4 ms·

No way are we giving nuclear reactors to container ships. It makes more sense to build big, safe nuclear plants near airports and ports to manufacture fuel from

No way are we giving nuclear reactors to container ships. It makes more sense to build big, safe nuclear plants near airports and ports to manufacture fuel from air using the nearly limitless power from the nukes.

titzer 3y ago
The US Navy fields dozens of nuclear vessels. Has since 1954. No meltdowns. Only two ships ever lost, and not due to reactor issues. Subs can go for decades without refueling.
- tapland 3y ago
  The US navy doesn't usually run that many ships that haven't been seaworthy for decades. Guess if any private shipping companies do.
- ciabattabread 3y ago
  They’re the US Navy. You wanna have a civilian ship powered by a nuclear reactor sailing past Somalia? Or pull an Exxon Valdez?
  - junofan 3y ago
    Nuclear materials already move intercontinentally on commercial ships. Somalian pirates can already pull an Exxon Valdez using commercial oil tankers.
    - titzer 3y ago
      Also note that the potential for catastrophic meltdown / contamination is proportional to how much fuel you have on board. If you only have ~3 months fuel for a 20MW reactor, then it's not like a 3-mile-island or Chernobyl situation. There are plenty of modern reactor designs that don't turn into a giant cloud of radioactive smoke under duress, but shut down relatively calmly and safely.
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  You'll note the Navy does not run nuclear for ordinary surface vessels, just carriers and subs. You should think about that more before suggesting we nuclearize freakin' container ships.
  - titzer 3y ago
    That's mostly because smaller ships don't need as much power as a sub or carrier. The wattage required for a large container ship is about on par with the reactor for a nuclear sub.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
      No, it's not just that, it's because having nuclear on a ship has massive downsides in terms of cost and risks. There's a reason the only other ships that use them are icebreakers.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  If you can resurrect a prime Hyman Rickover and put him in charge of the world's shipping fleet, I would consider retracting my statement. Though even if you did, I think he'd agree with my assessment.
- FredPret 3y ago
  The fact that the US Navy can safely run a large number of reactors not only at sea but with tiny crews under water is mindblowing. It's not like they can source spare parts from down the road, or call in experts as needed.

titzer 3y ago

The US Navy fields dozens of nuclear vessels. Has since 1954. No meltdowns. Only two ships ever lost, and not due to reactor issues. Subs can go for decades without refueling.

tapland 3y ago
The US navy doesn't usually run that many ships that haven't been seaworthy for decades. Guess if any private shipping companies do.
ciabattabread 3y ago
They’re the US Navy. You wanna have a civilian ship powered by a nuclear reactor sailing past Somalia? Or pull an Exxon Valdez?
- junofan 3y ago
  Nuclear materials already move intercontinentally on commercial ships. Somalian pirates can already pull an Exxon Valdez using commercial oil tankers.
  - titzer 3y ago
    Also note that the potential for catastrophic meltdown / contamination is proportional to how much fuel you have on board. If you only have ~3 months fuel for a 20MW reactor, then it's not like a 3-mile-island or Chernobyl situation. There are plenty of modern reactor designs that don't turn into a giant cloud of radioactive smoke under duress, but shut down relatively calmly and safely.
jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
You'll note the Navy does not run nuclear for ordinary surface vessels, just carriers and subs. You should think about that more before suggesting we nuclearize freakin' container ships.
- titzer 3y ago
  That's mostly because smaller ships don't need as much power as a sub or carrier. The wattage required for a large container ship is about on par with the reactor for a nuclear sub.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
    No, it's not just that, it's because having nuclear on a ship has massive downsides in terms of cost and risks. There's a reason the only other ships that use them are icebreakers.
arrosenberg 3y ago
If you can resurrect a prime Hyman Rickover and put him in charge of the world's shipping fleet, I would consider retracting my statement. Though even if you did, I think he'd agree with my assessment.
FredPret 3y ago
The fact that the US Navy can safely run a large number of reactors not only at sea but with tiny crews under water is mindblowing. It's not like they can source spare parts from down the road, or call in experts as needed.