3 ms·
"The objections against nuclear-powered ships are numerous and well-founded. It could be catastrophic if any of them sank or leaked waste into the sea. Terroris
by 5555624 11y ago
"The objections against nuclear-powered ships are numerous and well-founded. It could be catastrophic if any of them sank or leaked waste into the sea. Terrorists could find few targets more enticing. They’re a nightmare to insure. There are few ports with facilities that can accept nuclear waste and offer refueling services. And it seems unlikely that the public would accept them any time soon; consider that both the Russian and the Japanese ships encountered popular opposition that wouldn’t allow them to dock."
(https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/)
Discussed a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10664819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10664819
- gadders 11y agoThanks for the link. I'll take a read :-)
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIt's important to consider them in context though. The very same article states: "More importantly, consider its effects on pollution. Just 15 of the world’s biggest ships may emit as much pollution as all the world’s cars. Nuclear-powered ships emit no CO2 or greenhouse gas. Replacing just a few of the biggest ships with nuclear reactors would make a significant dent in air and ocean pollution." Given what kind of fuel current ships burn, I wouldn't be surprised if the damage to the ecosystem of such sheap leaking or sinking would be much greater than of nuclear-powered ones (people like to forget that nuclear waste is less dangerous than many of the chemicals industry deals with, and dumps into the environment without much supervision). I still feel that the opposition is mostly grounded in public's unfounded fears.
- ksec 11y agoWow, that is a lot, I wonder if there could be some innovation done. Although that numbers sounds suspiciously large.