis, Freedom, and Voyager classes have pod-propulsion as many other big ships, which is opposed to the fixed traditional screws which push in one direction only.

An interesting fact about cruise ship propulsion is that Norwegian Epic doesn't have pods, though slightly bigger than Queen Mary 2 (at 153,000 GR tonnes), because of NCL concerns about the new technology. Some of the lines (including Celebrity and Cunard) have suffered vessel breakdowns due to pod-bearing failures. Lots of voyages had to be canceled, extensive dry-docking periods were required for pod bearings to be replaced, and NCL didn't want to take the risk.

Currently, NCL Norwegian Epic has two rudders with conventional non-Azipod screws. But how does she manage to maneuver if they can push in one direction only? One option is to make them bigger and more effective when maneuvering, another is to add additional mini-pods or install full-sized pods. Only time will tell if any of these will actually ever happen.

Rolls-Royce cruise ship propulsion system "Promas Lite"

In November 2013, the manufacturing giant Rolls-Royce upgraded Hurtigruten's ship MS Richard With its new "Promas Lite" propulsion system (integrated propeller-rudder system). This is an older ship, and Promas Lite was the perfect choice as it is a combined "propeller-rudder" system increasing the efficiency of older passenger vessels with lesser tonnage. The upgrade significantly reduced Hurtigruten's operating costs on this vessel. The improved propeller efficiency was estimated to be between 11-14% at a cruising speed of 15 knots (17 mph / 28kph).

Promas propulsion integrates propeller, hubcap, rudder bulb and the rudder into a single unit which can increase propulsion's efficiency by 3-8% (1-screw vessels) and by 2-6% (2-screw vessels). It also improves maneuverability, reduces fuel consumption and bad emissions. The new modular technology allows efficient and cost-effective custom-made systems to be built up from various existing and standard parts - mooring winches, anchor cable lifters, warping heads.

Hurtigruten was compensated with ~80% of its total investment in Promas Lite marine propulsion upgrades as the Norwegian Government has this NOx fund encouraging shipowners and operators to upgrade their vessels and invest in new marine technologies that reduce NOx emissions. The Promas Lite propulsion future clients, besides passenger ships, are marine vessels like fishing and freighter ships.

After Norwegian Spirit (the first ship in NCL fleet with installed Promas Lite in 2011), in May 2014 the Star Cruises ship SuperStar Virgo became Southeast Asia's first passenger liner with RR's Promas Lite propulsion. Fincantieri used Promas Lite propulsion for all Viking Ocean liners.

Cruise Ship Power

The cruise ship engine power is responsible for driving propellers, and the other possibility is producing electricity that is used subsequently to drive propellers. The engine's effectiveness depends not only on the design but also the ship's shape, weight, and size. Power is measured in horsepower traditionally - one horsepower equals 746 watts. The next photo shows the world's largest passenger ships' engine that powers each of the Royal Caribbean Oasis-class vessels.

Marine steam engines

The cruise industry began in 1844, when ships were propelled by steam engines, performing the driving of propellers by using steam as working fluid. The largest passenger steamship (before hitting an iceberg on April 14, 1912) was the Titanic, powered by both reciprocating engines and turbines, able to generate 50,000 horsepower (37 megawatts).

Marine diesel engines

Usually, ships are powered by four or five generator sets (medium-speed, 500 revolutions per minute), fueled by diesel and creating 8-10 MW energy each. The power density of marine diesel medium-speed engine is 80 kilowatts per cubic meter. Ships that use diesel engines are required to carry exhaust-treatment systems and catalytic-reduction equipment to reduce the environmental impact.

Marine nuclear power engines

The building of the US first and only merchant nuclear-powered ship was commissioned in the 1950s by President Eisenhower. Of total cost $46.9 million, on the fuel core and nuclear reactor was spent more than $28 million. The ship operated only for five years (1965-1970) but due to the high running costs, its service was terminated.

Marine gas turbines

The first company that fitted cruise vessels with gas turbines, was Royal Caribbean. Gas turbines are greener than diesel engines and allow ships to sail with reduced inventory and smaller maintenance crew. Gas turbines drive generators which in turn provide electricity to propeller motors. They recover heat from gas turbines' exhaust, which then is used to produce the electricity needed for onboard services (air conditioning, water heating).

Rolls Royce is the manufacturer of the world's largest GAS marine turbine "Rolls-Royce MT30". The turbine will provide the immense 109 MW of power for the 2 propellers, all the weaponry, radars, command sys, etc. of the new generation UK aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class. To this class belong HMS Queen Elizabeth (2017-commissioned) and HMS Prince of Wales (2019-commissioned), each of them with a total power consumption of 80 MW.

Gas-turbine cruise ship power system

The first large vessel to use a new gas-turbine cruise ship propulsion system was Celebrity Millennium . This system will be more frequently used in new cruise ship buildings . It's innovative and, besides new activities available, the economy of scale, marketing, represents an important element of ship design. System's advantages include:

• lower vibrations and noise level, better comfort, lower probability of failure;
• lower exploitation costs because of the easier maintenance;
• nocive emissions reduction, which is partially owed to gas oil instead of fuel (-90% oxide of sulfur, -80% oxide of azote).
• considerable gain of weight and volume, especially when with Azipod marine propulsion system (900 tons, 70 cabins added).

Gas turbines at this time are only interesting in the building of high-speed ships (warships, and especially aircraft carriers, or fast passenger vessels - Millennium max speed is 25kn), because of the better diesel output in lower speeds and higher price of gasoil instead of fuel for diesel engines.

Gas turbine cruise ship propulsion systems are able to avoid pre-heating systems needed for fuel in classic installations (risk of fire!), as they use gasoil, Celebrity's Millenium-class and RCI's Radiance-class use such turbine powerplants. The next photo shows Celebrity's Solstice-class ship propulsion (the 4 aft azipods, and the underwater hull shape).

LNG-powered cruise ships

In June 2015, Carnival Corporation announced the company's contract with Fincantieri to build four LNG-powered vessels with the industry's largest passenger capacity. This was part of the order with Meyer Werft and Fincantieri for a total of 9x units to be built in the period 2019-2022.

The four newbuilds became the industry's first LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) powered vessels using LNG in their hybrid engines. The gas is stored in the ship and used to generate all needed power at sea. The engines are not exclusively LNG, but "dual fuel" (capable of burring both liquid marine fuel and natural gas). This design is for saving onboard space (reducing fuel storage space required).

LNG is natural gas, which consists of 90% methane and 10% ethane. When cooled to -160 C, it passes from gas to liquid, and its volume decreases over 600 times, making it very efficient for distribution. Long-distance LNG transportation is via dual-hull gas carriers. Short-distance LNG transportation is via trucks or smaller vessels (also barges) fitted with high-pressure tanks.

Gas fuel eliminates all the bad emissions - soot and sulfur oxides. In April 2016 MSC Cruises announced its contract with STX France for up to four LNG-powered ships with GT over 200,000 tons each. For comparison, the Oasis of the Seas is 225,000 GT tons. The new MSC ships have 5400 passengers capacity at double occupancy each. The first one is scheduled for delivery in 2022. Its power plant will be based on a new prototype engine.

Using LNG to power large cruise ships is a relatively new (2016) concept. Due to LNG tanks' large sizes, this fuel is used usually on smaller passenger shipping vessels ( ferries ) operating on short crossing itineraries. LNG bunkering facilities available in ports are very few. Compared to other fuels (including MGO / marine gas oil), LNG is purer (no unburned residues, fewer greenhouse gases), more efficient, stable and cheaper (reduces fuel costs). LNG technology also advances due to IMO's future maritime emissions regulations, especially in ports and while operating in environmentally sensitive destinations.

In comparison to pipeline gas, LNG is superior in quality - purer, with more methane and other energy content. Its chemical structure also has a stable composition that doesn't generate unburned residues, soot or any particulates. In addition, because the fuel is so clean, on LNG-powered ships maintenance intervals are doubled (over 25,000 hours / ~10140 days), as opposed to the standard MDO-powered 12,500 hours (520 days).

• All the world's major environmental organizations and the marine shipping industry joined for an explicit prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuels when the 0,5% sulfur cap takes effect in 2020.
• In January 2018, IMO announced that starting January 1, 2020, the marine fuels' max allowed sulfur content (outside Emission Control Areas) is reduced from the previous 3,5% to 0,5%. Unless marine vessels are using approved equivalent compliance methods, after Jan 2020 there is no reason for ships to use non-compliant diesel fuels.
• IMO's new sulfur cap's goal is to provide substantial health benefits by reducing marine fuels' sulfur content (SOx gases). At the same time, IMO's lowered cap significantly increases ships' operating costs.

The LNG cruise ship concept was first introduced by Wartsila (Finnish manufacturing company) and is based on drive shaft propulsion instead of azipods. The LNG tanks' location is in the upper deck area (right below the funnels). The Rolls Royce concept is based on azipods.

AIDAprima (2016) is one of the world's most technologically advanced cruise vessels. The ship rides on a cushion of air, thus reducing frictions and fuel consumption, The new technology is called MALS ("Mitsubishi Air Lubrication System"), allowing the liner to glide on an air bubbles carpet.

The ship's 4 main engines are dual-fuel (heavy oil and LNG gas oil) thus reducing fuel consumption. The ship has an advanced filtering system that reduces stack emissions (greenhouse gases). The ship's propulsion features 1 pair of stabilizers and 2x ABB-pod drives (new XO-Pod series, power output per unit: is 3 MW). The total power output is 48 MW. AIDAprima is also the world's first-ever "LNG cruise ship" as it uses LNG fuel supply while berthed in ports.

For its LNG-bunkering operations in Florida (at homeports PortMiami and Port Canaveral ), CCL-Carnival partnered with Royal Dutch Shell plc as fuel supplier for the liners Mardi Gras (2021) and Celebration (2022).

AIDA's LNG-powered cruise ships

The AIDAprima ship's first successful test run for LNG supply was in Hamburg Germany on May 7, 2016. While berthed, the ship was successfully provided with LNG at all the itinerary's ports of call (Hamburg, Rotterdam, Le Havre, Southampton, Zeebrugge).

• The company's statistics show that the AIDA ship spends about 40% of its operating time in ports. Compared to using conventional marine diesel (0,1% sulfur content), by using LNG, the vessel's emissions were considerably reduced even further. Sulfur oxides and soot particles were prevented completely (while in port), nitrogen oxide emission was reduced by up to 80%, CO2 emissions were lowered by 20%.
• AIDA ships (produced by Shipyard Papenburg ) are 100% LNG-powered. AIDA invested in research and testing of LNG cruise ship technologies since 2015. In 2013, AIDA collaborated on LNG hybrid barges with Becker Marine Systems. The innovative and flexible solution is used on ships moored in Port Hamburg.
• Since May 30, 2015, AIDAsol is regularly supplied with low-emission LNG power at Hamburg's Hafencity Cruise Terminal.
• AIDA ships use just 3 liters (0,8 US gallons) of fuel on average per person on board for a 100 km (62 ml) trip. This was confirmed by an independent expert study in 2012. Following the implementation of new technologies and economical handling of resources, the company's statistics for 2016 (over 2012) showed reduced energy consumption (9% per person onboard), reduced water consumption (7,2% pp) and reduced CO2 emissions (7,7% pp).

Hurtigruten ships

In April 2018, the Norwegian cruise and ferry company Hurtigruten announced a USD 150 million fleet renovation project. Almost all vessels will be upgraded with new hybrid powerplants that combine LNG-engines and batteries.

For the project was contracted Rolls-Royce Marine, initially for 6 ships plus optional another 3. The program's completion was scheduled before January 1, 2021. The project also includes all vessels to be upgraded with shore power capabilities.

Dual-engine ferries (LNG-MDO)

The next scheme shows the dual-engine powerplant (Wartsila) and propulsion (Azipod) of the cruise ferry Tallink Megastar . This ship is the biggest "floating superstore" on the Baltic Sea, featuring a 2-deck retail shopping complex and the unique self-service option called "Q-shopping". The RoPax vessel uses LNG as prime fuel and MDO (marine diesel oil) as secondary fuel.

The ship is powered by a total of five Wartsila dual-fuel engines - three 12-cylinder (model 12V50DF, combined output 34,2 MW) plus two 6-cylinder (model 6L50DF, combined output 11,4 MW). Ferryboat's total power output is 45,6 MW. Its propulsion system includes two Wartsila fixed-pitch propellers with twin propeller shafts. Navigation systems are also Wartsila-made, including NACOS Platinum (integrated vessel control system).

The power generated by the main engines/powerplant produces electricity that is used from the propulsion motors, as well as all auxiliary systems and hotel functions. This innovative maritime technology allows the engines to be started and stopped depending on the onboard electricity demand, which additionally improves fuel efficiency.

Vessel's hull is ice-strengthened (class 1A). Rudders are from Becker Marine Systems. When compared to traditional marine engines, in gas mode, the ship's engines produce 1/4 less COx, 2/3 less NOx, zero SOx and no soot particles.

The onboard LNG system consists of 2 bunker stations, 2 horizontal LNG storage tanks by Linde (cryogenic, vacuum-insulated, stainless steel, total gas volume 600 m3), double-walled bunkering lines, pipelines (acid-proof stainless steel), special pipe fittings, gas distribution system, steam boilers. All the ship's electrical equipment is certified "explosion-proof". The LNG is stored at temperatures -160 Celsius (-256 Fahrenheit) and under pressure 4-6 bars.

ABB supplied the vessel's power and electric propulsion systems, as well as the Octopus (smart energy management system). While mechanical propulsion is optimized for a single-speed, electric propulsion is based on rotating speed control resulting in energy efficiency at all speeds. ABB's propulsion also improves passenger comfort as the ship runs much more quietly and smoothly. ABB's Octopus marine technology allows real-time monitoring of the vessel's energy (and fuel) consumption. Based on the collected data, the software suggests optimal performance recommendations.

Spain's first LNG-powered cruiseferry was Hypatia de Alejandria (2019) owned by BALEARIA .

Wind-assisted propulsion

On April 12, 2018, the VIKING LINE -owned ferry Viking Grace became the world's first-ever passenger ship equipped with a rotor sail utilizing wind power. This also made it the world's first hybrid vessel that uses both wind power and dual-fuel (diesel-gas) engines.

"Rotor Sail Solution" is an innovative technology developed by the company Norsepower Ltd (Finland) in 5 years. It reduces fuel consumption and also COx emissions up to 900 tons per year (depending on wind conditions).

The cylindrical rotor sail has a height of 24 m (79 ft) and a diameter of 4 m (13 ft). The technology is based on the "Flettner rotor" (patented by Anton Flettner in 1922) and uses the so-called "Magnus effect" - the spinning rotor (rotating cylinder) drags airflow faster around one side. This creates pressure/speed difference that moves it in the direction of the opposite (lower-pressure) side, creating a force at a right angle to the direction of the wind. This wind-assisted propulsion power drives the ship forward. Unlike traditional cloth sails, the rotor needs no furling (stowing), reefing (reducing sail's area) or line-tending. The rotor sail system is automated and shuts down when unfavorable changes in wind force or direction occur.

Added to the dual-fuel engines, the new technology makes Viking Grace one of the world's most environmentally-friendly passenger ships, operating with very low levels of emissions and noise. Norsepower's wind propulsion system was also installed on VIKING LINE's newest vessel (still unnamed) scheduled for delivery in 2020. The China-built ferryboat is equipped with two Norsepower-produced rotor sails, doubling its wind power potential.

Ship's powerplant includes 4x Wartsila engines (model 8L50DF, total power output 30,4 MW). Propulsion is diesel-electric (2x shafts with fixed-pitch propellers) and wind-assisted (with 1x rotor sail). Engines are dual-fuel (MDO-LNG). As gas tanks are larger than marine fuel tanks. they need 6 times more space. To save hull space, LNG tanks are located on an open deck. LNG tanks are two (type C / vacuum insulated), each with capacity 200 m3 and weight 140 tons (LNG weight 85 tons per tank).

MS Viking Grace is also the world's first ship with the energy recycling system "Ocean Marine" (developed by Climeon AB / Stockholm-based company). The system converts the excess heat (generated by engines and exhausts) into clean (emission-free) electricity with an annual capacity of 700,000 kWh. This electricity is primarily used on cabin decks (including for heating, hot water, lighting). The technology uses heat exchangers that evaporate a carrier fluid circulating in a closed system. This gas (at 2-bar pressure) drives a turbine, then a 100 kW generator produces electricity. After that, the gas is cooled (in a vacuum chamber) and liquefied. Cooling is rapid, as the cold fluid is sprayed out. Then Heat exchangers cool the carrier fluid to temperatures around 20 C / 68 F.

Cruise Ship Fuel Consumption

How much fuel do cruise ships use.

Cruise ship fuel consumption depends on the ship's size. For most vessels, the average consumption is 30-50 miles on a fuel gallon. This will be also determined by other factors using fuel. Ships' gas mileage varies depending on the type and size of ship, the number of passengers on board, and other factors. Larger ships need more fuel to move through the water.

RMS Queen Mary uses 6 tons of marine fuel per hour. Celebrity Eclipse gets 56 feet to the gallon. MS Zuiderdam - .0130 miles per gallon (0.34 tons fuel per mile). This may not seem very good mileage at first glance, however, cruise ships are moving at once thousands of people whereas a car is moving a few.

Nearly all contemporary cruise ships are powered by electricity (motors turn propellers). It powers the air conditioning systems, lights and all other appliances aboard the ship. Most vessels produce the electricity they need by using diesel engines. Some use gas turbine engines. Others use a combination of the two. HFO (heavy fuel oil) is used by diesel engines, while MGO (marine gas oil) is used by gas turbine engines. The MGO is similar to the jet airplanes' fuel.

Speed affects cruise ship fuel consumption because to go faster, vessels must increase the electricity flow to motors. Thus more engines are employed, and it, in turn, increases fuel consumption. For example, Queen Mary 2 consumes 237 tons MGO and 261 tons HFO a day when at full speed. After a certain point, the rate of return decreases from adding engines, because if a ship can manage 17 knots by two engines, it doesn't mean that four engines are going to produce 34 knots.

Cruise companies employ new technologies in order to reduce fuel consumption. Ship's hull, for example, can be applied by silicon coating in order to reduce friction as the ship goes through the water. Friction reduction on Celebrity Eclipse is 5%. Another experiment is LED lighting, using less energy and producing less heat (thus is reduced the demand for electricity and air conditioning). Celebrity Solstice-class vessels have solar panels' field over the AquaSpa pool area. This not only provides shade for the pool area but produced by solar panels electricity is used to decrease the electricity demand from the engines.

RMS Queen Mary 2 is equipped with exhaust gas economizers, using waste heat from engines to produce steam. Then steam is used to heat fuel and QM2 hotel accommodations, laundry, galleys. This reduces the energy amount that has to be produced by ship's engines. The Promas Lite system (mentioned above) generates cruise ship fuel savings in the range of 5-15% depending on the operation type and the actual performance of the ship's existing propeller.

How marine ships fuel consumption increases at higher speeds? Next infographic shows the speed-fuel consumption relation on container ships (their sizes are measured in TEU-containers/20 ft equivalent units), which are similar by speeds and even gross tonnage to cruise passenger ships.

Cruise Ship Pollution

Today cruising is one of the most popular vacations, but there are significant environmental downsides. Mega-ships burn the dirtiest fuel in the world, even if they are sitting in port. Asthma, cancer, respiratory illness, heart disease, are the results of burned in ports nasty bunker fuel.

Shore-to-Ship Power Supply

Those who support the cruise industry point out that cruising has never been more popular. However, more ships generate more pollution. A solution is to have docked vessels plug into the port's shore power grid. Most of the world's largest cruise ports have such dockside electrical hookups, reducing bad emissions by up to 95%.

Aka "cold ironing" and "shore-to-ship power", shore power capability allows berthed cruise ships to shut down their diesel engines (main and auxiliary) and plug into city's electrical grid, using locally-produced electricity for all shipboard equipment and services - including cooling, heating, lighting, emergency, etc. The technology greatly reduces exhaust emissions in seaports. Next video animation reviews this technology.

TUI Cruises Ships Environmental Report

TUI published the company's environmental impact report (first of its kind) including environmental objectives and TUI strategy for a 5-years period. TUI said it planned to issue reports every 2 years. According to it, in 2012 TUI reduced by 3.7% per nautical mile its fuel consumption, and expects further 5% reduction, reducing CO2 emission at the same time by 0.5 kg to 0.55 kg per traveler.

Energy efficiencies are the key to reduce fuel consumption, CO2, and other emissions, and contribute to climate protection. Mein Schiff 3, for example, is expected to feature special energy management systems that help to consume 30% less energy than comparable size ships. TUI is focused on reducing recycling and waste, too. In 2012, TUI reduced the waste amount to 10,7 L (per passenger day), which is 27,8% less (over 2011). In 2012, TUI used 54,463 tons of fuel, including 9,732 tons LSFO (low sulfur fuel oil), 40,880 tons HFO (heavy fuel oil) and 3,851 tons MDO (marine diesel oil). Fuel consumption was 0,367 tons per nautical mile.

All new TUI ships are built to the latest standards with environmentally-friendly marine technologies. These vessels, both as design (hull and superstructure) and implemented technologies, are highly energy-efficient. Each consumes 1/3 less energy compared to most cruise liners. The advanced exhaust cleaning system uses a catalytic and scrubber converter. This technology allows sulfur emissions to be reduced by 99%, and NOx emissions - by 75%.

All-electric passenger ships

In May 2019, the US company "Maid of the Mist" ordered ABB two new all-electric vessels for the company's Niagara Falls tours. Both catamarans are 100% emission-free being powered by high-capacity batteries. Each ship is fitted with two battery packs (combined capacity 316 kWh / 563 HP output). The electricity is provided by 2 fully-independent power systems and split evenly between the 2 hulls.

Shoreside battery charging takes just 7 min (per ship). The powerplant is controlled by ABB's PEMS (Power and Energy Management System), which also optimizes the onboard energy use. Ships' batteries are charged using hydropower (water-generated electricity), which as of 2019 accounts for ~7% of the USA's total electricity production. In addition to the shoreside charging connection, ABB supplied the newbuilds with switchboards, motors, integrated control systems and ABB Ability's Marine Remote Diagnostic System (24-hour equipment monitoring and predictive maintenance).

Battery power is used during turnaround navigation in ports when the onboard diesel-electric generators are switched off. For ferry batteries (fabrication, delivery, and installation) is often contracted the Canadian company Corvus Energy (Richmond BC) - one of the world's largest manufacturers and suppliers of energy storage solutions (ESS) for the maritime industry. The company provides ESS to hybrid and all-electric ferries. As of 2019, Corvus Energy delivered its innovative product line "Orca ESS" to 200+ vessel conversion/upgrade projects, totaling 200+ MWh.

At the following tag-link can be found listed all CruiseMapper's news related to propulsion-power accidents .

This cruise vessel technology-related survey is integrated with our articles on passenger ships building and safety , and the statistical ones about registry/flag-states , cost to build , speed , passenger capacity . All ship links redirect to the vessel's "itinerary-schedule-current position" page.

The April 2024 issue of IEEE Spectrum is here!

For IEEE Members

Ieee spectrum, follow ieee spectrum, support ieee spectrum, enjoy more free content and benefits by creating an account, saving articles to read later requires an ieee spectrum account, the institute content is only available for members, downloading full pdf issues is exclusive for ieee members, downloading this e-book is exclusive for ieee members, access to spectrum 's digital edition is exclusive for ieee members, following topics is a feature exclusive for ieee members, adding your response to an article requires an ieee spectrum account, create an account to access more content and features on ieee spectrum , including the ability to save articles to read later, download spectrum collections, and participate in conversations with readers and editors. for more exclusive content and features, consider joining ieee ., join the world’s largest professional organization devoted to engineering and applied sciences and get access to all of spectrum’s articles, archives, pdf downloads, and other benefits. learn more →, join the world’s largest professional organization devoted to engineering and applied sciences and get access to this e-book plus all of ieee spectrum’s articles, archives, pdf downloads, and other benefits. learn more →, access thousands of articles — completely free, create an account and get exclusive content and features: save articles, download collections, and talk to tech insiders — all free for full access and benefits, join ieee as a paying member., the case for nuclear cargo ships, they failed decades ago, but small modular reactors could make all the difference.

The shipping industry has been trying to cut its carbon emissions for years, and with little to show for it. Nearly all of the world’s ship fleet still runs on diesel fuel, with about a quarter of new ships on order being built to run on somewhat lower-carbon alternatives like liquefied natural gas, methanol, or hybrid propulsion.

The industry now faces serious pressure to pick up the pace. Shipping uses over 300 million tonnes of fossil fuels every year, producing 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions . At a July meeting of the International Maritime Organization , the U.N. body that governs the industry, representatives doubled down on carbon-reduction ambitions, setting a net-zero emissions goal for 2050 . The IMO’s previous goal was a 50 percent reduction by 2050 in comparison with 2008 levels. The European Union plans to begin charging shippers for carbon emissions this year.

Hedging its bets, the industry is exploring ammonia, batteries, and hydrogen, among other options for powering ships. A small but growing group of analysts, though, are pushing for a zero-emissions technology that already plows the oceans: nuclear propulsion.

Today, some 200 nuclear reactors are already operating on 160 vessels , mostly naval ships and submarines. Nuclear-powered ships can go years without refueling. They do not need giant fuel tanks, which opens up more space for cargo and passengers. And the reactors themselves are getting better, too: Fourth-generation small modular reactors (SMRs) being developed by companies including U.S.-based TerraPower and London-based Newcleo should be safer and simpler to operate than conventional reactors.

For shipping, nuclear is really the only abundant, realistic, carbon-free option, according to Håvard Lien, vice president of research and innovation at the Norwegian shipbuilding company Vard Group . “It’s becoming more and more apparent that we need to do something about emissions,” he notes. “At the same time, it’s becoming apparent that alternative-fuel solutions we’re looking at have big drawbacks, and that producing these fuels will take a lot of green power that will be needed to replace coal and gas on shore. Having an energy source that you can fit onboard a ship and does not compete with shore energy is a very high priority.”

Vard Group is part of NuProShip , a consortium of the Norwegian maritime authority, universities, shipbuilders, and shipping companies that aims to develop a Generation IV reactor for marine vessels. The group has shortlisted three designs and plan to have picked one by the end of 2024.

Also later this year, the Italian shipbuilding company Fincantieri and Newcleo expect to wrap up a feasibility study to assess the practicality of deploying a 30-megawatt reactor on marine vessels. Japanese shipping giant Imabari Shipbuilding , along with a dozen other companies, has invested US $80 million in the British startup Core Power to develop a floating nuclear power plant using SMR technology that could also one day be used in ships .

In South Korea, nine organizations, including shipping companies and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute , plan to develop and demonstrate large ships powered by SMRs. The U.S. Department of Energy commissioned the American Bureau of Shipping to conduct a study, recently concluded, to identify suitable reactors for a merchant ship and describe R&D challenges that would have to be overcome before nuclear-powered shipping could become a commercial reality.

“Based on the number of players in the United States that are quite far advanced in their development, like TerraPower, my rough guess is that in 10 years we will see the first commercial civilian vessel with [next-generation] nuclear power,” says Lien.

Why nuclear-powered ships?

Four nuclear-powered merchant ships have been built so far, all of them government-led projects begun mostly for developmental and testing reasons rather than purely commercial ones. The first was the American NS Savannah , built in the late 1950s at a cost of $46.9 million (an eye-popping $495 million today). It was in service from 1962 to 1972, but its pressurized light-water reactor (LWR) proved too complex and expensive for the ship to operate profitably. The Russian cargo vessel Sevmorput , commissioned in 1988, is the only nuclear-powered merchant ship still in operation as of early 2024. The other two ships, the Japanese Mutsu (1970) and the German Otto Hahn (1968), were both refitted with diesel engines partway through their service lives.

Nuclear power has been more successfully applied on submarines and ice-breaking vessels. The very first nuclear-powered vessel was the attack submarine USS Nautilus , in 1954, amid the 1950s heyday of nuclear-power research. Hundreds of nuclear reactors have since been used on ships and submarines. Russia currently operates seven nuclear-powered icebreakers.

Now, the immense scale of shipping’s decarbonization challenge, along with new reactor technologies, are prompting a reevaluation of nuclear merchant ships. In fact, for commercial shippers, there aren’t any realistic alternatives to nuclear, says Jan Emblemsvåg , professor of ocean operations and civil engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. “Engines in ordinary ships are the size of houses,” says Emblemsvåg, who is leading NuProShip. And a great deal of space is taken up by fuel: “A container vessel going from Amsterdam to Shanghai requires roughly 4,000 tonnes of fuel.”

An SMR would be much more compact and lightweight. According to Emblemsvåg, a molten-salt reactor —which uses a mixture of thorium and hot liquid salts as both fuel and coolant—would also save about $70 million over the lifetime of a ship, compared with a similar vessel powered by engines that burn diesel fuel (or, more precisely, heavy fuel oil ). Another plus for nuclear-propelled ships is easy access to an endless supply of cooling water.

Batteries are an obvious nonstarter, Emblemsvåg adds. A large container ship needs about 3,000 megawatt-hours a day, which is roughly the capacity of the biggest grid battery ever built. “The battery solution is dead before it starts,” he declares. “The ship will basically go for one day, and it’s over.”

Ammonia, meanwhile, has half the energy density of diesel fuel, so ships would need twice as much of it. Ammonia is now made using an energy-intensive process, and no vessels are yet capable of using it. Producing enough renewable, carbon-free ammonia for shipping—about 600 million tonnes a year—using electrolyzers that split water molecules to produce hydrogen, would use 12 megawatt-hours per tonne of ammonia. To make 600 million tonnes of it would require almost three times the power production capacity of the entire European Union in 2022, according to Emblemsvåg. “So we can make engines that run on ammonia, but there won’t be enough ammonia.”

How new reactor technology could change shipping

The first step in making nuclear merchant ships a reality will be to build the right kind of nuclear reactors. For ship propulsion, engineers have used pressurized-water reactors because they can produce higher power for a given mass compared with the other kind of light-water reactor, the boiling-water reactor. However, the technology comes with major challenges. They depend on complex control systems that need a technically trained operating crew, and they run on solid fuel rods that need to be replaced every 18 months. There’s also a risk, however slight, that the pressure vessel could explode.

Fourth-generation SMRs avoid all that. Emblemsvåg and the NuProShip team picked three reactor designs after analyzing 93 concepts in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s SMR handbook . One is a thorium-fueled molten-salt reactor. The second is a lead-cooled fast reactor , which replaces the water coolant of traditional reactors with molten lead. The third option, likely closest to market, is a helium gas-cooled reactor that uses a type of fuel called tristructural isotropic (TRISO), consisting of uranium particles encased in ultratough carbide and carbon layers that can handle temperatures above 2,000 °C.

A molten-salt reactor [top] is fueled and also usually cooled by a mixture of molten salt and a fissionable material, such as enriched uranium, thorium, or even a mixture of transuranic isotopes from nuclear waste. One design, from Core Power [above], based in the United Kingdom, would use uranium and a chloride salt at a temperature of about 400° C. The reactor would deliver up to 100 MW of thermal power from a footprint measuring 4 by 7 meters.

All three reactor types operate at low pressures, making explosion extremely unlikely, Emblemsvåg notes. Also, a meltdown is so unlikely as to be irrelevant, in his view. For example, the melting temperature of TRISO fuel is so high that no realistic scenarios could result in the fuel becoming molten.

With the other reactor types, the molten fuel or coolant would solidify before an accident could become a disaster, according to their backers. Giulio Gennaro , technical director at Core Power, likens the molten-chloride-salt reactor the company is codeveloping with TerraPower to a simmering saucepan instead of a pressure cooker: “If you make caramel in a saucepan, it’s extremely hot; you could burn your finger. But if the pan breaks, you have a leakage on the stove, and the molten caramel quickly solidifies.” So contamination would not get far from the reactor in a reactor failure, as opposed to a pressurized vessel explosion that could splatter fissile material kilometers away.

Lead-cooled reactors have a similar advantage: The liquid lead would cool down and solidify in contact with cold water, encasing the reactor core and preventing nuclear material from being released into the environment, says Andrea Barbensi , engineering director at Newcleo. Launched in 2021, the company has designed a lead-cooled reactor that aims to produce its own fuel by recycling the by-products of conventional reactors, “offering a circular solution to nuclear waste,” he says.

Newcleo is working with governments and industry partners on a small-reactor prototype for industrial use that should be ready in the next 10 years. The feasibility study with Fincantieri will guide how the two companies develop the technology for marine use. “Small modular reactors are a relatively new technology, but the interest we have seen from governments and industries across the world is very promising,” Barbensi says.

To be sure, plenty of shipbuilders remain skeptical about nuclear-powered vessels. Last July, the American Bureau of Shipping and Herbert Engineering Corp . issued the results of a study addressing shipbuilders’ concerns about nuclear reactors. “There were lots of questions,” says Patrick Ryan , ABS’s senior vice president and chief technology officer. “Does the reactor eat up all my cargo space? How is it arranged? Where does the crew go? What are the special training requirements? How do I insert this technology? How do I refuel? Does it change how fast I go? We needed to get the conversation started.”

The study suggested that putting two 30-MW lead-cooled reactors on one of the largest container vessels would increase cargo capacity and speed, and eliminate refueling needs during its entire 25-year life-span. If there is sufficient industry interest, the ABS will identify the most promising reactor designs and assess risks and safety, Ryan says.

More than 80 SMR designs are being developed around the world, with the largest share in the United States. Yet the nation’s shipbuilding industry is tiny. The majority of global shipbuilding happens in South Korea, Japan, and China. So while there is a lot of excitement in the United States about the terrestrial use of SMRs to replace coal power plants, Ryan says, “the chatter about nuclear-powered commercial shipping is mostly coming from abroad.”

And yet proving SMRs on land will be necessary before they can go onboard ships, says Core Power’s Gennaro, and bipartisan support for new nuclear plants in the United States is helping move things along. With $170 million in funding from the Department of Energy, Core Power and TerraPower are building a molten-chloride desktop test reactor that will produce up to 500 kilowatts of power at Idaho National Laboratory ; the reactor could start trials in 2025. After that, the companies plan to build a larger reactor for demonstration at sea in the early 2030s.

The challenges to building nuclear-powered fleets are sobering

Even among supporters of nuclear ship propulsion, not everyone agrees that putting reactors on ships is the best way to go about it. In the near term, they argue, it makes more sense to use nuclear power as a source of electricity to produce alternative low-carbon fuels. “If you use nuclear electricity to electrolyze seawater to make hydrogen, and then you use that hydrogen as a feedstock to make ammonia or methanol, the carbon footprint of the production of fuel is effectively zero,” says Ryan.

“Putting a reactor aboard a marine vessel has a lot of complicating factors that producing fuel with nuclear power doesn’t have,” he adds. Even if molten-chloride reactors manage to avoid the technical problems of the pressurized-water reactors used on the earlier cargo ships—spotty reliability, extremely high operating costs, and challenges related to radioactive waste and decommissioning—you would still have problems associated with public perceptions of nuclear power and the likely refusal of some ports to welcome nuclear ships.

Gennaro is convinced that the advantages of the advanced SMRs will be decisive. “There are technology risks, but as far as molten-salt fast reactors go, everyone agrees there are no showstoppers,” he insists. He adds that SMRs for marine deployment would be built in factories and assembled at shipyards, speeding up construction and lowering cost. Land-based nuclear power plants, for comparison, are constructed on site and typically far exceed their budgets and schedules. Cost also played a big role in NuScale Power Corp.’s plan to end its attempt to build the first SMR plant in Idaho, which would have used six reactors to generate 462 MW.

Gennaro admits that the perception that nuclear reactors are unsafe will be a problem, but he sees it as a challenge that can be overcome. Ryan points out that traditional fossil fuels also carry risks, which is why the ABS creates rules and guidance on how to use those fuels safely. Regulatory agencies would similarly have to devise rules for new propulsion methods. Ammonia, for instance, is very toxic, so a fuel spill would have a different level of concern than fossil fuels, he says. Nuclear reactors for U.S. commercial ships would not only have oversight from the ABS but would also require licensing from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Unlike land-based use of nuclear power, marine use does bring the challenge of having a reactor on a moving vessel that pitches, rolls, yaws, and slows abruptly when it hits waves. One of NuProShip’s tasks is to evaluate each reactor technology on how well it tolerates motion, according to Vard’s Lien.

The project hopes to have an SMR prototype to test around 2030. Vard plans to test the SMR on new ships first, but that isn’t expected to happen any sooner than 2035 . If that goes well, existing ships could be retrofitted by replacing diesel engines with the SMRs, says Lien. The open-ocean vessels that the company builds—ships that lay telecommunication cable, maintenance ships, and fishing vessels—are ideal candidates for nuclear propulsion, he says. “They need high amounts of power for operation and have to be at sea for months at a time. It would be a big advantage if they don’t have to break off operations and go to port to refuel.”

Other kinds of ships may also get the nuclear treatment. Although nobody expects to ever see nuclear-powered cruise ships, even they might benefit indirectly. Norwegian shipbuilder Ulstein has designed a nuclear vessel with a molten-salt reactor that might conceivably serve as a mobile charging station for a future fleet of small, battery-powered cruise ships.

As the shipping industry thinks about nuclear propulsion, SMRs are already starting to get vetted offshore. Russia, China, and South Korea are now working on floating nuclear power plants, mainly water-cooled SMRs that will be either mounted on barges or submerged underwater close to shore. Russia already has one, the Akademik Lomonosov , which has been operating since 2020 in the country’s far east, producing electricity and district heating.

One potential snag for future nuclear-powered ships is the problem of fragmented nuclear regulation, says Emblemsvåg. Commercial ships traversing international borders will face different regulations at different ports. Right now, a reactor approved in the United States isn’t automatically approved for use in France, for example. “The good news is that G7 countries with some E.U. countries and the International Energy Agency are working on harmonizing the rules,” he says.

Meanwhile, Core Power is trying to harmonize support among stakeholders, including SMR makers, shipbuilders, and regulators. Besides selecting a nuclear technology appropriate for the marine environment, Gennaro says, the company is lobbying to create a market for the technologies. It helped organize an IAEA symposium on floating nuclear power plants this past November that brought together nuclear and maritime regulators, legal and policy experts, and industry leaders.

“It’s not just about the technology; it’s about the entire ecosystem,” he adds. “If I have a technology ready for use, but the regulatory framework, market, financing possibility, and business model are not there, then the time to market, which for nuclear technology is already not extremely short, gets lengthened. Our goal is to make sure that once the technology is ready, the [ecosystem] is also ready to deploy.”

This article was updated on 22 January 2024.

• The Struggle to Make Diesel-Guzzling Cargo Ships Greener ›
• Why the Shipping Industry Is Betting Big on Ammonia ›
• The Future of Fission Reactors May Be Small ›
• The Greening of Transportation - IEEE Spectrum ›
• World's first nuclear-powered merchant ship to be decommissioned ... ›
• 5 Things You Should Know About Nuclear and Maritime Shipping ... ›
• Nuclear-Powered Cargo Ships Are Trying to Stage a Comeback ... ›

Prachi Patel is a freelance journalist based in Pittsburgh. She writes about energy, biotechnology, materials science, nanotechnology, and computing.

Very balanced views presented in the article. Wonderful read!

Why not do say dual 50 MW Gen IV nuclear and go faster?What about adding say 100 MW of battery for bursts of power and for shutting off nuclear when coming into ports with restrictions?What about adding say two 100 MW gas turbine generators for more extended backup and say going by Somalia and Yemen?Could you imagine a giant container ship doing say 40 knots through hostile waters to try to avoid going around Africa?With say 400 MW on tap, what about putting directed energy weapons on cargo ships and other defenses?

Stuart Parkin Revolutionized Disk Drive Storage

Blink to generate power for smart contact lenses, why l. ron hubbard patented his e-meter.

• Subscriptions

Grab a Seat at the Captain’s Table

Essential news coupled with the finest maritime content sourced from across the globe.

Join our crew and become one of the 105,252 members that receive our newsletter.

Photo courtesy CSSC

Plans for Nuclear-Powered 24,000 TEU Containership Unveiled in China

Share this article.

China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) has unveiled plans for what could potentially become the world’s largest nuclear-powered containership.

Plans for the 24,000-TEU-class ship was unveiled Tuesday at Marintec China expo in Shanghai. The vessel will utilize a fourth-generation Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) to generate electricity.

“The ultra-large nuclear container ship is designed to truly achieve ‘zero emissions’ during the ship’s operating cycle,” CSSC said in a Weibo post.

Classification society DNV was reportedly on hand for the launch ceremony to issue an approval-in-principle to CSSC shipyard Jiangnan Shipbuilding.

“This ship type has high safety, the reactor operates at high temperature and low pressure, can avoid core melting in principle, and has anti-proliferation and inherent safety features,” CSSC’s Weibo post said (translated using Google Translate).

Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) are a type of small scale modular nuclear reactors that use a liquid mixture of salts as both the fuel and the coolant. The fuel, which is dissolved in the salt, allows for better control and efficiency in the nuclear reaction, providing improved safety and potential for higher fuel utilization.

Considering that nuclear energy has been supplying zero-emission power to naval and government vessels for over six decades, the shipping industry is exploring the use of nuclear propulsion for commercial ships in an effort to increase efficiency and reduce the industry’s carbon footprint to meet international targets.

A study by classification society ABS released earlier this year suggested that nuclear propulsion in commercial marine vessels, specifically a 14,000 TEU containership and a Suezmax tanker, can increase cargo capacity and operational speed while eliminating CO2 emissions and the need for refueling over a 25-year lifespan.

Christopher Wiernicki, Chairman and CEO of international classification society ABS, believes nuclear propulsion is key to achieving a net-zero world.

“A net-zero world is more easily realized through nuclear propulsion, and we are putting in place the foundations for that future today. Turning this into a practical reality will require significant public sector support and ABS is well placed to bring governments and industry together,” he said upon ABS’ release of the study in July.

“Advanced or small modular reactors address many of the issues traditionally associated with nuclear for commercial maritime use, with enhanced safety and efficiency, reduced cost and waste and proliferation prevention. Nevertheless, many questions need to be answered and it is critical that industry evaluate these technologies with a laser focus on safety,” he said.

Unlock Exclusive Insights Today!

Join the gCaptain Club for curated content, insider opinions, and vibrant community discussions.

Be the First to Know

Join the 105,252 members that receive our newsletter.

Have a news tip? Let us know.

Stay Ahead with Our Weekly ‘Dispatch’ Email

Dive into a sea of curated content with our weekly ‘Dispatch’ email. Your personal maritime briefing awaits!

Related Articles

Davie Shipbuilding Lands First Contract for Canada’s New Icebreaker Fleet

Chantier Davie Canada Inc., aka Davie Shipbuilding, has secured its first contract under Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). The contract, awarded by the Canadian Government, involves the design of a...

IMO Approves New Emission Control Areas in Canadian Arctic and Norwegian Sea

The International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee has approved the establishment of two new Emission Control Areas (ECAs) in Canada’s Arctic waters and the Norwegian Sea. The ECAs, proposed...

ONE and Yang Ming Provide Transpac Network Clarification for Post-Hapag Exit

By Mike Wackett (The Loadstar) – Japanese carrier ONE and Taiwan’s Yang Ming today issued a transpacific network update to apply following the departure of Hapag-Lloyd from THE Alliance (THEA) next...

Why Join the gCaptain Club?

Access exclusive insights, engage in vibrant discussions, and gain perspectives from our CEO.

OUT AT SEA?

We’ve got you covered with trusted maritime and offshore news from wherever you are.

JOIN OUR CREW

Maritime and offshore news trusted by our 105,252 members delivered daily straight to your inbox.

Your Gateway to the Maritime World!

Gcaptain’s full coverage of the maritime shipping industry, including containerships, tankers, dry bulk, lng, breakbulk and more..

Privacy Overview

• International

March 26, 2024 - Baltimore Key Bridge collapses after ship collision

By Helen Regan , Kathleen Magramo , Antoinette Radford, Alisha Ebrahimji , Maureen Chowdhury , Rachel Ramirez , Elise Hammond , Aditi Sangal , Tori B. Powell , Piper Hudspeth Blackburn and Kathleen Magramo , CNN

Our live coverage of the Baltimore bridge collapse has moved here .

Crew member on DALI said everyone on board was safe hours after bridge collapse, official says

From CNN’s Amy Simonson

A crew member on the DALI cargo ship sent a message hours after the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed Tuesday saying everybody on board was safe, according to Apostleship of the Sea director Andy Middleton.

Middleton, who spent time with the captain of the DALI Monday, told CNN’s Laura Coates he reached out to a crew member after hearing about the incident Tuesday morning. 

He said there were 22 members aboard the ship from India who were setting sail earlier Tuesday morning and were heading toward Sri Lanka.

“I was able to reach out to a crew member very early this morning around 5:30 (a.m. ET) or 6 (a.m. ET) and get a message to them asking if they were OK,” he said. “That crew member responded within just a few minutes advising that the crew was safe, and everybody that [was] on board was safe.”

Middleton was told by the ship's captain Monday that the vessel was going to take a longer route to avoid risks along the Yemen coast.

“When I was out with the captain yesterday, we were talking while we were driving, and he advised that they were sailing down and around the tip of South Africa in order to avoid the incidents that are going on off the Yemen coast, and it was a safer way to go,” he said.

Middleton said the  Apostleship of the Sea  is a ministry to seafarers with members that spend time in the port and on the vessels as a friendly face to the seafarers that visit the Port of Baltimore, “taking care of their needs to make sure that they're reminded of their God-given human dignity when they're here in Baltimore.”

Search operation ends in "heartbreaking conclusion," Maryland governor says. Here's the latest

From CNN staff

Six people, who were believed to be part of a road construction crew, are presumed dead after Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed early Tuesday morning. The collapse came after a 984-foot cargo ship hit the bridge's pillar.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore told reporters Tuesday evening it's a "really heartbreaking conclusion to a challenging day."

Late Tuesday, it was discovered that two of the construction workers who went missing after the bridge collapsed were from Guatemala , the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said late Tuesday.

Here's what you should know to get up to speed:

• The victims: Eight people were on the bridge  when it fell, according to officials. At least two people were rescued — one was taken to the hospital and was later  discharged , fire official and the medical center said.
• The incident: Video shows the moment the entire bridge structure falls into the water, as the ship hits one of the bridge's pillars. CNN analysis shows that the  ships lights flickered  and it veered off course before it hit the bridge. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said the crew on the ship were able to issue a "mayday" before colliding into the bridge, which allowed the authorities to stop incoming traffic from going onto the bridge.
• Response efforts: Earlier, dive teams from various state and local agencies were brought in to assist in search-and-rescue operations, according to Maryland State Police Secretary Col. Roland L. Butler Jr.. The mission started with 50 personnel and continued to grow before the Coast Guard announced Tuesday evening that it was suspending its active search-and-rescue operation and transitioning to a "different phase."
• The investigation: Authorities are still working to establish exactly how the crash occurred. The National Transportation Safety Board will look into  how the bridge was built  and investigate the structure itself. It will "take time to dig through" whether the bridge had ever been  flagged for any safety deficiencies , NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said.
• Rebuilding the bridge: US Sen. Chris Van Hollen said the path to rebuilding the bridge will be "long and expensive." Senior White House adviser Tom Perez told reporters Tuesday “it’s too early” to tell how long it will take to rebuild the bridge. President Joe Biden said Tuesday he wants the federal government to bear the full cost of rebuilding the collapsed bridge, noting that it will not wait for the company who owns the container ship DALI to shoulder the costs. Funding could come from the Federal Highway Administration as well as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, but it may require additional funding from Congress.

2 of the missing construction workers from bridge collapse were from Guatemala, foreign ministry says

From CNN’s Allison Gordon, Flora Charner and Amy Simonson

Two of the construction workers missing from the bridge collapse in Baltimore were from Guatemala, the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement late Tuesday.

Those missing included a 26-year-old originally from San Luis, Petén. The other is a 35-year-old from Camotán, Chiquimula, the statement said.

The ministry said both were part of a work team “repairing the asphalt on the bridge at the time of the accident.”

The statement did not name the two people missing, but it said the country’s consul general in Maryland “went to the area where the families of those affected are located,” where he hopes to be able to meet with the brothers of both missing people.

The consulate   also issued a statement Tuesday saying its consul general in Maryland "remains in contact with local authorities," and also confirmed that two of those missing "were of Guatemalan origin.”

Six people, who were believed to be part of a road construction crew, are presumed dead after Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed early Tuesday morning when a cargo ship hit the bridge's pillar.

State and federal officials have not released information about the identities of any of the six missing workers.

Underwater mapping of bridge collapse area to begin Wednesday, Baltimore fire chief says

From CNN's Jennifer Henderson

Search operations near the Key Bridge collapse have shut down for the night due to dangerous conditions, but the process of underwater mapping with many local, state and federal dive teams will begin Wednesday, Baltimore City Fire Chief James Wallace told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Tuesday night.

Wallace said the portion of the Patapsco River is “tidal influenced, so it goes through tide cycles just like the open waters of the Chesapeake Bay does.”

The water depths in the area under the bridge vary from 40 feet to more than 60 feet, Wallace said. The deeper the divers go, the colder the temperatures they encounter, and the visibility is zero, he added.

 Wallace said when crews arrived Tuesday morning, the surface water temperatures of the Patapsco River were about 47 degrees with an air temperature of 44-45 degrees.

Here's what you should know about the historic Francis Scott Key Bridge

The Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed early Tuesday after a massive container ship lost power and crashed into the iconic Baltimore bridge, sending people and vehicles into the frigid Patapsco River.

Six people, believed to be part of a road construction crew, are presumed dead and the Coast Guard has ended its active search and rescue mission.

Here's what you should know about the historic bridge:

• How old?: The Francis Scott Key Bridge, also referred to as just the Key Bridge, opened to traffic in March 1977 and is the final link in the Baltimore Beltway, according to the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA.) It crosses over the 50-foot-deep Patapsco River, where former US attorney Francis Scott Key found inspiration to write the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner, the MDTA says.
• How long?: The bridge was 1.6 miles long when standing, MDTA reports.
• Traffic volume: More than 30,000 people commuted daily on the bridge, according to Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.
• How much did it cost?: The bridge cost $60.3 million to build, MDTA says. Since its collapse, President Joe Biden said he’s committed to helping rebuild the bridge as soon as possible.
• About the port: Baltimore ranks as the ninth biggest US port for international cargo. It handled a record 52.3 million tons, valued at $80.8 billion, in 2023. According to the Maryland state government, the port supports 15,330 direct jobs and 139,180 jobs in related services.
• About the ship: The bridge collapsed after a container vessel called Dali collided with one of its supports. Dali is operated by Singapore-based Synergy Group but had been chartered to carry cargo by Danish shipping giant Maersk . The ship is about 984 feet long , according to MarineTraffic data. That’s the length of almost three football fields.

Baltimore woman says bridge collapse was "like a piece of family dissolved"

From CNN's Kit Maher

For longtime Baltimore resident, Ceely, who opted not to share her last name, seeing footage of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse  Tuesday was deeply personal.

“I was very heavy-hearted,” Ceely told CNN. “Very tearful, thinking about the families whose loved ones may be in the water and just remembering when the bridge was constructed, and it was just like a piece of family dissolved.”

Ceely was at a prayer group Tuesday morning when she saw the news. She recalled being afraid when she first crossed the bridge while in Ford Maverick in 1975, but grew to like it because it saved time on the road.

“It was a main artery just like a blood line. It was a main artery to the other side of town. It was awesome. It beat going through the city all the time,” she said.

Elder Rashad A. Singletary , a senior pastor who led Tuesday night’s vigil at Mt. Olive Baptist Church told CNN that many church members watched the bridge's construction.

"It’s a part of the community. A lot of our individuals in our congregation drive that bridge to go to work, and so now it’s really a life changing moment,” he said.

"Heartbreaking conclusion to a challenging day," Maryland governor says as Coast Guard ended search operation

From CNN's Aditi Sangal

More than 18 hours after the collapse of the Baltimore bridge, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said it was a heartbreaking conclusion after the Coast Guard ended the search-and-rescue operation for the six people who were on the bridge when it collapsed.

It's a "really heartbreaking conclusion to a challenging day," he said.

"We put every single asset possible — air, land and sea" to find the missing people, he told reporters on Tuesday evening. "While even though we're moving on now to a recovery mission, we're still fully committed to making sure that we're going to use every single asset to now bring a sense of closure to the families," the governor added.

6 people presumed dead after Baltimore bridge collapse, Coast Guard says. Here's what we know

As the sun sets in Baltimore, six people are presumed dead after a major bridge collapsed overnight Tuesday, according to the Coast Guard. The Francis Scott Key Bridge came down around 1:30 a.m. ET after a cargo ship collided with it.

The Coast Guard said it has ended its active search-and-rescue operation for the missing construction workers who were on the bridge when it collapsed.

• What we know: Eight people were on the bridge when it fell, according to officials. At least two people were rescued — one was taken to the hospital and has been discharged . The Coast Guard has been searching for six other people. But, around 7:30 p.m. ET, the Coast Guard said it has transitioned to a “different phase” of operation, now it did “not believe we are going to find any of these individuals alive,” Rear Adm. Shannon Gilreath said.
• About the ship: The bridge collapsed after a container vessel called Dali collided with one of its supports. The vessel is operated by Singapore-based Synergy Group but had been chartered to carry cargo by Danish shipping giant Maersk . The US Embassy in Singapore has been in contact with the country’s Maritime and Port Authority, a State Department spokesperson said.
• The investigation: The National Transportation Safety Board is leading the investigation into the collapse. A team of 24 experts will dig into nautical operations, vessel operations, safety history records, owners, operators, company policy and any safety management systems or programs, said NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy. A voyage data recorder will be critical to the investigation, she added. 
• Vehicles on the bridge: Officials are also working to verify the numbers of how many cars and people were on the bridge, Homendy said. Gov. Wes Moore said the quick work of authorities in closing the bridge had saved lives . Radio traffic captured how authorities stopped traffic and worked to clear the bridge seconds before the impact . Maryland State Police Secretary Col. Roland L. Butler Jr. said there is a “ distinct possibility ” more vehicles were on the bridge, but authorities have not found any evidence to support that.
• Looking ahead: NTSB will look into how the bridge was built and investigate the structure itself, including if it was flagged for any safety deficiencies , Homendy said. The federal government has also directed its resources to help with search and rescue, to reopen the port and rebuild the bridge, Vice President Kamala Harris said . Earlier, President Joe Biden said t he federal government will pay to fix the bridge.
• The economy: Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg warned the collapse will have a serious impact on supply chains . Until the channel is reopened, ships will likely already be changing course for other East Coast ports. Ocean carriers are already being diverted from the Port of Baltimore, where the bridge collapsed, to the Port of Virginia to “keep trade moving."

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.