4 ms·

Nuclear powered shipping makes a lot of sense to me. No refuelling for 25 years, no localised pollution, powers through any type of weather conditions. No cha

by brc 12y ago

Nuclear powered shipping makes a lot of sense to me. No refuelling for 25 years, no localised pollution, powers through any type of weather conditions. No chance of oil spills (presuming they're not used as bulk oil carriers) Usually when I mention this someone brings up safety as a concern. Sure, it is a concern - but surely it can be engineered around with some type of sealed-for-life engine unit that can't be cracked open to steal the fuel or waste, and will just sink to the bottom of the ocean as a single unit in case of a shipwreck. It just seems made to me that navies have proven nuclear technology over the last 50 years or so, and yet it remains a military-only technology.

dredmorbius 12y ago
Sending fissibles through pirate-infested waters (or elsewhere that might be subject to either piracy or terrorism) seems like an ill-advised action. The specialized training required for nuclear crews is another issue. US Navy Rear Admiral Hymann G. Rickover, father of the nuclear navy, spoke on the safety record he'd achieved (and which continues to this day in the US Navy: not a single reactor breach accident, despite two nuclear submarines lost at sea). The safety record isn't some single trick, but an integrated process, which can't be trivially replicated. Putting nukes on commercial vessels is a nontrivial undertaking.
- mseebach 12y ago
  Just because something is non-trivial doesn't mean it's impossible or a bad idea. The reactor would be sealed in a way that isn't practical for submarines that have both space and serviceability constraints - so it would survive the ship sinking and remain sealed for eventual recovery. Also, putting a nuclear reactor on a submarine in the 1950s is a significantly different undertaking than putting a nuclear reactor on a transport ship in the 2020s. The piracy concern isn't a big one, IMO. What would they do? The fissible material in a reactor isn't bomb grade, but might still be fun for a dirty bomb. However, it's incredibly difficult to get at without enjoying a quick and extremely painful death. Also, the reactor stays on the ship and the ship can't disappear into the desert, like hostages can. All that said, obviously, there are a whole different set of issues to a nuclear commercial vessel, but I don't see that it's obviously out of the realm of the possible.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Rickover on paper reactors vs. real reactors: An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: 1. It is simple. 2. It is small. 3. It is cheap. 4. It is light. 5. It can be built very quickly. 6. It is very flexible in purpose. 7. Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. 8. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now. On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: 1. It is being built now. 2. It is behind schedule. 3. It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. 4. It is very expensive. 5. It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. 6. It is large. 7. It is heavy. 8. It is complicated. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover Pirates typically ransom things. A nuke is a pretty considerable thing to ransom. Sometimes they seize and sell them. A nuke is an interesting thing to sell.
- brc 12y ago
  Sure, it's non-trivial. So are self driving cars and building rockets. Still worth doing, though. Piracy would be the easiest thing to defeat, I would think. It's not like the pirates are going to cut it open with a sawzall to get at the fuel. They are after ransom for the crew and cargo, not in the market of obtaining nuclear by-products.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    As I note above, the reactor (and its fuel and decay products) themselves become something to ransom. Or sell. Self-driving cars don't have 10,000 year consequences (though some rockets do).

by brc 12y ago

dredmorbius 12y ago

Sending fissibles through pirate-infested waters (or elsewhere that might be subject to either piracy or terrorism) seems like an ill-advised action. The specialized training required for nuclear crews is another issue. US Navy Rear Admiral Hymann G. Rickover, father of the nuclear navy, spoke on the safety record he'd achieved (and which continues to this day in the US Navy: not a single reactor breach accident, despite two nuclear submarines lost at sea). The safety record isn't some single trick, but an integrated process, which can't be trivially replicated. Putting nukes on commercial vessels is a nontrivial undertaking.

mseebach 12y ago
Just because something is non-trivial doesn't mean it's impossible or a bad idea. The reactor would be sealed in a way that isn't practical for submarines that have both space and serviceability constraints - so it would survive the ship sinking and remain sealed for eventual recovery. Also, putting a nuclear reactor on a submarine in the 1950s is a significantly different undertaking than putting a nuclear reactor on a transport ship in the 2020s. The piracy concern isn't a big one, IMO. What would they do? The fissible material in a reactor isn't bomb grade, but might still be fun for a dirty bomb. However, it's incredibly difficult to get at without enjoying a quick and extremely painful death. Also, the reactor stays on the ship and the ship can't disappear into the desert, like hostages can. All that said, obviously, there are a whole different set of issues to a nuclear commercial vessel, but I don't see that it's obviously out of the realm of the possible.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Rickover on paper reactors vs. real reactors: An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: 1. It is simple. 2. It is small. 3. It is cheap. 4. It is light. 5. It can be built very quickly. 6. It is very flexible in purpose. 7. Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. 8. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now. On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: 1. It is being built now. 2. It is behind schedule. 3. It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. 4. It is very expensive. 5. It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. 6. It is large. 7. It is heavy. 8. It is complicated. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover Pirates typically ransom things. A nuke is a pretty considerable thing to ransom. Sometimes they seize and sell them. A nuke is an interesting thing to sell.
brc 12y ago
Sure, it's non-trivial. So are self driving cars and building rockets. Still worth doing, though. Piracy would be the easiest thing to defeat, I would think. It's not like the pirates are going to cut it open with a sawzall to get at the fuel. They are after ransom for the crew and cargo, not in the market of obtaining nuclear by-products.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  As I note above, the reactor (and its fuel and decay products) themselves become something to ransom. Or sell. Self-driving cars don't have 10,000 year consequences (though some rockets do).