Why are there no nuclear powered cruise ships?

[thermal]

I recently took a Pacific Coastal cruise with a stop in Astoria.  I spent a few hours at their Maritime Museum, and one of the presentations talked about nuclear powered aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy.   It got me questioning: Why there aren't any nuclear powered cruise ships? 

 

A) The technology is there and is proven.

B) Cruise ships are trying to run cleaner, emitting less CO2.  

C) It would surely simplify refuelling, and allow longer cruises to more exotic destinations. 

[mom says]

Why aren't there nuclear tanker or cargo ships, airplanes, trains?

 

Besides finding sufficient crew who are proficient in safely managing these systems, how about just security? Security aboard an aircraft carrier against theft of the nuclear material is one thing I wouldn't worry about. Can't say the same about a lone civilian ship 

[CruiserBruce]

The Russians tried nuclear powered everything in the 1960s and 70s. Didn't work well. Ended up with nuclear waste in many unintended places, and possibly loose in the world.

 

In the US, everything nuclear related is heavily regulated, if not outright owned, by the Federal government. Keep in mind cruise ships are not that heavily regulated the US. So who would regulate these reactors?

 

Notice the US has only nuclear powered subs and aircraft carriers. None of their other war ships, of any type. Makes you wonder why. No cargo ships of any nation in the world are nuclear powered. Again,  got to wonder why.

[Essiesmom]

Paging @chengkp75 to the white courtesy phone…. EM

[thermal]

It looks like there's quite a few nuclear powered icebreakers too...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker

Edited October 5, 2022 by thermal

[Zach1213]

This is definitely one of those cases where the technology is there, but the differences between civilian use and government/military use is drastic. Many of the things have been mentioned already (staffing, security, regulations), but one that isn't mentioned is that a lot of the public is still a bit skeptical of nuclear and it might be a difficult sell to get people "onboard" with the idea, especially if you're the first to do it. 

[TheOldBear]

There are reactor designs - like the 'pebble bed' reactor - that are designed to be inherently safe [zero worries of loss of containment].

 

I recall [likely 15 years or so ago] a paper study in the USNI Proceedings for an air cooled pebble bed reactor module similar in size to a LM2500 gas turbine module, with similar shaft output.

 

The LM2500 is the standard gas turbine engine used on US warships since the DD963 Spruance class in the late '70s. It is also used in a CODAG [COmbined Diesel And Gas turbine] electric drive on the QM2 and some other recent ship designs [I think a couple of MSC ships were/are CODAG]

 

There is much more thermal inertia in the nuke module, so it would not be as responsive to lee helm orders as a gas turbine - likely the nuke would mostly be for base load, and a gas turbine for quick response.

[DirtyDawg]

In addition to security concerns the costs of a nuclear powered Cruise ship would likely be prohibitive vs a traditionally powered ship if those costs are anything like an aircraft carrier.

 

As per  https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/nsiad98001/c3.htm#:~:text=We estimate a nuclear carrier's,needed for the conventional carrier.

 

"A nuclear-powered carrier costs about $8.1 billion, or about 58 percent, more than a conventionally powered carrier to acquire, operate and support for 50 years, and then to inactivate.

 

The investment cost for a nuclear-powered carrier is more than $6.4 billion, which we estimate is more than double that for a conventionally powered carrier.

 

Annually, the costs to operate and support a nuclear carrier are almost 34 percent higher than those to operate and support a conventional carrier.

 

In addition, it will cost the Navy considerably more to inactivate and dispose of a nuclear carrier (CVN) than a conventional carrier (CV) primarily because the extensive work necessary to remove spent nuclear fuel from the reactor plant and remove and dispose of the radiologically contaminated reactor plant and other system components."

 

Cruise ship building and operating are commercial ventures. In the end it always boils down to economics.

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by DirtyDawg

[chengkp75]

Let's see.  China has small pebble bed reactors, for about $2 million/Mw.  So, an Oasis class cruise ship would need 97Mw of power, or $194 million worth of reactor.  Her diesel engines cost about a tenth of that, so you would need far more capital investment to start with.  Then, you have to have not only the reactors, but the boilers and the steam turbines turning the generators to make the electricity.  Space required for engineering goes up, power required to operate the plant goes up, since a steam plant is inherently less efficient than a diesel plant.  That either reduces passenger area, or makes the ship bigger, requiring more cost.

 

Then there is the question of regulation.  It is up to the flag state to regulate their ships, so do you think that Bahamas, Panama, and Malta want to make nuclear reactor regulations?  Do you trust them to actually regulate this industry, including waste storage?

 

Do you see the potential for litigation, for any passenger who sails on a nuclear cruise ship that develops cancer at any time later in life to sue for exposure?

48 minutes ago, thermal said:

It looks like there's quite a few nuclear powered icebreakers too...

And, every one of them is Russian.  And the Russian flag is not regulated by the normal classification societies, but by Russia's own society.  Conflict of interest?

[rkacruiser]

Thanks to chengkp75 for his informative contribution to this thread.  The S. S. Savannah was designed to carry a small load of passengers, but, that was an experiment that went no where on a commercial basis.  

 

The cruise industry's new entry into the LNG fueled ships needs to be proven before any possible consideration of nuclear power for a cruise ship.  

[Capt_BJ]

there was one ... sort of:

 

NS Savannah  (WIKI)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Savanah was a project of the US government to 'sell' nuclear power to the people. It was a combined cargo and pass' ship (30 pass' cabins).  (President) "Eisenhower desired a "peace ship" that would serve as an ambassador for the peaceful use of atomic power. According to an Eisenhower administration statement to Congress, "The President seeks no return on this vessel except the goodwill of men everywhere ... Neither will the vessel be burdened by proving itself commercially feasible by carrying goods exclusively.""

 

As a result of her design handicaps, training requirements, and additional crew members, Savannah cost approximately US$2 million a year more in operating subsidies than a similarly sized Mariner-class ship with a conventional oil-fired steam plant. The Maritime Administration placed her out of service in 1971 to save costs, a decision that made sense when fuel oil cost US$20 per ton. In 1974, however, when fuel oil cost $80 per ton, Savannah's operating costs would have been no greater than a conventional cargo ship. This figure does not factor maintenance and eventual disposal of the ship's nuclear power plant. The ship's namesake, SS Savannah, which in 1819 became the first steam powered ship to cross the Atlantic Ocean, was also a commercial failure despite the innovation in marine propulsion technology.

 

She was 'deactivated' in 1971

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

as a commercial vessel SAVANNAH was caught up in the politics of nuclear power: many countries refuse entry to nuc' vessels.  Eventually deactivated there became a problem with disposal of the reactor and associated components. 

The Maritime Administration has not funded decommissioning and removal of the ship's nuclear systems. There are problems with scrapping the ship because of this .......

 

Savannah is presently located in the Port of Baltimore, Maryland, under a long-term layberth contract with Canton Marine Terminals. http://ns-savannah.org/

 

>>>>>>>

btw ... in my last years with USCG I had an office that looked out over the Norfolk harbor and many of the dry docks and one day looking out saw tugs moving a ship .... "damn .... that's SAVANNAH"

Edited October 5, 2022 by Capt_BJ

[Mum2Mercury]

2 hours ago, thermal said:

I recently took a Pacific Coastal cruise with a stop in Astoria.  I spent a few hours at their Maritime Museum, and one of the presentations talked about nuclear powered aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy. 

Not just Aircraft Carriers.  My brother was a Nuke (guy who keeps the engines running) on a Cruiser -- sometimes called a Destroyer.  A Cruiser is a smaller, more maneuverable Navy ship.  Every Aircraft Carrier travels with 3-4 of them for protection.  

 

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, Mum2Mercury said:

Not just Aircraft Carriers.  My brother was a Nuke (guy who keeps the engines running) on a Cruiser -- sometimes called a Destroyer.  A Cruiser is a smaller, more maneuverable Navy ship.  Every Aircraft Carrier travels with 3-4 of them for protection.  

 

And, the last nuclear cruiser was decommissioned in 1999.  They were more expensive to build, more expensive to maintain than conventional power, so even the non-profit US Navy could not afford them.

[Charles4515]

3 hours ago, thermal said:

It got me questioning: Why there aren't any nuclear powered cruise ships? 

 

It is not profitable. If it ever became profitable there would be.

[wowzz]

24 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

It is not profitable. If it ever became profitable there would be.

In a nut shell !

[txjim09]

How about a nuclear-powered flying cruise ship?

Flying Hotel of the Future

[GeezerCouple]

1 hour ago, txjim09 said:

How about a nuclear-powered flying cruise ship?

Flying Hotel of the Future

 

Nice slick aerodynamics there!

😱

 

They may not run out of energy after a year or two, but with 5,000 guests, um, water...???

 

GC

[Mum2Mercury]

2 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

It is not profitable. If it ever became profitable there would be.

I don't know.  Imagine the evil-doers who would want to steal a nuclear sub.  The military can protect itself from these people, but imagine a commercial cruise liner being the target of terrorists.  Of course, you could argue that this means "more security", and that could mean a lot more money.  I guess I'm arguing both sides of this equation.

[CruiserBruce]

51 minutes ago, Mum2Mercury said:

I don't know.  Imagine the evil-doers who would want to steal a nuclear sub.  The military can protect itself from these people, but imagine a commercial cruise liner being the target of terrorists.  Of course, you could argue that this means "more security", and that could mean a lot more money.  I guess I'm arguing both sides of this equation.

The whole "stealing a cruise ship" has already been done....and it had nothing to do with nuclear propulsion.  See " Achille Lauro", 1985. Security is already tighter for that reason.

[Joebucks]

In general, when we inquire "why is or isn't something this way" in business, it is often due to money. Sure there can always be other factors like regulation in the way. If the size of the prize is good enough, corporations and even entire industries may lobby. In this case, as cheng pointed out, it doesn't seem feasible.

[Ride-The-Waves]

15 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, the last nuclear cruiser was decommissioned in 1999.  They were more expensive to build, more expensive to maintain than conventional power, so even the non-profit US Navy could not afford them.

"Affordability" is mostly not a factor in warship design, construction and operations.  On USS Enterprise once exited the Med at Gibraltar, turned turned port and arrived in Perth in 17 days.  Enterprise, Truxtun and Arkansas.  We average 27 knots, no stoping or refueling.  Eighty knots of wind across the deck at times. Combat flexibility is the key.  On CVNs what were tanks for NSFO is used for JP4.  

[d9704011]

Nuclear powered ships would likely be unwelcome guests in many cruise ship destinations; either formally (as in not permitted to enter the port) or socially (a target of anti-nuclear activism).  Not an especially good way to run a cruise/travel industry.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

"Affordability" is mostly not a factor in warship design, construction and operations.

No, but it plays a big part in getting the funding to design and build those ships. If a Senator says, "we can build 2 or 3 conventional cruisers for the cost of the one nuclear one, convince me to buy the nuclear one".   Also, the decommissioning cost is something the Navy looks at, as this can cost them another ship.

Edited October 6, 2022 by chengkp75

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, d9704011 said:

Nuclear powered ships would likely be unwelcome guests in many cruise ship destinations; either formally (as in not permitted to enter the port) or socially (a target of anti-nuclear activism).  Not an especially good way to run a cruise/travel industry.

That is a good point. A nuclear powered ship would probably not be allowed in many ports. Maybe most ports. And would the US allow foreign flagged nuclear powered cruise ships in our ports?

Edited October 6, 2022 by Charles4515

[shipgeeks]

19 hours ago, Capt_BJ said:

there was one ... sort of:

 

NS Savannah  (WIKI)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Savanah was a project of the US government to 'sell' nuclear power to the people. It was a combined cargo and pass' ship (30 pass' cabins).  (President) "Eisenhower desired a "peace ship" that would serve as an ambassador for the peaceful use of atomic power. According to an Eisenhower administration statement to Congress, "The President seeks no return on this vessel except the goodwill of men everywhere ... Neither will the vessel be burdened by proving itself commercially feasible by carrying goods exclusively.""

 

As a result of her design handicaps, training requirements, and additional crew members, Savannah cost approximately US$2 million a year more in operating subsidies than a similarly sized Mariner-class ship with a conventional oil-fired steam plant. The Maritime Administration placed her out of service in 1971 to save costs, a decision that made sense when fuel oil cost US$20 per ton. In 1974, however, when fuel oil cost $80 per ton, Savannah's operating costs would have been no greater than a conventional cargo ship. This figure does not factor maintenance and eventual disposal of the ship's nuclear power plant. The ship's namesake, SS Savannah, which in 1819 became the first steam powered ship to cross the Atlantic Ocean, was also a commercial failure despite the innovation in marine propulsion technology.

 

She was 'deactivated' in 1971

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

as a commercial vessel SAVANNAH was caught up in the politics of nuclear power: many countries refuse entry to nuc' vessels.  Eventually deactivated there became a problem with disposal of the reactor and associated components. 

The Maritime Administration has not funded decommissioning and removal of the ship's nuclear systems. There are problems with scrapping the ship because of this .......

 

Savannah is presently located in the Port of Baltimore, Maryland, under a long-term layberth contract with Canton Marine Terminals. http://ns-savannah.org/

 

>>>>>>>

btw ... in my last years with USCG I had an office that looked out over the Norfolk harbor and many of the dry docks and one day looking out saw tugs moving a ship .... "damn .... that's SAVANNAH"

For those of us who sail from the Port of Baltimore, we have an opportunity to see Savannah each time we sail.  She is docked on our port side as we depart, not far from the port. Nice-looking ship.