3 ms·

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-

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.
      - philipkglass 6y ago
        That was a story from 2009, and it was referring specifically to sulfur dioxide rather than all air pollution: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... The high SO2 pollution was because heavy fuel oil used in oceanic shipping could have a very high sulfur content, up to 4.5%. The global limit has been lowered to 0.5% this year. In designated Sulfur Emission Control Areas the limit has been lowered to 0.1% since 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_Control_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_Control_Area The sulfur dioxide emissions from shipping have been slashed since that Guardian article was written. Other air pollution from shipping was not greater than that from cars in the first place.
ganafagol 6y ago
Cool. Let's start by storing the waste in your backyard. Where your kids play. Let's see how you keep defending that "best type of waste" position while pushing your kids' wheelchair when they are on chemo. Edit: To everybody downvoting me here, it's easy to say that it's the best type of waste as long as it's somebody elses problem.
- berkes 6y ago
  To which I want to add: nuclear waste is the worst type of "somebody elses problem". Not just geographical, as with most "NIMBY". But in time. It takes (tens of)thousands of years before it is no longer anyones problem. To put htat in perspective: if the egyptian Pharao's had decided to power their enterprice with nuclear power and store the waste "in a place up north where no-one lives", western europe would have large uninhabitable places - still.

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.
    - philipkglass 6y ago
      That was a story from 2009, and it was referring specifically to sulfur dioxide rather than all air pollution: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... The high SO2 pollution was because heavy fuel oil used in oceanic shipping could have a very high sulfur content, up to 4.5%. The global limit has been lowered to 0.5% this year. In designated Sulfur Emission Control Areas the limit has been lowered to 0.1% since 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_Control_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_Control_Area The sulfur dioxide emissions from shipping have been slashed since that Guardian article was written. Other air pollution from shipping was not greater than that from cars in the first place.

ganafagol 6y ago

Cool. Let's start by storing the waste in your backyard. Where your kids play. Let's see how you keep defending that "best type of waste" position while pushing your kids' wheelchair when they are on chemo. Edit: To everybody downvoting me here, it's easy to say that it's the best type of waste as long as it's somebody elses problem.

berkes 6y ago
To which I want to add: nuclear waste is the worst type of "somebody elses problem". Not just geographical, as with most "NIMBY". But in time. It takes (tens of)thousands of years before it is no longer anyones problem. To put htat in perspective: if the egyptian Pharao's had decided to power their enterprice with nuclear power and store the waste "in a place up north where no-one lives", western europe would have large uninhabitable places - still.