GLOBAL CLIMATE DEBATE

A recent study conducted under the sponsorship of the Center for Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies (CCDOTT) examined the feasibility of a fleet of nuclear-powered 9,200-TEU containerships in a U.S. West Coast-Far East trade. The study, Analysis of High-Speed Trans-Pacific Nuclear Containership Service, conducted by George A. Sawyer and Joseph A. Stroud, General Management Partners, LLC, examined whether such nuclear-powered ships would be both technically feasible and economically competitive in such service. The study assumes that the timeline for the initial service would be 10 to 12 years in the future.

In the study, the conceptual design for the 9,200-TEU nuclear-powered containership was based on the lines of the diesel-powered OOCL Shenzhen. The nuclear-powered concept vessel ended up being lengthened by 42 meters to 365m (1,198 ft) overall in order to better accommodate the increased powering required. The lengthening resulted in a 4 knot improvement in the speed at the design horsepower and, because of the total weight saved by omitting about 8,900 tons net of fuel, permitted the load-out of an additional 1000+ 40 foot containers.

The study envisioned a hypothetical Rolls-Royce marine PWR nuclear-powered, 35-knot, three-ship express service making weekly calls between the Ports of Hong Kong and Long Beach/Los Angeles. This hypothetical service was compared with a four-ship 25-knot conventional service employing the same sized vessels using diesel technology.

The results of the comparison showed that under certain assumptions, the conceptual nuclear containership service would be economically viable with a crossover point compared to the diesel service at basic oil costs of about $89 per barrel.

Nuclear propulsion has for years proven 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 meters thick, coupled with refelling difficulties that would be inherent with other types of power plant, are significant factors. The nuclear fleet has increased navigation in the region from 2 to up to 10 months per year.

payday advance

There remains a controversy over how expensive nuclear energy is relative to other forms of energy. Most explorations of this topic fail because author sof the cost studies proceed from slightly different sets of assumptions.

A standardized metric that would insure apples are compared with apples approach would be a genuine contribution to the field and would eliminate at least one layer of loss of clarity.

Sadly, most authors would not be willing to adopt a relatively "objective" standard. Most authors have a favored technology that they wish to push and choose a method of analysis that somehow makes their favored technology look good.

Anti-nuclear analysts can make nuclear capital costs look horribly expensive. This is particularly effective if plant lifetimes and capacity factors are left out of the calculation.

Pro-nuclear analysts can emphasize nuclear maintenance and operational costs which make nuclear the lowest cost of all energy sectors.

In the end little real light is shed because each analysis proceeds from different assumptions and uses different methods. It would take the influence of an overseeing body like DOE to, in the interest of fairness, insist on using a standard metric and method for all cost calculations.