Nuclear Cargo ships might become a thing again.

[dgianstefani]

USA, Russia, Japan and some others trialled this decades ago but ports wouldn't let them dock so the ships failed commercially.

Maybe this time around things will be different, as cargo ships are one of the biggest polluters, moreso than cars AFAIK.

 

[Hyderz]

lets say the nuclear powered ship runs perfectly with no engine issue...
how about when the hull is damaged or its sinking... what then? wouldnt the radiation leak out into ocean?
water flows and the current will travel far and not just damage to the surrounding area...
this is a chinese company and they are all about profit... the zero emissions is just to please the press...
im sorry to come across as negative but i dont have a lot of confidence in the chinese to manufacture this to the safest level as possible...

 

[dgianstefani]

Well they aren't exactly innovating, like I said the West did this many decades ago, it was dropped for fearmongering reasons not practical ones. Remember the oil/fossil fuel lobby funds most of the anti nuclear movement.

 

[delshay]

But there are a number of countries that do not allow nuclear vessel near they boarders, so I can't see this happening.

 

[dgianstefani]

Look into molten salt reactors, very different to conventional nuclear.

 

[LabRat 891]

I love this concept, I see it as 'economical'.
Not to mention, this could potentially facilitate drone freighters that can run 24x7/365 with minimal/no crew.

Look into molten salt reactors, very different to conventional nuclear.

However, the mention of molten salt nuclear reactors on seafaring vessels
(that could be rent in twain by tsunamis, etc.)
comes across as disastrously hilarious.
(on first-thought).

But there are a number of countries that do not allow nuclear vessel near they boarders, so I can't see this happening.

Cool.
Make them double as drone-motherships, for couriering to shore/legal shipping means.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Russia

Has one nuclear cargo ship in use. Also existing nuclear powered icebreakers.

 

[dgianstefani]

Has one nuclear cargo ship in use. Also existing nuclear powered icebreakers.

Several countries did it, Russia is the only one who kept it, since the others went out of business due to fearmongering.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Nuclear powered naval vessels have been a reality since 1955 in military use. Enough countries have them. Therefore, we have almost 70 years of experience. Small-scale nuclear reactors are nothing new in this world, although the media is trying to push such publicity materials of some companies that are recently engaged in the production of such reactors.

 

[gurusmi]

Chinese nuclear bombs all over the world...

 

[R0H1T]

I mean nuclear is probably the closest to "zero emissions" we'll ever get to in our lifetimes so why not, at least till there's some major fusion breakthrough!

 

[Onasi]

Chinese nuclear bombs all over the world...

Despite popular belief, nuclear reactors are not and cannot in any capacity be nuclear bombs. Yes, they (theoretically) can be converted into a “dirty bomb”, but so can be anything containing radioactive material. And that’s not a nuclear weapon in any case.

 

[gurusmi]

Despite popular belief, nuclear reactors are not and cannot in any capacity be nuclear bombs. Yes, they (theoretically) can be converted into a “dirty bomb”, but so can be anything containing radioactive material. And that’s not a nuclear weapon in any case.

And where is the difference to have a nuclear bomb or a dirty bomb exploded at the harbor of let's say San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, etc? There is no difference if a harbor isn't available anymore because of a nuclear bomb or radioactivity. It keeps unusuable. Also the died people won't differ. They died. Just remember about Tchernobyl and Pripyat.

Btw. I know about the technical differences.

 

[Onasi]

You can render any harbor unusable even with powerful conventional weapons or something more destructive, like thermobarics. Or heavily mine it. It matters not. However, poisoning the ocean waters with radiation is an incredibly poor strategy considering, you know, all the currents that flow all over the globe. There is a reason why radiological weapons are not used, besides the ethical concerns. They simply aren’t a smart play.

 

[Hyderz]

maybe some of you might not know but in the early 2000 when the chinese have builts its new high speed train to get across china....
long story short there were quite a number of accidents and some didnt even get mentioned in the media...
poor building of the train tracks and infrastructure... they built it so fast... in order to start profiting...

 

[R0H1T]

However, poisoning the ocean waters with radiation is an incredibly poor strategy considering, you know, all the currents that flow all over the globe.

Yeah better to dump that oil tanker, no wait

poor building of the train tracks and infrastructure... they built it so fast... in order to start profiting...

The Chinese also build the latest 15 pro max or whatever's the newest model ~ they can build anything from crud to absolutely state of the art! Also hiding train/related accidents isn't just a China thing.

How the Ohio Train Derailment and Its Aftermath Unfolded

The Feb. 3 derailment in East Palestine of a Norfolk Southern train carrying toxic chemicals set off an emergency response as residents worried about long-term health effects.

www.nytimes.com

While your general point about safety is fine but this isn't something restricted to a region or nation!

 

[the54thvoid]

LQ'd a post, then one or two that quoted it. The OP is a serious post and doesn't need to be derailed with petty 'this country bad' statements. If you want to go off topic and discuss 'transport accidents', please create a new thread somewhere.

 

[JackOO7]

Don't forget that you cannot just "drive" a nuclear reactor in any port/country. You will have to get a (Atomic energy act like) permit to do that, probably in every country you will dock.
As it is a nuclear reactor this also will depend if the design is approved by a national authority (I don't know if the US will approve a Chinese designed reactor in their harbor).

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I'm interested in the claim that there are legal restrictions on nuclear powered marine vessels. Surely there are many countries in which there probably is no legislation on the matter at all, or there is none that prohibits access to ports? So, are there any countries where such access is expressly prohibited under all circumstances?

 

[Ripcord]

Molten salt reactors don't work as far as I'm aware(not for long anyways) as the molten salt is very corrosive. the reactors basically destroy themselves. they a safer in theory but I haven't heard of anyone getting them to work

 

[Assimilator]

Molten salt reactors don't work as far as I'm aware(not for long anyways) as the molten salt is very corrosive. the reactors basically destroy themselves. they a safer in theory but I haven't heard of anyone getting them to work

That was true in the 1960s. The world has somewhat moved on since then.

 

[the54thvoid]

Molten salt reactors don't work as far as I'm aware(not for long anyways) as the molten salt is very corrosive. the reactors basically destroy themselves. they a safer in theory but I haven't heard of anyone getting them to work

That was true in the 1960s. The world has somewhat moved on since then.

I found this for some clarirty, though I'm not sure these are suitable for marine vessels.

New CRP: R&D to Advance Decommissioning of Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors (T24009)

www.iaea.org

Five sodium cooled FRs are in operation worldwide and others are approaching commissioning while older facilities, including experimental ones and prototypes, are in the process of being permanently shut down for decommissioning.

 

[StormLightningSL]

The biggest difference between a country's military using a particular technology (for e.g. nuclear subs) as compared to commercial production of nuclear-powered cargo ships, is that the country whose military is using such technology is usually able to be held responsible for the use and operation of such dangerous technology. While I admit that not all countries are forthright about every accident that takes place, or are ready and willing to compensate the earth's people for accidents and the resulting pollution/risks, at least there are certain safe-guards built-in into such military exercises, except in the case of rogue states.

Private companies, or even state-owned corporations, having access to and deploying such technology into the everyday world is a matter of very high risk. Every responsible country has built-in protocols for safety and limitation/controls on the use of technology with the potential of very high destruction, and rightly so. If rogue corporations, most of which are run on the whims of individuals or small boards who are mostly concerned with profit and especially when ownership is often shrouded in secrecy due to multiple layers of ownership obfuscation, are given permission to actively deploy such risky technology, the world better watch out.

The specter of dirty-bombs is very real, especially in scenarios where unknown persons can be easily blamed for having "pirated" the vessel, etc., just as an example. These ideas are good in isolation and as an expression of the potential of advanced technologies. In practice, it may not be as simple as it sounds with regards to monitoring and control of the deployment of such high-risk technology into the common civilian world. It is easy to say that nothing is impossible and where there is a will, there will be a way, but, this is the real world, and things don't always go according to plan in the real world. Or, as the latest war-zone situations in Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Palestine show, sadly, sometimes they do.

 

[dgianstefani]

The biggest difference between a country's military using a particular technology (for e.g. nuclear subs) as compared to commercial production of nuclear-powered cargo ships, is that the country whose military is using such technology is usually able to be held responsible for the use and operation of such dangerous technology. While I admit that not all countries are forthright about every accident that takes place, or are ready and willing to compensate the earth's people for accidents and the resulting pollution/risks, at least there are certain safe-guards built-in into such military exercises, except in the case of rogue states.

Private companies, or even state-owned corporations, having access to and deploying such technology into the everyday world is a matter of very high risk. Every responsible country has built-in protocols for safety and limitation/controls on the use of technology with the potential of very high destruction, and rightly so. If rogue corporations, most of which are run on the whims of individuals or small boards who are mostly concerned with profit and especially when ownership is often shrouded in secrecy due to multiple layers of ownership obfuscation, are given permission to actively deploy such risky technology, the world better watch out.

The specter of dirty-bombs is very real, especially in scenarios where unknown persons can be easily blamed for having "pirated" the vessel, etc., just as an example. These ideas are good in isolation and as an expression of the potential of advanced technologies. In practice, it may not be as simple as it sounds with regards to monitoring and control of the deployment of such high-risk technology into the common civilian world. It is easy to say that nothing is impossible and where there is a will, there will be a way, but, this is the real world, and things don't always go according to plan in the real world. Or, as the latest war-zone situations in Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Palestine show, sadly, sometimes they do.

In the real world private companies have been operating nuclear reactors for many decades.

 

[StormLightningSL]

In the real world private companies have been operating nuclear reactors for many decades.

Completely unsupervised and without oversight? I'm really surprised to hear that. I thought government involvement was a must in every facility supplying nuclear power, or having access to such technology. At least, it does where I am located.

I wonder how close we are to a situation where someone at the top of a private corporation suddenly changes their opinion about some incident (political or otherwise), and deciding that since they have the power, maybe they ought to exercise it in ways that may not be completely acceptable.