Will Cunard ever launch another ocean liner again?

[Normandie_Nostalgic]

About nuclear propulsion for Ocean Liners:

I just found out that the Italian Line had made provision for converting their Leonardo da Vinci to nuclear propulsion by 1965. They obviously did not do that in the end, and the ship was withdrawn when essential state subsidies were removed, but apparently the technical feasibility was entirely there from the start.

 

As per Wikipedia:

Because of the provisions made for conversion to run on nuclear power, the Leonardo da Vinci had a somewhat unusual interior layout. Space for a reactor was reserved amidship, in and around the ship's steam turbine power plant. This made it necessary to locate the dining rooms and galleys one deck higher than usual, and separated from the ship's main working passage. No passenger corridors passed through the area reserved for a reactor, which meant the forward and rear passenger-accessible sections on the lowest decks were entirely separated from each other.

 

I wonder if QM2 could be rebuilt for nuclear propulsion. Presumably, in half a century, technology has made a lot of progress (miniaturisation in particular) to make this technically feasible. Remains to be see if it would make economic sense, but I am more than ever convinced that nuclear propulsion would be the only way to bring high speed crossings back to the North Atlantic.

[Yoshikitty]

If they'd use a nuclear reactor for propulsion - this would be the end of our Cunard journeys!

 

It won't happen because if they'd do, they would put off a large number of their european clientele.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Yoshikitty

[balf]

If they'd use a nuclear reactor for propulsion - this would be the end of our Cunard journeys!

 

It won't happen because if they'd do, they would put off a large number of their european clientele.

 

 

Very true. Though I would be happy to sail on a nuclear ship very many would not. Also it's highly unlikely that Southampton City Council would allow a nuclear cruise ship to dock. It is through gritted teeth that they have to accept Royal Navy nuclear subs.

 

Like the possibility of QM2 returning to the Clyde, very unlikely.

 

David.

[pepperrn]

Cunard are more likely to return to using paddle wheels, than install a nuclear reactor. Pigs will learn to fly before that happens :D .

 

Indeed no commercial ship is ever likely to install nuclear power in the foreseeable future.

One famous ship that did in the past, the NS Savannah, lasted just eight years in service (1964-1972). She was not expected to be a commercial success, more an example of what was possible.

 

However, any future nuclear powered passenger ship, run by a cruise line, would be expected to run in the black, not the red (Savannah carried many more crew, including highly paid, high specialised and expensively trained crew, than a conventional ship of the same size, so I understand)

Three other commercial ships with nuclear reactors were, I think, cargo-only vessels (One was converted to diesel power after ten years in service).

 

The general public are not keen on nuclear power in any form. Radiation burns, long-term cancers, and many films of nuclear bombs exploding during cold-war testing doesn't endear it to people. The first cruise ship with a nuclear reactor would be quite a hard sell... (although, maybe they could charge more for suites furthest from the reactor? ;) )

 

It would be a bit like launching a new modern Airship with Hydrogen as the lifting gas, the film of the Hindenburg disaster is etched into our memories. So that ain't gonna happen either!

 

Added to which, I believe that many ports around the world do not allow/are not keen on nuclear-powered vessels docking. Bit of a issue for any nuclear-powered cruise ship or liner on a world cruise with passengers wanting to do shore excursions, wouldn't you think?

 

Maybe Cunard could tether some of those flying pigs to the bow, and tow Queen Mary 6 or 7 across the Atlantic? ;)

Edited August 30, 2015 by pepperrn

[Yoshikitty]

(although, maybe they could charge more for suites furthest from the reactor? ;) )

 

 

Hahaha, that's brilliant!

[Normandie_Nostalgic]

Stephen Payne was asked the very question, and his answer was:

I firmly believe that sometime in the not too distant future we'll have a nuclear powered cruise ship. We simply just cant keep burning oil on land, in the air and and at sea and nuclear is an obvious alternative choice. There is precedence with commercial and military platforms - a Russian nuclear icebreaker already offers limited cruising opportunities. The technology exists and is proven. The latest Royal Navy submarine has a nuclear reactor the size of a small car that will never need refuelling. The biggest problems will be acceptance by those who travel and the countries the ships will visit. These are huge problems but I am sure solutions will eventually be found. I initiated a forum about this subject at the Royal Academy of Engineering where I am a Fellow and the final report has just been published.

 

One should not underestimate the power of marketing. Disney was able to convince people to spend their holiday at a cold and wet swampland outside Paris, Apple can sell silly watches that people sleep in front of the shop to be the first to buy, ...

 

In Western Europe and in the US, a sizeable portion of the electricity people use comes from nuclear power plants, that are never very far from where people live. Technology advances fast, and people accept it, eventually. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is made of Composite materials, for example. Alternative fuels are being introduced. There are so many things that could 'never' happen, but that did in the end.

 

Planes, cars, trains even are too small for it, but ships can easily be nuclear-powered, with huge and obvious advantages. Yes, there is the safety issue, but today's cruise ships are already very high on security, environmental controls etc. As for the risk tag people take when they travel, nowadays there is a lot more risk of being blown to bits by a bomb laid by religious nut that to be vaporised in a meltdown. As for ports of call giving access, this is a two-way street: if they want the business of those ships, they'd better welcome them. The supersonic airliner Concorde suffered from such environmental ostracism, and could mostly be deployed only between Paris/London and New-York, but it flew for years anyway.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Normandie_Nostalgic

[Austcruiser84]

Stephen Payne was asked the very question, and his answer was:

 

 

One should not underestimate the power of marketing. Disney was able to convince people to spend their holiday at a cold and wet swampland outside Paris, Apple can sell silly watches that people sleep in front of the shop to be the first to buy, ...

 

In Western Europe and in the US, a sizeable portion of the electricity people use comes from nuclear power plants, that are never very far from where people live. Technology advances fast, and people accept it, eventually. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is made of Composite materials, for example. Alternative fuels are being introduced. There are so many things that could 'never' happen, but that did in the end.

 

Planes, cars, trains even are too small for it, but ships can easily be nuclear-powered, with huge and obvious advantages. Yes, there is the safety issue, but today's cruise ships are already very high on security, environmental controls etc. As for the risk tag people take when they travel, nowadays there is a lot more risk of being blown to bits by a bomb laid by religious nut that to be vaporised in a meltdown. As for ports of call giving access, this is a two-way street: if they want the business of those ships, they'd better welcome them. The supersonic airliner Concorde suffered from such environmental ostracism, and could mostly be deployed only between Paris/London and New-York, but it flew for years anyway.

 

It's the last point made that makes nuclear powered cruise ships unlikely. Many countries have bans or restrictions on nuclear ships. I doubt that will change until a day comes when (or if) nuclear energy is made even safer than it already is.

 

What's more likely is that cruise ships will move to burning bio fuels in the next decade or two. The airline manufacturers are already looking to bio fuel to reduce petroleum consumption - the biggest cost factor for the airlines. So, it makes sense that the cruise sector will also pursue this form of fuelling their vessels.

 

I also wouldn't be surprised if solar power is incorporated onto smaller ships in a limited way, and possibly even to supplement general power on bigger ships.

[Normandie_Nostalgic]

Solar power, Biofuels, yep, possibly. However, that matter is far from obvious. There is the matter of carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, ... It even may require convincing a few billion humans to go without food, (the "food vs fuel" debate).

 

That sounds like quite a lot more trouble than a nice, safe, clean, nuclear reactor the size of a car, as Stephen Payne had mentioned.

 

There is always the alternative to revert to sail power. That would be nice too. Clean and quiet, romantic even. And it is manpower-intensive, which would create many more jobs. These new crew members might even get a special compulsory eco-tip.

[pepperrn]

There is always the alternative to revert to sail power. That would be nice too. Clean and quiet, romantic even.

At least, unlike the unreliable wind (people currently want to know at what minute they'll reach a scheduled port-of-call, not be unsure of which week they'll arrive), my tethered flying pigs could be trained to ensure the ship arrives on time :D .

And it is manpower-intensive, which would create many more jobs. These new crew members might even get a special compulsory eco-tip.

Will there be a queue at the Purser's Desk on embarkation day so I can have this tip removed from my account? ;) .

 

:)

Edited August 30, 2015 by pepperrn

[TheOldBear]

About nuclear propulsion for Ocean Liners:

I just found out that the Italian Line had made provision for converting their Leonardo da Vinci to nuclear propulsion by 1965. They obviously did not do that in the end, and the ship was withdrawn when essential state subsidies were removed, but apparently the technical feasibility was entirely there from the start.

 

As per Wikipedia:

 

 

I wonder if QM2 could be rebuilt for nuclear propulsion. Presumably, in half a century, technology has made a lot of progress (miniaturisation in particular) to make this technically feasible. Remains to be see if it would make economic sense, but I am more than ever convinced that nuclear propulsion would be the only way to bring high speed crossings back to the North Atlantic.

 

There was a paper study I recall [uS Naval Institute Proceedings magazine] about a 'pebble bed' reactor design sized to replace a standard LM2500 gas turbine module. If such a module could be built, and the much more difficult task of license for operation is completed, then nuke power would become a possibility. [Then again, according to Back to the Future, we should have a working 'Mr Fusion' reactor in common use :) ]

[candhu18]

I agree with Stephen Payne when he states that: "I firmly believe that sometime in the not too distant future we'll have a nuclear powered cruise ship." Not fision reactors as we have today producing power on land and in submarines, but fusion reactors that are in a very advanced design state. See here: http://www.sciencealert.com/mit-researchers-have-designed-a-simple-fusion-reactor-that-could-be-running-in-10-years for some more details. Fusion reactors don't blowup and release harmful radiation. In the unlikely event that the plasma has to be vented then radiation would be present; that requires a solution.

[Yoshikitty]

 

That sounds like quite a lot more trouble than a nice, safe, clean, nuclear reactor the size of a car, as Stephen Payne had mentioned.

 

 

Sustainabke, safe,clean and nuclear reactors don't really go together well.

[Kamloops50]

There was a paper study I recall [uS Naval Institute Proceedings magazine] about a 'pebble bed' reactor design sized to replace a standard LM2500 gas turbine module. If such a module could be built, and the much more difficult task of license for operation is completed, then nuke power would become a possibility. [Then again, according to Back to the Future, we should have a working 'Mr Fusion' reactor in common use :) ]

 

I think the Germans are trying to make "Pebble Bed technology Reactors " for commercial use . They have made made a few small ones for testing purposes.

The USN on the carrier named after President Ford (CVN78) uses a new , smaller and more efficient nuclear reactor on board.

[pepperrn]

... That sounds like quite a lot more trouble than a nice, safe, clean, nuclear reactor the size of a car, as Stephen Payne had mentioned. ...

The problem with Nuclear Power is that it may be the logical choice for the good reasons you mention, but we humans aren't logical. We have prejudices and often bring emotional arguments against some things.

Indeed even when we know that some things are better or more logical, we go our own way and do our own thing. Maddening creatures that we are.

 

Quite illogically some have fears and anxieties about certain things that others often find quite trivial.

Many people will not fly, yet flying is the safest form of transport.

People are scared of sharks, yet many, many more people are killed by lightning each year. And your chances of drowning are even greater, yet many think nothing of swimming in the sea or river, or pools without lifeguards etc.

The Zeppelin company did not, I believe, lose a single passenger until those 13 passengers died on the Hindenburg, yet airships, even when filled with helium, are still compared in the public mind with the giant airship of the 30s.

Someone I know won't go on any ship, of any size, "because ships sink".

 

Nuclear power may be "safe" and "clean" (at least at point of use), but it is still the ultimate terror, the silent killer. As you cannot see, feel, hear, taste or smell radiation (unlike many other killers) this simply adds to the terror as you don't know you're being damaged as it happens.

In the public's mind it is linked to slow painful deaths from cancer-inducing radioactivity.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima etc are just some of the names that will live long in the world's collective memory.

It is linked to nuclear weapons, war, the arms race.

So despite all the many advantages it brings compared to other forms of power generation as you say, it could be many, many generations until that mindset changes, if ever.

 

And besides which, you don't need a funnel on a nuclear ship, and where would Cunard be without a nice big orange and black funnel? ;)

Edited August 30, 2015 by pepperrn

[candhu18]

And besides which, you don't need a funnel on a nuclear ship, and where would Cunard be without a nice big orange and black funnel? ;)

 

Carnival might use a fusion reactor, with the space saved in engine room add an ice rink; keep the funnel and use as a climbing wall with zip line. Not sure I like your thinking on that pepperrn.

[Rotterdam]

And if Carnival had not bought Cunard there would be no active, true ocean liner in service today. QE2 would certainly be finished by now. Those who would sail on her anywhere are not getting any younger. And newer generations are not content with ocean views.

 

After sailing in QE2 several times & QM2 several times I would rather a cruise on QE2 over QM2. The QE2 was just spectacular in every way & sailed so beautifully no matter the weather. QM2 was nice, more of a floating mall w/ bigger everything. Plus there was no longer a choice of QE2, France , Italian or American Line ships to choose from - QM2 is the only game in town.

 

I may not be getting any younger but I'm not dead yet & I have more time & money to spend on travel( I was in my mid teens the first time I was on an ocean liner).

 

Anyone that sailed in the good old days knows what quality is...the food & service were top knotch...now its more like floating Sheraton Hotels attached to a mall! On QE2 we would be up all night & it wasn't uncommon to see people in the morning still in their evening clothes from the night before after closing down the Chart Room and having drinks on the promenade deck...thankfully the stewards would have the bloody marys ready for us!!!! I would take my small Deck One cabin on QE2 over any suite on QM2 anyday.

[Normandie_Nostalgic]

Nuclear power may be "safe" and "clean" (at least at point of use), but it is still the ultimate terror, the silent killer. As you cannot see, feel, hear, taste or smell radiation (unlike many other killers) this simply adds to the terror as you don't know you're being damaged as it happens.

In the public's mind it is linked to slow painful deaths from cancer-inducing radioactivity.

 

Considering the demographics of the Cunard following, many passengers should not really worry too much about a slow death by radiations...

 

We all already took more radiations just from breathing the air of Chernobyl than any crew member of any nuclear-powered ship, bar those few that had accidents.

 

It is all a matter of perception. And perception can change, and can be changed, not overnight, but definitely faster than most people would imagine possible. Once upon a time it was perfectly okay for people to smoke everywhere in public. Now it is not so anymore. It was cool to drive fast, not to wear a safety belt. It was quite okay to have black people sit at the back of buses, to pay women less than men for the same job, etc. Now we have same-sex marriage, assisted procreation, ... and everybody finds that jolly good.

 

The times they are a-changin, as they say.

[Jim Avery]

After sailing in QE2 several times & QM2 several times I would rather a cruise on QE2 over QM2. The QE2 was just spectacular in every way & sailed so beautifully no matter the weather. QM2 was nice, more of a floating mall w/ bigger everything. Plus there was no longer a choice of QE2, France , Italian or American Line ships to choose from - QM2 is the only game in town.

 

I may not be getting any younger but I'm not dead yet & I have more time & money to spend on travel( I was in my mid teens the first time I was on an ocean liner).

 

Anyone that sailed in the good old days knows what quality is...the food & service were top knotch...now its more like floating Sheraton Hotels attached to a mall! On QE2 we would be up all night & it wasn't uncommon to see people in the morning still in their evening clothes from the night before after closing down the Chart Room and having drinks on the promenade deck...thankfully the stewards would have the bloody marys ready for us!!!! I would take my small Deck One cabin on QE2 over any suite on QM2 anyday.

 

You have hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head.:D:D

[pepperrn]

... The times they are a-changin, as they say.

Clearly we aren't going to agree on this :) .

 

Tell you what, I'll buy you several drinks in the observation bar of the next nuclear-powered cruise ship that enters service, and willingly conceed defeat :)

 

Best wishes to you :)

[balf]

 

 

 

, and where would Cunard be without a nice big orange and black funnel? ;)

 

 

Sailing under the Bridge of the Americas?

 

David

[BlueRiband]

Sailing under the Bridge of the Americas?

 

David

 

Interesting point. With no funnel a ship could also be two decks higher and still slide under the Verrazano Narrows bridge into New York. It's something to ask our favorite naval architect. With no funnel - as was the case with NS Savannah - would would now be the exterior Cunard signature?

[Jim Avery]

Interesting point. With no funnel a ship could also be two decks higher and still slide under the Verrazano Narrows bridge into New York. It's something to ask our favorite naval architect. With no funnel - as was the case with NS Savannah - would would now be the exterior Cunard signature?

 

A Cunard Red Racing Stripe???:D

[pepperrn]

A Cunard Red Racing Stripe???:D

Well a red/gold/blue one was tried once previously (in 1994), that didn't last more than a few years however... Edited August 30, 2015 by pepperrn

[Jim Avery]

Well a red/gold/blue one was tried once previously (in 1994), that didn't last more than a few years however...

 

I actually liked that look on QE2 but it was, I understand, quite a maintenance headache. Disappeared quickly, didn't it?:D

[Jim Avery]

About nuclear propulsion for Ocean Liners:

I just found out that the Italian Line had made provision for converting their Leonardo da Vinci to nuclear propulsion by 1965. They obviously did not do that in the end, and the ship was withdrawn when essential state subsidies were removed, but apparently the technical feasibility was entirely there from the start.

 

As per Wikipedia:

 

 

I wonder if QM2 could be rebuilt for nuclear propulsion. Presumably, in half a century, technology has made a lot of progress (miniaturisation in particular) to make this technically feasible. Remains to be see if it would make economic sense, but I am more than ever convinced that nuclear propulsion would be the only way to bring high speed crossings back to the North Atlantic.

 

Fuel is not the only factor in slowing down podded ships. What is not spoken of much is that pods have not proven very durable when used at or near top speeds. The traditional shaft/propeller is much more long lived and involves less maintenance than pods but, unfortunately, takes up valuable interior spaces that the cruise lines have come to love the revenue from:D.