3 ms·

> We know nuclear at sea works well. Over 700 reactors have operated at sea, enduring the harsh environments of the world's choppy oceans. But there are no nucl

> We know nuclear at sea works well. Over 700 reactors have operated at sea, enduring the harsh environments of the world's choppy oceans. But there are no nuclear-powered commercial ships in service today because the reactor technologies available are unsuited for civilian maritime transportation. > The nuclear power system must be passively safe under all conditions and meet or exceed the highest standards set for security and safeguards by design. [No mention of crew training requirements, nor staffing levels, nor domestic politics at major ports, nor the failures of critical engineering systems on the Dali which lead to the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, nor ...] Does this guy understand modern commercial shipping at anything above the "pretty plastic toys in my bathtub" level? Military nuclear propulsion plants are built and staffed at Pentagon Budget levels. Vs. the still-surviving companies in the commercial shipping business are obsessed with cost control. (The MV Dali had a total crew of 22 when it hit the bridge. Vs. nuclear subs, even if less than 5% of the Dali's weight, have crews of 100 or so.) And exactly how does that "safe under all conditions" thing work, if the freighter SS Atom Balm is grabbed by Somali pirates, and they're crawling around inside the reactor compartment with cutting torches and demolition charges?

PaulHoule 2y ago
The PWR is definitely not safe under all conditions because it involves water at high pressures that can participate in a steam explosion. You would not have the same problems with an HTGR (which potentially leaks very little radiation even if the core was mechanically disassembled) or an MSR. As for the Dali note that the ship didn't suffer that much damage (it didn't sink) and I can't imagine a centrally localized reactor would have suffered much damage. Note nuclear submarines do run aground, crash into other submarines and both friendly and adversary vessels at sea. Of all the ways of dying in a submarine, problems with the nuclear reactor usually aren't one of them. So far as proliferation goes, a reactor that is difficult to take apart is a feature and not a bug.

PaulHoule 2y ago

The PWR is definitely not safe under all conditions because it involves water at high pressures that can participate in a steam explosion. You would not have the same problems with an HTGR (which potentially leaks very little radiation even if the core was mechanically disassembled) or an MSR. As for the Dali note that the ship didn't suffer that much damage (it didn't sink) and I can't imagine a centrally localized reactor would have suffered much damage. Note nuclear submarines do run aground, crash into other submarines and both friendly and adversary vessels at sea. Of all the ways of dying in a submarine, problems with the nuclear reactor usually aren't one of them. So far as proliferation goes, a reactor that is difficult to take apart is a feature and not a bug.