This paper uses qualitative safety analysis to consider the safety merits of a range of auxiliary power generation technologies for military submarine applications. This includes the existing auxiliary power technology (Diesel Generators (DGs)), other forms of internal combustion engines and newer technologies sufficiently mature to be considered for use (Fuel Cells, Stirling engines, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and MESMA – a French named form of submerged Air Independent Propulsion that burns ethanol and O2).
The analysis finds that Internal Combustion Engines present a series of potentially catastrophic hazards to the platform. However, of these DGs are currently the safest option, primarily due to the inherent safety of diesel when compared to other forms of internal combustion fuel, e.g. natural gas.
New technologies present opportunities to significantly improve platform safety, predominantly through the provision of Air Independent Propulsion. However, no technologies are available without hazard: Fuel Cells and Stirling engines score better than Internal Combustion Engines, but present potentially catastrophic hazards due to fuel flammability - noting these hazards have been manageable on other platforms. SMRs present the 'safest' form of auxiliary power generation, but would encounter very severe political and financial costs associated with their development and operation which prevent endorsement as a valid alternative to DGs.
