4 ms·

With all the fast neutrons emanating from a fusion reactor (and the heavy confinement that it requires) I don't think a container ship would be a safe enough en

With all the fast neutrons emanating from a fusion reactor (and the heavy confinement that it requires) I don't think a container ship would be a safe enough environment (threat of disaster at sea, constantly jostling which might affect plasma stability etc.). But yes, there is a potential for a lot of space applications and other things we haven't thought of yet.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
what kindof disaster could be relevant in this context? If the ship sinks, the minor radioctivity of a shutdown reactor will not be relevany Technically, container ships are enormous and can use ballast water for shielding. I can't judge the ecobomics ofcourse
- sidkshatriya 4y ago
  Well fusion reactors are likely to cost a huge amount of money when they do become operational. No point having them sinking in a storm. Probably just safer to charge a huge battery and put it on a ship (if you don’t want to use fossil fuels). Avoids a lot of unfoseen commercial risk. Even though you could use water for shielding, the metal container and other things that hold the reactor would be highly radioactive and brittle due to continuous neutron bombardment. You wouldn’t want that to be lost at sea spewing radiation (even though the reactor itself would shutdown automatically).
  - GordonS 4y ago
    > Probably just safer to charge a huge battery and put it on a ship Large container ships burn through 16 tons of bunker oil per hour, and each journey can last up to 3 weeks - any idea what size of battery such a ship would need? I have no clue how to calculate that), but I'm guessing it would be completely impractical, even if we made huge strides in battery energy density.
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      There seem to be efforts towards battery powered container ships out there[1], independently of any speculated use of nuclear power to charge them. Most likely they'd be battery banks in containers that get swapped out and charged at port using the same equipment as is used to load and unload cargo I believe. I remember reading that they would have more limited range and lower top speeds, but that this might not be as much of a problem as it seems because the current routes are built around large container + long haul but that's not necessarily required (for all shipping at least). [1] eg. https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/could-battery-powered-container-ships-serve-transatlantic-trade https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/could-battery-powe...
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      here fuels like hydrogen might make sence, but why not 'normal' nuclear? There are hundreds of nuclear powered ships already - submarines, Icebreakers, carriers, etc.
      - hollerith 4y ago
        >There are hundreds of nuclear powered ships already - submarines, Icebreakers, carriers, etc. Aren't they all operated by militaries though? So if a conspiracy of crew members tries to steal some enriched fuel or fission products, it is legal to just shoot them or throw them in jail for decade for trying.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        I believe this was never attempted. On board the ship itself, all the nuclear material is inside a running reactor, any would-be criminal would be dead before you could shoot them Russian nuclear icebreakers are civilian ships, and people working at normal nuclear power stations are civilians too. It is actually only relevant what happens in the part of the chain that handles nuclear fuel - thats the shipyard plus processing of spent fuel. But again, we do that for powerplants already.
    - Smoosh 4y ago

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

what kindof disaster could be relevant in this context? If the ship sinks, the minor radioctivity of a shutdown reactor will not be relevany Technically, container ships are enormous and can use ballast water for shielding. I can't judge the ecobomics ofcourse

sidkshatriya 4y ago
Well fusion reactors are likely to cost a huge amount of money when they do become operational. No point having them sinking in a storm. Probably just safer to charge a huge battery and put it on a ship (if you don’t want to use fossil fuels). Avoids a lot of unfoseen commercial risk. Even though you could use water for shielding, the metal container and other things that hold the reactor would be highly radioactive and brittle due to continuous neutron bombardment. You wouldn’t want that to be lost at sea spewing radiation (even though the reactor itself would shutdown automatically).
- GordonS 4y ago
  > Probably just safer to charge a huge battery and put it on a ship Large container ships burn through 16 tons of bunker oil per hour, and each journey can last up to 3 weeks - any idea what size of battery such a ship would need? I have no clue how to calculate that), but I'm guessing it would be completely impractical, even if we made huge strides in battery energy density.
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    There seem to be efforts towards battery powered container ships out there[1], independently of any speculated use of nuclear power to charge them. Most likely they'd be battery banks in containers that get swapped out and charged at port using the same equipment as is used to load and unload cargo I believe. I remember reading that they would have more limited range and lower top speeds, but that this might not be as much of a problem as it seems because the current routes are built around large container + long haul but that's not necessarily required (for all shipping at least). [1] eg. https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/could-battery-powered-container-ships-serve-transatlantic-trade https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/could-battery-powe...
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    here fuels like hydrogen might make sence, but why not 'normal' nuclear? There are hundreds of nuclear powered ships already - submarines, Icebreakers, carriers, etc.
    - hollerith 4y ago
      >There are hundreds of nuclear powered ships already - submarines, Icebreakers, carriers, etc. Aren't they all operated by militaries though? So if a conspiracy of crew members tries to steal some enriched fuel or fission products, it is legal to just shoot them or throw them in jail for decade for trying.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        I believe this was never attempted. On board the ship itself, all the nuclear material is inside a running reactor, any would-be criminal would be dead before you could shoot them Russian nuclear icebreakers are civilian ships, and people working at normal nuclear power stations are civilians too. It is actually only relevant what happens in the part of the chain that handles nuclear fuel - thats the shipyard plus processing of spent fuel. But again, we do that for powerplants already.
  - Smoosh 4y ago