Can Nuclear Powered Ships Clean Up Shipping?

This video was sponsored by Wren

Video script and citations:

Get my achieve energy security with solar guide:

Follow-up podcast:

👋 Support Undecided on Patreon!

⚙️ Gear & Products I Like
Tesla and smart home gear:

Undecided Amazon store front:



Abstract Ocean Tesla Accessories:
15% Discount - Code: "Undecided"

Jeda Tesla Wireless Charger/USB Hub:

Tesla Referral Code:
Get 1,000 free supercharging miles
or a discount on Tesla Solar & Powerwalls

Visit my Energysage Portal:
Research solar panels and get quotes for free!

And find heat pump installers near you:

Or find community solar near you:

👉 Follow Me
X

Instagram

Facebook

Website

📺 YouTube Tools I Recommend
Audio file(s) provided by Epidemic Sound

TubeBuddy

VidIQ

I may earn a small commission for my endorsement or recommendation to products or services linked above, but I wouldn't put them here if I didn't like them. Your purchase helps support the channel and the videos I produce. Thank you.

[WulfgarOpenthroat]

I'm pretty pro-nuclear but there are a number of factors that leave me skeptical about it's safety in shipping applications; properly trained reactor techs and maintenance isn't cheap, and even if those costs are overshadowed by long term savings, shipping companies tend to be big on cutting corners to save money and cheaping out everywhere they can even when it's both ill advised and, at times, explicitly illegal.
There's also the hazards that ships face, from breaking up in a storm at sea to accidents like collisions in harbours, plenty of ships are lost each year. The dangers of radiation are overblown, but that is a _lot_ of potential nuclear accidents every year.
You'd basically need apocalypse-proof idiot-proof self-contained zero-maintenance reactors that can survive decades under the unsupervised mercies of all the world's under-trained lowest-possible-wage mariners, and the ship they're in being dashed against the rocks and scattered, along with strict regulations to ensure that reactor-equipped ships have the reactor properly removed and decommissioned instead of being sold to a country where with lax laws for ship breaking.
It's not as bad an idea as fission-powered cars, but it's got a lot of obstacles to overcome and half of them are rooted in human greed.

[masish]

I have actually worked inside a traditional nuclear power plant. I am pretty comfortable with the idea of more nuclear power plants even if they are mobile like in cargo ships. Good topic.

[donaldhoudek]

One added advantage to help recoup the initial cost of building a Nuclear powered ship would be when it is idle, loading or unloading at a dock, the ships Nuclear power system could be connected to the local power grid to help with the generation of electrical power for the port city. Granted there would have to be a MAJOR oversight group that would insure that the systems and system maintenance are performed as scheduled as in the Airline industry.

[MeterLP]

In theory I like the idea, but considering how shipping companies run their operations currently I absolutely do not trust them with nuclear material.

[nilspaar]

The NS Savannah was the first nuclear powered merchant ship launched in 1959, and in service from 1962-1972. It was followed by the Otto Hahn, the Mutsu, and the only one still in service, the Sevmorput.

[mikeearussi]

The key to making SMRs successful is to make them maintenance free with a 20+ year life span and mass produced on an assembly line. This will increase their reliability and lower their cost making them essentially "plug-and -play."

[Gazpolling]

I like that matt always give surface level knowledge but make it interesting and technical enough for common folks like me, great video and explanation

[slowpilot]

Hi Matt! Always enjoy your work. Being a 20 year Navy vet with three tours on nuclear subs the idea of nuclear commercial shipping seems like a logical next step in the effort to make a more sustainable planetary energy model. The m-msr sounds particularly intriguing. I did want to clarify a point that has come up on your videos regarding the refueling cycle of nuclear submarines. Yes, they can operate for months submerged, but the limiting factor is food for the crew. They can usually go the same 20+ years before refueling as the carriers.

[jadu]

There are many more countries working on Th reactors than the ones you mentioned and all of them are small salt reactors in different designs. There were a lot of countries that built ships with reactors, but the problem was that very many have resistance to nuclear-powered ships and especially in their civilian ports, which posed more problems than it was worth.
It was also another use that I saw quite a few years ago that the US fleet would look at using reactors to produce both aviation and ship fuel by extracting CO2 from seawater at a price that would make fuel cheaper than what we in Europe pay now for fuel and it could also help with the acidification of the oceans.
Is a Canadian who has made a lot of good videos about Th / U reactors for over 10 years now, so if you have not looked at his, there is very good information there and he still follows conferences.

[worrix]

the other factor is that the much smaller size of reactors on ships you can scram the reactor and even if you don't cool it the decay heat wont exceed safe limits.

[CMVBrielman]

Economic advantage: since fuel is a much smaller part of costs, especially day to day costs, a nuclear ship can run faster with little cost difference. Many cargo ships run at slower speeds to save on fuel.

So nuclear ships can arrive quite a bit sooner than their diesel competitors. This makes just-in-time shipping more viable - there are many customers who would rather get many small shipments sooner at higher cost, this lets them get big shipments sooner at a potentially lower cost. Best of both worlds.

[artirm]

Matt, they are not future, they are here. Russia has been operating a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers for decades, primarily for commercial purposes. There is also an operational off shore nuclear power plant. It's called Lomonosov, it supplies heat and electricity to the city of Pevek.

[davesutherland]

I agree with a lot of commenters about the unscrupulous operators of a lot of ships. Fleets of commercial nuclear power ships would need a degree of regulation that does not currently exist. Assuming that regulation could be put in place, Nuclear power for commercial shipping is a good idea. However, I expect upfront cost would discourage adopting this technology for shipping. But, if small reactors were to become well established for electricity grids, the cost would come down and this would indeed be a very attractive technology for shipping.

[TheFPSChannel]

First let me say I’m not anti-nuclear power. But I’m all too aware of an industry where cutting of corners in ship safety, crew conditions, proper training, the disposal of waste and the use of non-sea worthy ships beyond their reasonable life-span currently runs rampant in international waters where literally ‘anything goes’. So, forgive me, but do we really want these ‘responsible’ firms to have nuclear fleets that could just sail into our harbors? That feels like giving little kids keys to the car to drive themselves to school when they engage in plenty of risk on their bikes.

[ABC-rhzc]

Fine, as long as the shipping companies are obligated to reclaim the power units from any sunken ships, regardless of cost.

[nonsuch]

I think I'd be more comfortable using nucleur power to create clean hydrogen/ammonia and using that to power ships. Seems like a better bet to ensure the plants receive regular maintenance and less chance of proliferation if they can be kept in one place and subject to one jurisdiction.

[russellellis]

I work in this industry as an Merchant Marine engineer. I have zero trust in the companies to provide the necessary maintenance support to make this safe. I would leave the industry if they tried to make this change. They’re already doing everything they can to eliminate employment of mariners from first world countries. Try to imagine a world full of nuclear powered ships operated by third world crews. Then add on the ships being owned by companies that are in and out of bankruptcy on a regular basis. That’s the reality of what this would become.

[mikenyc]

I like the idea of nuclear reactors making a liquid fuel for shipping

[Thebreakdownshow]

I would be slightly concerned about these profit-seeking companies managing nuclear vessels. Them rushing to deliver things and cutting corners to maximize profits.

[Overvaag]

As a ship designer I'm for nuclear power, but only on larger vessels with long travel routes (naval, cargo, container) or extended periods (ice breakers, research vessels, etc.). Smaller vessels (offshore support, fishing vessels, windmill vessels, coastal cargo, etc.) which normally operates closer to port should seek other measures. We're already working on methanol solutions which produces hydrogen onboard for consumption, or vessels directly fueled by the use of ammonia. Most ships nowadays which we are designing are going for a "future fuel ready", meaning they reserve space or have plans at hand making it possible to do a conversion whenever the technology is ready.

Most ship owners does not have the financial support to be the very first going for a "green" solution. So for the most part they'll choose solutions that are known and relatively easy to implement, which are batteries for peak shaving or scaled down solutions to serve hotel load for instance. Batteries enables better utilization of the main engines and reduces service needs and emissions. For other ship owners they are larger and could take the financial hit if a new solution does not work as intended. Most of these are still dependent upon governmental support or support from other means (EU Horizon funding, suppliers, etc.).

All in all the entire maritime industry is working on this. I doubt nuclear power is the solution, but we're becoming greener every single day.