Risks of nuclear shipping are more political than technical, as they confer power on the powerful
 The same unreasonable people who condemned nuclear power as too dangerous for civilian use are about to be persuaded that it is the best thing yet for international shipping.
As usual, this re-empowered, predominantly female constituency that can be scared into doing or preventing anything, will be joined in this by the "smart money" that recognises women's political clout to get what it wants.
No longer influenced by long forgotten scarifying book titles of the 1970s and '80s like "The Unforgiving Energy" and a raft of others of that ilk, they managed to shut down nuclear power generation in the western world while amplifying cries for eco rules, biofuels, wind and wave power all the way to today's anti carbon craze.
By now, however, it has become clear to anyone who knows anything about the subject that meeting United Nations carbon-zero targets by 2050, means giving up fossil fuels. This will lead to government-toppling embarrassments if action is not taken in reaction to the inescapable fact that wind, wave and solar power, LNG, ammonia and other biofuels, are simply not going to do the job or replacing energy needs.
The International Energy Commission (IEA) has done the maths if the I'M NOT LISTENING!! crowd cares to listen. After decades of promoting and subsidizing renewable energy sources worldwide, we have only managed to increase ecofuels role in providing the world's energy needs from 13 per cent to 14 per cent. And by the time 2050 rolls around, when we are mandated to reach 100 per cent zero carbon emissions, the IEA reckons ecofuels will be only be able to supply an underwhelming 28 per cent of our total energy needs. And to get to the point when alternate fuels meet that 100 per cent target, the IEA says we might make it by 2207 - nearly 200 from now.
Of course, there is a short cut. If nuclear power were not taken off the table, then this noiseless, smelless, toxinless environmentalist Nirvana can be reached within the lifetime of those born yesterday.
Just as power generation was best served by gigantic hydroelectric dams, but not favoured by the bio-diversity crowd who felt they looked far too industrial and not at all like the tie-and-dye, ma-and-pa operations of their imaginations.
The case against nukes is weak. The case Chernobyl (1986) resulted in 46 deaths, and Japan's Fukushima Daiichi meltdown (2011), resulted in none at all and the caused little harm other than to the plant itself and the cost of the cleanup.
With a corrupt media with no more reliability than Pravda of old, and a cowed academy fearful job-killing controversy as well as a complicit bureaucracy, there is every expectation that they will be successful in getting the women to forget their old fears of nuclear power and embrace it anew.
But the risks posed by nuclear powered ships have nothing to do with the technology itself. Any rational risk assessment will say nukes are far less dangerous than risks posed in other industries dependent on other power sources.
First, there is nothing new about nuclear powered ships, as the technology has been driving warships and Russian icebreakers for 70 years. However, the technology was not developed commercially due to high operating costs and the stigma surrounding nuclear power in the late 20th century.
Looking at it afresh, Mikal Boe, CEO of Core Power UK to the North P&I Club, says commercial application can be tailored to the needs of the shipping industry if it meets three criteria. First it must have a fuel-for-life reactor system, a reactor system that remains safe in the event of an accident at sea, and a system that is simple and small enough to mass manufacture. Third, it should be a new type of nuclear-powered vessel, using the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR).
Shipboard MSR technology delivers higher speeds than conventional ships, Mr Boe said. There is no need to stop for refueling and it wouldn't be burdened with carbon taxes and likely have a greater cargo capacity.
Nuclear power has proved useful for icebreaking, which is why nuclear-powered icebreakers have been operating in the Russian Arctic for decades. Russia's ice breaker Lenin, the world's first, went to sea in 1959 and remained in service for 30 years.
The main disadvantage of MSR nuclear reactor for shipping is the immature technology and regulatory framework, says Athens-based Safety4Sea. However, administrations like the UK have officially included the nuclear ship in their future strategies, which leaves an open ground for faster development of the respective legislation.
In addition, the high installation and operational costs for a nuclear reactor have been key factors against the adoption of this option among shipowners. This is why most nuclear ships currently in operation are military.
On the other hand, the fact that nuclear-powered ships have a priori a fixed cost of energy for their whole commercial life (as they do not need to be refueled) provides a significant advantage for long-term contracts of affreightment (COAs) and charters, said Edmund Hughes of Green Marine Associates to North Club.
It is clear that all these points are well taken and there should be no reason to oppose nuclear powered ships on the grounds of the danger posed. Chernobyl was the worst of it. It was a massive disaster and killed 46, perhaps hastened the deaths of scores more. But many industries, shipping among them, account for mass deaths through explosions and fires. Nonetheless, we soldier on, accept the risks and deal with casualty rates by changing procedures and erecting safeguards to reduce damage.
The real danger of nuclear power at sea is not the loss of life it might cause, but the loss of free choice it will eliminate. If considered central to the climate craze, then nuclear power seems to be the technique that will check all boxes and meet all eco targets - as long a fossil fuels are banned. Or at least appear to do so, which is what really counts politically.
After all, a ship lost at sea with a crew of 20 perishing is hardly an unknown occurrence. However catastrophic the role nuclear power played in a marine disaster, chances are it will mostly involve the one ship and what lies in the immediate vicinity. So the danger is not nuclear power per se, but what it necessitates to be the answer to the environmentalists' prayers it promises to be.
The raison d'etre of nuclear power in shipping is to replace abundant fossil fuels, but whose continued use contributes to supposed global warming, fears of which are amplified by female hysterics that their manipulating Marxist managers dress up as a "climate emergency" in which the planet must be saved from worldwide disaster, the date of which constantly recedes into the future.
Thus, the reason nuclear power is a danger is not the advent of nuclear power itself, but its domination, and the subsequent banning of alternative, more affordable energy sources. Nuclear power, once fossil fuels are regulated out of existence, will only be accessible to state-controlled mega corporations as the only ones able to meet the stratospheric compliance costs to ensure safety. This is the point where the cost of being green is too high for many. Once again, we encounter the menace of safety. |
