6 ms·

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
      That sub cals uses fuel cells, because WW2 is over for quite a while and technology advanced. But no, 2,800 km isn't short. Not feasible for commercial ise, sure, but then no submarine technology is commercially feasible. It is too specialized. Hence, green fuel as the preferred, and most realistic, option to decarbonize shipping.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Green fuel has proven exceptionally difficult to manufacture, and companies promising to produce it are running far behind schedule: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/prometheus-fuels-startup-carbon-neutral/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/promethe... > ...no submarine technology is commercially feasible. It is too specialized. Except that's demonstrably false. Many (most?) subs use nuclear propulsion, and there are civilian ships that use nuclear propulsion. The NS Savannah was operated successfully for a decade [1], and several Russian ice breakers for even longer than that. The fact that organization with the explicit goal of lobbying for renewables [2] prefers green fuel does not make it the optimal choice. It's the optimal choice to advance that group's goal of promoting green fuel, because nuclear power at scale is a competition risk for wind and solar 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy...
        hef19898 3y ago
        NS Savannah (one has to wonder why nobody mentions the German Otto Hahn, but whatever), was decomissioned for economical reasons. Heck, the only nuclear powered vessels the US Navy has are carriers and subs, even the lastest British carriers aren't nuclear powered anymore. All in all, besides the niche need of the Russians for nuclear powered icebreakers, there were three civilian nuclear ships: NS Savannah (economical failure), Otto Hahn (likewise and retrofitted with a diesel engine) and the Japanese one (forgot the name, but that was both a technological and economical disaster). And that is ignoring the fact that naval nuclear reactors are among the most well guarded secrets a nation has, none of that tech will ever see civilian use for that alone (the current generation thaz is, the reactors used in the three vessels mentioned showed already to be unfeasible for commercial use). Edit: Nuclear power is nowhere near to be a risk for wind and solar, wind alone adds multiple NPPs worth of capacity to the grid every month while the added net nuclear capacity is basically negligible for decades now. Nuclear is not, and won't be, built at scale in the next decades. Only potential exceptions are India (good, otherwise they would build coal plants) and China (purely political, and at the same time Chine is building even solar and wind power than nuclear).

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
    That sub cals uses fuel cells, because WW2 is over for quite a while and technology advanced. But no, 2,800 km isn't short. Not feasible for commercial ise, sure, but then no submarine technology is commercially feasible. It is too specialized. Hence, green fuel as the preferred, and most realistic, option to decarbonize shipping.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Green fuel has proven exceptionally difficult to manufacture, and companies promising to produce it are running far behind schedule: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/prometheus-fuels-startup-carbon-neutral/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/promethe... > ...no submarine technology is commercially feasible. It is too specialized. Except that's demonstrably false. Many (most?) subs use nuclear propulsion, and there are civilian ships that use nuclear propulsion. The NS Savannah was operated successfully for a decade [1], and several Russian ice breakers for even longer than that. The fact that organization with the explicit goal of lobbying for renewables [2] prefers green fuel does not make it the optimal choice. It's the optimal choice to advance that group's goal of promoting green fuel, because nuclear power at scale is a competition risk for wind and solar 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy...
      - hef19898 3y ago
        NS Savannah (one has to wonder why nobody mentions the German Otto Hahn, but whatever), was decomissioned for economical reasons. Heck, the only nuclear powered vessels the US Navy has are carriers and subs, even the lastest British carriers aren't nuclear powered anymore. All in all, besides the niche need of the Russians for nuclear powered icebreakers, there were three civilian nuclear ships: NS Savannah (economical failure), Otto Hahn (likewise and retrofitted with a diesel engine) and the Japanese one (forgot the name, but that was both a technological and economical disaster). And that is ignoring the fact that naval nuclear reactors are among the most well guarded secrets a nation has, none of that tech will ever see civilian use for that alone (the current generation thaz is, the reactors used in the three vessels mentioned showed already to be unfeasible for commercial use). Edit: Nuclear power is nowhere near to be a risk for wind and solar, wind alone adds multiple NPPs worth of capacity to the grid every month while the added net nuclear capacity is basically negligible for decades now. Nuclear is not, and won't be, built at scale in the next decades. Only potential exceptions are India (good, otherwise they would build coal plants) and China (purely political, and at the same time Chine is building even solar and wind power than nuclear).