3 ms·

Could these be viable for shipping containers?? IIUC, 18,000 TEU ships have engines that generate ~60 mW - and use about 66,000 gallons of diesel per day. Tha

Could these be viable for shipping containers?? IIUC, 18,000 TEU ships have engines that generate ~60 mW - and use about 66,000 gallons of diesel per day. That's ~$90M in fuel per year, which could be replaced by ~12 of there reactors. That's $7.5M per year. If these can be purchased for less than $20M - with an 8-year life-span and $2M for fuel and operation per year - then maybe it could work??

bboygravity 4y ago
If you do that the ships would go (dangerously ?) fast. 60 MW output from a combustion engine means rougly 3x the mechanical energy output for the same amount of Joules input with an electric engine.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  On the plus side, container ship drag races would now be a thing.
  - malandrew 4y ago
    Imagine how far they travel when trying to stop. I guess you would have the power to run the engines in reverse at full power too.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      Stop ? Just drift with all your cargo.
    - porker 4y ago
      Power isn't the problem; vibration, the stress on the ship's hull, and risk of losing a propellor are the real problems with sustained running in reverse at full power.
- Tuna-Fish 4y ago
  You'd get surprisingly little additional speed. An old rule of thumb is that if you double the power of a large ship, you get 4 additional knots of speed. Current average laden container ship speed is ~15 knots, down from about 20 knots from back before they cared about fuel costs and emissions. So you'd only get speeds up to what they were before.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  I think the 60MW output is shaft horsepower so it already takes into account the low efficiency of converting fuel oil to movement (so in reality it's burning about 150MW of fuel oil).
rurounijones 4y ago
It would require changes in regulations around the world. Many ports do not allow nuclear powered vessels to dock. Those regs were written with traditional nuclear power plants in mind but I think there would still have to be a lot of work to get acceptance.
jononomo 4y ago
Would these reactors take up less physical space than the fuel system they would displace?
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Almost certainly. See picture [1]. According to Wikipedia, they're ~87 ft x ~87 ft x ~44 ft = 333k cuft [2] These reactors are supposed to be a max of 4 containers in size. So ~12 of them would be ~48 containers = 4x6x2 = ~80 ft x ~60 ft x ~30 ft = 144k cuft. Though, I doubt you'd want to stack them like that, and I imagine you'd need more than just the reactors to replace the engine. But more importantly - container ships need space and weight for ~66k gallons of diesel per day - about ~3M gallons total. That's an additional ~401k cuft for diesel, and ~13,500 tons... Each TEU is 22 tons - so you could probably carry an additional 600 TEU (or ~3.5% more). [1] https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/the-largest-and-most-powerful-diesel.html https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/the-largest-and-most-p... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA9...

bboygravity 4y ago

If you do that the ships would go (dangerously ?) fast. 60 MW output from a combustion engine means rougly 3x the mechanical energy output for the same amount of Joules input with an electric engine.

ohgodplsno 4y ago
On the plus side, container ship drag races would now be a thing.
- malandrew 4y ago
  Imagine how far they travel when trying to stop. I guess you would have the power to run the engines in reverse at full power too.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Stop ? Just drift with all your cargo.
  - porker 4y ago
    Power isn't the problem; vibration, the stress on the ship's hull, and risk of losing a propellor are the real problems with sustained running in reverse at full power.
Tuna-Fish 4y ago
You'd get surprisingly little additional speed. An old rule of thumb is that if you double the power of a large ship, you get 4 additional knots of speed. Current average laden container ship speed is ~15 knots, down from about 20 knots from back before they cared about fuel costs and emissions. So you'd only get speeds up to what they were before.
VBprogrammer 4y ago
I think the 60MW output is shaft horsepower so it already takes into account the low efficiency of converting fuel oil to movement (so in reality it's burning about 150MW of fuel oil).

rurounijones 4y ago

It would require changes in regulations around the world. Many ports do not allow nuclear powered vessels to dock. Those regs were written with traditional nuclear power plants in mind but I think there would still have to be a lot of work to get acceptance.

jononomo 4y ago

Would these reactors take up less physical space than the fuel system they would displace?

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Almost certainly. See picture [1]. According to Wikipedia, they're ~87 ft x ~87 ft x ~44 ft = 333k cuft [2] These reactors are supposed to be a max of 4 containers in size. So ~12 of them would be ~48 containers = 4x6x2 = ~80 ft x ~60 ft x ~30 ft = 144k cuft. Though, I doubt you'd want to stack them like that, and I imagine you'd need more than just the reactors to replace the engine. But more importantly - container ships need space and weight for ~66k gallons of diesel per day - about ~3M gallons total. That's an additional ~401k cuft for diesel, and ~13,500 tons... Each TEU is 22 tons - so you could probably carry an additional 600 TEU (or ~3.5% more). [1] https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/the-largest-and-most-powerful-diesel.html https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/the-largest-and-most-p... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA9...