3 ms·
TBH this makes the most sense. Nuclear for large scale shipping + battery electric or hydrogen for smaller distances, rivers etc.
by bgnn 17d ago
TBH this makes the most sense. Nuclear for large scale shipping + battery electric or hydrogen for smaller distances, rivers etc.
- ok_dad 16d agoNuclear power is expensive enough on land. At sea it’ll never compete with any other energy source. They’ll be pulling hydrocarbons from the air before they do nuclear ships in earnest. Yes I have heard of nuclear carriers and subs, the only two useful applications of nuclear power at sea.
- rozab 16d agoRussia has been using nuclear icebreakers for civilian purposes since the 50s, and has also used nuclear propulsion for other vessel types, as has the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker
- ok_dad 16d agoThanks, I am pretty knowledgeable about nuclear ships and they’re only used in specific situations because they don’t care about cost for those situations. It’s too expensive for cargo and there is no training pipeline for civilian naval reactors so this idea is dead on arrival. I’m pro nuclear tech but the economics and systems will not support nuclear for ships right now. We are barely making headway into nuclear on land these days, let’s focus on that for now.