9 ms·

Nuclear power is needed everywhere. All major grids. And all containerships. Doable in 20-40 years with some serious effort.

qbasic_forever 5y ago
Nuclear container ships are such a good idea. It is maddening we haven't done this and only turn war ships into nuclear power.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  That's a non-proliferation issue more than anything else.
  - qbasic_forever 5y ago
    Let the nuclear powers build the reactors and design the ships to slide them in like big batteries then IMHO. There can't be more than a few thousand cargo ships in the world--it's a risk that could be managed.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      They get hijacked with some regularity.
    - stoolpigeon 5y ago
      I've only observed it from the outside (I worked on an aircraft carrier - but nothing to do with the power plants) but what I observed is that it takes a lot of people that get payed a lot of money in the private sector to safely operate and maintain reactors. I'm guessing that the building costs would be dwarfed by the long term cost of manning nuclear ships.
      - qbasic_forever 5y ago
        Interesting challenge for us then--if we're pouring money into self-driving cars and constantly making strides there, why can't we do the same for fully automated self-running nuclear reactors. If there's a future where we trust cars 100% to drive every family safely around town, we should be able to trust reactors to run themselves and fail safe. I don't see why a human brain has to be in the critical loop of reactor operation, other than tradition or legal CYA.
    - closeparen 5y ago
      Each nuclear facility has a small army onsite, plus full-scale armies that can be summoned within a few minutes by panic button. In the middle of an Iowa cornfield. Compare that to the threat environment at sea, plus the logistical difficulties of carrying around that much security. I doubt the Navy can spare a battle group to escort each container ship.
  - whoooooo123 5y ago
    What if one of them gets lodged sideways in the Suez Canal?
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      Then some atomic pharao comes by to say hi!
  - aksss 5y ago
    Is it? Nuclear powered warships aren't as common as people think. There are only 12 nuclear powered carriers in the World and the US has 11 of them. I think if it were a no-brainer and "easy" (to install, maintain, safely operate) on container ships, it would be done by now. Or at very least you'd see more carriers operated by countries with nuclear capabilities. That the Russians don't operate a nuclear powered carrier says something (not sure what, but I think it indicts the complexity, reliability, etc). EDIT: For those interested, here is some great reading on the history and state of marine nuclear propulsion. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nucl...
    - jbay808 5y ago
      Don't the Russians run nuclear-powered icebreakers?
      - aksss 5y ago
        Evidently. Including one container ship with an ice-breaking bow. From Wikipedia: "Nuclear-powered icebreakers are much more powerful than their diesel-powered counterparts, and although nuclear propulsion is expensive to install and maintain, very heavy fuel demands and limitations on range, compounded with the difficulty of refueling in the Arctic region, can make diesel vessels less practical and economical overall for these ice-breaking duties." No doubt that fossil fuels present an attractive option with their energy density and relative simplicity insofar as shipping in more temperate zones is concerned. Seems to get back to the question of incentives - short of artificially increasing the immediate cost of fossil fuels (and all downstream containerized goods) it may be challenging to adopt nuclear or renewables in the global shipping industry.
    - nabla9 5y ago
      Russians currently have: - 1 active nuclear-powered Kirov-class battlecruiser. 1 under refit. 2 retired. - 1 nuclear-powered cargo ship (Sevmorput). - 5 nuclear-powered icebreakers. Russians have over 400 reactor-years of operating experience with icebreakers. Starting with Lenin 1957. - Not to mention submarines. The reason why Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is not nuclear-powered has nothing to do with ability. The carrier design was not good to begin with and then Soviet Union collapsed.
- riffic 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
- nomel 5y ago
  With the way that container ships just break apart in the middle of the ocean from poor maintenance [1], and the way that pirates take over container ships, I'm not sure I can comfortably agree. There would have to be some pretty extreme regulations, security requirements, and definitely higher cost involved. It would most likely be "along the most profitable, long, routes, to wealthy countries". 1. https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Container-Ship-Breaks-in-Half-and-Sinks-26-Rescued-2013-06-17 https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Container-Ship-Br...
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  'We' already did this a few decades ago: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship) But thinking about it, do you really think it would be wise to do that with the way current sea transport is implemented? Have a look at [3] https://www.agcs.allianz.com/news-and-insights/reports/shipping-safety.html https://www.agcs.allianz.com/news-and-insights/reports/shipp... I think this could only be countered by implementing it with an engineering-, work- and safety 'culture' like it has been established by [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover And even then we'd probably need several [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer on stand by, not 'just in case' but because 'shit happens'. Who would pay for this? In a world/economy/society where everything is bought and contracted from the lowest bidder, including personnel/crew.
ordu 5y ago
It would be fun watching headlines about a ship being stuck in Suez, if Ever Given was a nuclear powered ship. And what to do about terrorists capturing ships and threatening to blow them up.
chrisco255 5y ago
If the AMOC weakened dramatically, we'd be heading for a little ice age or worse. You're going to need gas to get humanity through that. But sure, we can never have enough nuclear power.
Robotbeat 5y ago
We don’t really have that time. Solar and wind can be built out faster. But we should do it on the margins.
Robotbeat 5y ago
We don’t really have that time. Solar and wind can be built out faster. But we should do new nuclear on the margins and preserve/enhance existing nuclear. Battery-electric (and liquid hydrogen) for container ships works. If someone really tried.
- draugadrotten 5y ago
  > Solar and wind can be built out faster The sheer number of wind power plants that is required to replace a single nuclear reactor has significant impact on nature, wild birds and more. One wind power plant isn't much but what happens to wildlife when you need to place 2000 of them? For one reactor, that is. https://www.ans.org/news/article-933/wind-nuclear-infographic/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-933/wind-nuclear-infographi...
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    Yeah, you need a lot, but the impact isn’t great if you take appropriate precautions. Also, solar photovoltaic doesn’t have that problem. Again, I’m actually very pro-nuclear but I don’t think we should put all our eggs in the nuclear basket.
Jedd 5y ago
Fusion power generators? Absolutely - we should be throwing vast sums of money at R&D for this tech. Fission? Not so much - we don't have time, appetite, budget, or (politically) the governance/control needed.
croes 5y ago
Good luck getting enough nuclear fuel

qbasic_forever 5y ago

Nuclear container ships are such a good idea. It is maddening we haven't done this and only turn war ships into nuclear power.

jacquesm 5y ago
That's a non-proliferation issue more than anything else.
- qbasic_forever 5y ago
  Let the nuclear powers build the reactors and design the ships to slide them in like big batteries then IMHO. There can't be more than a few thousand cargo ships in the world--it's a risk that could be managed.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    They get hijacked with some regularity.
  - stoolpigeon 5y ago
    I've only observed it from the outside (I worked on an aircraft carrier - but nothing to do with the power plants) but what I observed is that it takes a lot of people that get payed a lot of money in the private sector to safely operate and maintain reactors. I'm guessing that the building costs would be dwarfed by the long term cost of manning nuclear ships.
    - qbasic_forever 5y ago
      Interesting challenge for us then--if we're pouring money into self-driving cars and constantly making strides there, why can't we do the same for fully automated self-running nuclear reactors. If there's a future where we trust cars 100% to drive every family safely around town, we should be able to trust reactors to run themselves and fail safe. I don't see why a human brain has to be in the critical loop of reactor operation, other than tradition or legal CYA.
  - closeparen 5y ago
    Each nuclear facility has a small army onsite, plus full-scale armies that can be summoned within a few minutes by panic button. In the middle of an Iowa cornfield. Compare that to the threat environment at sea, plus the logistical difficulties of carrying around that much security. I doubt the Navy can spare a battle group to escort each container ship.
- whoooooo123 5y ago
  What if one of them gets lodged sideways in the Suez Canal?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Then some atomic pharao comes by to say hi!
- aksss 5y ago
  Is it? Nuclear powered warships aren't as common as people think. There are only 12 nuclear powered carriers in the World and the US has 11 of them. I think if it were a no-brainer and "easy" (to install, maintain, safely operate) on container ships, it would be done by now. Or at very least you'd see more carriers operated by countries with nuclear capabilities. That the Russians don't operate a nuclear powered carrier says something (not sure what, but I think it indicts the complexity, reliability, etc). EDIT: For those interested, here is some great reading on the history and state of marine nuclear propulsion. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nucl...
  - jbay808 5y ago
    Don't the Russians run nuclear-powered icebreakers?
    - aksss 5y ago
      Evidently. Including one container ship with an ice-breaking bow. From Wikipedia: "Nuclear-powered icebreakers are much more powerful than their diesel-powered counterparts, and although nuclear propulsion is expensive to install and maintain, very heavy fuel demands and limitations on range, compounded with the difficulty of refueling in the Arctic region, can make diesel vessels less practical and economical overall for these ice-breaking duties." No doubt that fossil fuels present an attractive option with their energy density and relative simplicity insofar as shipping in more temperate zones is concerned. Seems to get back to the question of incentives - short of artificially increasing the immediate cost of fossil fuels (and all downstream containerized goods) it may be challenging to adopt nuclear or renewables in the global shipping industry.
  - nabla9 5y ago
    Russians currently have: - 1 active nuclear-powered Kirov-class battlecruiser. 1 under refit. 2 retired. - 1 nuclear-powered cargo ship (Sevmorput). - 5 nuclear-powered icebreakers. Russians have over 400 reactor-years of operating experience with icebreakers. Starting with Lenin 1957. - Not to mention submarines. The reason why Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is not nuclear-powered has nothing to do with ability. The carrier design was not good to begin with and then Soviet Union collapsed.
riffic 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
nomel 5y ago
With the way that container ships just break apart in the middle of the ocean from poor maintenance [1], and the way that pirates take over container ships, I'm not sure I can comfortably agree. There would have to be some pretty extreme regulations, security requirements, and definitely higher cost involved. It would most likely be "along the most profitable, long, routes, to wealthy countries". 1. https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Container-Ship-Breaks-in-Half-and-Sinks-26-Rescued-2013-06-17 https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Container-Ship-Br...
LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
'We' already did this a few decades ago: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship) But thinking about it, do you really think it would be wise to do that with the way current sea transport is implemented? Have a look at [3] https://www.agcs.allianz.com/news-and-insights/reports/shipping-safety.html https://www.agcs.allianz.com/news-and-insights/reports/shipp... I think this could only be countered by implementing it with an engineering-, work- and safety 'culture' like it has been established by [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover And even then we'd probably need several [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer on stand by, not 'just in case' but because 'shit happens'. Who would pay for this? In a world/economy/society where everything is bought and contracted from the lowest bidder, including personnel/crew.

ordu 5y ago

It would be fun watching headlines about a ship being stuck in Suez, if Ever Given was a nuclear powered ship. And what to do about terrorists capturing ships and threatening to blow them up.

chrisco255 5y ago

If the AMOC weakened dramatically, we'd be heading for a little ice age or worse. You're going to need gas to get humanity through that. But sure, we can never have enough nuclear power.

Robotbeat 5y ago

We don’t really have that time. Solar and wind can be built out faster. But we should do it on the margins.

Robotbeat 5y ago

We don’t really have that time. Solar and wind can be built out faster. But we should do new nuclear on the margins and preserve/enhance existing nuclear. Battery-electric (and liquid hydrogen) for container ships works. If someone really tried.

draugadrotten 5y ago
> Solar and wind can be built out faster The sheer number of wind power plants that is required to replace a single nuclear reactor has significant impact on nature, wild birds and more. One wind power plant isn't much but what happens to wildlife when you need to place 2000 of them? For one reactor, that is. https://www.ans.org/news/article-933/wind-nuclear-infographic/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-933/wind-nuclear-infographi...
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Yeah, you need a lot, but the impact isn’t great if you take appropriate precautions. Also, solar photovoltaic doesn’t have that problem. Again, I’m actually very pro-nuclear but I don’t think we should put all our eggs in the nuclear basket.

Jedd 5y ago

Fusion power generators? Absolutely - we should be throwing vast sums of money at R&D for this tech. Fission? Not so much - we don't have time, appetite, budget, or (politically) the governance/control needed.

croes 5y ago

Good luck getting enough nuclear fuel