Our members:

Latest news
Tenders for Russian submarine fuel removal Nuclear ship takes Olympic flame to North Pole Positive results from space battery work

Nuclear-Powered Ships
(Updated January 2014)

Nuclear power is particularly suitable for vessels which need to be at sea for long periods without refuelling, or for powerful submarine propulsion. Some 140 ships are powered by more than 180 small nuclear reactors and more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operation has been accumulated. Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers. In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use. So far, exaggerated fears about safety have caused political restriction on port access.

Work on nuclear marine propulsion started in the 1940s, and the first test reactor started up in USA in 1953. The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus, put to sea in 1955. This marked the transition of submarines from slow underwater vessels to warships capable of sustaining 20-25 knots submerged for weeks on end. The submarine had come into its own. Nautilus led to the parallel development of further (Skate-class) submarines, powered by single pressurised water reactors, and an aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, powered by eight reactor units in 1960. A cruiser, USS Long Beach, followed in 1961 and was powered by two of these early units. Remarkably, the Enterprise remained in service to the end of 2012. By 1962 the US Navy had 26 nuclear submarines operational and 30 under construction. Nuclear power had revolutionised the Navy. The technology was shared with Britain, while French, Russian and Chinese developments proceeded separately. After the Skate-class vessels, reactor development proceeded and in the USA a single series of standardised designs was built by both Westinghouse and GE, one reactor powering each vessel. Rolls Royce built similar units for Royal Navy submarines and then developed the design further to the PWR-2. Russia developed both PWR and lead-bismuth cooled reactor designs, the latter not persisting. Eventually four generations* of submarine PWRs were utilised, the last entering service in 1995 in the Severodvinsk class. * 1955-66, 1963-92, 1976-2003, 1995 on, according to Bellona. The largest submarines are the 26,500 tonne (34,000 t submerged) Russian Typhoon-class, powered by twin 190 MWt PWR reactors, though these were superseded by the 24,000 t Oscar-II class (eg Kursk) with the same power plant. The safety record of the US nuclear navy is excellent, this being attributed to a high level of standardisation in naval power plants and their maintenance, and the high quality of the Navy's training program. However, early

Soviet endeavours resulted in a number of serious accidents five where the reactor was irreparably damaged, and more resulting in radiation leaks. There were more than 20 radiation fatalities.* However, by Russias third generation of marine PWRs in the late 1970s safety and reliability had become a high priority. (Apart from reactor accidents, fires and accidents have resulted in the loss of two US and about 4 Soviet submarines, another four of which had fires resulting in loss of life.)
* The K-19 accident at sea in 1961 due to cooling failure in an early PWR resulted in 8 deaths from acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in repairing it (doses 7.5 to 54 Sv) and possibly more later as well as many high doses. The K-27 accident at sea in 1968 also involved coolant failure, this time in an experimental lead-bismuth cooled reactor, and 9 deaths from ARS as well as high exposure by other crew. In 1985 the K-431 was being refuelled in Vladivostok when a criticality occurred causing a major steam explosion which killed 10 workers. Over 200 PBq of fission products was released causing high radiation exposure of about 50 others, including ten with ARS.

Lloyd's Register shows about 200 nuclear reactors at sea, and that some 700 have been used at sea since the 1950s.

Nuclear Naval Fleets

Russia built 248 nuclear submarines and five naval surface vessels (plus 9 icebreakers) powered by 468 reactors between 1950 and 2003, and was then operating about 60 nuclear naval vessels. (Bellona gives 247 subs with 456 reactors 1958-95.) For operational vessels in 1997, Bellona lists 109 Russian submarines (plus 4 naval surface ships) and 108 attack submarines (SSN) and 25 ballistic missile ones apart from Russia. At the end of the Cold War, in 1989, there were over 400 nuclear-powered submarines operational or being built. At least 300 of these submarines have now been scrapped and some on order cancelled, due to weapons reduction programs*. Russia and USA had over one hundred each in service, with UK and France less than twenty each and China six. The total today is understood to be about 120, including new ones commissioned. Most or all are fuelled by high-enriched uranium (HEU). * In 2007 Russia had about 40 retired subs from its Pacific fleet alone awaiting scrapping. In November 2008 it was reported that
Russia intended to scrap all decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2012, the total being more than 200 of the 250 built to date. Most Northern Fleet submarines had been dismantled at Severodvinsk, and most remaining to be scrapped were with the Pacific Fleet.

India launched its first submarine in 2009, the 6000 dwt Arihant SSBN, with a single 85 MW PWR fuelled by HEU driving a 70 MW steam turbine. It is reported to have cost US$ 2.9 billion. The INS Aridaman is under construction, and several more are planned. India is also leasing an almost-new 7900 dwt (12,770 tonne submerged) Russian Akula-II class nuclear attack submarine for ten years from 2010, at a cost of US$ 650 million: the INS Chakra, formerly Nerpa. It has a single 190 MWt VM-5/ OK-659B PWR driving a 32 MW steam turbine and two 2 MWe turbogenerators. The USA has the main navy with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, while both it and Russia have had nuclearpowered cruisers (USA: 9, Russia 4). The USA had built 219 nuclear-powered vessels to mid 2010, and then had five submarines and an aircraft carrier under construction. All US aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclearpowered. The US Navy has accumulated over 6200 reactor-years of accident-free experience involving 526 nuclear reactor cores over the course of 240 million kilometres, without a single radiological incident, over a period of more than 50 years. It operated 82 nuclear-powered ships (11 aircraft carriers, 71 submarines 18 SSBN/SSGN, 53 SSN) with 103 reactors as of March 2010. In 2013 it had 10 Nimitz-class carriers in service (CVN 68-77), each designed

for 50-year service life with one mid-life refuelling and complex overhaul of their two A4W Westinghouse reactors. The forthcoming Gerald Ford-class (CVN 78 on) will have some 800 fewer crew and two more powerful Bechtel A1B reactors driving four shafts. The Russian Navy has logged over 6000 nautical reactor-years. It appears to have eight strategic submarines (SSBN/SSGN) in operation and 13 nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN), plus some diesel subs. Russia has announced that it will build eight new nuclear SSBN submarines in its plan to 2015. Its only nuclear-powered carrier project was cancelled in 1992. It has one nuclear-powered cruiser in operation and three others being overhauled. In 2012 it announced that its third-generation strategic subs would have extended service lives, from 25 to 35 years. In 2012 construction of a nuclear-powered deep-sea submersible was announced. This is based on the Oscarclass naval submarine and is apparently designed for research and rescue missions. It will be built by the Sevmash shipyard at Severodvinsk, which builds Russian naval submarines.

China has about 12 nuclear-powered submarines (7 SSN, 4-5 SSBN), and in February 2013 China Shipbuilding Industry Corp received state approval and funding to begin research on core technologies and safety for nuclearpowered ships, with polar vessels being mentioned but aircraft carriers being considered a more likely purpose for the new development. Its first nuclear powered submarine was decommissioned in 2013 after almost 40 years service. France has a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and ten nuclear submarines (4 SSBN, 6 Rubis class SSN). The UK has 12 submarines, all nuclear powered (4 SSBN, 8 SSN).

Civil Vessels
Nuclear propulsion has proven technically and 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 metres thick, coupled with refuelling difficulties for other types of vessels, are significant factors. The nuclear fleet, with six nuclear icebreakers and a nuclear freighter, has increased Arctic navigation from 2 to 10 months per year, and in the Western Arctic, to year-round. The icebreaker Lenin was the world's first nuclear-powered surface vessel (20,000 dwt), commissioned in 1959. It remained in service for 30 years to 1989, being retired due to the hull being worn thin from ice abrasion. It initially had three 90 MWt OK-150 reactors, but these were badly damaged during refueling in 1965 and 1967. In 1970 they were replaced by two 171 MWt OK-900 reactors providing steam for turbines which generated electricity to deliver 34 MW at the propellers. It led to a series of larger icebreakers, the six 23,500 dwt Arktika-class, launched from 1975. These powerful vessels have two 171 MWt OK-900 reactors delivering 54 MW at the propellers and are used in deep Arctic waters. The Arktika was the first surface vessel to reach the North Pole, in 1977. Rossija, Sovetskiy Soyuz and Yamalare in service (launched 1985, 1990, 1992 respectively), with Sibir and Arktika decommissioned in 1992 and 2008. Nominal service life is 25 years, but Atomflot commissioned a study on Yamal, and confirmed 30-year life for it. The seventh and largest Arktika class icebreaker 50 Years of Victory (50 Let Pobedy) was built by the Baltic shipyard at St Petersburg and after delays during construction it entered service in 2007 (twelve years later than the 50-year anniversary of 1945 it was to commemorate). It is 25,800 dwt, 160 m long and 20m wide, and is

designed to break through ice up to 2.8 metres thick. Its power is about 53 MW. Its performance in service has been impressive. For use in shallow waters such as estuaries and rivers, two shallow-draft Taymyr-class icebreakers of 18,260 dwt with one reactor delivering 35 MW were built in Finland and then fitted with their nuclear steam supply system in Russia. They Taymyr and Vaygach are built to conform with international safety standards for nuclear vessels and were launched in 1989 and 1990 respectively. They are expected to operate for at least 30 years. Tenders were called for building the first of a new LK-60 series series of Russian icebreakers in mid 2012, and the contract was awarded to Baltijskyi Zavod in St Petersburg. The keel was laid in November 2013. This is to be dual-draught (10.5m with full ballast tanks, minimum 8.55m at 25,540 t), displacing up to 33,530 t, 173 m long, 34 m wide, and designed to break through 3 m thick ice at up to 2 knots. The wider 33 m beam at waterline is to match the 70,000 tonne ships it is designed to clear a path for, though a few of these with reinforced hulls are already using the Northern Sea Route. There is scope for more use: in 2011, 19,000 ships used the Suez Canal and only about 40 traversed the northern route. The LK-60 will be powered by two RITM-200 reactors of 175 MWt each using low-enriched fuel (<20%), which together deliver 60 MW at the three propellers via twin turbine-generators and three motors. At 65% capacity factor refuelling is every 7-10 years, overhaul at 20 years, service life 40 years. It is designed to operate in the Western Arctic in the Barents, Pechora and Kara Seas, as well as in shallow water of the Yenissei River and Ob Bay, for year-round pilotage (also as tug) of tankers, dry-cargo ships and vessels with special equipment to mineral resource development sites on the Arctic shelf. The Yamal LNG project is expected to need 200 shipping movements per year from Sabetta at the mouth of the Ob River. With keel laying expected in 2013, the vessel is to be delivered to Atomflot by the end of 2017 at a cost of RUR 37 billion. It will have a smaller crew than its predecessors only 62. In January 2013 Rosatom called for bids to build two more of these universal icebreaker vessels, for delivery in 2019 and 2020. A more powerful Russian LK-110 icebreaker of 110 MW net and 55,600 dwt is planned. Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the 1950s but on the whole has not been commercially successful. The 22,000 tonne US-built NS Savannah, was commissioned in 1962 and decommissioned eight years later. The reactor used 4.2% and 4.6% enriched uranium. It was a technical success, but not economically viable. It had a 74 MWt reactor delivering 16.4 MW to the propeller. The German-built 15,000 tonne Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed some 650,000 nautical miles on 126 voyages in 10 years without any technical problems. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. However, it proved too expensive to operate and in 1982 it was converted to diesel. The 8000 tonne Japanese Mutsu was the third civil vessel, put into service in 1970. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. It was dogged by technical and political problems and was an embarrassing failure. These three vessels used reactors with low-enriched uranium fuel (3.7-4.4% U-235). In 1988 the NS Sevmorput was commissioned in Russia, mainly to serve northern Siberian ports. It is a 61,900 tonne 260 m long LASH-carrier (taking lighters to ports with shallow water) and container ship with ice-breaking bow. It is powered by the same KLT-40 reactor as used in larger icebreakers, delivering 32.5 propeller MW from the 135 MWt reactor, and it needed refuelling only once to 2003. The reactor was to be decommissioned about 2014, but Rosatom has approved overhauling it so that the ship is returned to service in 2016.

Russian experience with nuclear powered Arctic ships totals about 300 reactor-years in 2009. In 2008 the Arctic fleet was transferred from the Murmansk Shipping Company under the Ministry of Transport to Atomflot, under Rosatom. This is progressively becoming a commercial enterprise, with the 40% state subsidy of RUR 1262 million in 2011 due to phase out in 2014. In August 2010 two Arktika-class icebreakers escorted the 100,000 dwt tanker Baltika, carrying 70,000 tonnes of gas condensate, from Murmansk to China via the Arctic route, saving some 8000 km compared with the Suez Canal route. In November 2012 the Ob River LNG tanker with 150,000 cubic metres of gas as LNG, chartered by Russia's Gazprom, traversed the northern sea route from Norway to Japan accompanied by nuclear-powered icebreakers, the route cutting 20 days off the normal journey and resulting in less loss of cargo. It has a strengthened hull to cope with the Arctic ice. There are plans to ship iron ore and base metals on the northern sea route also.

Nuclear propulsion systems

Naval reactors (with the exception of the ill-fated Russian Alfa class described below) have been pressurised water types, which differ from commercial reactors producing electricity in that:

They deliver a lot of power from a very small volume and therefore run on highly-enriched uranium (>20% U-235, originally c 97% but apparently now 93% in latest US submarines, c 20-25% in some western vessels, 20% in the first and second generation Russian reactors (1957-81)*, then 21% to 45% in 3rd generation Russian units, 40% in India's Arihant). The fuel is not UO2 but a uranium-zirconium or uranium-aluminium alloy (c15%U with 93% enrichment, or more U with less eg 20% U-235) or a metal-ceramic (Kursk: U-Al zoned 20-45% enriched, clad in zircaloy, with c 200kg U-235 in each 200 MW core). They have long core lives, so that refuelling is needed only after 10 or more years, and new cores are designed to last 50 years in carriers and 30-40 years (over 1.5 million kilometres) in most submarines. The design enables a compact pressure vessel while maintaining safety. The Sevmorput pressure vessel for a relatively large marine reactor is 4.6 m high and 1.8 m diameter, enclosing a core 1 m high and 1.2 m diameter. Thermal efficiency is less than in civil nuclear power plants due to the need for flexible power output, and space constraints for the steam system. There is no soluble boron used in naval reactors (at least US ones).

* An IAEA Tecdoc reports discharge assay of early submarine used fuel reprocessed at Mayak being 17% U-235. The long core life is enabled by the relatively high enrichment of the uranium and by incorporating a "burnable poison" such as gadolinium which is progressively depleted as fission products and actinides accumulate. These accumulating poisons would normally cause reduced fuel efficiency, but the two effects cancel one another out. However, the enrichment level for newer French naval fuel has been dropped to 7.5% U-235, the fuel being known as 'caramel', which needs to be changed every ten years or so. This avoids the need for a specific military enrichment line, and some reactors will be smaller versions of those on the Charles de Gaulle. In 2006 the Defence Ministry announced that Barracuda class subs would use fuel with "civilian enrichment, identical to that of EdF power plants," which may be an exaggeration but certainly marks a major change there. Long-term integrity of the compact reactor pressure vessel is maintained by providing an internal neutron shield. (This is in contrast to early Soviet civil PWR designs where embrittlement occurs due to neutron bombardment of a very narrow pressure vessel.)

The Russian, US, and British navies rely on steam turbine propulsion, the French and Chinese in submarines use the turbine to generate electricity for propulsion. Russian ballistic missile submarines as well as all surface ships since the Enterprise are powered by two reactors. Other submarines (except some Russian attack subs) are powered by one. A new Russian test-bed submarine is diesel-powered but has a very small nuclear reactor for auxiliary power. The Russian Alfa-class submarines had a single liquid metal cooled reactor (LMR) of 155 MWt and using very highly enriched uranium 90% enriched U-Be fuel. These were very fast, but had operational problems in ensuring that the lead-bismuth coolant did not freeze when the reactor was shut down. The design was unsuccessful and used in only eight trouble-plagued vessels. The US Navy's second nuclear submarine had a sodium-cooled power plant (S2G). The USS Seawolf, SSN-575, operated for nearly two years 1957-58 with this. The intermediate-spectrum reactor raised its incoming coolant temperature over ten times as much as the Nautilus' water-cooled plant, providing superheated steam, and it offered an outlet temperature of 454C, compared with the Nautilus 305C. It was highly efficient, but offsetting this, the plant had serious operational disadvantages. Large electric heaters were required to keep the plant warm when the reactor was down to avoid the sodium freezing. The biggest problem was that the sodium became highly radioactive, with a half-life of 15 hours, so that the whole reactor system had to be more heavily shielded than a water-cooled plant, and the reactor compartment couldnt be entered for many days after shutdown. The reactor was replaced with a PWR type (S2Wa) similar to Nautilus. For many years the Los Angeles class submarines formed the backbone of the US SSN (attack) fleet, and 62 were built. They are 6900 dwt submerged, and have a 165 MW GE S6G reactor driving two 26 MW steam turbines. Refueling interval is 30 years. The US Virginia class SSN submarine has pump-jet propulsion built by BAE Systems and is powered by a PWR reactor (GE S9G) which does not need refueling for 33 years. They are about 7900 dwt, and ten were in operation as of late 2013, with more on order. Unlike PWRs, boiling water reactors (BWRs) circulate water which is radioactive* outside the reactor compartment, and are also considered too noisy for submarine use. * Radioactivity in the cooling water flowing through the core is mainly the activation product nitrogen-16, formed by neutron
capture from oxygen. N-16 has a half-life on only 7 seconds but produces high-energy gamma radiation during decay.

Reactor power ranges from 10 MWt (in a prototype) up to 200 MWt in the larger submarines and 300 MWt in surface ships such as the Kirov-class battle cruisers. The two A4W units in US Nimitz class aircraft carriers are unofficially quoted at 104 shaft MW each (USS Enterprise had eight A2W units of 26 shaft MW and was refuelled three times). The Gerald Ford-class carriers have A1B reactors reported to be 240-300 MW each, but running a ship which is entirely electrical, including an electromagnetic aircraft launch system. The reactors are two to three times as powerful as the A4W units in Nimitz-class. The smallest nuclear submarines are the French Rubis-class attack subs (2600 dwt) in service since 1983, and these have a 48 MW integrated PWR reactor from Technicatome which is variously reported as needing no refuelling for 30 years, or requiring refuelling every seven years. The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle(38,000 dwt), commissioned in 2000, has two K15 integrated PWR units driving 61 MW Alstom turbines and the system can provide 5 years running at 25 knots before refuelling. The Le Triomphant class of ballistic missile submarines (14,335 dwt submerged the last launched in 2008) uses these K15 naval PWRs of 150 MWt and 32 shaft MW with pump-jet propulsion. The Barracuda class (4765 dwt) attack submarines, will have hybrid propulsion: electric for normal use and pump-jet for higher speeds. Areva TA (formerly Technicatome) will provide

six reactors apparently of only 50 MWt and based on the K15 for the Barracuda submarines, the first to be commissioned in 2017. As noted above, they will use low-enriched fuel.

French integrated PWR system for submarine (steam generator within reactor pressure vessel) British Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) of 15,900 dwt submerged have a single PWR2 reactor with two steam turbines driving a single pump jet of 20.5 MW. New versions of this with "Core H" will require no refuelling over the life of the vessel*. UK Astute class attack subs of 7400 dwt submerged have a modified (smaller) PWR2 reactor driving two steam turbines and a single pump jet reported as 11.5 MW, and are being commissioned from 2010. In March 2011 a safety assessment of the PWR2 design was released showing the need for safety improvement, though they have capacity for passive cooling to effect decay heat removal. The PWR3 for the Vanguard replacement will be largely a US design. * Rolls Royce claims that the Core H PWR2 has six times the (undisclosed) power of its original PWR1 and runs four times as long. The
Core H is Rolls Royce's sixth-generation submarine reactor core.

Russia's main submarine power plant is the OK-650 PWR. It uses 20-45% enriched fuel to produce 190 MW. The 19,400 tonne Oscar II-class and 34,000 tonne Typhoon-class (NATO name, Akula-class in Russia) ballistic missile subs (SSBN) have two of these reactors with steam turbines together delivering 74 MW, and its new 24,000 t Borei-class ballistic missile sub along with Akula-(Russia: Shchuka-class), Mike- and Sierra-class attack subs (SSN) have a single OK-650 unit powering a 32 MW steam turbine. The Borei-class is the first Russian design to use pump-jet propulsion. (displacements: submerged). A 5th generation naval reactor is reported to be a super-critical type (SCWR) with single steam circuit and expected to run 30 years without refuelling. A full-scale prototype was being tested early in 2013. Russia's large Arktika class icebreakers use two OK-900A (essentially KLT-40) nuclear reactors of 171 MW each with 241 or 274 fuel assemblies of 45-75% enriched fuel and 3-4 year refuelling interval. They drive steam turbines and each produces up to 33 MW at the propellers, though overall power is about 54 MW. The two Tamyrclass icebreakers have a single 171 MW KLT-40 reactor giving 35 MW propulsive power. Sevmorput uses one 135 MW KLT-40 unit producing 32.5 MW propulsive, and all those use 90% enriched fuel. (The now-retired Lenin's first OK-150 reactors used 5% enriched fuel but were replaced by OK-900 units with 45-75% enriched fuel.) Most of the Arktika-class vessels have had operating life extensions based on engineering knowledge built up from experience with Arktika itself. It was originally designed for 100,000 hours of reactor life, but this was extended first to 150,000 hours, then to 175,000 hours. In practice this equated to a lifespan of eight extra years of operation on top of the design period of 25. In that time, Arkitka covered more than 1 million nautical miles.

For the next LK-60 generation of Russian icebreakers, OKBM Afrikantov is developing a new reactor RITM-200 to replace the current KLT design. Under Project 22220 this is an integral 175 MWt PWR with inherent safety features and using low-enriched uranium fuel. Refueling is every seven years, over a 40-year lifespan. Two reactors drive two turbine generators and then three electric motors powering the propellers, producing 60 MW propulsive power. The first icebreaker to be equipped with these is due to start construction in 2013. For floating nuclear power plants (FNPP, see below) a single RITM-200 would replace twin KLT-40S (but yield less power). The KLT-40S is a 4-loop version of the icebreaker reactor for floating nuclear power plants which runs on lowenriched uranium (<20%) and has a bigger core (1.3 m high instead of 1.0 m) and shorter refueling interval: 3 to 4.5 years. A variant of this is the KLT-20, specifically designed for FNPP. It is a 2-loop version with same enrichment but 10-year refueling interval. OKBM has supplied 460 nuclear reactors for the Russian navy, and these have operated more than 6500 reactoryears. India's Arihant (6000 dwt) has an 85 MWe PWR using 40% enriched uranium driving one or two 35 MW steam turbines. It has 13 fuel assemblies each with 348 fuel rods, and was built indigenously. The reactor went critical in August 2013. A 20 MW prototype unit had operated for several years from 2003. Brazil's navy is proposing to build an 11 MW prototype reactor by 2014 to operate for about eight years, with a view to a full-sized version using low-enriched uranium being in a submarine to be launched in 2021.

UK nuclear submarine layout Dismantling decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines has become a major task for US and Russian navies. After defuelling, normal practice is to cut the reactor section from the vessel for disposal in shallow land burial as low-level waste (the rest being recycled normally). In Russia the whole vessels, or the sealed reactor sections, sometimes remain stored afloat indefinitely, though western-funded programs are addressing this and all decommissioned submarines are due to be dismantled by 2012. In 2009 Rosatom said that by late 2010, 191 out of 198 decommissioned Russian submarines would be dismantled.

Marine reactors used for power supply, Floating Nuclear Power Plants
A marine reactor was used to supply power (1.5 MWe) to a US Antarctic base for ten years to 1972, testing the feasibility of such air-portable units for remote locations.

Between 1967 and 1976 an ex-army US Liberty ship of about 12,000 tonnes built in 1945, the Sturgis (but renamed SS Green Port) functioned as a Floating Nuclear Power Plant, designation MH-1A, moored on Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone. It had a 45 MWt/ 10 MWe (net) PWR which provided power to the Canal Zone. The propulsion unit of the original ship was removed and the entire midsection replaced with a 350 t steel containment vessel and concrete collision barriers. The containment vessel contained not only the reactor unit itself but the primary and secondary coolant circuits and electrical systems for the reactor. In the 1970s Westinghouse in alliance with Newport News shipyard developed an Offshore Power Systems (OPS) concept, with series production envisaged at Jacksonville, Florida. In 1972 two 1210 MWe units were ordered by utility PSEG for offshore Atlantic City or Brigantine, New Jersey, but the order was cancelled in 1978. By the time NRC approval was granted in 1982 for building up to 8 plants, there were no customers and Westinghouse closed down its OPS division. Two blogs hereand here on the NRC web site describe the saga. Westinghouse and Babcock & Wilcox are reported to be revisiting the concept. Russia has under construction at St Petersburg the first of a series of floating power plants for their northern and far eastern territories. Two OKBM KLT-40S reactors derived from those in icebreakers, but with low-enriched fuel (less than 20% U-235), are mounted on a 21,500 tonne, 144 m long barge. Refuelling interval is 3-4 years on site, and at the end of a 12-year operating cycle the whole plant is returned to a shipyard for a 2-year overhaul and storage of used fuel, before being returned to service. See also Russia NP paper. China has a project with SNERDI in Shanghai designing a CAP-FNPP reactor. This is to be 200 MWt and relatively low-temperature (250C), so only about 40 MWe with two external steam generators and 5-year refueling

Future prospects
With increasing attention being given to greenhouse gas emissions arising from burning fossil fuels for international air and marine transport and the excellent safety record of nuclear powered ships, it is quite conceivable that renewed attention will be given to marine nuclear powered ships, it is likely that there will be renewed interest in marine nuclear propulsion. The world's merchant shipping is reported to have a total power capacity of 410 GWt, about one third that of world nuclear power plants. The head of the large Chinese shipping company Cosco suggested in December 2009 that container ships should be powered by nuclear reactors in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. He said that Cosco was in talks with China's nuclear authority to develop nuclear powered freight vessels. However, in 2011 Cosco aborted the study after three years, following the Fukushima accident. In 2010 Babcock International's marine division completed a study on developing a nuclear-powered LNG tanker (which requires considerable auxiliary power as well as propulsion). The study indicated that particular routes and cargoes lent themselves well to the nuclear propulsion option, and that technological advances in reactor design and manufacture had made the option more appealing. In November 2010 the British Maritime classification society Lloyd's Register embarked upon a two-year study with US-based Hyperion Power Generation, British vessel designer BMT Group, and Greek ship operator Enterprises Shipping and Trading SA "to investigate the practical maritime applications for small modular reactors. The research is intended to produce a concept tanker-ship design," based on a 70 MWt reactor such as Hyperion's. Hyperion has a three-year contract with the other parties in the consortium, which plans to have the tanker design certified in as many countries as possible. The project includes research on a comprehensive

regulatory framework led by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), and supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and regulators in countries involved. In response to its members' interest in nuclear propulsion Lloyd's Register has recently rewritten its 'rules' for nuclear ships, which concern the integration of a reactor certified by a land-based regulator with the rest of the ship. Nuclear ships are currently the responsibility of their own countries, but none are involved in international trade. Lloyds expects to "see nuclear ships on specific trade routes sooner than many people currently anticipate." The UN's IMO adopted a code of safety for nuclear merchant ships, Resolution A.491(XII), in 1981, which is still extant and could be updated. Also Lloyd's Register has maintained a set of provisional rules for nuclear-propelled merchant ships, which it has recently revised. Apart from naval use, where frequency of refueling is a major consideration, nuclear power seems most immediately promising for the following:

Large bulk carriers that go back and forth constantly on few routes between dedicated ports eg China to South America and NW Australia. They could be powered by a reactor delivering 100 MW thrust. Cruise liners, which have demand curves like a small town. A 70 MWe unit could give base-load and charge batteries, with a smaller diesel unit supplying the peaks. Nuclear tugs, to take conventional ships across oceans Some kinds of bulk shipping, where speed is essential.

Sources: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1999-2000 edition; J Simpson 1995, Nuclear Power from Underseas to Outer Space, American Nuclear Society The Safety of Nuclear Powered Ships, 1992 Report of NZ Special Committee on Nuclear Propulsion Bellona 1996, The Russian Northern Fleet and Civil Nuclear Powered Vessels (on web) Bellona: http://www.bellona.org/subjects/Russian_nuclear_naval_vessels http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl2-1.htm http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfla.htm Rawool-Sullivan et al 2002, Technical and proliferation-related aspects of the dismantlement of Russian Alfaclass submarines, Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2002. Thompson, C 2003, Recovering the Kursk, Nuclear Engineering Int'l, Dec 2003. Mitenkov F.M. et al 2003, Prospects for using nuclear power systems in commercial ships in Northern Russia, Atomic Energy 94, 4.
Blog | Gallery | eShop | Contact us 2014 World Nuclear Association, registered in England and Wales, number 01215741. Registered office: 22a St James's Square London SW1Y 4JH United Kingdom

Blog Post visit the cbo blog follow us on twitter subscribe to our rss feed sign up for email alerts

The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships

In recent years, the Congress has shown interest in powering some of the Navy's future destroyers and amphibious warfare ships with nuclear rather than conventional (petroleum-based) fuel. In this study, CBO estimated the difference in life-cycle costs (the total costs incurred for a ship, from acquisition through operations to disposal) between powering those new surface ships with nuclear reactors and equipping them with conventional engines. The U.S. Navy plans to build a number of new surface ships in the coming decades, according to its most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan. All of the Navy's aircraft carriers (and submarines) are powered by nuclear reactors; its other surface combatants are powered by engines that use conventional petroleum-based fuels. The Navy could save money on fuel in the future by purchasing additional nuclear-powered ships rather than conventionally powered ships. Those savings in fuel costs, however, would be offset by the additional up-front costs required for the procurement of nuclear-powered ships. To assess the relative costs of using nuclear versus conventional propulsion for ships other than carriers and submarines, CBO developed a hypothetical future fleet, based on the Navy's shipbuilding plan, of new destroyers and amphibious warfare ships that are candidates for nuclear propulsion systems. Specifically, CBO chose for its analysis the Navy's planned new version of the DDG-51 destroyer and its replacement, the DDG(X); the LH(X) amphibious assault ship; and the LSD(X) amphibious dock landing ship. CBO then estimated the life-cycle costs for each ship in that fleetthat is, the costs over the ship's entire 40-year service life, beginning with its acquisition and progressing through the annual expenditures over 40 years for its fuel, personnel, and other operations and support and, finally, its disposal. CBO compared lifecycle costs under two alternative versions of the fleet: Each version comprised the same number of ships of each class but differed in whether the ships were powered by conventional systems that used petroleum-based fuels or by nuclear reactors. Estimates of the relative costs of using nuclear power versus conventional fuels for ships depend in large part on the projected path of oil prices, which determine how much the Navy must pay for fuel in the future. The initial costs for building and fueling a nuclear-powered ship are greater than those for building a conventionally powered ship. However, once the Navy has acquired a nuclear ship, it incurs no further costs for fuel. If oil prices rose substantially in the future, the estimated savings in fuel costs from using nuclear power over a ship's lifetime could offset the higher initial costs to procure the ship. In recent years, oil prices have shown considerable volatility; for example, the average price of all crude oil delivered to U.S. refiners peaked at about $130 per barrel in June and July 2008, then declined substantially, and has risen significantly again, to more than $100 per barrel in March of this year. CBO regularly projects oil prices for 10-year periods as part of the macroeconomic forecast that underlies the baseline budget projections that the agency publishes each year. In its January 2011 macroeconomic projections, CBO estimated that oil prices would average $86 per barrel in 2011 and over the next decade would grow at an average rate of about 1 percentage point per year above the rate of general inflation, reaching $95 per barrel (in 2011 dollars) by 2021. After 2021, CBO assumes, the price will continue to grow at a rate of 1 percentage point above inflation, reaching $114 per barrel (in 2011 dollars) by 2040. If oil prices followed that trajectory, total life-cycle costs for a nuclear fleet would be 19 percent higher than those for a conventional fleet, in CBO's estimation. Specifically, total life-cycle costs would be 19 percent higher for a fleet of nuclear destroyers, 4 percent higher for a fleet of nuclear LH(X) amphibious assault ships, and 33 percent higher for a fleet of nuclear LSD(X) amphibious dock landing ships. To determine how sensitive those findings are to the trajectory of oil prices, CBO also examined a case in which oil prices start from a value of $86 per barrel in 2011 and then rise at a rate higher than the real (inflationadjusted) growth of 1 percent in CBO's baseline trajectory. That analysis suggested that a fleet of nuclearpowered destroyers would become cost-effective if the real annual rate of growth of oil prices exceeded 3.4 percentwhich implies oil prices of $223 or more per barrel (in 2011 dollars) in 2040. Similarly, a fleet of nuclear LH(X) amphibious assault ships would become cost-effective if oil prices grew at a real annual rate of 1.7 percent, implying a price of $140 per barrel of oil in 2040about the same price that was reached in 2008 but not sustained for any length of time. A fleet of nuclear LSD(X) amphibious dock landing ships would become cost-effective at a real annual growth rate of 4.7 percent, or a price in 2040 of $323 per barrel. The amount of energy used by new surface ships particularly those, such as destroyers, that require large amounts of energy for purposes other than propulsion could also be substantially higher or lower than projected. Employing an approach similar to that used to assess sensitivity to oil prices, CBO estimated that providing destroyers with nuclear reactors would become cost-effective only if energy use more than doubled for the entire fleet of destroyers.

The use of nuclear power has potential advantages besides savings on the cost of fuel. For example, the Navy would be less vulnerable to disruptions in the supply of oil: The alternative nuclear fleet would use about 5 million barrels of oil less per year, reducing the Navy's current annual consumption of petroleum-based fuels for aircraft and ships by about 15 percent. The use of nuclear power also has some potential disadvantages, including the concerns about proliferating nuclear material that would arise if the Navy had more ships with highly enriched uranium deployed overseas. CBO, however, did not attempt to quantify those other advantages and disadvantages.

Nuclear Propulsion System for Ships using Small Nuclear Power Plants
written by: Zaid Aysen edited by: Lamar Stonecypher updated: 7/10/2011
Have you ever wondered how a nuclear powered ship works? How is this nuclear energy created? What happens internally? Read further as I attempt to explain the process of nuclear propulsion within a ship

Nuclear Powered Ships Explained

Nuclear powered ships are becoming increasingly popular in advancing ship technology. Previous drawbacks for using nuclear power centered mainly around the inherent safety concerns for the crew; installation, maintenance and disposal costs and the exceptionally high standards required for component manufacturing and quality assurance. These hurdles are slowly being overcome as more funds are being allocated to social security and defense worldwide and as a greater demand is being placed on sustained performance efficiency in naval ships. Another important factor that has spurred on the continuous research of nuclear power generation within ships is the erratic cost of combustible fuels. A ship, being a fairly large means of transportation, requires adequate means of forward propulsion. In many ships throughout the world, combustible fuel is the primary means of thrust. Finding ways to combat the reliance on combustible fuel is where the importance of nuclear propulsion comes in. The adverse effects of burnt fuel being dispelled into the ocean are also a concerning factor for green and maritime-life rights activists. Of course this does not mean to say that nuclear ships were not around in the earlier days. Shown below is the picture of a nuclear ship which was taken nearly four decades ago that shows a ship named "Otto Hahn," which was a German nuclear powered ship.

Thorium Replaces Uranium

energyandcapital.com/Uranium

Nuclear Meltdowns Will Be History Smart Investors Will Get In Now

Ads by Google

How does a Nuclear Power Plant on Ship Work?

A large motivating factor in nuclear power generation is the concept of re-usable energy prompting an almost self-sustaining system.

The energy generating house or propulsion plant of a nuclear powered ship utilizes a nuclear reactor to generate heat. The heat is generated within the nuclear reactor as a result of the fissioning of the nuclear fuel. Lead shields are placed around the reactor as a preventive measure against the radiation produced from the fissioning process. The nuclear propulsion plant operates as a pressurized water reactor design containing both a primary and secondary system. Primary system: This is where water is circulated through the reactor, piping loops, pumps and steam generators. As the heat transferred from the reactor to the water is done at such a high pressure, it does not boil. Instead, the water is pumped from the steam generator back to the reactor for re-heating. Secondary system: Steam which is produced at the steam generators supply the energy required to drive the turbine generators. The turbine generators then cause the propeller to rotate thereby causing thrust and a forward motion to the ship. Turbine generators are also utilized in supplying the ship with electricity. Once the steam has passed through the turbines, it is cooled and condensed into water and then fed back to the steam generators by the feed pumps. As can be noted, both the primary and secondary systems involve the recirculation and renewal of water. It should also be noted that these processes take place in a completely closed system. This ensures the safety of the onboard workers as well as any potential expulsion of radiated nuclear energy to nearby components and parts of the ship.

A Typical Nuclear Ship Arrangement

The above mentioned theory is generic in nature and good enough to give you a broad idea what a nuclear powered ship consists of. In this section we will take a look at a specific arrangement of a nuclear ship with the help of a diagram. As you can see in the picture below the diagram is fairly self explanatory and the nuclear components are shown on the left hand side of the diagram and the steam generation system which ultimately drives the propeller shaft on the right hand side.

The nuclear reactor produces heat which is used to generate steam and that steam in turn in used to provide motive power for turbines. Of course this arrangement might vary in different kinds of ships but is good enough to explain the overall idea.

Independence
The functionality of the propulsion plant does not require oxygen, thereby allowing the ship to operate independently from any external atmospheric requirements. Ship maneuvering and continuously changing operating performance requirements dictate highly irregular power demands. As can be imagined, the quality, strength, and reliability of component parts are of crucial importance to ensure sustained durability under such harsh conditions. One should bear in mind that the internals of a nuclear reactor remain inaccessible for inspection or replacement for an extensive period of time. One therefore understands the rigorous engineering safety checks and stress situations that need to take place before a nuclear power generation plant on a ship is approved for maritime use.

Reference
Image of Nuclear Ship Arrangement - Federation of American Scientist

Solar Energy on ships

inShare Share0

The world faces a challenge on energy. Energy resources are getting scarcer; fossil fuels pollute local and global environments and the public demands environmentally friendly shipping of their goods. Imtech Marine understands these issues and is making technology available to overcome these problems. Three simple principles can be used to become more environmentally friendly. Firstly, dont use energy if you dont need it. Slow steaming is a good example of this, arriving Just-in-Time in harbors. Secondly, increase the efficiency of energy conversions. You can have classical light bulbs, CFLs or even with LEDs. And thirdly, reduce the use of fossil fuels. The sun is an inexhaustible energy source, so why not use it. The earth receives an abundant amount of energy from the sun. All life on the planet is possible because of this clean energy source. Ships also can benefit from the sun. The deck of a ship is always outside in the sun. With a deck area of more than 9000 square meters for a Panamax sized ship, a lot of energy can be harvested for free. With increasing PVpanel efficiency and decreasing cost due to mass production, solar energy can be beneficial next to existing ways to produce electrical energy. There are of course some challenges to overcome before integrating solar energy on a ship, but the maritime industry is driven by innovation to come with clever solution. To introduce solar energy to the ship we need to convert the solar energy to electrical energy. Electrical energy we can use and transport throughout the ship. Photo-voltaic cells convert solar into electrical energy. An inverter is needed to convert the Direct Current (DC) to an Alternating Current (AC), so the 50 or 60 Hz electric grid can transport the electrical energy through the ship. These energy conversions reduce the efficiency of the whole chain. Imtech Marine is developing a new way to transport electrical energy through the ship, a Plug-and-play DC grid. With a DC grid in a diesel-electric propulsion system less energy conversions are needed, there is no need for bulky transformers. It is plugand-play, if you decide PV-panels are still too expensive today, you can decide to buy them later and with no extra effort connect them to the DC grid at any time. A ship already sailing solely on solar energy is the Planet Solar. With its 500 square meters of solar panels and large Liion battery, it is accomplishing a journey around the world. Started in 2010 from Monaco and visiting Miami, Cancun, Brisbane, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, they now arrived in Abu Dhabi. The project is promoting renewable energy and solar energy around the world. Imtech Marine has contributed as technology partner for this one of a kind pioneering ship. To face the challenges of today world, small steps need to be made. Using solar energy to contribute to the total energy supply on a ship is a smart beginning of an environmentally friendly ship. With the proven technology of plug-and-play DC grids on ships the option to delay the purchase of PV-panels is available. The use of solar energy to propel a ship around the world is proven, when are you going to make use of this free and abundant energy source?

Competence Center Green Ships

inShare Share0

Stephan Claussen, Head of Competence Centre Green Ship at Imtech Marine, goes into detail explaining the new Competence Centre and its customer benefits. Sustainable and green solutions are a major focus of Imtech Marine and addressing these issues is a key part of the Imtech Groups strategy. Recently, Imtech Marine has established the Competence Centre Green Ships. Stephan Claussen, who is heading up the new Competence Centre, comments: We opened the new facility to meet the rising demand for green solutions. We want to support our customers in enabling them to become more energy-efficient, so they can reduce costs and emissions. But uniquely in the market Imtech Marine is taking a holistic approach considering the complete green ship, including automation, electrical systems, communication and navigation, HVAC, shore connections, lighting the vessel in its entirety.

Holistic Green approach

Taking Imtech Marines holistic approach, the figures speak for themselves. Mr Claussen says Imtech Marine has calculated that savings of up to 60% can be made in electrical energy, depending on the type of the ship, the size of the ship and the applied energy saving solution. And using Imtech Marines Green Solutions, emissions can be cut by up to 50%. Although there may be a slightly higher initial investment in the vessel due to the smart technology involved, he adds that these systems are more efficient offering enhanced reliability, improved maintenance and will lead to lower lifecycle costs overall.

Savings of up to E1 million a year

Some solutions mean that customers will get a return on their investment within two years and owners can save anything from a few thousand Euro to a staggering E1 million a year, Stephan Claussen points out. Any cost reductions in these challenging times are welcome news for shipowners and th ese are proven savings. Imtech Marine has been involved in many sustainable projects over the years and many of its green initiatives will be showcased at SMM 2012.

Rainbow Warrior III

A few that are worth highlighting here include the Rainbow Warrior III , Greenpeaces new flagship, where Imtech Marine supplied the green technology infrastructure. Imtech handled the engineering and the energy-efficient electrical propulsion, which will only be used when there is not enough wind to sail. It also installed an intelligent energy distribution system. The smart integration of all electrical and electronic systems on board generates significant energy savings.

PlanetSolar
Imtech Marine was responsible for the engineering, integration and installation of the complete electrical distribution system on board the pioneering solar energy vessel PlanetSolar. On board this ship 537m of photovoltaic panels convert sunlight directly into electricity and this vessel is the biggest in the world to be entirely powered by solar energy.

Celebrity Cruises
On cruise ships HVAC systems are the second heaviest energy consumer on board. Imtech Marine has been busy tackling this issue and successfully came up with a highly efficient solution for the HVAC technology on board Celebrity Cruises Solstice. Even though the new luxury liner is 35% larger than its predecessors Celebrity Cruises had the strict requirement that it should not consume any more energy. Eventually Imtech was able to reduce the energy consumed by the air-conditioning system by 35%.

CMAL worlds first diesel electric, hybrid seagoing ferries

Imtech Marine has been awarded a contract to supply the hybrid propulsion system consisting of diesel electric in combination with battery technology to the worlds first diesel electric, hybrid seagoing ferries, which are owned by Scottish company Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL). The energy sources (generators and batteries) will be managed in such a way that at the end of the day the batteries are empty. With a total capacity of 700 kWh, the batteries will be charged overnight by wind energy, reducing fuel and CO2 emissions by at least 20%.

Solid oxide fuel cells project

In addition, Imtech Marine is involved in a truly futuristic joint industry project SchIBZ aiming to operate solid oxide fuel cells on board of ships to provide electrical energy. Solid oxide fuel cells offer high efficiency of 50% to 60%.

Lifecycle Management
Alongside its holistic approach, a strategic pillar of Imtech Marine is its focus on Lifecycle Management. Johan de Jong, Imtech Marine Manager Electrical Systems, says the company helps improve maintenance efficiency, which in turn reduces costs and leads to a more sustainable operation. A lithium battery is much more energy efficient and a greener solution but if it is not treated right it wont last as long, he points out. We have energy management

systems that organises the proper energy source, maximising efficiency. These integrated systems and peak shaving, which can help cut out the spinning reserve, result in a more efficient use of all the components in the vessel, cutting down on fuel consumption and consequently emissions, he adds. Imtech Marine offers a true holistic approach to the green ship reducing the ships environmental footprint and offering competitive benefits to the customer.

Wind and Solar Power for Ships

Using Renewable Energy for Greener Shipping
The trend towards using renewable and alternative energy sources on land has gathered momentum over the last decade as the general public and policy makers tackle the issues of pollution, energy security and climate change. However at sea the shift towards the widespread adoption of alternative energy is only now beginning to take shape. Over recent years the shipping industry has begun to seriously look at ways to reduce fossil fuel consumption and operate in a more environmentally friendly way. The concept of Green Shipping or Sustainable Shipping is now becoming an important issue for ship owners, shipping lines and ship builders globally. In the 1970's and 1980's there were several ships fitted with rigid sails of various types with the aim of reducing fuel consumption. This was driven largely by the oil crisis in the 1970's which resulted in oil shortages and the price of oil soaring. However the oil crisis passed and as the prices fell in the 1980's the viability of rigid sails in terms of cost was undermined. However Japanese ships such as the Shin Aitoku Maru and Usuki Pioneer did prove that rigid sails reduced fuel consumption. The rigid sail concept has also been applied to a range of smaller vessels but it has not gained

widespread acceptance to date on either large ships or smaller vessels. Another way to reduce fuel consumption on-board ships is through the use of solar power. Recent advances in solar cell and photovoltaic module technologies have lead to solar power becoming a cost effective fuel reduction option on pleasure boats, ferries and tourist vessels. However on large ships the amount of fuel saved through the use of solar power alone is relatively small. So the idea of a commercially viable solar ship seems impractical at the moment..or is it? Perhaps rather than having a ship with rigid sails or a ship with solar panels a better approach would be to design a system that could tap into the power of the wind and sun together. The challenge in developing such a solution is to overcome many of the practical problems entailed in trying to use sails or solar panels on large ships.

But there is a solution on the horizon - the Eco Marine Power (EMP) Aquarius MRE System. This innovative wind and solar marine renewable energy (MRE) solution is designed so that the practical limitations of using rigid sails and solar panels on ships are overcome. A ship fitted with the Aquarius MRE System such as a bulk carrier, oil tanker or cargo ship will be partly a solar ship and partly a sail ship. These ships will be able to use wind and solar power together as a source of energy and propulsion (along with the ship's main engines) in order to reduce harmful emissions and lower fuel consumption. On a

large ship, 1000 tonnes or more of bunker fuel could be saved a year by using the Aquarius MRE System. This means that using renewable energy on ships is not only good for the environment but also good for business. The power of the wind & sun is harnessed via EMP's own rigid sail technology called the EnergySail. This unique unit can incorporate a number of renewable energy technologies and can be installed on wide variety of ships. The EnergySail can be used alone or as part of an array and positioned automatically by a computer control system. The Aquarius MRE System will offer ship owners and operators an attractive return on investment (ROI) which combined with the environmentall benefits, will help this technology gain widespread acceptance across the maritime industry. Please note: Aquarius MRE System & EnergySail are trademarks of Eco Marine Power Co. Ltd. See also: Aquarius Wind and Solar Marine Power System Solar Ferry Concept

Wind and Solar Marine Power

Renewable Energy Solutions for Low Emission Shipping
From small powered pleasure craft and ferries to large super-tankers, the limitless energy of the wind and sun can be used in order to help power ships thereby reducing fuel consumption, the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and noxious exhaust emissions. Using a variety of Technologies including the Aquarius MRE System, Eco Marine Power is working with ship owners, boat operators, shipping lines, technology providers and naval architects on solutions for new or existing vessels that will help these ships take advantage of the latest technology from around the world to harness the power of renewable energy.

Eco-friendly solutions can be developed that use mainly solar power only or more advanced eco-marine power systems are available that use state-of-the-art hybrid marine power technology and EMP's EnergySailtechnology. Some ideal applications for the use of wind and solar power include cruise boats, tourist catamarans, fishing vessels, work boats, survey ships, oil tankers, cargo ships, patrol vessels and passenger ferries. Not only do the renewable energy systems developed by EMP reduce fuel consumption but they can also effectively increase the operating range of vessels - ideal for coatsguard, research and survey ships for example. On a larger scale, the Aquarius MRE System which is currently being developed, will be suitable for use on coastal ships and large vessels such as bulk ore carriers and oil tankers. However future variations of the system will be suitable for smaller ships. Eco Marine Power (EMP) aims to have this system ready for commercial service by 2015 and is working with development partners located in several countries to turn this vision into a reality. The Aquarius MRE System and other technologies being developed by EMP will help drive shipping towards a greener future and contribute to the global reduction of harmful gas emissions from the world's shipping fleets. Eco Marine Power's technologies will play an important role in assisting shipyards meet energy efficiency design index (EEDI) requirements and ship owners comply with MARPOL regulations.

Smaller solar - electric solutions can be installed on coastal ships, river boats and recreational vessels. For example the EMP Tonbo solar electric hybrid propulsion or hybrid power ferry will be suitable for use on lakes, bays and rivers. It will be possible for this vessel to be powerd by the stored energy in

batteries alone in same cases thus it will be able to operate quietly and emission free. EMP is also working on a urban eco-solar commuter ferry called the Medaka. These types of vessels are ideal for urban waterways where noise pollution is an issue especially during the evenings. Both the Tonbo & Medaka will use advanced power management technology which allows onboard batteries to be rapidly charged when the vessels are at the pier or wharf. At this stage the Tonbo and Medaka designs use solar power as the main source of renewable energy, but the possibility incorporating wind power into the designs is currently being studied. The future of green shipping is here today and Eco Marine Power is at the forefront of this green marine revolution! (Aquarius MRE System & EnergySail are trademarks of Eco Marine Power Co. Ltd.) See also: Tonbo Hybrid Marine Power Vessel Green Shipping Aquarius Wind & Solar Power System

LONDON -- Solar-powered catamaran PlanetSolar has crossed the Atlantic from Canada to Belgium, a journey of 4598 km. Leaving St Johns, Canada on 6 August and traveling at an average speed of 4.5 knots, the solar ship arrived in Europe 23 days later. This is PlanetSolars second transatlantic crossing this year.

PlanetSolar in St John's, courtesy PlanetSolar

Built in Kiel, Germany, PlanetSolar is the worlds biggest solar ship and is powered exclusively by solar energy. In May 2012 the vessel completed the first solar-powered trip around the world, sailing for 584 days. Before its 2013 voyages the ship underwent major maintenance operations, the PlanetSolar team said. The most significant optimisation was related to the propulsion systemthe surface propellers were replaced by a completely immerged system, said a statement.

The ship undergoing maintenance early this year, courtesy PlanetSolar Navigation was problematic on the North Atlantic, the crew reported. The weather conditions were particularly unfavourable during this crossing, said Grard dAboville, the ships captain. The wind, first during our southern descent, then the current, and finally a much lower than average amount of sunshine in the region for this time of year!

During the voyage, researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE) took physical and biological measurements along the Gulf Stream as part of an ongoing scientific project, the PlanetSolar DeepWater expedition. The last phase of their measurements will begin in the ships current location, Oostende.

The final phase is of particular interest because data will be collected on the outskirts on an urban area. We have already observed some very interesting results around Boston [U.S.], said Jrme Kasparian, UNIGE researcher and member of the expeditions scientific committee. Launched in Florida, U.S. in early June, the DeepWater expedition covered over 8000 km, collecting a continuous series of physical and biological measurements from air and water. The research team studied aerosols and phytoplankton, which are key parameters of climate regulation, in an attempt to better understand the complex interactions between ocean and

atmosphere and their role in climate change. The researchers were particularly interested in the phenomenon of ocean vorticeslarge whirlpools that break away from the main part of the Gulf Streamwhich can influence heat exchanges with the atmosphere as well as the behavior of phytoplankton. While the vessel is moored in Oostende, alongside press events with local authorities, the team said it will test a net which it plans to use during a floating plastic waste collection campaign, a collaboration with the Waste Free Oceans foundation. The ship will then leave for London [UK], where the UNIGE researchers will conclude their project. I look forward to discovering what measures will be taken around the British capital, Kasparian said. PlanetSolar will be at London's South Dock, West India Dock on Monday, 2 September.

PlanetSolar crossing the Atlantic, courtesy PlanetSolar Read more solar energy news here.