5 ms·

The article addresses this in the paragraph containing the line "...these powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real issue lie

The article addresses this in the paragraph containing the line "...these powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real issue lies with the heavy fuel oil...lack of regulations applied to the giant exhaust stacks" Have you ever been stuck behind a car with a broken exhaust system? The amount of pollution coming out of such a car is surprising, and that's with relatively clean gasoline. "But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use." [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...] I'm not saying you're wrong. 50 million does seem high, but there are other factors. A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost.

wolfgke 11y ago
> A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost. I rather assume the risk of terrorism.
- michaelwww 11y ago
  Yes, that's probably it. Cargo ships could be a good use case for thorium reactors. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-fu...
- XorNot 11y ago
  This is not a serious risk. You could easily armor the reactor module to resist any amount of pirate weaponry, and rig it so when damaged it just drops to the bottom of the ocean intact. Getting into it isn't a threat either: terrorists aren't going to be plasma torching into a reactor and surviving long enough to do anything.
  - scrumper 11y ago
    Incomplete thinking. What about land-based fuel handling - creation, storage, transport, delivery? What about waste processing? The attack surface isn't just the ship.
    - wolfgke 11y ago
      Exactly what I meant.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
radiorental 11y ago
"I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered." A combination of cost and environmental concerns; 'The ship that totally failed to change the world" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159
jacquesm 11y ago
> Have you ever been stuck behind a car with a broken exhaust system? The amount of pollution coming out of such a car is surprising, and that's with relatively clean gasoline. For a diesel engine (which is the subject here) that has very little to do with the exhaust system but usually everything to do with the engine (and more specifically, the injectors) itself. Relatively clean gasoline only pollutes more when the catalytic converter isn't working properly but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference without a measurement. So if you see 'clouds of smoke' coming from a car that's either a badly injecting diesel (droplets too large to combust) or a gasoline engine that is burning engine oil. The exhaust system is 'not guilty' in either case.
omginternets 11y ago
>I suppose it is the cost. I think it has more to do with the obvious safety concerns. Yes, nuclear power is quite safe in capable hands (e.g. the Navy), but I don't trust a private shipping enterprise not to cut costs on things like control rods.
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  Private nuclear power plants are heavily regulated. At the moment, a nuclear ship would only be in the hands of the largest shippers in the world, so I can't see why an international agreement couldn't be reached to monitor and allow docking between several seaports.
  - nradov 11y ago
    What happens when a Somali pirate captures the ship between seaports?
    - unethical_ban 11y ago
      Have armed escorts on/around the ship. I didn't say it would be a simple thing.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I'd trust Maersk to do this; they're the largest shipping company in the world, and are very forward environmentally. Get the cost of those Thorium reactors down.
- RockyMcNuts 11y ago
  no s*. Ships are loosely unregulated, flying flags of convenience, crewed by workers from all over the world making a pittance, risking the occasional front falling off. Getting a cubic meter from China to the US for $65 or whatever the cost is doesn't allow a big budget for nuclear power plant engineers, fueling and decommissioning costs. Until there's a safe, cheap and convenient Mr. Fusion, powering your ship owned by a Greek billionaire, registered in Liberia, and with a crew from the Philippines, y'all cannot be serious to put nukes on there. If this is the quality of thinking in the startup community I recommend sticking to apps and virtual reality.
ceejayoz 11y ago
> A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. Even the Navy only uses nuclear power sparingly - you won't find it in destroyers, supply ships, etc. Given the regulatory nightmare and costs around civilian nuclear power plants I really can't imagine nuclear freighters being feasible.
- michaelwww 11y ago
  Gas turbines are better suited for small ships like frigates, because the engines can be started and stopped more easily. You can't start a nuclear power plant quickly. The reactor for the sub I was on was rarely shutdown and would remain hot during port calls in a standby state. Nuclear is really ideal for large ships that need a huge amount of energy to run, like carriers, ice breakers and someday cargo ships - the article that radiorental shared [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159] holds out hope for cargo ships. Chinese developers have plans for another canal through Nicaragua, because the ships they want to build won't fit through The Panama Canal. I'd bet the Chinese builders are considering the nuclear option.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  Nuclear power was widely used for surface combatants in the Cold War-I think they were victims of the general cost cutting of the 1970s. Certainly, in a peak oil centric world, having more nuclear powered ships might seem to be more of an asset. The last surface non aircraft carrier nukes were the Virginia class CGNs, launched in the late 70s.
a3n 11y ago
Imagine the costs of maintaining and operating a nuclear ship, compared to the relative ease of making a big floaty box and dropping the cheapest "efficient" engine you can into it. You could push those things out the door pretty regularly, and get anyone to turn the key and push it around. Just the regulations involved with manufacturing and fueling probably makes nuclear cargo ships an economic impossibility, forget about running them across the ocean.
knodi123 11y ago
> I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost. Cost is certainly a factor, but safety and non-proliferation are also huge factors. Nuclear reactors are amazing pieces of technology, and we definitely don't want to give them out as freely as we do diesel engines. You're a former navy nuke technician - do you think you have more expertise than the average roustabout on a freighter? Is that expertise important? Is there an opportunity for disaster if an untrained everyday joe successfully bluffed his way into your job?

wolfgke 11y ago

> A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost. I rather assume the risk of terrorism.

michaelwww 11y ago
Yes, that's probably it. Cargo ships could be a good use case for thorium reactors. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-fu...
XorNot 11y ago
This is not a serious risk. You could easily armor the reactor module to resist any amount of pirate weaponry, and rig it so when damaged it just drops to the bottom of the ocean intact. Getting into it isn't a threat either: terrorists aren't going to be plasma torching into a reactor and surviving long enough to do anything.
- scrumper 11y ago
  Incomplete thinking. What about land-based fuel handling - creation, storage, transport, delivery? What about waste processing? The attack surface isn't just the ship.
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    Exactly what I meant.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

radiorental 11y ago

"I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered." A combination of cost and environmental concerns; 'The ship that totally failed to change the world" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159

jacquesm 11y ago

> Have you ever been stuck behind a car with a broken exhaust system? The amount of pollution coming out of such a car is surprising, and that's with relatively clean gasoline. For a diesel engine (which is the subject here) that has very little to do with the exhaust system but usually everything to do with the engine (and more specifically, the injectors) itself. Relatively clean gasoline only pollutes more when the catalytic converter isn't working properly but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference without a measurement. So if you see 'clouds of smoke' coming from a car that's either a badly injecting diesel (droplets too large to combust) or a gasoline engine that is burning engine oil. The exhaust system is 'not guilty' in either case.

omginternets 11y ago

>I suppose it is the cost. I think it has more to do with the obvious safety concerns. Yes, nuclear power is quite safe in capable hands (e.g. the Navy), but I don't trust a private shipping enterprise not to cut costs on things like control rods.

unethical_ban 11y ago
Private nuclear power plants are heavily regulated. At the moment, a nuclear ship would only be in the hands of the largest shippers in the world, so I can't see why an international agreement couldn't be reached to monitor and allow docking between several seaports.
- nradov 11y ago
  What happens when a Somali pirate captures the ship between seaports?
  - unethical_ban 11y ago
    Have armed escorts on/around the ship. I didn't say it would be a simple thing.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I'd trust Maersk to do this; they're the largest shipping company in the world, and are very forward environmentally. Get the cost of those Thorium reactors down.
RockyMcNuts 11y ago
no s*. Ships are loosely unregulated, flying flags of convenience, crewed by workers from all over the world making a pittance, risking the occasional front falling off. Getting a cubic meter from China to the US for $65 or whatever the cost is doesn't allow a big budget for nuclear power plant engineers, fueling and decommissioning costs. Until there's a safe, cheap and convenient Mr. Fusion, powering your ship owned by a Greek billionaire, registered in Liberia, and with a crew from the Philippines, y'all cannot be serious to put nukes on there. If this is the quality of thinking in the startup community I recommend sticking to apps and virtual reality.

ceejayoz 11y ago

> A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. Even the Navy only uses nuclear power sparingly - you won't find it in destroyers, supply ships, etc. Given the regulatory nightmare and costs around civilian nuclear power plants I really can't imagine nuclear freighters being feasible.

michaelwww 11y ago
Gas turbines are better suited for small ships like frigates, because the engines can be started and stopped more easily. You can't start a nuclear power plant quickly. The reactor for the sub I was on was rarely shutdown and would remain hot during port calls in a standby state. Nuclear is really ideal for large ships that need a huge amount of energy to run, like carriers, ice breakers and someday cargo ships - the article that radiorental shared [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28439159] holds out hope for cargo ships. Chinese developers have plans for another canal through Nicaragua, because the ships they want to build won't fit through The Panama Canal. I'd bet the Chinese builders are considering the nuclear option.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Nuclear power was widely used for surface combatants in the Cold War-I think they were victims of the general cost cutting of the 1970s. Certainly, in a peak oil centric world, having more nuclear powered ships might seem to be more of an asset. The last surface non aircraft carrier nukes were the Virginia class CGNs, launched in the late 70s.

a3n 11y ago

Imagine the costs of maintaining and operating a nuclear ship, compared to the relative ease of making a big floaty box and dropping the cheapest "efficient" engine you can into it. You could push those things out the door pretty regularly, and get anyone to turn the key and push it around. Just the regulations involved with manufacturing and fueling probably makes nuclear cargo ships an economic impossibility, forget about running them across the ocean.

knodi123 11y ago

> I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost. Cost is certainly a factor, but safety and non-proliferation are also huge factors. Nuclear reactors are amazing pieces of technology, and we definitely don't want to give them out as freely as we do diesel engines. You're a former navy nuke technician - do you think you have more expertise than the average roustabout on a freighter? Is that expertise important? Is there an opportunity for disaster if an untrained everyday joe successfully bluffed his way into your job?