4 ms·

I think the solution to the transatlantic problem is quite simple: A nuclear ocean liner. Such a ship could make the trip in around three and a half days, which

I think the solution to the transatlantic problem is quite simple: A nuclear ocean liner. Such a ship could make the trip in around three and a half days, which is slower, but I think is highly competitive when you consider the dramatic improvement in comfort and productivity. These kinds of ships are highly sustainable and the necessary technologies are fully mature.

MezzoDelCammin 4y ago
Problem of nuclear shipping is cost and liability. Although in terms of pure CO2 emissions it's great, risk insurance is almost impossible (although the chance of accident is small, the possible cost of it is pretty close to infinite). Also, good luck convincing commercial ports to accept privately owned nuclear reactors. There's a reason that nuclear marine propulsion is mostly the domain of nation states and armed forces.
- janef0421 4y ago
  Nuclear ocean liners would need substantial government support, but this has been true of all international travel since at least 1900. The ocean liners of the golden age were financed by governments, and modern jet travel is supported by large state investments into things like air traffic control, R&D, and airports. All that is really needed is the political will, which is a much better situation than the alternatives, which require extreme engineering that comes close to the limits of physical possibility.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
tengwar2 4y ago
We can get similar speed from a conventionally powered ship if we have to. There isn't much motive at the moment, so cruise ships do about 20-25 knots. If we revived the liner, we could go substantially faster. The record was set in 1952 by the SS United States, at 34.5kn average speed and a crossing time of three and a half days. CO2 is an issue which is already being looked at, with designs based on hydrogen and on ammonia - I suspect that the latter will win out as being easier to store.
- janef0421 4y ago
  You can, but it results in non-linear increases in fuel consumption. A nuclear reactor can be run at a high power output continuously without substantial reductions in efficiency. It also allows for infinite range and reduces cost and turnaround time caused by refuelling. Using Ammonia would have none of these benefits, require expensive infrastructure, and involve enormous energy losses.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Hard to believe we'd be pushing that idea at the very moment we're trying to encourage shipping vessels to slow down by 10% because of the dramatic reduction in fuel consumption that provides. I've taken the Queen Mary II (the only current ocean liner) between NYC and Southampton. I thought it was a very, very nice way to cross the Atlantic, even though the carbon and general pollution footprint could be dramatically improved.
FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
Just sail and have bigger warehouses to buffer the unpredictability.
- janef0421 4y ago
  That's a viable strategy for bulk commodities, but this was a discussion of passenger transport, and people are unlikely to use sailing ships for point-to-point travel.

MezzoDelCammin 4y ago

Problem of nuclear shipping is cost and liability. Although in terms of pure CO2 emissions it's great, risk insurance is almost impossible (although the chance of accident is small, the possible cost of it is pretty close to infinite). Also, good luck convincing commercial ports to accept privately owned nuclear reactors. There's a reason that nuclear marine propulsion is mostly the domain of nation states and armed forces.

janef0421 4y ago
Nuclear ocean liners would need substantial government support, but this has been true of all international travel since at least 1900. The ocean liners of the golden age were financed by governments, and modern jet travel is supported by large state investments into things like air traffic control, R&D, and airports. All that is really needed is the political will, which is a much better situation than the alternatives, which require extreme engineering that comes close to the limits of physical possibility.
yakshaving_jgt 4y ago

tengwar2 4y ago

We can get similar speed from a conventionally powered ship if we have to. There isn't much motive at the moment, so cruise ships do about 20-25 knots. If we revived the liner, we could go substantially faster. The record was set in 1952 by the SS United States, at 34.5kn average speed and a crossing time of three and a half days. CO2 is an issue which is already being looked at, with designs based on hydrogen and on ammonia - I suspect that the latter will win out as being easier to store.

janef0421 4y ago
You can, but it results in non-linear increases in fuel consumption. A nuclear reactor can be run at a high power output continuously without substantial reductions in efficiency. It also allows for infinite range and reduces cost and turnaround time caused by refuelling. Using Ammonia would have none of these benefits, require expensive infrastructure, and involve enormous energy losses.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Hard to believe we'd be pushing that idea at the very moment we're trying to encourage shipping vessels to slow down by 10% because of the dramatic reduction in fuel consumption that provides. I've taken the Queen Mary II (the only current ocean liner) between NYC and Southampton. I thought it was a very, very nice way to cross the Atlantic, even though the carbon and general pollution footprint could be dramatically improved.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago

Just sail and have bigger warehouses to buffer the unpredictability.

janef0421 4y ago
That's a viable strategy for bulk commodities, but this was a discussion of passenger transport, and people are unlikely to use sailing ships for point-to-point travel.