7 ms·

The solution is nuclear-powered ships.

rndgermandude 7y ago
It's hard enough to secure nuclear power plants. Now imagine a swimming one blew up (by accident, or deliberately) in some water highway, like the street of hormuz, and cause a traffic stop for weeks or even months.
- aledalgrande 7y ago
  If Thorium reactors ever get completed... this won't be a problem.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Nine nuclear submarines have sunk so far. They did not release significant amounts of radiation. Sinking a reactor generally does not lead to compromise of the containment, singe pressures are higher in the reactor as compared to its surroundings. Sinking reduces the pressure gradient. One would probably have to puncture the reactor to experience a catastrophic event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari...
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    Like you said: The submarines sunk. The reactors did not blow up. Now think about what happens when one on a container ship actually blows up (e.g. because the ship was attacked to make it blow up), and also consider the different scale of a container ship to a nuclear sub, which of course means you need a different size reactor.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Probably the same thing as what happens when an aircraft carrier blows up. Actually, probably less violent because aircraft carriers are also carrying jet fuel and ordnance. And we send those into warzones, nobody seems to mind.
dredmorbius 7y ago
There are between 60,000 and 80,000 commercial cargo vessels worldwide. About 100-200 sink every decade. Nuclear power as a routine matter in commercial shipping is unlikely to be widespread.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Hundreds of nuclear powered military vessels have been built. Several have sunk. There has been no environmental disaster so far, and there doesn't seem to be much concern over putting nuclear reactors on vessels that are likely to shot at and bombed. Nuclear powered merchant ships have been built, but mostly as a tech demonstration [1]. There will never be a solar or battery powered transoceanic cargo ship. The energy density is nowhere near that of hydrocarbons. There is some speculation about liquid hydrogen powered vessels, but at that point one could feasibly argue that nuclear is the safer option. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    I am well aware. It's really not tractable. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c52ll/shipping_and_safety_the_nuclear_option/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c52ll/shippin... Wind is a proven solar-derived marine power system. Used commercially through the 1950s.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Wind doesn't move nearly as much cargo as compared to self-propelled craft. It's true that throughout the 18th and 19th century industrialized nations used wind power to move cargo, but I doubt people are going to be willing to revert to 18th and 19th century standards of living. Global commerce is built on cheap long distance transport, and any climate solution that involves eliminating or drastically reducing global commerce is a long winded way of saying "no solution".
      - dredmorbius 7y ago

It's hard enough to secure nuclear power plants. Now imagine a swimming one blew up (by accident, or deliberately) in some water highway, like the street of hormuz, and cause a traffic stop for weeks or even months.

aledalgrande 7y ago
If Thorium reactors ever get completed... this won't be a problem.
manfredo 7y ago
Nine nuclear submarines have sunk so far. They did not release significant amounts of radiation. Sinking a reactor generally does not lead to compromise of the containment, singe pressures are higher in the reactor as compared to its surroundings. Sinking reduces the pressure gradient. One would probably have to puncture the reactor to experience a catastrophic event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari...
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  Like you said: The submarines sunk. The reactors did not blow up. Now think about what happens when one on a container ship actually blows up (e.g. because the ship was attacked to make it blow up), and also consider the different scale of a container ship to a nuclear sub, which of course means you need a different size reactor.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Probably the same thing as what happens when an aircraft carrier blows up. Actually, probably less violent because aircraft carriers are also carrying jet fuel and ordnance. And we send those into warzones, nobody seems to mind.

dredmorbius 7y ago

There are between 60,000 and 80,000 commercial cargo vessels worldwide. About 100-200 sink every decade. Nuclear power as a routine matter in commercial shipping is unlikely to be widespread.

manfredo 7y ago
Hundreds of nuclear powered military vessels have been built. Several have sunk. There has been no environmental disaster so far, and there doesn't seem to be much concern over putting nuclear reactors on vessels that are likely to shot at and bombed. Nuclear powered merchant ships have been built, but mostly as a tech demonstration [1]. There will never be a solar or battery powered transoceanic cargo ship. The energy density is nowhere near that of hydrocarbons. There is some speculation about liquid hydrogen powered vessels, but at that point one could feasibly argue that nuclear is the safer option. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  I am well aware. It's really not tractable. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c52ll/shipping_and_safety_the_nuclear_option/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c52ll/shippin... Wind is a proven solar-derived marine power system. Used commercially through the 1950s.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Wind doesn't move nearly as much cargo as compared to self-propelled craft. It's true that throughout the 18th and 19th century industrialized nations used wind power to move cargo, but I doubt people are going to be willing to revert to 18th and 19th century standards of living. Global commerce is built on cheap long distance transport, and any climate solution that involves eliminating or drastically reducing global commerce is a long winded way of saying "no solution".
    - dredmorbius 7y ago