3 ms·

Forgive my ignorance, but couldn't nuclear power be used to generate electricity on these tankers in the same way its used to power submarines?

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
Yes it can. Check out the Russian Sevmorput.[1] It is the only active nuclear powered merchant ship in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
Someone1234 8y ago
Nobody sane would give civilians in a poorly regulated sector nuclear fuel and expect them to operate a generator safely. It is even debatable if the US using nuclear power on their subs/warships is wise. It is great for natural disasters relief (mobile power plant) but terrifying if the US ever loses one.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The US has lost several, as have the Soviets and Russians.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    92 lost nuclear warheads including one near Seattle/Vancouver, one near New York and one near Miami (https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bombs/ https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bom...)
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Just for clarification its not anywhere near Miami (that is a small map graphic). It is right off the coast of Savannah, GA. There have been numerous books written about it and there is a wikipedia page about it.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        Yep, you're absolutely right. I'd heard about the other two, I just assumed the third even though it’s listed in my link X_x
    - mikeash 8y ago
      It's worth noting that, as long as they don't explode (or get stolen), a lost nuclear warhead is pretty benign. They contain a relatively small amount (a few dozen pounds) of low-activity nuclear material and it all tends to stay together. A reactor contains way more material, probably several tons at least. If it's been operating, it contains lots of nasty, highly-radioactive fission and decay products. Reactors also like to go all melty and sometimes (non-nuclear) explodey when they fail, although I suspect that's less of a factor when it's underwater.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    You're right[0]. Terrifying. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#Accidents_involving_naval_nuclear-powered_vessels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#Accidents_involvi...
    - mikeash 8y ago
      If you must dump an operating nuclear reactor somewhere with no supervision, at least the deep ocean is a pretty good place to do it. I mean, far better not to do it at all, but it could be worse....
nradov 8y ago
Nuclear power plants on land could be used to generate power for producing synthetic hydrocarbons, which would in turn be used for powering ships. But putting nuclear reactors on merchant ships is totally impractical for security reasons.
- caf 8y ago
  This is true. Naval reactors need to be relatively small and light, which means that they end up using HEU fuel, which is a security risk.

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago

Yes it can. Check out the Russian Sevmorput.[1] It is the only active nuclear powered merchant ship in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput

Someone1234 8y ago

Nobody sane would give civilians in a poorly regulated sector nuclear fuel and expect them to operate a generator safely. It is even debatable if the US using nuclear power on their subs/warships is wise. It is great for natural disasters relief (mobile power plant) but terrifying if the US ever loses one.

mikeash 8y ago
The US has lost several, as have the Soviets and Russians.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  92 lost nuclear warheads including one near Seattle/Vancouver, one near New York and one near Miami (https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bombs/ https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bom...)
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Just for clarification its not anywhere near Miami (that is a small map graphic). It is right off the coast of Savannah, GA. There have been numerous books written about it and there is a wikipedia page about it.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Yep, you're absolutely right. I'd heard about the other two, I just assumed the third even though it’s listed in my link X_x
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It's worth noting that, as long as they don't explode (or get stolen), a lost nuclear warhead is pretty benign. They contain a relatively small amount (a few dozen pounds) of low-activity nuclear material and it all tends to stay together. A reactor contains way more material, probably several tons at least. If it's been operating, it contains lots of nasty, highly-radioactive fission and decay products. Reactors also like to go all melty and sometimes (non-nuclear) explodey when they fail, although I suspect that's less of a factor when it's underwater.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  You're right[0]. Terrifying. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#Accidents_involving_naval_nuclear-powered_vessels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#Accidents_involvi...
  - mikeash 8y ago
    If you must dump an operating nuclear reactor somewhere with no supervision, at least the deep ocean is a pretty good place to do it. I mean, far better not to do it at all, but it could be worse....

nradov 8y ago

Nuclear power plants on land could be used to generate power for producing synthetic hydrocarbons, which would in turn be used for powering ships. But putting nuclear reactors on merchant ships is totally impractical for security reasons.

caf 8y ago
This is true. Naval reactors need to be relatively small and light, which means that they end up using HEU fuel, which is a security risk.