4 ms·
Really? Afaik, the main cost for nuclear isn't fuel. A ship like that would run for so long that the initial cost seems quite amortized. Also, simply not having
by darkmighty 12y ago
Really? Afaik, the main cost for nuclear isn't fuel. A ship like that would run for so long that the initial cost seems quite amortized. Also, simply not having to carry those huge amounts of fuel for weeks/months seems like a big structural design bonus (and compound fuel economy). Care to ellaborate why nuclear doesn't make sense?
- krschultz 12y agoNuclear doesn't make sense at all for this. The expense for anything nuclear is astronomical. Every single component is build out of higher grade material, has fewer suppliers, needs more inspection, has higher maintenance, etc etc. The crew needs to be 10x better trained. The system itself is massively more complicated. I couldn't imagine it ever being more economical. Fuel costs have absolutely nothing to do why you switch to nuclear. Note that the US Navy has stopped making nuclear powered cruisers, and only makes nuclear powered submarines & aircraft carriers. They cost massively more than other ships of their size, and only 2 ship yards in the USA can build them.
- Amezarak 12y agoTo be fair, the Navy hasn't built any cruisers in 20 years and is doing everything it can to retire the ones still in service - which, as you say, are non-nuclear.