EVENTS in Japan have led to a global rethink on nuclear power.
The sight of desperate attempts to cool nuclear reactors with water cannons and the heroic attempts by workers to reconnect electrical power to emergency systems, has led many countries to rethink their approach to nuclear power and safety.
This will eventually have a knock-on effect on how nuclear power is perceived in the shipping industry. Up until a few weeks ago there was something of a renaissance in nuclear powered shipping as experts debated and considered carbon dioxide-free alternatives to oil-based bunkers.
The majority of nuclear powered vessels are painted grey and come with large guns on the deck, but there are some exceptions — the Russian Arctic icebreakers and a very small number of cargo vessels. These have, as far as the public is aware, an unblemished safety record.
Russia has also developed and is building a series of floating nuclear power stations. These are built on barges and floated to remote places where there is a demand for electricity. For Russia this is in its Arctic coastline where the search and extraction of natural resources is escalating, creating the demand for a cheap and reliable power source.
The events at the Fukushima power station will overshadow the benefits that nuclear power can provide. Quite rightly so.
Both sides of the nuclear debate, those for and against its use, should use the period to assess where lessons can be learnt and draw conclusions in due course, but not yet.
Nuclear power is a contentious topic, but then again so is the offshore wind sector with its share of criticism, and of course oil, gas and coal have a natural black mark against them.
The same arguments will go for power sources for shipping. Natural gas is been touted as the next fuel for shipping — notably by countries with the gas to sell. Most shipping commentators realise gas should only be a stopgap. The final energy source will be the sea, or the hydrogen that is in it and can be used in fuel cells or other, yet to be invented solutions.
As we move towards a supposed carbon neutral utopia there needs to be a rational debate about future fuels, their reliability, sourcing and of course safety. Nuclear power should be part of that debate and recent events need to be put into the right perspective.
Lloyd’s List
Nuclear power should remain part of the fuels debate
EVENTS in Japan have led to a global rethink on nuclear power.
The sight of desperate attempts to cool nuclear reactors with water cannons and the heroic attempts by workers to reconnect electrical power to emergency systems, has led many countries to rethink their approach to nuclear power and safety.
This will eventually have a knock-on effect on how nuclear power is perceived in the shipping industry. Up until a few weeks ago there was something of a renaissance in nuclear powered shipping as experts debated and considered carbon dioxide-free alternatives to oil-based bunkers.
The majority of nuclear powered vessels are painted grey and come with large guns on the deck, but there are some exceptions — the Russian Arctic icebreakers and a very small number of cargo vessels. These have, as far as the public is aware, an unblemished safety record.
Russia has also developed and is building a series of floating nuclear power stations. These are built on barges and floated to remote places where there is a demand for electricity. For Russia this is in its Arctic coastline where the search and extraction of natural resources is escalating, creating the demand for a cheap and reliable power source.
The events at the Fukushima power station will overshadow the benefits that nuclear power can provide. Quite rightly so.
Both sides of the nuclear debate, those for and against its use, should use the period to assess where lessons can be learnt and draw conclusions in due course, but not yet.
Nuclear power is a contentious topic, but then again so is the offshore wind sector with its share of criticism, and of course oil, gas and coal have a natural black mark against them.
The same arguments will go for power sources for shipping. Natural gas is been touted as the next fuel for shipping — notably by countries with the gas to sell. Most shipping commentators realise gas should only be a stopgap. The final energy source will be the sea, or the hydrogen that is in it and can be used in fuel cells or other, yet to be invented solutions.
As we move towards a supposed carbon neutral utopia there needs to be a rational debate about future fuels, their reliability, sourcing and of course safety. Nuclear power should be part of that debate and recent events need to be put into the right perspective.