As nuclear is already used on aircraft carriers, and with a major cargo ship not having a large crew including guests so it can be properly scrutinized and managed by engineers, why hasn’t this technology ever carried over for commercial operators?
Similarly for hydrogen, why (or are?) ship builders not trying to build hydrogen powered engines? Seeing the massive size of engines (and fuel) they have, could they make super-sized fuel cells and on-board synthesizing to no longer be reliant on gas?
In: Engineering
There are a few reasons, so let’s attack nuclear and hydrogen separately.
*Nuclear*
There are a few cost aspects here. Reactors are expensive yes, but they also front-load the expense. With a normal ship, the bulk of the cost is spread over the lifetime as fuel cost. With nuclear, you front load it, making ships more expensive to buy. This is less appealing to ship owners for obvious reasons.
Our current infrastructure is designed around diesel powered ship. This makes it more expensive to keep a nuclear ship seaworthy, but is a cost that could come down with more adoption.
You also have piracy, safety, etc. concerns, but I’m going to ignore them.
*Hydrogen*
The big issue is energy density. Hydrogen just doesn’t give you anywhere near as much energy in the same space as diesel. When you have to carry all of your fuel, this is very important.
You mentioned making your own hydrogen onboard – really that’s not that feasible for a host of reasons, largely due to amount of power needed (big ships require several MW in port, and that is without propulsion).
Latest Answers