3 ms·

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

10 points by nabla9 3y ago

Manuel_D 3y ago
Nuclear powered shipping seems like a crucial piece of infrastructure in the near future. Alternative forms of decarbonized fuel all have significant disadvantages: * Batteries don't remotely have the energy density required for transoceanic travel. * Hydrogen had good energy density by mass, but even liquid hydrogen has middling energy density by volume (way better than batteries, but still less than hydrocarbons). It's also less efficient to produce, compress, and cool. * Synthetic hydrocarbons are difficult to produce. The CO2 concentrations in atmosphere is very small and hard to capture directly. Biomass is a potential source, but it has fairly low energy density. Actually producing the synthetic hydrocarbons also requires hydrogen as an input, which has the same problems as the above. Furthermore, nuclear powered ships are already proven technology. E.g. the NS Savannah [1], and various Soviet & Russian icebreakers [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika-class_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika-class_icebreaker
- credit_guy 3y ago
  I disagree with your statement about hydrogen. Hydrogen's killer app is usage for huge vehicles, basically ships, trains and mining trucks. The main issue with hydrogen is not the volumetric density compared to hydrocarbons: hydrocarbons produce emissions and hydrogen doesn't. The main issue is storage, and for that the square-cube law helps. If your application can make use of huge tanks, then the cost of storage becomes negligible. Nuclear-powered shipping is and will remain a non-starter for the simple reason that pirates exist and will continue to exist. Even if pirates didn't exist, rogue states, like the Houthis, or Iran, or North Korea do exist. You'd basically need to escort each nuclear powered ship with a warship, and the cost would be too high.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Liquid hydrogen is less than 1/3 the energy density of diesel by volume: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Energy_density.svg/1920px-Energy_density.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/En... Liquid hydrogen also has difficulties in terms of converting that energy into work. It burns really hot, and produces nitrous oxides (which are greenhouse gases) in combustion engines. It can produce electricity via a fuel cell, but doing that at large scale has never been done. Nuclear powered ships are probably expensive enough that arming them is not super expensive. North Korea already has nukes, and pirates are usually just equipped with small arms. Again nuclear powered shipping has already existed for decades. The better part of a century, in fact. Piracy and rogue states have not been a problem.
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      > Liquid hydrogen is less than 1/3 the energy density of diesel by volume Yes, but in a ship volume is not a concern. > Liquid hydrogen also has difficulties in terms of converting that energy into work Check [1] out. Current diesel engines can be retrofitted to burn a mix of diesel and hydrogen that reduces emissions by 86%. “If you just put hydrogen into the engine and let it all mix together you will get a lot of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, which is a significant cause of air pollution and acid rain,” Prof. Kook says. “But we have shown in our system if you make it stratified – that is in some areas there is more hydrogen and in others there is less hydrogen – then we can reduce the NOx emissions below that of a purely diesel engine.” > Again nuclear powered shipping has already existed for decades. The better part of a century, in fact. Piracy and rogue states have not been a problem. Nuclear powered warships have existed for decades. Civilian nuclear power ships were a rarity. Most were Russian icebreakers, operating in the arctic, where pirates are quite hard to find. The idea you are proposing is to start putting nuclear reactors on thousands of ships that would criss-cross the world's oceans on a daily basis. It's just not going to happen. And if you want to put them only on a handful, why bother? They won't make a dent in the emissions. [1] https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/new-system-retrofits-diesel-engines-run-90-cent-hydrogen https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/new-system-re...
defrost 3y ago
For further reading: DNV: Maritime Forecast to 2050 The 2020’s is proving to be the decisive decade for the decarbonization of shipping. Regulations from key bodies like the IMO and EU are taking shape, driving industry stakeholders to implement plans now which will influence the direction of decarbonization efforts in the coming decades. This year’s Maritime Forecast to 2050 continues to examine the impact of the latest regulatory decisions from the EU and IMO while also providing an overview of how an eco-system for carbon-neutral fuels can develop. The report takes a deep dive into selected technologies that can drive greater energy efficiency in the maritime industry and help to alleviate the demand for carbon-neutral fuels in the coming decades. https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/maritime-forecast-2023/index.html https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/maritime-forecast-... UNCTAD Policy Brief No 112: An equitable and just transition to low-carbon shipping Shipping carries over 80 per cent of world merchandise trade by volume and generates 3 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions that, without timely decarbonization action, are expected to grow in tandem with growth in maritime transport and trade https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/presspb2023d6_en.pdf https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/presspb202...
missedthecue 3y ago
If this is built it will be a nice technical achievement for China's commercial shipbuilding industry, but will likely never break even economically. It's hard enough making a dollar in the shipping industry using cheap bunker fuel.

10 points by nabla9 3y ago

Nuclear powered shipping seems like a crucial piece of infrastructure in the near future. Alternative forms of decarbonized fuel all have significant disadvantages: * Batteries don't remotely have the energy density required for transoceanic travel. * Hydrogen had good energy density by mass, but even liquid hydrogen has middling energy density by volume (way better than batteries, but still less than hydrocarbons). It's also less efficient to produce, compress, and cool. * Synthetic hydrocarbons are difficult to produce. The CO2 concentrations in atmosphere is very small and hard to capture directly. Biomass is a potential source, but it has fairly low energy density. Actually producing the synthetic hydrocarbons also requires hydrogen as an input, which has the same problems as the above. Furthermore, nuclear powered ships are already proven technology. E.g. the NS Savannah [1], and various Soviet & Russian icebreakers [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika-class_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika-class_icebreaker

credit_guy 3y ago
I disagree with your statement about hydrogen. Hydrogen's killer app is usage for huge vehicles, basically ships, trains and mining trucks. The main issue with hydrogen is not the volumetric density compared to hydrocarbons: hydrocarbons produce emissions and hydrogen doesn't. The main issue is storage, and for that the square-cube law helps. If your application can make use of huge tanks, then the cost of storage becomes negligible. Nuclear-powered shipping is and will remain a non-starter for the simple reason that pirates exist and will continue to exist. Even if pirates didn't exist, rogue states, like the Houthis, or Iran, or North Korea do exist. You'd basically need to escort each nuclear powered ship with a warship, and the cost would be too high.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Liquid hydrogen is less than 1/3 the energy density of diesel by volume: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Energy_density.svg/1920px-Energy_density.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/En... Liquid hydrogen also has difficulties in terms of converting that energy into work. It burns really hot, and produces nitrous oxides (which are greenhouse gases) in combustion engines. It can produce electricity via a fuel cell, but doing that at large scale has never been done. Nuclear powered ships are probably expensive enough that arming them is not super expensive. North Korea already has nukes, and pirates are usually just equipped with small arms. Again nuclear powered shipping has already existed for decades. The better part of a century, in fact. Piracy and rogue states have not been a problem.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > Liquid hydrogen is less than 1/3 the energy density of diesel by volume Yes, but in a ship volume is not a concern. > Liquid hydrogen also has difficulties in terms of converting that energy into work Check [1] out. Current diesel engines can be retrofitted to burn a mix of diesel and hydrogen that reduces emissions by 86%. “If you just put hydrogen into the engine and let it all mix together you will get a lot of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, which is a significant cause of air pollution and acid rain,” Prof. Kook says. “But we have shown in our system if you make it stratified – that is in some areas there is more hydrogen and in others there is less hydrogen – then we can reduce the NOx emissions below that of a purely diesel engine.” > Again nuclear powered shipping has already existed for decades. The better part of a century, in fact. Piracy and rogue states have not been a problem. Nuclear powered warships have existed for decades. Civilian nuclear power ships were a rarity. Most were Russian icebreakers, operating in the arctic, where pirates are quite hard to find. The idea you are proposing is to start putting nuclear reactors on thousands of ships that would criss-cross the world's oceans on a daily basis. It's just not going to happen. And if you want to put them only on a handful, why bother? They won't make a dent in the emissions. [1] https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/new-system-retrofits-diesel-engines-run-90-cent-hydrogen https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/new-system-re...

defrost 3y ago

For further reading: DNV: Maritime Forecast to 2050 The 2020’s is proving to be the decisive decade for the decarbonization of shipping. Regulations from key bodies like the IMO and EU are taking shape, driving industry stakeholders to implement plans now which will influence the direction of decarbonization efforts in the coming decades. This year’s Maritime Forecast to 2050 continues to examine the impact of the latest regulatory decisions from the EU and IMO while also providing an overview of how an eco-system for carbon-neutral fuels can develop. The report takes a deep dive into selected technologies that can drive greater energy efficiency in the maritime industry and help to alleviate the demand for carbon-neutral fuels in the coming decades. https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/maritime-forecast-2023/index.html https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/maritime-forecast-... UNCTAD Policy Brief No 112: An equitable and just transition to low-carbon shipping Shipping carries over 80 per cent of world merchandise trade by volume and generates 3 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions that, without timely decarbonization action, are expected to grow in tandem with growth in maritime transport and trade https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/presspb2023d6_en.pdf https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/presspb202...

missedthecue 3y ago

If this is built it will be a nice technical achievement for China's commercial shipbuilding industry, but will likely never break even economically. It's hard enough making a dollar in the shipping industry using cheap bunker fuel.