Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Maritime Reactor Spin-Off

There are likely to be other unique applications for nuclear powered ships as a result of cheaper power. Probably the most dramatic breakthrough in the history of ocean transportation would be a nuclear powered Surface Effect Ship which could cruise at speeds in excess of 100 knots.

Intensive efforts are expected in the development of Surface Effect Ships (SES) in the immediate years ahead. The high horsepower propulsion requirements postulated; 250,000-500,000 HP for 5,000-10,000 tons gross wt. captured air bubble ships, indicates that further study of a nuclear SES should be undertaken. Fuel cost and weight are very important considerations in SES. It is significant that nuclear propulsion is the only propulsion system with a definite cost reduction trend.

Nuclear Subsurface Seatrain System

Man is going into the sea. Many experts think that it is only a matter of time before it is discovered that the sea has more to offer man than space. In June 1964 the United States ratified the Geneva Convention on the continental shelf. The United Nations agreement recognizes the rights of coastal nations with respect to their continental shelves to a depth of 200 meters. The U.S. undersea land mass is equal to 25% of the continental United States. This new land awaits pioneering and development under the national oceanographic program. Sheer population growth will force man into the sea in search of new sources of raw materials and food. The evolution of commercial underseas development will generate new and unique transportation requirements where nuclear power may well be the only suitable power source for this type of venture. Nuclear Powered Search, Salvage and Repair Submarine

Approximately 270 ocean going vessels sink each year due to collisions, wrecks, etc. Very few of this number are ever salvaged. The current state of the salvage art is dependent upon the divers 280 foot depth limitation. A 1000 foot design depth would permit a submarine to operate on the ocean floor anywhere on the continental shelf.

Nuclear propulsion would extend the endurance from the present 8 hours of other similar submersibles to weeks or until the job is completed. Speed could be increased from the present 11⁄2 to 6 knot vehicles to 10-20 knots, increasing operational search range.

Such a submarine could also be used for repair of underwater pipelines and cables; construction and repair of offshore oil wells, underwater structures, and moorings.

Nuclear Ocean Mining Vessel

Chemical and mineral extraction from the ocean and ocean floor are new and promising fields where we could get the lead if we start now. Auxiliary reactor power could be used to pump ores to the surface, and process the ores as well as propel and position the ship. Such a ship could also be equipped for oceanographic research projects on a contract or lease basis. Nuclear propulsion would permit the ship to stay on station 6 months or longer to furnish support vital t the ocean floor mining operation. Crews could be rotated and flown to the mother ship to permit the ship to remain on station.

Question C

Without the flexibility related to significantly increasing the size of the power plant and taking advantage therefrom for reduced unit capital investment, can the fuel price advantage for nuclear ships be such to compensate for the differential capital investment and the other increases in operating costs?

Is the practical limit on power plant size (50-75 MWe equivalent) a realistic upper limit? Is the speed-power relationship such to offset the economic advantage recognized to be available in the nuclear power fuel cycle?

Answer

In order to achieve the economies that nuclear power portends, these major objectives must be considered:

1. The present high capital cost differences between the nuclear-powered ship and its oil fired equivalent must be reduced materially.

2. The cost of nuclear fuel must be reduced to the point where the saving in nuclear fuel cost compared to fossil fuel will be sufficient to amortize the added capital cost of the nuclear plant and leave a sufficient margin for added profits and other additional operating costs associated with nuclear power.

3. The operating costs of nuclear ships must be brought down to a point more nearly approaching that of the equivalent oil fired ship; this means crew cost, maintenance and repair expense, refueling cost, shore staff, insurance expense, etc.

In any marine nuclear power application program, it must be the industry and government goal to attain these three objectives.

It is our opinion that present day plants would be difficult to justify at less than 60,000 SHP (see formula below), if a maximum utilization factor of 70% is assumed. As power goes up, capital cost per SHP drops, and fuel saving per SHPH rises. The upper limit for consolidated plants may be determined by pressure vessel size required for high power core and necessary heat exchange area. The upper limit now envisioned for a two shaft vessel is determined by shaft load limit, which is estimated to be on the order of 60,000 SHP per shaft. Obviously, more shafts would permit use of higher horsepower. A plant in the vicinity of 200,000 SHP would be the pratical upper limit for displacement ships. Studies of Surface Effect Ships not limited by shaft load would have a practical upper limit of 500,000 HP.

Question D

MWe/SHP Conversion Formula

1.34 SHP-1 KWe 1000 KWe=1 MWe

Can the fiscal relationship that exists between conventional utility power components and plant and maritime plants of the same type be altered significantly as a result of adopting nuclear power?

Is the nominal 25-50% increase in cost realistic for maritime plants over landbased plants for turbines, condensers, electrical genrators, steam boilers, etc.? Are shipyard installation costs for similar equipment appreciably higher than costs in central station plants? What special techniques can be used to reduce shipyard installation costs would not prove beneficial to central station installations?

Answer

Equipment Costs-Industrial versus Marine.-A nominal 25-50% increase for maritime plants over landbased plants for turbines, condensers, electrical generators, steam boilers, etc., if true, would exert little influence on the cost differential between conventional and nuclear ships because all ships must use these secondary plant marine components.

It would be expected that marine components would cost somewhat more than comparable industrial components bcause marine matrials must be corrosion resistant, operate in roll, pitch and yaw, and there is of course a smaller market for marine components. A survey of industry prices of comparable marine and industrial components revealed that marine components cost only from 10 to 15% more than industrial components. Although the question was not directed at the cost of naval components, the survey indicated that the same components meeting MIL-specifiications would run in order of 25-50% more than industrial components.

Maritime Reactor Installation Costs vs. Central Station Reactor Installation Costs Maritime reactor installation costs are strongly dependent on the influence of multiple procurement and construction. The savings accrued to multiple, class design ships and their standard reactors, cannot be captured by central station installation due to the varied power requirements specified by the utility companies and their single design power stations.

The chart below shows that a multiple ship construction program has a very meaningful cost reduction relationship for reactor installation:

78-559-67— -21

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Extracted from NUS-278. Nuclear Capital Costs and Cost Trends in Maritime Applications.

A study has been prepared by NUS Corporation (NUS-278) considered to be the most recent information on the subject of maritime reactor capital costs. To provide valid shipyard installation cost estimates, NUS Corporation engaged the services of the New York Shipbuilding Corp.

New York Shipbuilding Corporation, a shipyard experienced in installing PWR plants in nuclear submarines, nuclear frigates and the NS Savannah, prepared installation cost estimates for two marine pressurized water reactor plants. One was the more conventional "spreadout" concept where the major components in the primary system are located separately and connected by large diameter pipe. The other was the "integral" design where the entire primary system, including components, are contained within the reactor pressure vessel. The estimates are based on plant design currently being offered by reactor manufacturers and are indicative of the costs, if an actual construction program were initiated in the very near future.

To provide a basis for comparison between conventional and nuclear marine plants, New York Shipbuilding developed a representative cost estimate of $700,000 for installing and testing of a 75,000 SHP conventional steam generating system. The estimate is based on a twin plant producing a total of 75,000 SHP. Each plant consists of a single furnace with two steam drums and a single uptake. The equipment covered by this estimate is essentially those components in a conventionally powered ship that would be replaced by a nuclear steam generating equipment.

Industry estimates

Cost of installing first plant

Nuclear installation cost multiple of conventional

plant installation cost

NYS estimate:

Installation of conventional 75,000 SHP steam generating system.... NYS estimate:

Installation of "integral" design PWR nuclear steam generator NYS estimate:

Installation of "spreadout" design PWR nuclear steam generator.

[blocks in formation]

Fiscal Relationship between Utility Power Plants and Marine Plants

3.7

Reiteration of an established design will permit the benefits of learning to reduce the capital and installation costs of nuclear or convention plants. Certainly in a young industry such as the nuclear industry, the whole industry stands to gain in knowledge and experience as sectors of the industry make advances, whether the sector be central power reactors or maritime reactors.

It is significant that reactor manufacturers are able to offer utility companies and shipping companies lower cost reactors as a function of time due to market expansion. However, it is of little significance if a 100 MWe nuclear utility plant costs more or less to install a 100 MWe nuclear marine plant; the two are not in competition with each other. The installation costs of a nuclear utility plant should be compared to a similar coal utility plant, and likewise installation costs of a nuclear marine plant should be compared to a comparable oil fired marine plant.

Question E

Can the recognized capital and operating investment limitations related to commercial application of nuclear power of these smaller utility plant sizes (less than 200 MWe) be significantly different when applied to maritime plants as compared to utility applications?

Where can advantages be obtained for the maritime application when the specific cost components are identified for equipment, components, personnel, supplies, tools, redundancy, support facilities, etc.?

Answer

Capital and Operating Investment Limitations.-The capital and operating investment limitations related to commercial application of nuclear power of smaller utility plants (under 200 MWe) recognized by the central power reactor industry has induced the nuclear utility companies to build plants in the higher MWe ranges because they apparently achieve a higher return on investment. However, this does not mean to say that all plants less than 200 MWe output were poor investments. If this were the case then there are a number of power reactors in this category:

[blocks in formation]

Certainly, these plants must have had economic justification or some other equally important rationale. It is just that the larger plants provide greater economic justification, and most likely the practical upper limit on plant power for central power reactors has not yet been determined.

The present estimates of the upper limits for maritime reactors are discussed in the answer to Question C. It is above the practical maritime power limits that we must depart from making analogies between the two technologies. Below this postulated limit, there still lies a vast latitude for interaction of marine and central power station technology.

Identification of Cost Components

Until such time as there is a fleet of modern nuclear merchant ships in operation for a representative period of time, cost components for such items as personnel, supplies, tools, redundancy and support facilities can only be estimated from past experience with the Savannah. As discussed previously, the Savannah is not considered a valid cost indicator. When there is a fleet of modern nuclear ships in operation with a past history in a documented cost analysis we will have a take off point on which to improve cost effectiveness.

Foreign Countries

Other countries are moving ahead with nuclear merchant ship development whether there be an investment limitation or not. The German Ship Otto Hahn is scheduled for operation in 1967; the Japanese Oceanographic Research ship is in the design phase; Italy is planning a nuclear logistics support ship; the Soviet Union is planning two additional icebreakers, after years of successful operation of the first nuclear icebreaker Lenin; and the Chinese Peoples Republic is reported to be building a nuclear coastal ship. These countries are apparently of the opinion that economic factors can be achieved through a technologically advanced merchant marine.

[ocr errors]

It is urgent that this first U.S. nuclear merchant fleet be built promptly, taking full advantage of the maritime reactor technology as it exists today. If we delay, the U.S. lead in nuclear maritime propulsion, and high-speed liner service will have passed to Germany, Japan and other countries with firm plans to build nuclear ships more advanced than the Savannah, and vessels as fast as any presently contemplated for the U.S. merchant marine.

Mr. DREWRY. One thing that has interested me very much has been the reference throughout your testimony to the great increase in sizes and utility of powerplants from the standpoint of shaft horsepower and megawatts electrical or whatever term you use versus the generally lower horespower that are being talked about for ships; 30,000 being fairly high today and future plans talking 105,000 as the highest mentioned in this Maritime Administration report.

Is there any particular relevance between the 105,000 horsepower for a merchant ship versus, say, 600,000 or 1 million for a public utility plant? I don't understand it because you want the power for a merchant ship to push a ship and provide certain auxiliary services. For a powerplant wouldn't that depend on the area that is trying to be lighted, heated, and powered and so on, rather than simply a question of relative economics between a low powered central station and a high powered central station?

Mr. SHAW. Well, the coupling we have attempted to identify is related to the significant trend by the utilities to purchase nuclear powerplants. This trend has led to the conclusion that nuclear power, per se, is more economical than conventional power. The reason we referred to these sizes of plants is to try to point out that these significant economic gains have been achieved primarily from the size factor. If you look at it just on the technology basis, there have been gains, but not anything close to that which is achieved as a result of the tremendous extrapolations in sizes. This reflects adversely, in a sense, on the potential of the maritime applications because one is restricted in powerplant sizes by ship sizes. Most of the studies have been trying to move up into the higher power regions in order to make nuclear power appear as favorable as it can. The question that is really before you always is whether this determination to make them as economical as possible is going to be sufficiently of interest to the commercial shipowners in terms of buying numbers of ships afterward. It is this kind of question that I think is facing us all here, and the relevance of the civilian power picture is quite important in making such a determination.

« AnteriorContinuar »