5 ms·

We really don't need this concept to work out in order to have clean shipping. We've had the technology for 70+ years, we just haven't implemented it because oi

We really don't need this concept to work out in order to have clean shipping. We've had the technology for 70+ years, we just haven't implemented it because oil-fired ships are cheaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

berkes 6y ago
Certainly cleaner than oil-powered. But doubtfully cleaner than wind. For wind you don't need mines, and extremely expensive storage facilities. For nuclear power you do. Edit: obviously such a ship needs mining to get the metal to make such a ship, but so does a nuclear ship: after that, the wind-powered ship sails virtually for free forever, whereas the nuclear ship needs a small stream of plutonium in- and a small stream of highly "dirty" waste going out.
- JorgeGT 6y ago
  Consider however that a modern sailship needs a thermal engine for practical and safety reasons: you want to be able to avoid storms, calm periods or inconvenient winds that can make you drift hundreds of miles from your original destination, all of these big problems during the Age of Sail. This is in fact why we abandoned sailing ships for merchant fleets: they run on the Sun's free nuclear fusion energy, but they are very inconvenient! So a modern sail ship will need to use its engine, and therefore I'm not sure they would be cleaner than a nuclear fission ship.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- cbmuser 6y ago
  No ship sails forever. And given the amount of energy you get per kilogramm, nothing beats nuclear which is why the waste stream for anything that is nuclear-powered is extremely small. I‘m also pretty sure that even a sail ship will have fossile-powered backup generators. No one is going to design such a big ship with no additional backup power supply and certainly those aren’t just batteries. I don’t understand why people here still keep coming up with arguments against nuclear when countries with a large share of nuclear in their energy mix have the lowest emissions in their energy sector. Oh, and the waste isn’t really a problem. In fact, nuclear waste is one of the best types of waste. See: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
  - olodus 6y ago
    I am very much for nuclear power. Especially the new generation of generators (with that said as someone pointed out there is problems with mining the fuel). But even with that said, that doesn't mean I would automatically be for putting it on a ship. One of the first thing I would say about nuclear power plants is to out them in places with a stable environment (maybe not places with earthquakes or huge storms) and putting it on a moving ship is kinda spitting in the face of that. I mean I might be wrong, havent looked very deep into marine nuclear but it feels scary when thinking of how often ship disasters happen. I think convincing people of nuclear on land is a large enough endeavor.
    - JorgeGT 6y ago
      The US Navy has safely operated hundreds of marine nuclear reactors for 70+ years without any major issue. The technology is there if we actually wanted to stop polluting the planet.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        The crew, maintenance, processes (including security) of US Navy subs is at a vastly different level from a typical merchant ship.
        JorgeGT 6y ago
        I agree with the concern about crew qualification, but maybe at least convert the worst offenders? The Guardian said [1] that "just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars". Why not convert those 15-20 biggest ships to nuclear (with a UN or IAEA compliment aboard if you want)? I believe this could be a huge win for the environment achievably today with mature technology.
        rightbyte 6y ago
        Why would you trust cost cutting shippers with nuclear reactors? Install catalysators instead.

berkes 6y ago

Certainly cleaner than oil-powered. But doubtfully cleaner than wind. For wind you don't need mines, and extremely expensive storage facilities. For nuclear power you do. Edit: obviously such a ship needs mining to get the metal to make such a ship, but so does a nuclear ship: after that, the wind-powered ship sails virtually for free forever, whereas the nuclear ship needs a small stream of plutonium in- and a small stream of highly "dirty" waste going out.

JorgeGT 6y ago
Consider however that a modern sailship needs a thermal engine for practical and safety reasons: you want to be able to avoid storms, calm periods or inconvenient winds that can make you drift hundreds of miles from your original destination, all of these big problems during the Age of Sail. This is in fact why we abandoned sailing ships for merchant fleets: they run on the Sun's free nuclear fusion energy, but they are very inconvenient! So a modern sail ship will need to use its engine, and therefore I'm not sure they would be cleaner than a nuclear fission ship.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cbmuser 6y ago
No ship sails forever. And given the amount of energy you get per kilogramm, nothing beats nuclear which is why the waste stream for anything that is nuclear-powered is extremely small. I‘m also pretty sure that even a sail ship will have fossile-powered backup generators. No one is going to design such a big ship with no additional backup power supply and certainly those aren’t just batteries. I don’t understand why people here still keep coming up with arguments against nuclear when countries with a large share of nuclear in their energy mix have the lowest emissions in their energy sector. Oh, and the waste isn’t really a problem. In fact, nuclear waste is one of the best types of waste. See: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
- olodus 6y ago
  I am very much for nuclear power. Especially the new generation of generators (with that said as someone pointed out there is problems with mining the fuel). But even with that said, that doesn't mean I would automatically be for putting it on a ship. One of the first thing I would say about nuclear power plants is to out them in places with a stable environment (maybe not places with earthquakes or huge storms) and putting it on a moving ship is kinda spitting in the face of that. I mean I might be wrong, havent looked very deep into marine nuclear but it feels scary when thinking of how often ship disasters happen. I think convincing people of nuclear on land is a large enough endeavor.
  - JorgeGT 6y ago
    The US Navy has safely operated hundreds of marine nuclear reactors for 70+ years without any major issue. The technology is there if we actually wanted to stop polluting the planet.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      The crew, maintenance, processes (including security) of US Navy subs is at a vastly different level from a typical merchant ship.
      - JorgeGT 6y ago
        I agree with the concern about crew qualification, but maybe at least convert the worst offenders? The Guardian said [1] that "just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars". Why not convert those 15-20 biggest ships to nuclear (with a UN or IAEA compliment aboard if you want)? I believe this could be a huge win for the environment achievably today with mature technology.
        rightbyte 6y ago
        Why would you trust cost cutting shippers with nuclear reactors? Install catalysators instead.