Download Locations

• Open CRS (User submitted)

Summary

Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface ships, including the Navy's planned CG(X) cruiser. Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008) makes it U.S. policy to construct the major combatant ships of the Navy, including the CG(X), with integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest. The Navy has studied nuclear power as a design option for the CG(X), but has not yet announced whether it would prefer to build the CG(X) as a nuclear-powered ship. The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget defers the planned procurement of the first CG(X) from FY2011 (the scheduled date under the FY2009 budget) to a year beyond FY2015, most likely FY2017. A 2006 Navy study concluded the following, among other things: • In constant FY2007 dollars, building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $800 million to its procurement cost. • The total life-cycle cost of a nuclear-powered medium-size surface combatant would equal that of a conventionally powered medium-size surface combatant if the cost of crude oil averages $70 per barrel to $225 per barrel over the life of the ship. • Nuclear-power should be considered for near-term applications for medium-size surface combatants. • Compared to conventionally powered ships, nuclear-powered ships have advantages in terms of both time needed to surge to a distant theater of operation for a contingency, and in terms of operational presence (time on station) in the theater of operation. In assessing whether the CG(X) or other future Navy surface ships should be nuclear-powered, Congress may consider a number of issues, including cost, operational effectiveness, ship construction, ship maintenance and repair, crew training, ports calls and forward homeporting, and environmental impact. The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-166 of June 18, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647) states that it "remains committed to the direction of section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110Œ 181), which requires the use of an integrated nuclear propulsion system for the CGN(X) [cruiser]." Section 246 of H.R. 2647 would require DOD to submit to the congressional defense committees a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for Navy surface ships. Section 1012 of the FY2010 defense authorization bill (S. 1390) as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept. 111-35 of July 2, 2009) would repeal Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act. The committee's report states: "The committee expects that the Navy will continue to evaluate the integrated nuclear power alternative for any new class of major surface combatants, but would prefer that any Navy requirements analysis not be skewed toward a particular outcome."

XML