The Fuel for Thought conference took place at Lloyd’s Register’s (LR’s) building where the company began its role as a classification and compliance authority. Speakers on stage insisted that neither nuclear technology or its regulation will be a barrier to nuclear powered shipping or floating nuclear power plants, but that success depends on setting up a functional legal framework, such as a treaty, for nuclear vessels to move between national jurisdictions.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi spoke via a recorded message: “We are developing the initiative, Atomic Technologies Licensed for Applications at Sea (ATLAS).” Under this, IAEA member states are addressing legal frameworks, safeguards, and roadmaps to real deployment. Grossi said, “ATLAS will promote technology licensing efficiency and inform necessary adjustments in regulatory practices.”
However, given that IAEA must reach consensus among its 180 members, its work is necessarily slow. “Expect outcomes in two years,” said Grossi. And it remains to be seen what ATLAS’s outcome will be. Rather than a treaty, ATLAS is more likely to result in guidelines with a similar status to IAEA Safety Standards. While these are useful for new countries and make a comprehensive foundation to set up national regulation, most countries have gone further and tailored regulation to their own specific applications and culture.
At the same time, no established countries want to reduce their regulation to that common denominator, and that would include the countries likely to be designing and building nuclear vessels.
In parallel is development of new codes by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which needs to replace the Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships which was adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1981. It is the eighth chapter of the International Convention for The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
Riccardo Battista of IMO explained that IMO’s members have already identified a need, decided on a way forward and have approved a draft code. This is at a feedback stage expected to take two to three years. The first round of feedback is due as NEI goes to press. Nick Brown, CEO of LR said, “Once approved, this will provide an agnostic, updated set of rules for nuclear applications at sea.”
If not a treaty, then what?
If a treaty is unlikely to emerge from international efforts, what alternative could industry drive forward in parallel? The next best thing would be bilateral agreements to establish a ‘corridor’ for nuclear vessels between two port countries, or trilaterals involving three countries if the vessel is made by third nation.
To illustrate the complexity, nuclear vessels are likely to be designed, owned, financed and operated by firms from different countries, and further countries could get involved when vessels in trouble need to dock in a port of refuge.
However, it is hoped that if a small number of like-minded countries get started with bilaterals and trilaterals, others will join and the network would grow. When such recognition of approval, liability and insurance becomes commonplace, “We will have additional signatories which could organically grow into treaties.” said Jez Sims of LR.
Russia and China spring to mind as two countries with the technology, knowhow and sphere of influence to kick off this process. Enter the US and UK with ambitions to take the lead from the start.
On 18 September, during President Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK, he and UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer signed a Technology Prosperity Deal, which included that the countries would explore “opportunities for novel applications of advanced nuclear energy, including civil maritime applications, and playing a leading role informing the establishment of international standards, potential establishment of a maritime shipping corridor between the participants’ territories.” Fuel For Thought heard strong indications from panellists close to the process that the area had already been explored and a more concrete deal to establish the corridor was imminent. With a market soon to be created between two pioneering ports, it is hoped the first vessels to use it could be launched in 2030-2032.
While the focus was on international legislation, it was unusual to see nuclear regulation taking a back seat while a myriad of new installations and licensees come into view.
In principle, a national nuclear regulator would provide nuclear safety and operational approvals in collaboration with marine authorities, at least in their jurisdiction of national waters. LR expects to deal with the reactor’s appropriate inclusion on the vessel and the vessel’s overall classification. Then, between treaty states recognising one another’s competence it would be full steam ahead.
In this regard, the goals of regulators are almost as ambitious as the industry. Paul Fyfe of the UK’s Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said, “We want to be able to think of a nuclear power plant the way we think about a gas turbine [installed] in a place: Massively regulated, but a commodity.” Fyfe continued, noting that ONR is the only regulator that is wholly outcome focused: “Industry needs to be more provocative and challenge the regulator sometimes,” he said, calling on industry to “tell ONR what it needs and when,” and hinting that industry might be surprised how quickly things could move.
“The question is: how fast do you want to go?” Fyfe declared, concluding: “Everything is happening, but it may not be at the pace you wish. The more you can tell me as the regulator what you require and what timescale, the better I can plan. We haven’t been on the critical path to halting nuclear projects on land and we don’t want to do that at sea.”
This seemed to echo Baroness Charlotte Vere of Core Power, who called on players in the maritime scene to “start taking this nuclear corridor concept seriously.” They should, “Pull together a group of experts from any two countries and sketch it out: If we had a vessel today what would stop us from doing it? Then turn to government and ask for what you need.”
Maritime reactor design
Many of the small reactors under consideration for maritime use are PWRs, which come with a lot of operational experience, including at sea. Some are rather more exotic.
For example, Core Power is working with Terrestrial on a molten chloride fast reactor and Allseas, which produces the kind of floating platforms and large vessels that install infrastructure at sea, is designing its own high temperature gas-cooled reactor.
Aiming to get these designed, approved, supplied with components and fuel, constructed and afloat in 5-7 years is bullish to say the least. However, nobody in the room spoke up to doubt it. The firm consensus from the industry was ‘we are going to do it’.
Similarly, touch points with the workforce remain vague. As yet, it is not known how nuclear propulsion would affect staffing in terms of numbers, roles or qualifications. While technologists and lawyers hope for the most plug-and-play use of nuclear possible, it is worth keeping in mind that there are about 1.9 million people in the maritime sector worldwide. About one third of seafarers are Officers who bear the main responsibility for operation and safety aboard a ship, and about the same number are Ratings under their command with lesser responsibility.
Maritime nuclear also poses questions about public perception, as it brings in a lot of new stakeholders in densely inhabited areas who have little to no experience of nuclear energy.
Mike Salthouse of marine insurer North Standard said, “I can’t overstate how important it will be to normalise this technology. To do that we need to work collectively. Those who are very excited about this tech and its deployment are able to identify all the key touchpoints and speak with one voice in a convincing way.”
And don’t forget: “Things will go wrong and we will have to explain to people how we will manage things and why that is an acceptable or manageable risk,” said Salthouse. He noted that the marine salvage subsector would have to step up into a high-profile role when nuclear vessels get into trouble.
Nevertheless, times are changing for nuclear energy. We have seen in a dramatic swell of political and big industry support for nuclear due to the simple fact that energy demand is growing again. The energy debate changed from ‘what would be the ideal energy system of the future’ to ‘how will I power my business next year?’ And the companies driving this are very powerful, influential and rich. The likes of Microsoft, Google, Amazon and OpenAI have become comfortable explaining why they want nuclear as a 24/7 clean power source. The world’s largest shipping companies, shipbuilders and ports will be able to do the same thing.
A change in perception
Nuclear shipping sets the scene for another shift in public perception. Part of the reason fossil fuels have been hard to displace is that they have so many stakeholders making a living out of their value chain and logistics. Nuclear’s energy density means it has never had that depth of quiet support. Consider that a whole year’s global supply of uranium (about 69,000 tonnes) can be transported on a single Panamax freighter, whereas there are 18,000 ships at sea at this moment transporting fossil fuels. Not only will nuclear vessels increase familiarity with nuclear energy and its benefits, they will also reshape the shipping industry overall.
Nuclear vessels are “going to completely change the infrastructure and reduce the number of ships,” said Sims due to the, “transformative nature of nuclear.” Foreseen to travel at up to twice the speed of current ships, nuclear vessels could break into the market of high value freight that currently goes by air. “We can take some of that, do it cheaper, and decarbonise it at the same time,” said Sims.
Simply by moving more goods more quickly, a nuclear upgrade to global shipping is seen as boosting the global economy – another factor that stands to bring in powerful economic players that want nuclear to succeed.
Change is seen as inevitable. The maritime sector has examined several fuels that might replace the encumbent fuel oils – ethane, methane, ammonia, biofuels, methanol, hydrogen, LNG, LPG and so on. They all fall short one way or another in comparison. For erxample, they are less energy dense than fuel oil, therefore ships would need larger fuel tanks or could only do shorter journeys. They need more refuelling and larger bunkers, they are not available in every port. All that interferes with established trade routes, infrastructure and business models. Nuclear not only avoids those problems, but avoids refuelling completely from the operator’s point of view.
Is this similar to the comparison of electric vehicles with the internal combustion engine (ICE)? Statistics show that once a driver has owned an electric car, they will rarely go back to ICE. With advantages in performance, noise, cost, maintenance, spare parts, pollution, fuelling, etc. electric cars are simply better at doing the job of a car than fossil fuel versions have been. The shipping sector has decided that in the same way, nuclear-powered ships will simply be better ships than they’ve ever had before, and they want them right now.
