00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[iantsai]

This nuclear powered container freighter is incredible. Nuclear power is very expensive. A power system like this clearly makes this ship class economically infeasible.

So why not design it as a military supply ship, an aerospace survey ship, a polar expedition ship, or an icebreaker?

 

[charles18]

This nuclear powered container freighter is incredible. Nuclear power is very expensive. A power system like this clearly makes this ship class economically infeasible.

So why not design it as a military supply ship, an aerospace survey ship, a polar expedition ship, or an icebreaker?

This news article "smells" suspicious. I would Not take it seriously.

Common sense would dictate if you're going to "do something", you first demonstrate proficiency on dry Land then try to replicate it out at sea. China does not even have a functioning commercial grade land based thorium reactor yet.....in all fairness Nobody does! There is a laboratory sized 2MW plant.
I'm not an engineer but plans for a thorium powered naval reactor seems like "jumping the gun".

BTW China just began commercial operation of the world's first 4th gen nuclear reactor today. It's a pebble bed reactor.

 

[Lethe]

Common sense would dictate if you're going to "do something", you first demonstrate proficiency on dry Land then try to replicate it out at sea. China does not even have a functioning commercial grade land based thorium reactor yet.....in all fairness Nobody does! There is a laboratory sized 2MW plant.
I'm not an engineer but plans for a thorium powered naval reactor seems like "jumping the gun".

Common sense would appear to suggest a path such as this, but the actual history of the development of nuclear reactors for civil and military purposes points in a rather different direction. The United States went from first generating electrical power from a nuclear reactor in 1951 (~200kW) to the completion of the land-based naval S1W reactor prototype in 1953 to USS Nautilus SSN-571 being "underway on nuclear power" in 1955, two years before the first grid-connected civil reactors became operational in the United States. The timescales for the development and deployment of nuclear reactors in the Soviet Union are similarly impressive.

Of course the circumstances of today are rather different. But the history illustrates that it is not unfeasible to go from a small-scale land-based prototype to an operational ship-board system in a scant handful of years.

 

[sheogorath]

So most powerful civilian marine diesal are weaker than most powerful marine reactor but they are on the same order of magnitude.

I guess thats related to the fact that container ships are geared for efficiency over speed. Part of the reason why comercial ships are going back to either inverted bows or straight-stem bows

 

[charles18]

Common sense would appear to suggest a path such as this, but the actual history of the development of nuclear reactors for civil and military purposes points in a rather different direction. The United States went from first generating electrical power from a nuclear reactor in 1951 (~200kW) to the completion of the land-based naval S1W reactor prototype in 1953 to USS Nautilus SSN-571 being "underway on nuclear power" in 1955, two years before the first grid-connected civil reactors became operational in the United States. The timescales for the development and deployment of nuclear reactors in the Soviet Union are similarly impressive.

Of course the circumstances of today are rather different. But the history illustrates that it is not unfeasible to go from a small-scale land-based prototype to an operational ship-board system in a scant handful of years.

You could be right. Maybe the world's first thorium reactor to be put into practical operation will be a naval reactor and not a grid connected power plant. However such a theory raises difficult questions:
1) why choose thorium MSR for a naval reactor when PWR reactors have a very mature proven track record?
2) what does a thorium reactor bring to the table that a uranium reactor can't in regards to naval propulsion?
3) why choose thorium MSR when there's other designs like liquid metal lead cooled or gas helium cooled reactors?
4) Yes there is a laboratory scale MSR but no prototype MSR yet, so isn't this premature?

I'm not saying YOU personally must answer these questions but if I was an investor in this project I definitely would demand an answer to these questions or else I'm taking my money elsewhere.

 

[vincent]

You could be right. Maybe the world's first thorium reactor to be put into practical operation will be a naval reactor and not a grid connected power plant. However such a theory raises difficult questions:
1) why choose thorium MSR for a naval reactor when PWR reactors have a very mature proven track record?
2) what does a thorium reactor bring to the table that a uranium reactor can't in regards to naval propulsion?
3) why choose thorium MSR when there's other designs like liquid metal lead cooled or gas helium cooled reactors?
4) Yes there is a laboratory scale MSR but no prototype MSR yet, so isn't this premature?

I'm not saying YOU personally must answer these questions but if I was an investor in this project I definitely would demand an answer to these questions or else I'm taking my money elsewhere.

Much longer refuel period without using weapon-grade uranium fuel i think

 

[taxiya]

You could be right. Maybe the world's first thorium reactor to be put into practical operation will be a naval reactor and not a grid connected power plant. However such a theory raises difficult questions:
1) why choose thorium MSR for a naval reactor when PWR reactors have a very mature proven track record?
2) what does a thorium reactor bring to the table that a uranium reactor can't in regards to naval propulsion?
3) why choose thorium MSR when there's other designs like liquid metal lead cooled or gas helium cooled reactors?
4) Yes there is a laboratory scale MSR but no prototype MSR yet, so isn't this premature?

I'm not saying YOU personally must answer these questions but if I was an investor in this project I definitely would demand an answer to these questions or else I'm taking my money elsewhere.

First I acknowledge that we are going off topic by continuing discussion of this civilian ship reactor, I would have avoided further posting on this subject, but I find your questions interesting and deserve answers, so I will make a quick effort.

1) why choose thorium MSR for a naval reactor when PWR reactors have a very mature proven track record?
PWR was chosen by USN for their submarine long before PWR had any track record. China's first nuclear application is also SSN not civilian powerplant. USSR wouldn't be much different either.

2) what does a thorium reactor bring to the table that a uranium reactor can't in regards to naval propulsion?
Thorium reactor does not need enrichment like uranium reactor. It leaves much less radioactive waste to handle. It is designed to be refueled when reactor is running. If Ford class PWR's advantage is "no refueling for 50 years of life time", this reactor's advantage is "refuel any time at the ship yard like car going to gas station". It is safe and cheap to operate and maintain than uranium reactors.

This is a breakthrough that makes military nuclear power plant nothing different from an off-the-shelf civilian comodity except of course some usual reinforcment and adaptation.

3) why choose thorium MSR when there's other designs like liquid metal lead cooled or gas helium cooled reactors?
The answer is the same as point 2 above, because liquid metal lead cooled and gas helium (HTGR) are all uranium based reactor.

4) Yes there is a laboratory scale MSR but no prototype MSR yet, so isn't this premature?
Yes it is premature. In fact HTGR is much closer to be used on naval ship than thorium MSR because right now we have a 210MWe HTGR (HTR-PM) in commercial operation and had been under test operation for two years since December 2021.

One more thing worth to note is that thorium MSR as a high temperature reactor type is advantageous over PWR for higher thermal efficiency, therefor smaller footprint of turbine etc. Further more this ship reactor has a unique feature utilizing CO2 Brayton cycle, the footprint of turbine and related plumping and heat exchangers is further reduced than a steam turbine. There is a 5MWe such turbine in operation for two years.

 

[gelgoog]

It is unlikely they would use a pebble bed reactor for a ship. Most such reactors aren't designed for being moved around like on a boat.
The most adequate design for a nuclear reactor in a naval vessel is still a PWR. And that hasn't changed.
Several countries have considered using nuclear reactors in commercial shipping in the past. There is no technical reason not to use it, the economics are questionable, but without actually building a ship and testing it this cannot be judged.
Previous nuclear powered transport ships, like the Savannah, were designed before container traffic became standard. So they do not provide a proper baseline for judging the economic effectiveness of nuclear propulsion in commercial transport.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

The race between the 703rd and 708th institutes are still in full swing.






The question of whether the 004 will be powered by steam turbines (responsibility of the 703rd) or by nuclear reactors (responsibility of the 708th) is still very much up for discussion.

 

[Deino]

Just for your info: As per some Tweets from the usual suspects a yet unnamed source from Hong Kong - and I think it quite clear which one and who - claimed, they have confirmation that currently two 004 carriers are under construction and modules have been spotted!