6 ms·

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://

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.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    The problem isn't building them it's operating them. This is not a technical problem and there can be no technical solution to it. If you have the access and ability to safely operate a nuclear reactor you also have the access and ability to operate it very unsafely if you choose to. There is no way around this that doesn't also remove your ability to operate it safely.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Your second paragraph is phrased as a fact, but it's an opinion. It's probably true today, but it can't actually be a factual statement, because we don't know what we don't know.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The Chinese and Russian ships will dock in their own ports and the ports of poorer countries until the rich westerners get over themselves and realize it's not that bad.
- krasin 5y ago
  Los Angeles not allowing a nuclear container ship to dock: this is quite likely, but can be either dealt with (for example, by transferring containers to small battery-powered container ships in international waters close to LA for the last leg) or by continuing emitting megatons of CO2 to appease Emotional Greens (as opposed to Rational Greens) in California. (Edited to remove an incorrect statement - sorry!)
  - creato 5y ago
    Hmm, I consider myself a “rational green” in favor of nuclear power, but I’m not sure I think nuclear reactors operated by foreign companies in a highly competitive industry that booms and busts with tight margins is a good idea.
    - krasin 5y ago
      I share the same feelings. The thing is that these foreign companies won't ask the US for permission. And if it's profitable, they will (eventually) do it. Yes, such ships will likely have to stay away from the US territorial waters, but there's plenty of routes where this won't be a problem. As for tight margins: fuel costs represent 50%-60% of overall costs ([1]) and if these expenses are replaced with CapEx (hopefully, benefiting from economy of scale), then the tight operational margins suddenly become amazing, and there's a room for quality. 1. https://www.morethanshipping.com/fuel-costs-ocean-shipping/ https://www.morethanshipping.com/fuel-costs-ocean-shipping/
      - chii 5y ago
        > Yes, such ships will likely have to stay away from the US territorial waters if it turns out that such shipping via nuclear reactors is much more cost efficient (including all currently externalized costs such as emissions), then the US will have no choice but to accept it - or be uncompetitive in the global markets.
    - SmellTheGlove 5y ago
      I’m with you. It’s why I don’t look forward to autonomous airplanes. I firmly believe airlines would have “acceptable losses” that include passengers if they didn’t have two really hard to replace people sitting in the front. Maybe I’m too jaded these days.

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.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  The problem isn't building them it's operating them. This is not a technical problem and there can be no technical solution to it. If you have the access and ability to safely operate a nuclear reactor you also have the access and ability to operate it very unsafely if you choose to. There is no way around this that doesn't also remove your ability to operate it safely.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Your second paragraph is phrased as a fact, but it's an opinion. It's probably true today, but it can't actually be a factual statement, because we don't know what we don't know.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The Chinese and Russian ships will dock in their own ports and the ports of poorer countries until the rich westerners get over themselves and realize it's not that bad.
krasin 5y ago
Los Angeles not allowing a nuclear container ship to dock: this is quite likely, but can be either dealt with (for example, by transferring containers to small battery-powered container ships in international waters close to LA for the last leg) or by continuing emitting megatons of CO2 to appease Emotional Greens (as opposed to Rational Greens) in California. (Edited to remove an incorrect statement - sorry!)
- creato 5y ago
  Hmm, I consider myself a “rational green” in favor of nuclear power, but I’m not sure I think nuclear reactors operated by foreign companies in a highly competitive industry that booms and busts with tight margins is a good idea.
  - krasin 5y ago
    I share the same feelings. The thing is that these foreign companies won't ask the US for permission. And if it's profitable, they will (eventually) do it. Yes, such ships will likely have to stay away from the US territorial waters, but there's plenty of routes where this won't be a problem. As for tight margins: fuel costs represent 50%-60% of overall costs ([1]) and if these expenses are replaced with CapEx (hopefully, benefiting from economy of scale), then the tight operational margins suddenly become amazing, and there's a room for quality. 1. https://www.morethanshipping.com/fuel-costs-ocean-shipping/ https://www.morethanshipping.com/fuel-costs-ocean-shipping/
    - chii 5y ago
      > Yes, such ships will likely have to stay away from the US territorial waters if it turns out that such shipping via nuclear reactors is much more cost efficient (including all currently externalized costs such as emissions), then the US will have no choice but to accept it - or be uncompetitive in the global markets.
  - SmellTheGlove 5y ago
    I’m with you. It’s why I don’t look forward to autonomous airplanes. I firmly believe airlines would have “acceptable losses” that include passengers if they didn’t have two really hard to replace people sitting in the front. Maybe I’m too jaded these days.