The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Musashi_kenshin]

Unfortunately the UK's Greens are mostly insane types that are opposed to anything nuclear and whose plans for meeting net zero is for everyone to return to subsistence farming. There would be no votes in it.

Whatever the merits of thinking about this, it's the wrong time to be doing it, as there is no money for it. It also runs the risk of rubbing the Treasury up the wrong way at a time the MoD is already in its bad books for decades of failed procurement, cost overruns, etc.

 

[John Fedup]

Unfortunately the UK's Greens are mostly insane types that are opposed to anything nuclear and whose plans for meeting net zero is for everyone to return to subsistence farming. There would be no votes in it.

Whatever the merits of thinking about this, it's the wrong time to be doing it, as there is no money for it. It also runs the risk of rubbing the Treasury up the wrong way at a time the MoD is already in its bad books for decades of failed procurement, cost overruns, etc.

Yes, I understand the budget problem . I think this is a long term consideration but assuming an investigation doesn’t cost a $hitload of money, knowing the feasibility within a few years could help with planning and funding naval designs (20-30 years from now).

 

[StobieWan]

The only thing I can think of is, maybe the synergy from AUKUS has UK reactor production up to a level where the costs have fallen enough to make it worth looking at ? I suspect the USN did the sums many years ago and it doesn't work out long term.

We are at a point where reactors can run unrefuelled for 30 years and reactor safety is pretty much "walk-away" safe if designed properly but still...I dunno. Mucho expensive.

 

[swerve]

Question 1: What will the lifetime cost be, including decommissioning? Please provide a breakdown.

If the answer isn't "We don't know", then - .

2. Please justify your figures for decommissioning.

 

[StobieWan]

Question 1: What will the lifetime cost be, including decommissioning? Please provide a breakdown.

If the answer isn't "We don't know", then - .

2. Please justify your figures for decommissioning.

Exactly - and the only operators of surface combatants were the USN and USSR - the USN decommissioned all theirs fairly rapidly and the Russians inherited the guts of four Kirovs, of which I think one is in service and must surely be a candidate for the scrap yard given it's running costs.

Then you figure in the results of battle damage (carriers can put a fair few metres of space between their reactors and the outside world, destroyers/cruisers less so) and it's not a good look.

 

[Redshift]

The only thing I can think of is, maybe the synergy from AUKUS has UK reactor production up to a level where the costs have fallen enough to make it worth looking at ? I suspect the USN did the sums many years ago and it doesn't work out long term.

We are at a point where reactors can run unrefuelled for 30 years and reactor safety is pretty much "walk-away" safe if designed properly but still...I dunno. Mucho expensive.

The Dreadnaught subs will displace 17,000 tons, so the reactors, pwr3, should be quite capable

 

[John Fedup]

So the census here seems to be that SMRs designed within the last 5-10 years are no better than the reactors used in 1960s era USN cruisers.

 

[StevoJH]

So the census here seems to be that SMRs designed within the last 5-10 years are no better than the reactors used in 1960s era USN cruisers.

The technology has definitely improved.

But what about the economics? I suppose that is what UK Mod is funding a study to discover.

 

[John Fedup]

The technology has definitely improved.

But what about the economics? I suppose that is what UK Mod is funding a study to discover.

That was exactly the intent of my first comment wrt this study. Nothing wrong with having the information to confirm or reject this new technology (or any other for that matter). Even a rejection is useful as it forces naval planners to investigate other options for future power generation that can deliver the necessary power output for weapons, hotel load, and propulsion while at the same time maximizing fuel economy and minimizing environmental footprint.

 

[StobieWan]

So the census here seems to be that SMRs designed within the last 5-10 years are no better than the reactors used in 1960s era USN cruisers.

Reactors have improved in terms of power output, secondary and primary safety, all that good stuff. What's not altered has been the expense of running the darned things - four qualified watchstanders per reactor, per cruise, so expensive as heck to staff. Engineering staff in the RN are already at a premium. Add in decommission costs (which right now are "unknown" as we've only just now started pulling the first of the SSN's apart) and you're into a potential mess for the RN in future.

 

[John Fedup]

Staff availability could well be an issue but cost, maybe not. Money would be for them instead of fuel for GTs. However decommissioning cost would need to be determined from the study with an accurate number. Enough for now, will wait and see if this study provides any useful information (assuming I am still around).

 

[swerve]

So the census here seems to be that SMRs designed within the last 5-10 years are no better than the reactors used in 1960s era USN cruisers.

Did anyone say that?

To me, you're ignoring a huge issue: lifetime cost. Decommissioning . . . . . The UK currently has a big backlog of nuclear submarines awaiting dismantling. It's costing a very great deal. Expanding the infrastructure to allow dismantling of larger numbers of vessels would add even more expense.

How much can we afford? What would we have to give up? These questions should be answered before suggesting such a change. As you say, it's unknown - except that we know it's a lot.

 

[StevoJH]

Staff availability could well be an issue but cost, maybe not. Money would be for them instead of fuel for GTs. However decommissioning cost would need to be determined from the study with an accurate number. Enough for now, will wait and see if this study provides any useful information (assuming I am still around).

What could also be a significant cost factor depending on what fuel is used and how many ships are being contemplated, is restarting a new uranium enrichment program.

From memory neither the UK or US currently produce additional HEU, using up stockpiles built up in previous years.

 

[John Fedup]

Did anyone say that?

To me, you're ignoring a huge issue: lifetime cost. Decommissioning . . . . . The UK currently has a big backlog of nuclear submarines awaiting dismantling. It's costing a very great deal. Expanding the infrastructure to allow dismantling of larger numbers of vessels would add even more expense.

How much can we afford? What would we have to give up? These questions should be answered before suggesting such a change. As you say, it's unknown - except that we know it's a lot.

We know that decommissioning for current reactors is a lot for both naval and commercial. SMRs perhaps no better but SMRs for land based electricity will happen because it is the only green solution for base load (other than hydro dams) for now.

 

[John Fedup]

What could also be a significant cost factor depending on what fuel is used and how many ships are being contemplated, is restarting a new uranium enrichment program.

From memory neither the UK or US currently produce additional HEU, using up stockpiles built up in previous years.

HEU or LEU is something else that needs to be studied for future reactors. Expansion of HEU is likely not a popular idea for many.

 

[Systems Adict]

I, (as always), am gonna state the obvious here..

As per the link provided in post #14013, there is an RFI.

"The Royal Navy is exploring the use of nuclear power for its surface ships, with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) issuing a Request for Information (RFI) seeking insights from the defence industry. The RFI signals the Royal Navy’s interest in understanding how Generation 4 nuclear reactors might be integrated into its fleet.

The primary objective is to gather detailed information on GEN-4 nuclear-reactor designs, their feasibility for large surface ships (including support vessels and surface combatants), and the potential benefits and challenges associated with their use.

The RFI states, “Following viability of returns, the Royal Navy may hold a forum to explore key details from selected responses and/or an action learning event.” This would provide the MOD with an opportunity to further explore the practicalities and challenges of using nuclear power in its fleet, as well as gain insights from industry experts.

The deadline for responses to this RFI is October 8, 2024, at 22:59."

Based on the comments extracted from the article above I would recommend that they are looking at RFA / Support & Carrier sized vessels, rather than Destroyer sized (unless we're gonna make destroyers that are closer to 20,000 GRT).

As a shipbuilder with 30 year's experience, I am not an advocate of this approach (putting reactors in 'small ships', predominantly due to the reasoning eloquently provided by others across the posts that follow on from #14013, revolving around current & future waste / reprocessing of materials). I am NOT adverse to the use of nuclear power for larger ships (Carriers & RFA's), but appreciate that there are considerable risks & numerous "What If...?" scenarios, that would need to be answered, to help convince a populous that is so tied up in the planet wide, NET ZERO debacle, that they can't see past the NUCLEAR = BAD - BioFuel & Solar Power = GOOD.

It is GOOD to see that we are still researching elements for defence that can be added to current, or expanded for future technology, but with the recent change in the seats of power at Westminster, I feel that the report will end up in the volumes of 'research documents' that end up in academia libraries for students to study, simply because we don't have the funds to progress things.

I also think that like many across other forums & in the media, that like it or not, the clouds of war are looming & other elements relating to survivability & capability will drive getting vessels in the water, rather than trying to get tech that isn't ' off-the-shelf' into the design. History is a great leveller with the use of hindsight & while TECH can help, it is NOT the thing that wins a war.

SA

 

[John Fedup]

I, (as always), am gonna state the obvious here..

As per the link provided in post #14013, there is an RFI.

"The Royal Navy is exploring the use of nuclear power for its surface ships, with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) issuing a Request for Information (RFI) seeking insights from the defence industry. The RFI signals the Royal Navy’s interest in understanding how Generation 4 nuclear reactors might be integrated into its fleet.

The primary objective is to gather detailed information on GEN-4 nuclear-reactor designs, their feasibility for large surface ships (including support vessels and surface combatants), and the potential benefits and challenges associated with their use.

The RFI states, “Following viability of returns, the Royal Navy may hold a forum to explore key details from selected responses and/or an action learning event.” This would provide the MOD with an opportunity to further explore the practicalities and challenges of using nuclear power in its fleet, as well as gain insights from industry experts.

The deadline for responses to this RFI is October 8, 2024, at 22:59."

Based on the comments extracted from the article above I would recommend that they are looking at RFA / Support & Carrier sized vessels, rather than Destroyer sized (unless we're gonna make destroyers that are closer to 20,000 GRT).

As a shipbuilder with 30 year's experience, I am not an advocate of this approach (putting reactors in 'small ships', predominantly due to the reasoning eloquently provided by others across the posts that follow on from #14013, revolving around current & future waste / reprocessing of materials). I am NOT adverse to the use of nuclear power for larger ships (Carriers & RFA's), but appreciate that there are considerable risks & numerous "What If...?" scenarios, that would need to be answered, to help convince a populous that is so tied up in the planet wide, NET ZERO debacle, that they can't see past the NUCLEAR = BAD - BioFuel & Solar Power = GOOD.

It is GOOD to see that we are still researching elements for defence that can be added to current, or expanded for future technology, but with the recent change in the seats of power at Westminster, I feel that the report will end up in the volumes of 'research documents' that end up in academia libraries for students to study, simply because we don't have the funds to progress things.

I also think that like many across other forums & in the media, that like it or not, the clouds of war are looming & other elements relating to survivability & capability will drive getting vessels in the water, rather than trying to get tech that isn't ' off-the-shelf' into the design. History is a great leveller with the use of hindsight & while TECH can help, it is NOT the thing that wins a war.

SA

A good concluding post on this topic and it time to wait and see.

 

[StevoJH]

We know that decommissioning for current reactors is a lot for both naval and commercial. SMRs perhaps no better but SMRs for land based electricity will happen because it is the only green solution for base load (other than hydro dams) for now.

That is not true, and at least from the Australian studies that I have read SMR’s have a much higher cost per kilowatt hour than a combination of Solar/Wind with battery backup.

Saying that, Nuclear power can make sense for political reasons as much as for economic reason.

 

[StobieWan]

What could also be a significant cost factor depending on what fuel is used and how many ships are being contemplated, is restarting a new uranium enrichment program.

From memory neither the UK or US currently produce additional HEU, using up stockpiles built up in previous years.

Interesting point - didn't realise that but when I just looked it up, the largest producers of HEU are Russia and China - with the rest of the world trailing far behind and the UK and US aren't even on the table. I wonder if that's something that might need to be scaled back up ?

 

[StevoJH]

Interesting point - didn't realise that but when I just looked it up, the largest producers of HEU are Russia and China - with the rest of the world trailing far behind and the UK and US aren't even on the table. I wonder if that's something that might need to be scaled back up ?

With current usage the UK was supposed to have enough for the next 50 years or so.

The US probably a lot longer with the number of Nuclear weapons it has decommissioned.

Obviously any increase in the size of the nuclear arsenal or any increase in the number of ships using HEI as fuel will change how long the stockpile will last.