Congress is debating whether future naval ships should include
nuclear propulsion. The House version of the Defense Authorization
Act of 2008 calls for all future major combatant vessels to be
powered by an integrated nuclear power and propulsion system; the
Senate version does not. While Congress must be careful in
dictating how America's armed forces are resourced, it also has a
constitutional mandate "to provide and maintain a Navy." Although
nuclear-powered ships have higher upfront costs, their many
advantages make a larger nuclear navy critical for protecting
national security interests in the 21st century.
Nuclear Propulsion's Unique
Benefits
As the defense authorization bill is debated, Members of the
House and Senate should consider the following features of nuclear
propulsion:
- Unparalleled Flexibility. A nuclear surface ship brings
optimum capability to bear. A recent study by the Navy found the
nuclear option to be superior to conventional fuels in terms of
surge ability, moving from one theater to another, and staying on
station. Admiral Kirkland Donald, director of the Navy Nuclear
Propulsion Program, said in recent congressional testimony,
"Without the encumbrances of fuel supply logistics, our
nuclear-powered warships can get to areas of interest quicker,
ready to enter the fight, and stay on station longer then their
fossil-fueled counterparts."
- High-Power Density. The high density of nuclear power,
i.e., the amount of volume required to store a given amount of
energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high impact assets
such as jet fuel, small craft, remote-operated and autonomous
vehicles, and weapons. When compared to its conventional
counterpart, a nuclear aircraft carrier can carry twice the amount
of aircraft fuel, 30 percent more weapons, and 300,000 cubic feet
of additional space (which would be taken up by air intakes and
exhaust trunks in gas turbine-powered carriers). This means that
ships can get to station faster and deliver more impact, which will
be critical to future missions. This energy supply is also
necessary for new, power-intensive weapons systems like rail-guns
and directed-energy weapons as well as for the powerful radar that
the Navy envisions.
- Real-Time Response. Only a nuclear ship can change its
mission and respond to a crisis in real-time. On September 11,
2001, the USS Enterprise--then on its way home from
deployment--responded to news of the terrorist attacks by rerouting
and entering the Afghan theater.
- Energy Independence. The armed forces have acknowledged
the vulnerability that comes from being too dependent on foreign
oil. Delores Etter,Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition, said in recent congressional
testimony, "[We] take seriously the strategic implications of
increased fossil fuel independence." The Navy's use of nuclear
propulsion for submarines and aircraft carriers already saves 11
million barrels of oil annually. Using nuclear propulsion for all
future major surface combatants will make the Navy more energy
independent.
- Survivability. U.S. forces are becoming more vulnerable
as other nations become more technologically and tactically
sophisticated. Expanding America's nuclear navy is critical to
staying a step ahead of the enemy. A nuclear ship has no exhaust
stack, decreasing its visibility to enemy detection; it requires no
fuel supply line, assuring its ability to maneuver over long
distances; and it produces large amounts of electricity, allowing
it to power massive radars and new hi-tech weaponry.
- Force Enhancement. Though effective, modern aircraft
carriers still depend on less capable fossil-fueled counterparts in
the battle group. Increasing the number of nuclear surface ships
would increase the capability of U.S. naval forces to operate both
independently and as part of a battle-group.
- Superiority on the Seas. Policymakers have taken for
granted the United States' superiority on the seas for many years.
This has led to a decline in America's overall naval force
structure and opened the door for foreign navies to potentially
control critical blue-water regions. Expanding the nuclear navy
will allow the United States to maintain its maritime superiority
well into the 21st century.
- Environmentally Clean Source of Energy. Congress is
considering placing CO2 restrictions on all federal government
activities, including the Pentagon's. This mandate would be highly
detrimental to the armed forces. More people are starting to
realize the often-overlooked environmental benefits of a nuclear
navy. Expanding nuclear power would help to achieve many of the
objectives of a CO2 mandate in addition to increasing America's
military capability. Unlike a conventionally powered ship, which
emits carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, a
nuclear ship is largely emissions-free.
America's Nuclear Shipbuilding Industrial Base
Some have erroneously argued that America's industrial base is
inadequate to support a nuclear cruiser. Additional nuclear
shipbuilding can not only be absorbed by the current industrial
base but also will allow it to work more efficiently. That said,
Congress could consider the option of expanding the infrastructure
at a later date by licensing additional nuclear production
facilities and shipyards should further expansion be necessary.
America's shipyards are not operating at full capacity.
Depending on the vendor, product, and service, the industrial base
is currently operating at an average capacity of approximately 65
percent. Additionally, Navy leaders have testified that without
further investments, their training infrastructure is adequate to
handle the influx of additional personnel necessary to support an
expansion of nuclear power.
Construction of additional ships would not be limited to the
nuclear shipbuilding yards. Modules could be produced throughout
the country and assembled at nuclear-certified yards. Another
alternative might be to build the ship in a non-nuclear yard and
then transport it to a nuclear yard where the reactor can be
installed. The work would be spread throughout the aircraft carrier
and submarine industrial bases. Today, the aircraft carrier
industrial base consists of more than 2,000 companies in 47 states.
Likewise, the submarine industrial base consists of more than 4,000
companies in 47 states.
Economic Viability
The Navy recently did a cost analysis of nuclear ships versus
conventionally powered ships. Delores Etter on March 1 said:
[M]edium surface combatants [like cruisers], with their
anticipated high-combat system energy demands, th[e] break-even
point is between $70 and $225 per barrel [of oil]. This indicates
that nuclear power should be considered for near-term applications
for those ships.
At the time of that statement, the price of a barrel of crude
oil was about $65; oil is currently trading at nearly $100 per
barrel. The Navy pegged the cost premium for a nuclear cruiser at
between zero to 10 percent with the oil price at $74.15. That
premium would obviously be much lower with today's prices. Given
that every $10 hike in the price of oil costs the Department of
Defense $1.3 billion, policymakers must consider nuclear propulsion
for future ships.
Furthermore, the Navy's cost comparisons do not even consider
the savings that would result from additional volume going through
under-utilized shipbuilding infrastructure.
Economies of Scale Savings
Increasing construction of nuclear ships and submarines yields
significant cost reductions. For example, increased workloads could
save the Navy 5 percent to 9 percent on propulsion plant component
costs. Building two Virginia-class submarines annually would result
in approximately $200 million in savings per submarine. Adding a
nuclear cruiser every two years to the workload would reduce the
price of other nuclear ship power plants by about 7 percent. This
equates to savings of approximately $115 million for each aircraft
carrier and $35 million for each submarine.
Furthermore, the cost of a nuclear ship includes its life-cycle
costs. While nuclear ships can cost more up front, policymakers
should consider lifetime costs, which include operations and
maintenance, fuel, and decommissioning. Cost-comparison studies
have not considered many of the costs unique to fossil-fueled
ships, such as the cost of protecting fuel supply lines, which the
Navy will protect as primary combat ships or the environmental
costs of emissions.
Correcting Misperceptions About
Nuclear Propulsion
Despite multiple official studies and numerous hours of
congressional testimony, specific misunderstandings continue to
persist about nuclear propulsion. The following facts address these
misperceptions:
- Nuclear propulsion is not an indication of nuclear
weapons. According to Ron O'Rourke, an analyst for the
Congressional Research Service, "A military ship's use of nuclear
power is not an indication of whether it carries nuclear weapons--a
nuclear-powered military ship can lack nuclear weapons, and a
conventionally powered military ship can be armed with nuclear
weapons."
- A shipyard does not have to be nuclear-certified to
contribute to nuclear ship construction. According to Vice
Admiral Sullivan, "[You could] build modules of this ship in
different yards and put it together in a nuclear-certified yard...,
and we do that today with the Virginia Class." Today, approximately
6,000 companies in 47 states contribute to nuclear
shipbuilding.
- The United States has ample experience in nuclear
shipbuilding. The United States has built and operated nine
nuclear-powered cruisers, 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and
nearly 200 nuclear-powered submarines. The Navy's Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program has trained more than 100,000 officers and
technicians.
- Nuclear power is safe. The Navy operates 103 reactor
plants in 81 nuclear-powered ships, the NR-1 submarine, and four
training and test reactors. Over more than half a century, the Navy
has operated for over 5,800 reactor years and steamed over 136
million miles without accident or radioactive release.
- Foreign countries welcome America's nuclear ships into their
ports. U.S. nuclear-powered ships are welcomed into more than
150 ports in more than 50 countries.
- Other countries have nuclear navies. Russia, China, the
United Kingdom, and France all maintain nuclear ships. Other
countries, such as India, are seeking the capability.
Conclusion
With the defense authorization bill, Congress is on the
threshold of making a generational decision on the future of the
Navy. Nuclear-powered ships have a proven record of safety,
cost-effectiveness, and strategic value. With the industrial
capacity already in place, Congress must seriously consider the
unique benefits of providing and maintaining a larger nuclear
navy.
Jack Spencer is Research
Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies,
and Baker Spring is F.M.
Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy for the Kathryn
and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The
Heritage Foundation.