4 ms·

Always nuclear. It's like we're back in the atomic age of the 50s and forgot all the learnings since. Nuclear is horribly expensive and the entire maritime sect

Always nuclear. It's like we're back in the atomic age of the 50s and forgot all the learnings since. Nuclear is horribly expensive and the entire maritime sector is a race to zero. Cheapest labor globally, cheapest material and so on. This YouTube video is a nice summary on the issue of nuclear ships. https://youtu.be/cYj4F_cyiJI https://youtu.be/cYj4F_cyiJI The largest container ships today are operated with tiny crews of 15-25 people. That article regarding the exhausts is also old and wrong. New requirements came into force in 2020 either requiring fuel with less sulphur or the use of scrubbers. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2020.aspx https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2...

tenpies 4y ago
Thank you. Nuclear is a fantastic fit for most land-based use cases, but there is a reason why the existing fleet of nuclear vessels is mostly military, military submarines, and a handful of ice breakers constructed by the Soviets.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Nuclear is an even more awful fit for land based use cases. The one saving grace it has for transportation is the energy density, not that it matters when renewables to green hydrogen, ammonia or any other solution paying some efficiency cost is vastly superior. On land energy density barely matters and the costs for nuclear energy is simply laughable.
pydry 4y ago
There's a lot of nuclear propaganda around these days. E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31753566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31753566 It's pretty consistent about never addressing the cost factor. It's not too surprising that people are getting excited about it.
tinalumfoil 4y ago
Usually if someone posts a link to a 14 minute video from a source I never heard of, claiming it proved their point, I wouldn’t watch it. But I actually watched your entire video there and not only does the info there contradict you, but the narrator says at the end says public perception is the number one obstacle to nuclear in commercial shipping.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Yes I know. The narrator is also wrong about the sulfur claim, similarly like the GP. I like it because it plainly lays out the issues with nuclear shipping, which then allows you to draw your own conclusions. It then ends on the same cool tech bro solution looking for a problem if only society was smarter as we see around this thread which honestly is a bit sad. I hoped for better when first watching it. The legal and insurance hurdles haven't become smaller with Fukushima, Three mile Island and Chernobyl since the time of the Savannah. Consider the insurance required for an accident happening in Long Beach. Also consider that from the time of the Savannah shipping has shifted from a skilled profession to crews from the lowest bidder. Crews today are mostly a jumble from South east Asia and around the Indian subcontinent. Shipping is centered around one issue, that is cost. Public perception does not exist as a factor.

tenpies 4y ago

Thank you. Nuclear is a fantastic fit for most land-based use cases, but there is a reason why the existing fleet of nuclear vessels is mostly military, military submarines, and a handful of ice breakers constructed by the Soviets.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Nuclear is an even more awful fit for land based use cases. The one saving grace it has for transportation is the energy density, not that it matters when renewables to green hydrogen, ammonia or any other solution paying some efficiency cost is vastly superior. On land energy density barely matters and the costs for nuclear energy is simply laughable.

pydry 4y ago

There's a lot of nuclear propaganda around these days. E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31753566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31753566 It's pretty consistent about never addressing the cost factor. It's not too surprising that people are getting excited about it.

tinalumfoil 4y ago

Usually if someone posts a link to a 14 minute video from a source I never heard of, claiming it proved their point, I wouldn’t watch it. But I actually watched your entire video there and not only does the info there contradict you, but the narrator says at the end says public perception is the number one obstacle to nuclear in commercial shipping.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Yes I know. The narrator is also wrong about the sulfur claim, similarly like the GP. I like it because it plainly lays out the issues with nuclear shipping, which then allows you to draw your own conclusions. It then ends on the same cool tech bro solution looking for a problem if only society was smarter as we see around this thread which honestly is a bit sad. I hoped for better when first watching it. The legal and insurance hurdles haven't become smaller with Fukushima, Three mile Island and Chernobyl since the time of the Savannah. Consider the insurance required for an accident happening in Long Beach. Also consider that from the time of the Savannah shipping has shifted from a skilled profession to crews from the lowest bidder. Crews today are mostly a jumble from South east Asia and around the Indian subcontinent. Shipping is centered around one issue, that is cost. Public perception does not exist as a factor.