Molten salt reactors as power generation for ships

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210609000734

@Jay McKinsey @BenFranklin'sSpectacles 

I think we discussed this at one time. Personally I believe that we are now in the sunset of the oil industry... It gonna be a long sunset, but it's coming. Once fuel for shipping is replaced with MSR tech than there is only petchems and air-transport left.. 

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210609000734

@Jay McKinsey @BenFranklin'sSpectacles 

I think we discussed this at one time. Personally I believe that we are now in the sunset of the oil industry... It gonna be a long sunset, but it's coming. Once fuel for shipping is replaced with MSR tech than there is only petchems and air-transport left.. 

I'm not sure this is the case at all.

SMR's have been around for a while and are being developed by a number of businesses globally, however the cost to install these into your average oil tanker or cargo ship would not make any economical sense currently.

Looking at it your average cargo ship would use approx $1M of bunker fuel per year if used constantly (which it probably wouldn't be). The ship would have a lifespan of say 25-30 years before being scrapped. I cannot see currently how any SMR will be produced for the equivalent cost of say $30M.

"Based on general discussions with the vendors, the study team estimates that the total DD&E cost for each SMR technology is approximately $1.0 billion."

Rolls Royce SMR's are more than double that at £2.0 billion

A very large cargo ship would cost around $500M to build in its entirety.

I hope you prove me very wrong on this but I just dont think we are there yet. Glad Samsung are looking into it though but we need to see if they are economically viable.

Also EV's will undoubtedly take significant market share of the auto sector in developed countries but in less developed countries both the initial cost of EV's and the infrastructure to support them wont be there so ICE vehicles will be here for a very long time and I dont see any significant drop in numbers globally because of population growth in these developing countries.

By the way good to see Christian Eriksen is in a stable condition now!👍

Edited June 14, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I'm not sure this is the case at all.

SMR's have been around for a while and are being developed by a number of businesses globally, however the cost to install these into your average oil tanker or cargo ship would not make any economical sense currently.

Looking at it your average cargo ship would use approx $1M of bunker fuel per year if used constantly (which it probably wouldn't be). The ship would have a lifespan of say 25-30 years before being scrapped. I cannot see currently how any SMR will be produced for the equivalent cost of say $30M.

"Based on general discussions with the vendors, the study team estimates that the total DD&E cost for each SMR technology is approximately $1.0 billion."

Rolls Royce SMR's are more than double that at £2.0 billion

A very large cargo ship would cost around $500M to build in its entirety.

I hope you prove me very wrong on this but I just dont think we are there yet. Glad Samsung are looking into it though but we need to see if they are economically viable.

Also EV's will undoubtedly take significant market share of the auto sector in developed countries but in less developed countries both the initial cost of EV's and the infrastructure to support them wont be there so ICE vehicles will be here for a very long time and I dont see any significant drop in numbers globally because of population growth in these developing countries.

By the way good to see Christian Eriksen is in a stable condition now!👍

Sure there is a ways to go, but fuel costs are a lot higher than you estimate. https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/fuel-consumption-containerships/

Assuming a freigth ship sails 240 days a year then fuel cost i min USD 30 mio per annum and the actual number is significantly higher.

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

46 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Sure there is a ways to go, but fuel costs are a lot higher than you estimate. https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/fuel-consumption-containerships/

Assuming a freigth ship sails 240 days a year then fuel cost i min USD 30 mio per annum and the actual number is significantly higher.

Yes you are right on the fuel, depending on cruising speed it will be between $20-30million per year.

So lets work on $30M and a 30 year lifespan of the ship that's $900M so now in the ball park for becoming economical.

Question is which shipping line is going to outlay $1.4+ billion for a cargo ship? That is extremely off putting even if they had the cash in the bank to do so, which is unlikely. They would be better off investing the difference, so SMR powered ships need to be more economical than conventional diesel ships IMO.

It really depends how much Samsung will be charging for these, and maybe if they are close they can mass produce to reduce the initial cost outlay.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

43 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Question is which shipping line is going to outlay $1.4+ billion for a cargo ship? That is extremely off putting even if they had the cash in the bank to do so, which is unlikely. They would be better off investing the difference, so SMR powered ships need to be more economical than conventional diesel ships IMO.

I dont think it will happen over nigth, but another added benefit is more cargo space which means more profit for the carrier. Again - it won't happen over nigth, but slowly, slowly this will eat marketshare. Remember this will be purely market terms - no subsidies for nuclear & all the big carriers have net-zero commitments. 

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

9 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I dont think it will happen over nigth, but another added benefit is more cargo space which means more profit for the carrier. Again - it won't happen over nigth, but slowly, slowly this will eat marketshare. Remember this will be purely market terms - no subsidies for nuclear & all the big carriers have net-zero commitments. 

Yeah I hope it works and is viable

Scalable SMR's are going to become very useful in a lot of areas of powergen over the coming years IMO

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 6/14/2021 at 7:54 AM, Rob Plant said:

Yes you are right on the fuel, depending on cruising speed it will be between $20-30million per year.

So lets work on $30M and a 30 year lifespan of the ship that's $900M so now in the ball park for becoming economical.

Question is which shipping line is going to outlay $1.4+ billion for a cargo ship? That is extremely off putting even if they had the cash in the bank to do so, which is unlikely. They would be better off investing the difference, so SMR powered ships need to be more economical than conventional diesel ships IMO.

It really depends how much Samsung will be charging for these, and maybe if they are close they can mass produce to reduce the initial cost outlay.

What happens to SMR cost when you factory-produce small reactors in large quantities instead of building custom one-offs? I'd imagine they become cheaper.

Regulation might be a bigger hurdle than the physics though. Nuclear safety is challenging enough on land where one can install permanent fortifications and hire heavily-armed security guards. I'm not sure how that would be done for ships.

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

55 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

What happens to SMR cost when you factory-produce small reactors in large quantities instead of building custom one-offs? I'd imagine they become cheaper.

Regulation might be a bigger hurdle than the physics though. Nuclear safety is challenging enough on land where one can install permanent fortifications and hire heavily-armed security guards. I'm not sure how that would be done for ships.

Agreed!