Adams reported in 1996 that the the U/ S. Army Nuclear Power program recognized the potential benefits of putting a nuclear power plant on a water mobile platform in the early 1960s. But nuclear power has been particularly suitable for vessels which needed to be at sea for long periods without refuelling, or for powerful submarine propulsion. Over 140 ships are now powered by more than 180 small nuclear reactors and more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operation has been accumulated.
Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers. In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use. So far, exaggerated , anti-nuclear fears about safety have caused political restriction on some port access (more).
Work on nuclear marine propulsion started in the 1940s, and the first test reactor started up in USA in 1953. The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus, put to sea in 1955. This marked the transition of submarines from slow underwater vessels to warships capable of sustaining 20-25 knots submerged for weeks on end. The submarine had come into its own. Nautilus led to the parallel development of further (Skate-class) submarines, powered by single pressurized water reactors, and an aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, powered by eight Westinghouse reactor units in 1960. A cruiser, USS Long Beach, followed in 1961 and was powered by two of these early units. Remarkably, the Enterprise remained in service to the end of 2012.
By 1962 the US Navy had 26 nuclear submarines operational and 30 under construction. Nuclear power had revolutionized the Navy. The technology was shared with Britain, while French, Russian and Chinese developments proceeded separately. After the Skate-class vessels, reactor development proceeded and in the USA a single series of standardised designs was built by both Westinghouse and GE, one reactor powering each vessel. Rolls Royce built similar units for the UK Royal Navy submarines and then developed the design further to the PWR-2. Russia developed both PWR and lead-bismuth cooled reactor designs, the latter not persisting. Eventually four generations of submarine PWRs were utilized, the last entering service in 1995 in the Severodvinsk class.
In 1963, barge construction was begun on the Sturgis, a World War II vintage Liberty ship hull modified to accept installation of a 10,000 kilowatt pressurized water nuclear steam plant. Designated the MH-1A, (mobile, high-powered, first of a kind, field installation) the generating plant on board the Sturgis provided power to the Panama Canal Zone grid from 1968 to 1975.
The reactor was at that time the most powerful plant in the Army’s small fleet of reactor plants. Unlike the smaller Army reactors, it had a low enriched uranium core. It was also the last one to be decommissioned, since it provided a vital service that was not easily replaced. MH-1A’s power replaced the output of a hydroelectric plant, allowing the water from Gatun Lake to be used to fill Canal locks instead of being used to produce electricity. Stationed in the Canal during the height of the Vietnam War, MH-1A’s contribution to the war effort allowed 2,500 more ships per year to pass through the Canal than would have been possible without her power. Eventually, even the MH-1A became too expensive to maintain. Like all of the Army’s nuclear power plants, it was a one-of-a-kind machine, with a unique set of spare parts, operating procedures and machinery quirks.
It also required a group of highly trained specialists, all of whom required a regular rotation away from the plant in order to continue their Army careers. The burden of maintaining several unique specialties, ensuring adequate training, and keeping a suitable management structure was difficult for one small generating plant to handle on its own merits. Like most nuclear plant retirements, the actual situation that resulted in its retirement was the need for a relatively minor system update that might have been completed had it been one of many plants. If MH-1A had been one of many similar plants, the cost of the planning and design work needed for the job could have been amortized over several units.
Instead of being the forerunner for a series of similar machines, MH-1A has been relegated to the status of historical footnote. Its former operators gather along with the former operators of other Army plants, sharing memories and wondering why their pioneering efforts went for naught. [Now, however, the merits of such a movable nuclear power plant on a barge has been realized to power remote regions in the Arctic, but of course by the Russians and Chinese:
Russia: https://www.apnews.com/208ba688c44c4ff49de735ecb9a3963f
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
