4 ms·

Why would you bother with the complexity of containerized nuclear reactors when you have containerized batteries that can easily be loaded/unloaded by standard

by rswail 11mo ago

Why would you bother with the complexity of containerized nuclear reactors when you have containerized batteries that can easily be loaded/unloaded by standard port facilities?

overfeed 11mo ago
To get paid more money for the additional +480[1] container capacity you gain over the ships life. 1. I'm ball-parking an onboard nuclear source would take up the equivalent displacement as 20-50 containers.
ragebol 11mo ago
You can carry more cargo if you don't need all those batteries. If that difference makes economic sense is not yet known of course, as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of.
- fooker 11mo ago
  > as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-reactors/small-modular-reactors/small-modular-reactor-smr-design-database https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-...
  - ragebol 11mo ago
    Many in design, a few under construction, 2 in operation, by China & Russia. My point being still: the economics aren't clear yet.
- mikkupikku 11mo ago
  > as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of. Even if you built one, as some people have proposed designs, it doesn't get you nuclear reactors you can just stack up on a ship or something. Containerized reactors could be convenient for getting a reactor to a remote site where it's needed but once there you'll have to provide substantial shielding for it; usually the way this is meant to be done in these proposals is digging a big hole and/or putting up earthen berms around it. And those earthen berms will be subjected to a lot of neutron radiation, so you need a plan to deal with the site after you run this reactor for any substantial amount of time; the whole site will be radioactive. There's really no getting around this, and most of the people pitching container-sized nuclear reactors are hoping investors don't realize it. The amount of shielding that you could ever hope to place in an ISO container isn't anywhere near enough.
  - fooker 11mo ago
    You can use the reactor in the open ocean where shielding is not a big deal, and switch to conventional fuels when needed. Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers already exist in pretty good numbers.
    - rgmerk 11mo ago
      Reactor fuel remains radioactive even when the reactor isn't operating. And the proposal was a containerised nuclear reactor, so you're going to irradiate the surrounding containers in the process. Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are completely different beasts. The reactor core is very heavily shielded, is built into the ship/boat, and is tended by a team of expert operators, and (at least in the case of US/UK subs) uses bomb-grade uranium as fuel.
PunchyHamster 11mo ago
having to change batteries every 2 years instead of every trip would be one. Saving few tons would be another

by rswail 11mo ago

Why would you bother with the complexity of containerized nuclear reactors when you have containerized batteries that can easily be loaded/unloaded by standard port facilities?

overfeed 11mo ago

To get paid more money for the additional +480[1] container capacity you gain over the ships life. 1. I'm ball-parking an onboard nuclear source would take up the equivalent displacement as 20-50 containers.

ragebol 11mo ago

You can carry more cargo if you don't need all those batteries. If that difference makes economic sense is not yet known of course, as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of.

fooker 11mo ago
> as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-reactors/small-modular-reactors/small-modular-reactor-smr-design-database https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-...
- ragebol 11mo ago
  Many in design, a few under construction, 2 in operation, by China & Russia. My point being still: the economics aren't clear yet.
mikkupikku 11mo ago
> as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of. Even if you built one, as some people have proposed designs, it doesn't get you nuclear reactors you can just stack up on a ship or something. Containerized reactors could be convenient for getting a reactor to a remote site where it's needed but once there you'll have to provide substantial shielding for it; usually the way this is meant to be done in these proposals is digging a big hole and/or putting up earthen berms around it. And those earthen berms will be subjected to a lot of neutron radiation, so you need a plan to deal with the site after you run this reactor for any substantial amount of time; the whole site will be radioactive. There's really no getting around this, and most of the people pitching container-sized nuclear reactors are hoping investors don't realize it. The amount of shielding that you could ever hope to place in an ISO container isn't anywhere near enough.
- fooker 11mo ago
  You can use the reactor in the open ocean where shielding is not a big deal, and switch to conventional fuels when needed. Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers already exist in pretty good numbers.
  - rgmerk 11mo ago
    Reactor fuel remains radioactive even when the reactor isn't operating. And the proposal was a containerised nuclear reactor, so you're going to irradiate the surrounding containers in the process. Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are completely different beasts. The reactor core is very heavily shielded, is built into the ship/boat, and is tended by a team of expert operators, and (at least in the case of US/UK subs) uses bomb-grade uranium as fuel.

PunchyHamster 11mo ago

having to change batteries every 2 years instead of every trip would be one. Saving few tons would be another