5 ms·

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

by 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.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Fair point but what about a Chinese nucular boat from one Belt and Road port to another
tschwimmer 5y ago
A container ship can carry up to 24,000 containers. Even if they don't build to the max size, it still takes 1-3 days to unload an average container ship on the shore using the giant container cranes. I can't imagine how long it would take to unload at sea onto smaller vessels but there's pretty much no way it's going to be economical with technology available in the next 20 years.
- krasin 5y ago
  I agree that the old way of doing things won't work. How about hundreds of cargo drones capable of lifting containers to transfer them from one ship to another? Something like this: https://www.cognitiveseeds.com/395-2/ https://www.cognitiveseeds.com/395-2/ Don't forget - a nuclear-powered ship that's not moving has a lot of free electricity: enough to charge all the drones (likely, bearing supercapacitors, as their flight from one ship to another will be very short)
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    It's interesting how further up someone accused people of opposing nuclear energy for ideological reasons and then read proposals like this, which are completely removed from reality. Building drones that can lift containers from cargoships requires electricity/energy storage densities that are so far beyond anything realistic. A container can weigh up to 28 tonnes, there was exactly one helicopter that could carry this kind of load the Mil Mi-12 and that looked really more like a plane. Moreover if we would have those kind of densities why would we even use nuclear ships?
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      > Building drones that can lift containers from cargoships requires electricity/energy storage densities that are so far beyond anything realistic. Nuclear drones!!1one! Problem SOLVED. Gee I'm smart. ;)
    - krasin 5y ago
      >It's interesting how further up someone accused people of opposing nuclear energy for ideological reasons and then read proposals like this, which are completely removed from reality. Let's see. There are two variables here in regards to power subsystem: power and energy capacity. Let's start with the power: >A container can weigh up to 28 tonnes, there was exactly one helicopter that could carry this kind of load the Mil Mi-12 and that looked really more like a plane. According to ([1]), we need around 0.28 kW/kg of thrust. Assuming that the drone weights twice more than a container, we need to have a lift of around 84 tonnes-force minimum, and ~100 tonnes-force in reality. That translates to 0.28 * 10^5 kW = 28 MW. This is close to what Mi-12 had (19.2 MW). LTO batteries from Toshiba ([2]) advertise 3.5 kW/kg of energy density, which gives us 28 MW/3.5 kW/kg = 800 kg of batteries. Reasonable, given that our budget for drone dry weight is 56 tonnes. Let's consider the energy capacity. To transfer a container from one ship to another standing 200 meters apart moving at 10 km/h, we would need 144 seconds for roundtrip. Let's make it 300 seconds for redundancy. 28 MW * 300 seconds = 2333 kWh. At 84 Wh/kg ([2]), we get 27.8 tonnes of batteries. Not great, but within out weight budget of 56 tonnes. The gotcha here that I see is the longevity of these batteries (they are rated for 8000 cycles). Do you see any other issues? I mean, basic physics seems to allow for such drones (not saying it's trivial to make). 1. https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=974 https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=974 2. https://www.electrive.com/2022/01/12/toshiba-presents-new-20-ah-lto-cell/ https://www.electrive.com/2022/01/12/toshiba-presents-new-20...
xbmcuser 5y ago
Why though make batteries the size weight and shape of shipping containers charge them in ports then the ships can replace empty batteries with charged batteries just like they do containers. I think the world would prefer that over a few thousand nuclear powered ships 1 ship wreck away from making the world sea nuclear contaminated. Which if you understand the water cycle would mean the whole world is nuclear contaminated
- Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
  I don't think you realize just how big the sea is and how good it is at containing radiation. Heck, we're even figuring out how to mine uranium from seawater, because it's already in there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by krasin 5y ago

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.
renewiltord 5y ago
Fair point but what about a Chinese nucular boat from one Belt and Road port to another

tschwimmer 5y ago

A container ship can carry up to 24,000 containers. Even if they don't build to the max size, it still takes 1-3 days to unload an average container ship on the shore using the giant container cranes. I can't imagine how long it would take to unload at sea onto smaller vessels but there's pretty much no way it's going to be economical with technology available in the next 20 years.

krasin 5y ago
I agree that the old way of doing things won't work. How about hundreds of cargo drones capable of lifting containers to transfer them from one ship to another? Something like this: https://www.cognitiveseeds.com/395-2/ https://www.cognitiveseeds.com/395-2/ Don't forget - a nuclear-powered ship that's not moving has a lot of free electricity: enough to charge all the drones (likely, bearing supercapacitors, as their flight from one ship to another will be very short)
- cycomanic 5y ago
  It's interesting how further up someone accused people of opposing nuclear energy for ideological reasons and then read proposals like this, which are completely removed from reality. Building drones that can lift containers from cargoships requires electricity/energy storage densities that are so far beyond anything realistic. A container can weigh up to 28 tonnes, there was exactly one helicopter that could carry this kind of load the Mil Mi-12 and that looked really more like a plane. Moreover if we would have those kind of densities why would we even use nuclear ships?
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    > Building drones that can lift containers from cargoships requires electricity/energy storage densities that are so far beyond anything realistic. Nuclear drones!!1one! Problem SOLVED. Gee I'm smart. ;)
  - krasin 5y ago
    >It's interesting how further up someone accused people of opposing nuclear energy for ideological reasons and then read proposals like this, which are completely removed from reality. Let's see. There are two variables here in regards to power subsystem: power and energy capacity. Let's start with the power: >A container can weigh up to 28 tonnes, there was exactly one helicopter that could carry this kind of load the Mil Mi-12 and that looked really more like a plane. According to ([1]), we need around 0.28 kW/kg of thrust. Assuming that the drone weights twice more than a container, we need to have a lift of around 84 tonnes-force minimum, and ~100 tonnes-force in reality. That translates to 0.28 * 10^5 kW = 28 MW. This is close to what Mi-12 had (19.2 MW). LTO batteries from Toshiba ([2]) advertise 3.5 kW/kg of energy density, which gives us 28 MW/3.5 kW/kg = 800 kg of batteries. Reasonable, given that our budget for drone dry weight is 56 tonnes. Let's consider the energy capacity. To transfer a container from one ship to another standing 200 meters apart moving at 10 km/h, we would need 144 seconds for roundtrip. Let's make it 300 seconds for redundancy. 28 MW * 300 seconds = 2333 kWh. At 84 Wh/kg ([2]), we get 27.8 tonnes of batteries. Not great, but within out weight budget of 56 tonnes. The gotcha here that I see is the longevity of these batteries (they are rated for 8000 cycles). Do you see any other issues? I mean, basic physics seems to allow for such drones (not saying it's trivial to make). 1. https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=974 https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=974 2. https://www.electrive.com/2022/01/12/toshiba-presents-new-20-ah-lto-cell/ https://www.electrive.com/2022/01/12/toshiba-presents-new-20...

xbmcuser 5y ago

Why though make batteries the size weight and shape of shipping containers charge them in ports then the ships can replace empty batteries with charged batteries just like they do containers. I think the world would prefer that over a few thousand nuclear powered ships 1 ship wreck away from making the world sea nuclear contaminated. Which if you understand the water cycle would mean the whole world is nuclear contaminated

Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
I don't think you realize just how big the sea is and how good it is at containing radiation. Heck, we're even figuring out how to mine uranium from seawater, because it's already in there.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]