10 ms·

Nuclear power seems like a good option for non-military boats too, like container ships and oil tankers. It's already a very well proven maritime technology.

hef19898 3y ago
That was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea. Too expensive and no real benefit over ship engines. By the way, tha vast majority of military ships and boats are not nuclear powered.
- davkan 3y ago
  Aside from the environmental benefit right? Don’t lots of large ships burn cheaper fuel higher in pollutants when on unregulated wafers?
  - api 3y ago
    Ships and planes together account for single digit percentages of global fossil fuel use and emissions. It’s almost all cars, trucks, and electric power, so those are the things it makes the most sense to worry about as opposed to things that are much harder to decarbonize and account for less emissions.
    - davkan 3y ago
      Is ship pollution really that negligible?[0] To be clear though the entire world is dependent on trans ocean shipping, it cannot be kneecapped for environmental purposes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a relevant part of the issue. [0] https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/The-return-of-the-cruise-June-2023.pdf https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023...
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      And a great deal of what's sent by ship is... fossil fuels!
  - hef19898 3y ago
    So? The industry, shipping, agreed on standards and a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. And if you think nuclear power plants on civilian cargo vessels are a good idea,consider the following: - costs for a single ship reactor (shipping is extremely price and cost sensitive) - time, and lost revenue (a ship not carrying cargo is only costing money, see above) for refuelling - piracy and terrorism (I am not really convinced risking having some pirate group somewhere capture nuclear reactor is a good idea)
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Also, shipping doesn't have a reputation for operating in the bright sunshine of law and regulation, with expert leadership and engineering. We're not talking about the US Navy building and operating nuclear submarines, led by Navy officers, who have gone through extensive training, have years of experience, a culture of competency, etc.
    - davkan 3y ago
      Just pointing out a benefit when it was said there was none, I agree with all your points here.
    - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      Or just the attacks by the Houthi in the Red Sea the past month. Imagine one target being nuclear powered.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea We only did a demo ship, which was combination cargo and passenger. The principal cost was being rejected from ports for their lacking acceptance procedures, a first-mover cost. Nuclear shipping has never been “found to be a stupid idea.” It was simply never explored.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    It was, up to the point the only German nuclear powered vessel was a cargo ship. It was tried in the heyday of nuclear power, and didn't go anywhere. So yes, civilian nuclear ships have been tried and found to be expensive, not feasible and a dead end, or, if you use different words, stupid.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the only German nuclear powered vessel was a cargo ship I was referring to the NS Savannah [1]. Put her engine and crew requirements on a modern supertanker and you have an economically viable, environmentally friendly ship. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
      - hef19898 3y ago
        The only nation that has experience with civilian, nuclear powered vessels today is Russia with its fleet of icebreakers. And let's be realistic, military maritime reactor tech will never see use in civilian vessels, same as military jet engines, those purely developed for milotary purposes, don't see civilian use neither. And the latest Russian buold programm delivered: - Artika, laid down in 2013 and delivered in 2017, entry into service delayed from 2019 to 2020 and again to 2021 due damages during trials - Sibir was laid down in 2015 and delivered operationally in 2022 - Ural was laid down in 2016 and entered service in 2022 - Yakutia was laid down in 2020, planned entry into service is 2024 - Chukotka was laid down end of 2020, planned entry into service is 2026 Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-... That's it for civilian nuclear vessels. Meanwhile, in 2022 (a slow year apparently), 182 tankers, 350 container vessels and 69 car transporters were ordered. I didn't find actual deliveries after cursory search. Source: https://insights.clarksons.net/2022-shipbuilding-review/ https://insights.clarksons.net/2022-shipbuilding-review/ As for the small, mass producable reactors needed for civilian use: "At the moment, several technology providers are dealing with manufacturing of prototypes, the development processes of which are at different levels of maturity, envisaging more or less a decade before completing proof of concepts." Source: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/maritime-industry-explores-nuclear-power-ships-technology-opens-up-2023-09-19/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/maritime-industry-exp... The first source also has this to say about NS Savannah and the Herman Otto Hahn: Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the 1950s but on the whole has not been commercially successful. The 22,000 tonne US-built NS Savannah, was commissioned in 1962 and decommissioned eight years later. The reactor used 4.2% and 4.6% enriched uranium. It was a technical success, but not economically viable. It had a 74 MWt reactor delivering 16.4 MW to the propeller, but the reactor was uprated to 80 MWt in 1964. The German-built 15,000 tonne Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed some 650,000 nautical miles on 126 voyages in 10 years without any technical problems. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. However, it proved too expensive to operate and in 1982 it was converted to diesel. Meanwhile, the US Navy has nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, but all other nuclear surface vessels have been retired. In short, we are at least ten years away from a suitable proof of concept reactor design (tue NS Savannah one already showed to be not economical), let alone from having an industrial base to build hundreds of those each and every year. And therein lies the big problem with nuclear power: it is too expensive and takes too much time to be of any good short term. And if we managed to find a solution short term, and in a lot of cases we already have technical solitions that are deployed, we don't need nuclear mid to long term anymore.
- DerSaidin 3y ago
  What are other options for ships if fossil fuels were phased out? Big batteries? https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-07-28/making-waves-electric-ships-are-sailing-ahead/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-07-28/making-waves-e... Hydrogen fuel? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_ship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_ship Yeah, those options seem simpler.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
    Sustainable fuels. It's the solution long haul aviation is coalescing around.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Synthetic fuel has a lot of difficulties. One, it requires hydrogen as an input which is typically produced through steam reformation [1], a process that emits CO2. Electrolysis is less efficient and hard to scale as equipment is subject to intense corrosion. Second, CO2 is at very low concentrations in the atmosphere. Direct atmospheric carbon sequestration is expensive and slow. The biggest startup in the synthetic fuel business is behind schedule and is struggling to solve these two main challenges [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming 2. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/prometheus-fuels-startup-carbon-neutral/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/promethe...
      - xorcist 3y ago
        Ammonia?
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        Ammonia also requires hydrogen as an input. Ammonia is essentially a storage mechanism for hydrogen, eliminating the need for cryogenic or compressed storage. Basically, you need to find a carbon-neutral alternative to the Haber process [1] to produce ammonia as fuel. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
- seany 3y ago
  Isn't this "technically accurate", but also misleading? The list of ships (1) isn't that long, and almost all of them had random other issues that made using them as a 1:1 comparison not really that useful. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civilian_nuclear_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civi...
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  The NS Savannah [1] was indeed a marketing stunt. But in the 1960s climate change wasn't really an issue. If you have to ship bulk cargo across the Pacific, nuclear is largely your only option. Hydrogen is another potential choice, but you'd need a carbon neutral way of producing that option. Electrolysis isn't efficient, and steam reformation emits carbon dioxide. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Given that we ship cargo in incredible amounts across all oceans, ranging from liquids, bulk to containers and cars everyday with zero nuclear-powered carho vessels, calling nuclear your only option is odd.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about carbon-free propulsion options. Batteries don't have the energy capacity required for long distance shipping, and their weight is a big issue for ships. 300 mile range is fine for an EV, it's not for a ship.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        That's what IRENA worked out in the frame of the initiative to decarbonise ocean shipping by 2050 when it comes to fuel: >> In the short term, advanced biofuels will play a key role in the reduction of CO2 emissions. In the medium and long-term, green hydrogen-based fuels are set to be the backbone for the sector’s decarbonisation.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        Present biomass energy doesn't have remotely close to scale required to decarbonize ocean transportation. I'm sure the "advanced" part of advanced biomass assumes some mega-algae or something else that is far more productive than existing biomass, but if that technology hasn't been developed yet then you might as well just say nuclear fusion is the solution. Hydrogen is currently produced via steam reformation [1], which emits carbon dioxide. Electrolysis is less efficient and corrosion of electrodes inhibits scale. Nuclear maritime propulsion is far more mature than any of the alternatives. Submarines and warships have been using it for over half a century. Could a technological breakthrough create a better alternative? Maybe, but we can't move ships with potential technologies until said technologies make the transition from "potential" to "real". 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
- codersfocus 3y ago
  There needs to be nuclear powered "oiler ships" that stay out at sea indefinitely and recharge passing by electric ships.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Great idea. Now, either apply to YC with it or convince the shipping industry to revise their decarbonisation startegy by going full nuclear with nuclear charging vessels.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Batteries don't have the required energy density to make electric transoceanic possible travel. They're also heavy and would drastically reduce the cargo capacity of ships. It'd be more effective to just put the nuclear reactors on the cargo ships. Nuclear maritime propulsion is much more mature than long-distance electric propulsion (diesel subs have used electricity, but only over short distances).
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Not sure if two weeks and 2,800 km submerged count as short distance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212A_submarine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212A_submarine The reason why those systems aren't deployed to civilian surface ships is easy: cost.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        New York City to Lisbon is 5,400 kilometers. So no, 2,800 km is not even far enough to cross the Atlantic let alone the Pacific. That submarine also does not use batteries for energy storage, it uses hydrogen gas (almost certainly produced via steam reformation).
        hef19898 3y ago
acidburnNSA 3y ago
I recently got this excellent 1964 film showing the NS Savannah digitized from 16mm film in the National Archives vault. Very glorious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA8W2Xpz2hA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA8W2Xpz2hA

hef19898 3y ago

That was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea. Too expensive and no real benefit over ship engines. By the way, tha vast majority of military ships and boats are not nuclear powered.

davkan 3y ago
Aside from the environmental benefit right? Don’t lots of large ships burn cheaper fuel higher in pollutants when on unregulated wafers?
- api 3y ago
  Ships and planes together account for single digit percentages of global fossil fuel use and emissions. It’s almost all cars, trucks, and electric power, so those are the things it makes the most sense to worry about as opposed to things that are much harder to decarbonize and account for less emissions.
  - davkan 3y ago
    Is ship pollution really that negligible?[0] To be clear though the entire world is dependent on trans ocean shipping, it cannot be kneecapped for environmental purposes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a relevant part of the issue. [0] https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/The-return-of-the-cruise-June-2023.pdf https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023...
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    And a great deal of what's sent by ship is... fossil fuels!
- hef19898 3y ago
  So? The industry, shipping, agreed on standards and a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. And if you think nuclear power plants on civilian cargo vessels are a good idea,consider the following: - costs for a single ship reactor (shipping is extremely price and cost sensitive) - time, and lost revenue (a ship not carrying cargo is only costing money, see above) for refuelling - piracy and terrorism (I am not really convinced risking having some pirate group somewhere capture nuclear reactor is a good idea)
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Also, shipping doesn't have a reputation for operating in the bright sunshine of law and regulation, with expert leadership and engineering. We're not talking about the US Navy building and operating nuclear submarines, led by Navy officers, who have gone through extensive training, have years of experience, a culture of competency, etc.
  - davkan 3y ago
    Just pointing out a benefit when it was said there was none, I agree with all your points here.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    Or just the attacks by the Houthi in the Red Sea the past month. Imagine one target being nuclear powered.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea We only did a demo ship, which was combination cargo and passenger. The principal cost was being rejected from ports for their lacking acceptance procedures, a first-mover cost. Nuclear shipping has never been “found to be a stupid idea.” It was simply never explored.
- hef19898 3y ago
  It was, up to the point the only German nuclear powered vessel was a cargo ship. It was tried in the heyday of nuclear power, and didn't go anywhere. So yes, civilian nuclear ships have been tried and found to be expensive, not feasible and a dead end, or, if you use different words, stupid.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the only German nuclear powered vessel was a cargo ship I was referring to the NS Savannah [1]. Put her engine and crew requirements on a modern supertanker and you have an economically viable, environmentally friendly ship. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The only nation that has experience with civilian, nuclear powered vessels today is Russia with its fleet of icebreakers. And let's be realistic, military maritime reactor tech will never see use in civilian vessels, same as military jet engines, those purely developed for milotary purposes, don't see civilian use neither. And the latest Russian buold programm delivered: - Artika, laid down in 2013 and delivered in 2017, entry into service delayed from 2019 to 2020 and again to 2021 due damages during trials - Sibir was laid down in 2015 and delivered operationally in 2022 - Ural was laid down in 2016 and entered service in 2022 - Yakutia was laid down in 2020, planned entry into service is 2024 - Chukotka was laid down end of 2020, planned entry into service is 2026 Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-... That's it for civilian nuclear vessels. Meanwhile, in 2022 (a slow year apparently), 182 tankers, 350 container vessels and 69 car transporters were ordered. I didn't find actual deliveries after cursory search. Source: https://insights.clarksons.net/2022-shipbuilding-review/ https://insights.clarksons.net/2022-shipbuilding-review/ As for the small, mass producable reactors needed for civilian use: "At the moment, several technology providers are dealing with manufacturing of prototypes, the development processes of which are at different levels of maturity, envisaging more or less a decade before completing proof of concepts." Source: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/maritime-industry-explores-nuclear-power-ships-technology-opens-up-2023-09-19/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/maritime-industry-exp... The first source also has this to say about NS Savannah and the Herman Otto Hahn: Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the 1950s but on the whole has not been commercially successful. The 22,000 tonne US-built NS Savannah, was commissioned in 1962 and decommissioned eight years later. The reactor used 4.2% and 4.6% enriched uranium. It was a technical success, but not economically viable. It had a 74 MWt reactor delivering 16.4 MW to the propeller, but the reactor was uprated to 80 MWt in 1964. The German-built 15,000 tonne Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed some 650,000 nautical miles on 126 voyages in 10 years without any technical problems. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. However, it proved too expensive to operate and in 1982 it was converted to diesel. Meanwhile, the US Navy has nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, but all other nuclear surface vessels have been retired. In short, we are at least ten years away from a suitable proof of concept reactor design (tue NS Savannah one already showed to be not economical), let alone from having an industrial base to build hundreds of those each and every year. And therein lies the big problem with nuclear power: it is too expensive and takes too much time to be of any good short term. And if we managed to find a solution short term, and in a lot of cases we already have technical solitions that are deployed, we don't need nuclear mid to long term anymore.
DerSaidin 3y ago
What are other options for ships if fossil fuels were phased out? Big batteries? https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-07-28/making-waves-electric-ships-are-sailing-ahead/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-07-28/making-waves-e... Hydrogen fuel? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_ship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_ship Yeah, those options seem simpler.
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  Sustainable fuels. It's the solution long haul aviation is coalescing around.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Synthetic fuel has a lot of difficulties. One, it requires hydrogen as an input which is typically produced through steam reformation [1], a process that emits CO2. Electrolysis is less efficient and hard to scale as equipment is subject to intense corrosion. Second, CO2 is at very low concentrations in the atmosphere. Direct atmospheric carbon sequestration is expensive and slow. The biggest startup in the synthetic fuel business is behind schedule and is struggling to solve these two main challenges [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming 2. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/prometheus-fuels-startup-carbon-neutral/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/promethe...
    - xorcist 3y ago
      Ammonia?
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Ammonia also requires hydrogen as an input. Ammonia is essentially a storage mechanism for hydrogen, eliminating the need for cryogenic or compressed storage. Basically, you need to find a carbon-neutral alternative to the Haber process [1] to produce ammonia as fuel. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
seany 3y ago
Isn't this "technically accurate", but also misleading? The list of ships (1) isn't that long, and almost all of them had random other issues that made using them as a 1:1 comparison not really that useful. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civilian_nuclear_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civi...
Manuel_D 3y ago
The NS Savannah [1] was indeed a marketing stunt. But in the 1960s climate change wasn't really an issue. If you have to ship bulk cargo across the Pacific, nuclear is largely your only option. Hydrogen is another potential choice, but you'd need a carbon neutral way of producing that option. Electrolysis isn't efficient, and steam reformation emits carbon dioxide. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
- hef19898 3y ago
  Given that we ship cargo in incredible amounts across all oceans, ranging from liquids, bulk to containers and cars everyday with zero nuclear-powered carho vessels, calling nuclear your only option is odd.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about carbon-free propulsion options. Batteries don't have the energy capacity required for long distance shipping, and their weight is a big issue for ships. 300 mile range is fine for an EV, it's not for a ship.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      That's what IRENA worked out in the frame of the initiative to decarbonise ocean shipping by 2050 when it comes to fuel: >> In the short term, advanced biofuels will play a key role in the reduction of CO2 emissions. In the medium and long-term, green hydrogen-based fuels are set to be the backbone for the sector’s decarbonisation.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Present biomass energy doesn't have remotely close to scale required to decarbonize ocean transportation. I'm sure the "advanced" part of advanced biomass assumes some mega-algae or something else that is far more productive than existing biomass, but if that technology hasn't been developed yet then you might as well just say nuclear fusion is the solution. Hydrogen is currently produced via steam reformation [1], which emits carbon dioxide. Electrolysis is less efficient and corrosion of electrodes inhibits scale. Nuclear maritime propulsion is far more mature than any of the alternatives. Submarines and warships have been using it for over half a century. Could a technological breakthrough create a better alternative? Maybe, but we can't move ships with potential technologies until said technologies make the transition from "potential" to "real". 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
codersfocus 3y ago
There needs to be nuclear powered "oiler ships" that stay out at sea indefinitely and recharge passing by electric ships.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Great idea. Now, either apply to YC with it or convince the shipping industry to revise their decarbonisation startegy by going full nuclear with nuclear charging vessels.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Batteries don't have the required energy density to make electric transoceanic possible travel. They're also heavy and would drastically reduce the cargo capacity of ships. It'd be more effective to just put the nuclear reactors on the cargo ships. Nuclear maritime propulsion is much more mature than long-distance electric propulsion (diesel subs have used electricity, but only over short distances).
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Not sure if two weeks and 2,800 km submerged count as short distance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212A_submarine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212A_submarine The reason why those systems aren't deployed to civilian surface ships is easy: cost.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      New York City to Lisbon is 5,400 kilometers. So no, 2,800 km is not even far enough to cross the Atlantic let alone the Pacific. That submarine also does not use batteries for energy storage, it uses hydrogen gas (almost certainly produced via steam reformation).
      - hef19898 3y ago

acidburnNSA 3y ago

I recently got this excellent 1964 film showing the NS Savannah digitized from 16mm film in the National Archives vault. Very glorious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA8W2Xpz2hA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA8W2Xpz2hA