4 ms·

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_

by 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).
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        There's also the Sevmorput: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput Even just one example is an infinitely larger fleet of nuclear powered cargo ships than green-fuel powered cargo ships. Nuclear maritime propulsion isn't exactly a mystery. The basic operating principle of both pressurized water reactors and lead cooled reactors are known. All of the West's main geopolitical rivals (Russia, China) already have nuclear powered submarines - I'm not sure how you think technology for nuclear powered cargo ships are going tip the balance militarily.
        hef19898 3y ago
        This is pointless. The reason no nation on earth will green ligjt the use of it military maritime reactor tech for commercial use simple: this tech is secret and nobody wants the knowledge of said tech fall into opposition hands. ITAR is childs play in comparison. This means, new reactor tech needs to be developed from basically scratch. And no, the mere handful of Russian icebreakers, and that one cargo ship which is half an icebreaker, don't count. Not if we talk about thousand of commercial vessels in operation. One last question: Do you think we are faster to develop and build the tech and infrastructure for green fuels (which are needed everywhere from ships to planes) or to develop and build the industrial base to produce hundreds of small scale maritime nuclear reactors (for we don't even have the reactor tech yet)?

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).
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      There's also the Sevmorput: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput Even just one example is an infinitely larger fleet of nuclear powered cargo ships than green-fuel powered cargo ships. Nuclear maritime propulsion isn't exactly a mystery. The basic operating principle of both pressurized water reactors and lead cooled reactors are known. All of the West's main geopolitical rivals (Russia, China) already have nuclear powered submarines - I'm not sure how you think technology for nuclear powered cargo ships are going tip the balance militarily.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        This is pointless. The reason no nation on earth will green ligjt the use of it military maritime reactor tech for commercial use simple: this tech is secret and nobody wants the knowledge of said tech fall into opposition hands. ITAR is childs play in comparison. This means, new reactor tech needs to be developed from basically scratch. And no, the mere handful of Russian icebreakers, and that one cargo ship which is half an icebreaker, don't count. Not if we talk about thousand of commercial vessels in operation. One last question: Do you think we are faster to develop and build the tech and infrastructure for green fuels (which are needed everywhere from ships to planes) or to develop and build the industrial base to produce hundreds of small scale maritime nuclear reactors (for we don't even have the reactor tech yet)?