Nuclear-powered ships would still cost more to operate than conventional vessels without the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework (NZF), even if reactor costs fall to the lowest levels considered in a new study by University College London (UCL).
The study published on Tuesday found that nuclear propulsion could become the cheapest option for large container ships from 2040, but only if reactor costs fall significantly.
The research compared nuclear-powered container ships with vessels running on conventional fuel oil and dual-fuel ammonia.
Estimated reactor costs ranged from $2,600 to $12,400 per kWe. At the lower end, nuclear propulsion could be the cheapest option, but at the higher end, it was not competitive in any of the scenarios assessed.
The NZF could improve the economics of nuclear ships by allowing them to earn income from selling surplus units to other vessels.
However, this advantage would decline as the framework’s fuel targets become stricter.
The study also pointed to insurance and regulatory hurdles. A mature insurance regime for nuclear-powered commercial ships could take 15 to 20 years to develop.
"Nuclear is not a reason to weaken maritime climate policy,” Dr Tristan Smith, Professor of Energy and Transport, UCL Shipping and Oceans Research Group, said.
“It is one of the technologies that depends on it. Anyone backing reactor programmes should want a stringent international GHG policy and credible global framework.”
US has been a prominent opponent of the NZF adoption but lately has supported several projects seeking to develop the use of nuclear propulsion in the country.
The IMO will hold the 85th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 85) from November 30 to December 3, with the possibility of agreeing on the NZF, which failed adoption last year.
UCL report can be found here.
