Sailing into a nuclear era no longer seems like such a distant prospect, as a joint study has now shed light on nuclear propulsion's game-changing potential for liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers, which will cost roughly 2.5 times more than a conventional LNG vessel, but factoring in skyrocketing fuel costs and tightening global regulations might just make that steep initial price tag look like a bargain.
A joint study by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), a classification society, Blossom Energy, a Japanese deep-tech player, and a global shipping company has examined what maritime nuclear propulsion could actually look like in practice through a fresh look at a 174,000-cubic-meter (cbm) LNG carrier equipped with a 20-25 MWe high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) under development by the Japanese firm.
Patrick Ryan, ABS Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, commented: “Nuclear energy has the potential to fundamentally change the economics of commercial shipping, from vessel design to long-term operating costs. ABS is proud to support studies like this one that move the industry beyond theory and toward a clearer picture of what nuclear propulsion could mean in practice.”
While the hardware carries a heavy upfront cost, this study has revealed that the design’s ability to enable fuel savings and clever lifecycle business models could change the game for global trade, after assessing vessel arrangement, propulsion systems and operating conditions against a conventional LNG-fueled newbuild.
Shimpei Hamamoto, CEO of Blossom Energy, underlined: “This study provides a quantitative basis for discussing nuclear propulsion in commercial shipping. Blossom Energy contributed its HTGR reference design to the study, and we will continue to work with ABS and industry partners to build the technical and regulatory foundation needed for practical application.”
The economics were evaluated across a range of potential regulatory penalty scenarios. Ships get old, rust out, and eventually get sent to the scrapyard, but what if the multimillion-dollar nuclear engine inside one did not have to go with it?
The joint study team looked into a business model treating the reactor as a long-term energy asset that could be reinstalled on a second vessel after the first reaches the end of its service life, factoring that possibility into the vessel’s residual value.
When a ship's nuclear reactor is treated less like traditional machinery and more like a reusable, long-term energy asset that could reduce fuel costs over the vessel’s operating life, the math behind nuclear-powered shipping starts to look completely different.