6 ms·

The author does not consider nuclear shipping vessels, while this is the right electric for long routes, such as Trans-Pacific: it allows for good utilization o

• Angostura 5y ago
  I'm sure the Somalian pirates can't wait.
• Shared404 5y ago
  To my layperson self, it seems like that would be a bad idea. We know how to secure a reactor on land, but the sea is a big, dangerous place - and it's only a matter of time before some cost cutting idiot blows up a ship because they wanted a bigger bonus.
  • yellowapple 5y ago
    Nuclear reactors are arguably a lot safer (in terms of meltdown risk) on the ocean than they already are on land, seeing as how they're in ships that float on a giant planet-wide heatsink that also happens to be exceptionally good at confining radiation. The more pertinent risk would be piracy and the like; if thorium ever catches on, it'd probably help make that less of an issue.
  • Swizec 5y ago
    We already have nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. The popular joke is that all military/navy/etc equipment is built by the lowest bidder. On the bright side: if a nuclear reactor melts down in the middle of the ocean, there’s basically nothing around to be inconvenienced by that event.
    • l33t2328 5y ago
      Those nuclear aircraft carriers have a bit more military protection than an arbitrary nuclear cargo ship will.
      • bronson 5y ago
        And a sliiightly bigger budget, both construction and maintenance.
• InsaneOstrich 5y ago
  What use does China have for icebreakers?
  • tigerlily 5y ago
    Antarctic activities I guess
  • beebmam 5y ago
    Military capability in the arctic for a potential US conflict in the future?
  • pavlov 5y ago
    To my knowledge, the Bohai Sea (the large bay between Beijing and North Korea basically) does freeze.
    • seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Their rivers freeze also, but I assume they are lambing to participate in arctic shipping routes, maybe the one above Siberia to get to Europe.
  • krasin 5y ago
    Polar Silk Route (see the news link I posted above)
• paxys 5y ago
  There is never going to be a civilian-controlled ship with a nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel floating freely in international waters and docking at random ports. And no country's military is going to escort one around the world transporting consumer junk. Regardless of cost, which itself makes this whole idea impossible, nuclear-powered container ships are simply not a possibility for this reason (and in fact the link you shared doesn't even mention them).
  • riku_iki 5y ago
    > There is never going to be a civilian-controlled ship with a nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel floating freely That's while we have cheap oil. Once it is gone, having nuclear powered container super-carrier will be strategic interest of countries.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • arnaudsm 5y ago
    As of today there are 12 civilian nuclear-powered ships in service the world [1], with 2 even dating from the 70s. I guess the tech is mature. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker
    • paxys 5y ago
      It isn't about the tech. Ice-breakers are owned and operated directly or indirectly by some military or government agency, and stay in remote areas in a country's own waters. Do you think any Chinese or Russian-built nuclear container ship is going to be able to dock in the port of Los Angeles or New York (the two busiest in the country)?
      • maxerickson 5y ago
        Build them somewhere else then? I guess if you get the design to where it acts like a giant battery that is nearly impossible to tamper with it could work fine. Of course the political will to even try to do that doesn't exist.
• nine_k 5y ago
  As suggested in a sister comment, a nuclear reactor is such a highly sought piece of tech that you need an aircraft carrier built around it to protect it from snatching by somebody who wants to start building nukes. You can, of course, use nuclear energy to run your ships, and even trucks and planes. Use the nuclear energy (both the electricity and heat) to produce fuel from CO₂ and H₂O. Use this fuel in your jet engines and colossal diesel motors. Burning it is carbon-neutral. Oil should become much more expensive though, and building of nuclear facilities, much more cost-efficient, for this to become economically viable.
  • krasin 5y ago
    Then how do these nuclear ships operate for decades? Nuclear container ship Sevmorput: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput Civilian nuclear icebreakers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker Floating nuclear power plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
    • dghlsakjg 5y ago
      All of the ships you linked to are operated by Rosatom or its predecessors. That is essentially a state operator as far as I can tell.
      • krasin 5y ago
        State != military, though. For instance, all France nuclear power plants are operated by Électricité de France (EDF) that is substantially owned by the French Government, with around 85% shares in government hands ([1]). I don't see a problem having nuclear container ships to be operated by civilian governmental agencies / state-owned enterprises. This might not work for the US, but we often have very unique ways of doing things. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]