In November 2010 British Maritime Technology and Lloyd's Register embarked upon a two-year study with US-based Hyperion Power Generation (now Gen4 Energy), and the Greek ship operator Enterprises Shipping and Trading SA to investigate the practical maritime applications for small modular reactors. The research intended to produce a concept tanker-ship design, based on a 70 MWt reactor such as Hyperion's. In response to its members' interest in nuclear propulsion, Lloyd's Register has also re-written its 'rules' for nuclear ships, which concern the integration of a reactor certified by a land-based regulator with the rest of the ship. The overall rationale of the rule-making process assumes that in contrast to the current marine industry practice where the designer/builder typically demonstrates compliance with regulatory requirements, in the future the nuclear regulators will wish to ensure that it is the operator of the nuclear plant that demonstrates safety in operation, in addition to the safety through design and construction.

Nuclear ships are currently the responsibility of their own countries, but none are involved in international trade. As a result of this work in 2014 two papers on commercial nuclear marine propulsion were published by Lloyd's Register and the other members of this consortium.[6][7] These publications review past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear propulsion and describe a preliminary concept design study for a 155,000 dwt Suezmax tanker that is based on a conventional hull form with alternative arrangements for accommodating a 70 MWt nuclear propulsion plant delivering up to 23.5 MW shaft power at maximum continuous rating (average: 9.75 MW). The Gen4Energy power module is considered. This is a small fast-neutron reactor using lead-bismuth eutectic cooling and able to operate for ten full-power years before refueling, and in service last for a 25-year operational life of the vessel. They conclude that the concept is feasible, but further maturity of nuclear technology and the development and harmonisation of the regulatory framework would be necessary before the concept would be viable.

could you provide some source material for said reactor and possibly the article you cut the quote from?

This sounds interesting, I might work on something for this, but I have to say one thing: nuclear ships, with enough power for their entire service life, will most likely not be streamlined or otherwise made super fancy.....

Wow. Where do I begin?

1. Engineering wise, there is this:

• a. corrosion

• b. toxicity

• c. terrorism

And where will you recruit a ship's crew to operate a piece of untested highly experimental machinery, that from the descriptions I read, makes a Fukushima reactor (GE light water reactors that some engineers who looked at the upside down lightbulb containment design considered very unsafe) look simple and safe? Be aware that Hyperion and Sandia have been working on that concept since 1998 and it is still not considered man-rated safe.

What is your point? I know the pros and cons of LFRs, as do the engineers who design and seek to build them. The sole point of bringing up the Russian example (which is relatively primitive 60s tech and would be far inferior to a 2010s Western design) was that they can work, and that the Gen4 proposal isn't as out-there as the previous UH3 one from the 90s.

So far I haven't seen anything that would compel me to abandon the use of an LFR, just engineering challenges to be overcome in an AU design that hasn't even been drawn yet.