# Nuclear Powered Wessels **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 25, 2008, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188 "2008-08-25T13:41:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/1 "2008-08-25T13:41:34Z")
Apologies if this is Googlable; I couldn’t come up with a set of useful search criteria. And the question is pretty much out of idle curiosity. From the 1950s on for a couple decades or so, there were regular efforts made to use nuclear power for propulsion of ocean-going vessels. I’m going to list below what I’m aware of as a top-of-head exercise. I’m curious about several things: A. What besides the uses I’ve listed were serious efforts towards nuclear power for propulsion of oceangoing vessels? B. For uses that were terminated, what were the major factors against continuing the use? C. Have the issues associated with petroleum production and distribution over the last 20 years or so had aniy significant impact on the concept? These are the uses I’m aware of without detailed research: 1. U.S. Navy submarines, both missile bearing and “conventional” in use. AFAIK this is ongoing. Is it the standard propulsion method for subs? 2. U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, starting with the Enterprise and then the Forrestal. AFAiK this is ongoing, and pretty much the standard propulsion, at least for the large “fleet” carriers. 3. Merchant ship, the Savannah. IIRC, this was non-competitive; why? 4. Soviet Union submarines. Does Russia continue to operate all or some of them? Do any other former SSRs have nuke-powered subs? 5. U.S. Navy Cruiser, the Long Beach. AFAIK, successful in its intended role. Were any other non-carrier surface warships built with nuke power? 6. Large Soviet icebreaker, the Lenin. Was it followed by other such ships? 7. I very vaguely remember reference to Britain building, or planning to build, nuclear-powered naval vessels. Beyond that, did any country other than the USA and the USSR build any (warship or commercial)? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/2 "2008-08-25T13:47:21Z")
Correction: CV-59 _Forrestal_ was not nuclear-powered. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/3 "2008-08-25T13:47:39Z")
Keppler Wessels played cricket for Australia and RSA but I don’t think he was nuclear powered. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/4 "2008-08-25T13:53:59Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] 7. I very vaguely remember reference to Britain building, or planning to build, nuclear-powered naval vessels. [/QUOTE] Submarines. My uncle captained one during the Falklands. There have been several types over the years, with the latest fleet (quite old now) called “Hunter Killer” class. [More…](http://submariners.co.uk/Boats/Barrowbuilt/Nuclear_Fleet/) ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/5 "2008-08-25T14:04:30Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] Apologies if this is Googlable; I couldn’t come up with a set of useful search criteria. And the question is pretty much out of idle curiosity. C. Have the issues associated with petroleum production and distribution over the last 20 years or so had any significant impact on the concept? 1. I very vaguely remember reference to Britain building, or planning to build, nuclear-powered naval vessels. Beyond that, did any country other than the USA and the USSR build any (warship or commercial)? [/QUOTE] 7 The UK has Nuclear powered submarines. France also has a nuclear power aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaulle) and nuclear power attack submarines. C. Typical merchant vessels have been fueled by bunker oil. Bunker oil is basically the crud left over from the refining of crude into more useful stuff such as gasoline, diesel/jet fuel and petrochemicals. Poor quality refineries can leave in excess of 50% of the input crude as bunker oil. As the supply/demand situation for bunker oil is generally much more balanced than that of higher grade products, bunker oil has not seen quite the same dramatic price swings. that is not to say the price has not gone up, but the effect is a little more dampened. For the last 20 years the bunker oil situation has been favorable for shipping, plentiful supply of a readily transportable and fungible product. However that said, new ships are moving away from bunker oil to diesel, it is cleaner burning and you can get more compact higher power engines. The gradual switch of shipping to use diesel is just another one of the many pressure on diesel prices. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/6 "2008-08-25T14:10:21Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] These are the uses I’m aware of without detailed research: 1. U.S. Navy submarines, both missile bearing and “conventional” in use. AFAIK this is ongoing. Is it the standard propulsion method for subs? 2. U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, starting with the Enterprise and then the Forrestal. AFAiK this is ongoing, and pretty much the standard propulsion, at least for the large “fleet” carriers. 3. Merchant ship, the Savannah. IIRC, this was non-competitive; why? 4. Soviet Union submarines. Does Russia continue to operate all or some of them? Do any other former SSRs have nuke-powered subs? 5. U.S. Navy Cruiser, the Long Beach. AFAIK, successful in its intended role. Were any other non-carrier surface warships built with nuke power? 6. Large Soviet icebreaker, the Lenin. Was it followed by other such ships? 7. I very vaguely remember reference to Britain building, or planning to build, nuclear-powered naval vessels. Beyond that, did any country other than the USA and the USSR build any (warship or commercial)? [/QUOTE] 8. Yes, for USN nuclear power is still the standard propulsion plant. AIUI there are talks of making some new classes (smaller than the current _Virginia_-class boats that are fuel cell based like the new German small subs. 9. Actually, the _Forrestal_ is conventionally fired. The nuke carriers are _Enterprise_ and the _Nimitz_-class vessels. For the USN the only carriers being laid down are the fleet carriers, which are all nuke powered. Of course, I’m a purist - the various amphibious assault ships that can _look_ like carriers to the layperson, just don’t count. Even if they have embarked aircraft. 10. The issues with the _Savannah_ were several. First off she originally was on a very, very short refueling cycle, which jumped up the maintenance costs for the ship, and would make amortization of the construction/maintenance costs over service life harder to manage. The other big issue I can think of with _Savannah_ was that she was a combination cargo and passenger ship. Specializing in neither, and doing both roles less efficiently than a purpose-built ship of either type would have been able to do. Just for example - the sections of ports where cargo handling is done generally are a bit uglier, smellier and less appealing than those areas where passenger ships tie up. And this ignores the whole container ship competitive advantage. AIUI a container ship can be completely unloaded and then reloaded within 24 hours, which is an absolutely lightning-paced change compared to traditional cargo ships, such as what _Savannah_’s cargo handling arrangements had been. 11. I’m far less confident here. I _believe_ the Russians are still running some of the more recent SSNs, but the _Kursk_ disaster had translated to a real slow down in fleet operations, even compared to the already slower pace of operations post 1992. 12. Yes. The USN had a total of nine nuclear powered cruisers. Though it’s a little silly to assume all US nuclear powered cruisers were equal. The _Long Beach_ was effectively a heavy cruiser, with the armoring that implies, and a missile batter main armament. The other nuclear cruisers were unarmored, and for a long time either called frigates (_Bainbridge_ and _Truxton_) or laid down as destroyers (_California_ and _Virginia_ classes.) But when the Soviets came out with the _Kirov_-class battlecruisers, it was decided that the US couldn’t afford to allow the Soviets build some kind of cruiser gap. So it was decided that the various nuclear powered surface ships would be cruisers. It’s also worth noting that the _Kirov_-class ships were hybrid nuclear-oil ships, a power plant arrangement that I believe only the Soviets used for naval propulsion. The last I’d read about the proposed follow on for the DD(X) ships, the CG(X) ships, is that there’s a serious intent to require them to be nuclear powered. But that was just one article a year or so ago, and I haven’t been keeping too close tabs on that. 1. I believe that there were other nuclear powered ice-breakers in the Soviet fleet. [Per Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powered_icebreaker) there are ten such ships listed, including the _Lenin_. 2. First off, the RN has most of her submarine fleet nuclear powered. I don’t know that all of it is nuclear powered, but I believe it to be. The French Navy’s aircraft carrier, the _Charles DeGalle_, is nuclear powered. IIRC the Chinese Navy has a small number of nuclear subs, and may or may not be planning to build a CVN from a former Soviet hull they bought after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Most of this is just off the top of my head, if you want more information about US nuclear naval vessels, you can ask here, or do a search using my name and nuclear carrier or nuclear cruiser, I’ve spouted off on those topics a few times in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/7 "2008-08-25T14:11:40Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] 3. Merchant ship, the Savannah. IIRC, this was non-competitive; why? 1. Large Soviet icebreaker, the Lenin. Was it followed by other such ships? [/QUOTE] [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civil_vessels): > [@](#): > > Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the 1950s, but has not generally been commercially successful. The US-built NS Savannah, was commissioned in 1962 and decommissioned eight years later. It was a technical success, but not economically viable. The German-built Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed some 650,000 nautical miles on 126 voyages in 10 years without any technical problems.[citation needed] However, it proved too expensive to operate and was converted to diesel. The Japanese Mutsu was the third civil vessel. It was dogged by technical and political problems and was an embarrassing failure. All three vessels used reactors with low-enriched uranium fuel. > > The fourth nuclear merchant ship, Sevmorput, operates successfully in the specialised environment of the Northern Sea Route. > > Nuclear propulsion has proven both technically and economically feasible for nuclear powered icebreakers in the Soviet Arctic. The power levels and energy required for icebreaking, coupled with refueling difficulties for other types of vessels, are significant factors. The Soviet icebreaker Lenin was the world’s first nuclear-powered surface vessel and remained in service for 30 years, though new reactors were fitted in 1970. It led to a series of larger icebreakers, the 23,500 ton Arktika class, launched from 1975. These vessels have two reactors and are used in deep Arctic waters. NS Arktika was the first surface vessel to reach the North Pole. > > For use in shallow waters such as estuaries and rivers, shallow-draft Taymyr class icebreakers with one reactor are being built in Finland and then fitted with their nuclear steam supply system in Russia. They are built to conform with international safety standards for nuclear vessels. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/8 "2008-08-25T14:28:50Z")
Here’s a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=471483) nominally about the USS _Enterprise_, which touches on a lot of the design factors for nuclear powered aircraft carriers, that you might find interesting. Here are two more threads - one about the problems with [nuclear power for civilian vessels](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5681887), and another that’s specifically about the [US Navy’s nuclear powered cruisers](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=295249). ---
**Author:** ![kellner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c2a13f/32.png) [@kellner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kellner)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/9 "2008-08-25T14:31:53Z")
> [@](#): > > The German-built Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed some 650,000 nautical miles on 126 voyages in 10 years without any technical problems.[citation needed] However, it proved too expensive to operate and was converted to diesel. Some trivia related to this ship: Her captain was [Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Lehmann-Willenbrock), depicted as the nameless commander in “Das Boot.” ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/10 "2008-08-25T14:32:34Z")
I would just at that the _Savannah_ for a while was anchored at Mt. Pleasant, SC. I had visited the _Yorktown_ and the sub (the name of which escapes me) numerous times, but had never toured the _Savannah_. Finally I did. It was a fascinating tour. If you like tours of one after another empty cavernous room. A real spell-binder. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/11 "2008-08-25T14:39:22Z")
Fixed spelling in thread title. **Gfactor** General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/12 "2008-08-25T14:41:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Fixed spelling in thread title. > > Gfactor > General Questions Moderator You’re no fun. Is it SDMB policy to fix even intentional errors in spelling? Even if the joke’s not that good? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/13 "2008-08-25T14:41:26Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Fixed spelling in thread title. **Gfactor** General Questions Moderator [/QUOTE] I think the misspelling was intentional. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/14 "2008-08-25T14:57:51Z")
Ok. Never Mind. I put it back the way it was. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/15 "2008-08-25T15:16:05Z")
The U.S. Navy’s current philosophy is to utilize nuclear propulsion only for submarines and aircraft carriers. Here are some reasons why: 1. If for no other reason than because you are paying for all of the fuel up front during construction, nuclear vessels cost more up front than conventionally-powered vessels. Nuclear-powered vessels also generally have higher operating costs, due to the necessity of a nuclear-trained crew and support personnel (which cost more due to the extensive training required for these positions), the additional maintenance required for a nuclear propulsion plant, etc. 2. For a nuclear-powered vessel to be cost-effective, then, there need to be clear advantages for the nuclear-powered vessel when compared to the conventionally-powered alternative. a. The advantages for submarines should be obvious. A nuclear-powered submarine is freed from having to surface for extended periods of time, and is the only truly “blue-water” submarine. A nuclear-powered submarine could travel at flank (maximum) speed for **years** without having to surface, only being limited by the endurance of the crew and the amount of food onboard. With no other method of propulsion can you do this, not even with fuel cells. b. For aircraft carriers, the advantage of nuclear power is that it frees up space for storage of jet fuel. The carrier can also be used as a fuel-storage vessel for other vessels in the battle group. c. For non-carrier surface warships and cargo vessels, the additional expense for nuclear propulsion is not justified by the marginal increase in utility that might be realized. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/16 "2008-08-25T17:25:00Z")
There is a major effort on at the moment to make more US Naval nuclear powered. Controversially this does not just include large vessels, that are less likley to be put in harms way, but landing craft whos purpose is to be put in harms way. Can’t find the actual article I was reading, but here is a related one: [http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/08/01/ap5280178.html](http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/08/01/ap5280178.html) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/17 "2008-08-25T21:22:09Z")
[QUOTE=NaturalBlondChap] France also has a nuclear power aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaulle) and nuclear power attack submarines. [/QUOTE] If I’m not mistaken, no French attack submarine is nuclear powered. Only the subs carrying nuclear missiles are. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/18 "2008-08-25T21:33:05Z")
[QUOTE=clairobscur] If I’m not mistaken, no French attack submarine is nuclear powered. Only the subs carrying nuclear missiles are. [/QUOTE] See: [List of active French Navy ships - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_French_Navy_ships) 1 carrier, 4 Boomers, 6 Attack subs, nuclear powered. ---
**Author:** ![Carson\_O\_Genic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Carson\_O\_Genic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carson_O_Genic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/19 "2008-08-25T23:25:25Z")
[QUOTE=Earl Snake-Hips Tucker] I would just at that the _Savannah_ for a while was anchored at Mt. Pleasant, SC. I had visited the _Yorktown_ and the sub (the name of which escapes me) numerous times, but had never toured the _Savannah_. Finally I did. It was a fascinating tour. If you like tours of one after another empty cavernous room. A real spell-binder. [/QUOTE] The sub is probably SS-343 Clamagore, WWII era Balao class boat, diesel powered. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2008, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188/20 "2008-08-25T23:44:24Z")
China operates at least 4 SSNs and 2 SSBNs. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-powered-wessels/461188.md?page=2)