3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoPrivate 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 agoWhat happens when a Somali pirate captures the ship between seaports?
- unethical_ban 11y agoHave armed escorts on/around the ship. I didn't say it would be a simple thing.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI'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 agono 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.