Nuclear Cargo ships might become a thing again.

[TumbleGeorge]

Completely unsupervised and without oversight? I'm really surprised to hear that.

How you "hear" this in the topic? I'll failed to find it.

 

[StormLightningSL]

How you "hear" this in the topic? I'll failed to find it.

Haha! Got me! Maybe I'm speaking the words while I read them, like little kids do

Edit: Oh, wait. You meant that in reference to my saying I was surprised to hear that. By "that" I was referring to what he said, that private companies are operating nuclear power-plants already. Perhaps I should have put that sentence before my question for better readability. English is not my native language. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[silentbogo]

My biggest concern is not with China being a manufacturer per-se, and not with the concept of nuclear ships. We already have a bunch of nuclear submarines, missile carriers, scientific vessels, ice breakers, and yes - even cargo ships cruising across the ocean. The idea isn't new, and at least on paper it makes a lot of sense for big-ass cargo ships.
My issue is with the following:
Whenever I see "Molten Salt Reactor", I sense a slight smell of bullshit.
China was quite active in that field, but so far they haven't put in operation a single reactor, including sub-10MW test units which were supposed to go online back in 2021, but AFAIK were only publicly "greenlit" for three consecutive years

 

[Vayra86]

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).

It'll happen if these freighters get back in use. We need those ships to transport their cheap shit over here.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

I would suspect that a Quadriso or Triso fuel would be more acceptable for this type of application, vs a corrosive salt. Yes, there have been a lot of progress since the 60's, but there are still longevity concerns. Also, the Pebble-bed type reactor can be refueled easily and does not require a high grade of fuel. In fact, the fuel could be available at ports around the world without proliferation concerns - unlike molten salt reactors, Triso fuel is designed to burn all of the plutonium as it is produced. It is also resistant to melting, and in the event of a nautical (as compared to nuclear) accident, it wouldn't distribute a soluble radioactive solution into the ocean. The fuel would simply sink to the bottom and remain contained.

There are companies developing Pebble-bed type reactors with a footprint of a cargo container. These are not vaporware.

 

[dgianstefani]

I suspect the nuclear engineers and physicists who drew up these designs might know what they're doing.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

I suspect the nuclear engineers and physicists who drew up these designs might know what they're doing.

Indeed, but physicists and engineers are not always the ones in charge of the project, nor are they the ones in charge of regulating these.

 

[R0H1T]

So we wait for a portable tokamak then?

 

[Vayra86]

Well honestly, given the current outlook on climate and sea levels rising, getting more experience of anything on the water seems like a pretty good idea.

Can't see any trajectory right now that says we're fixing climate. Pop still growing, usage per pop still growing, and no trend of it turning either. I wonder how wrong things must go before we change. And if we can even change.

Even the Biden admin, with a pretty successful climate agenda and investment... is not working on reduction or transition. Green and reneweable is just on top of fossil.
In the EU, we're building like mad and actually transitioning for a large part.. but we also can't say we have answers for everything that's phased out with fossil. And realistically: we're building. We're not doing less. We're doing more, just in a different way.

I think nuclear is unavoidable. We probably should just shoot the waste off to a distant rock in the cosmos at some point? Oh by the way, what powers those rockets actually

 

[thesmokingman]

Indeed, but physicists and engineers are not always the ones in charge of the project, nor are they the ones in charge of regulating these.

Yea, when it comes to nuclear propulsion, we need the bean counters in charge.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Yea, when it comes to nuclear propulsion, we need the bean counters in charge.

Or politicians, or party officials...

 

[Easy Rhino]

Considering the real threat of piracy, I suspect nations would need to double security along the trade routes.

 

[ty_ger]

I think nuclear is unavoidable. We probably should just shoot the waste off to a distant rock in the cosmos at some point?

Right, that couldn't possibly fail catastrophically in the atmosphere or be prone to sabotage.

 

[Vayra86]

Right, that couldn't possibly fail catastrophically in the atmosphere or be prone to sabotage.

Obviously, and it'll probably do so at some point, like most things we tested and now have honed to near perfection

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Considering the real threat of piracy, I suspect nations would need to double security along the trade routes.

A very real concern. I would be interested to know if private armed merchant vessels are still a thing under modern maritime law.

For context, some maps below.

Last Decade:

This year:

 

[Onasi]

Looking at the map, a decent way to avoid a good chunk of piracy and potentially safeguard the prospective nuclear cargo ships would be via the Northern Sea Route. Can be a faster lane too. As a bonus, it already was essentially a test bed for nuclear civilian ships in the form of Russias ice breakers. Those seemed to be doing OK and no huge incidents were recorded, so the techn is solid, it seems. But that would require Russia to stop the current nonsense and play nice with everyone. I love politics.

Obviously, and it'll probably do so at some point, like most things we tested and now have honed to near perfection

I mean… a rocket ship full of nuclear waste crashing down somewhere with a population centre nearby just sounds like too big of a risk to take.

 

[JohH]

Not sold on this even if it is the safest type of reactor yet known.
The navies which operate nuclear ships had to go through a teething pain. They added many safety practices which will undoubtedly be corner cut when operated by any for-profit entity.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Looking at the map, a decent way to avoid a good chunk of piracy and potentially safeguard the prospective nuclear cargo ships would be via the Northern Sea Route. Can be a faster lane too. As a bonus, it already was essentially a test bed for nuclear civilian ships in the form of Russias ice breakers. Those seemed to be doing OK and no huge incidents were recorded, so the techn is solid, it seems. But that would require Russia to stop the current nonsense and play nice with everyone. I love politics.

I mean… a rocket ship full of nuclear waste crashing down somewhere with a population centre nearby just sounds like too big of a risk to take.

More or less, the open Atlantic routes (not including the Caribbean or Mediterranean) have been reasonably safe. However, the two biggest canals and most of the Indian Ocean would be a considerable risk. Also, it appears there is a non-negligable risk for the entire Chinese seaboard - and it is a Chinese company building this.

Also, imagine the desirablility of nuclear material to a hijacker. I doubt you could use historical data to predict the range of operations when the value of the prize increases dramatically.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

More or less, the open Atlantic routes (not including the Caribbean or Mediterranean) have been reasonably safe. However, the two biggest canals and most of the Indian Ocean would be a considerable risk. Also, it appears there is a non-negligable risk for the entire Chinese seaboard - and it is a Chinese company building this.

Also, imagine the desirablility of nuclear material to a hijacker. I doubt you could use historical data to predict the range of operations when the value of the prize increases dramatically.

Man touching uranium fuel
In one of comments.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

I mean the positives aside - like not having to refuel for 10-15years at a time and basically little to no pollution unless big kaboom was declared. Isnt MONEY a huge part of the problem? For instance when it comes to nuclear powered military vehicles. Those things require a lot of maintenance and upkeep to keep them going and many countries have cancelled, scrapped and mothballed nuclear powered military vehicles and projects (in some cases, even when the ships were built and and completed a patrol or short sea deployment...) because the costs to keep them in service is pretty high and they cant afford it.

New facilities are also going to have to be built just so they have somewhere to service these nuclear powered ships. All these things are going to require a tonne of investment.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Man touching uranium fuel
In one of comments.

Do you mind to explain what you are specifically referring to? I do not see anything with particular relavence to my comment, but I do not have a Quora account and may be missing it.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Do you mind to explain what you are specifically referring to? I do not see anything with particular relavence to my comment, but I do not have a Quora account and may be missing it.

Hmm, I think it can be read without an account. An account is required to be able to comment. The explanation is that nuclear fuel rods are less dangerous than the thread is trying to propagate. The uranium content percentage in them is an insignificant amount compared to the rest of the material. In the link I posted, there is a view of a spent nuclear fuel rod that the man is holding with his bare hand. There is not even damage from the emission of neutrons and other particles in the image quality.

 

[R-T-B]

it was dropped for fearmongering reasons not practical ones.

While I can buy that, I can equally buy that the reasons may have been valid. Have any links making an argument either way?

Completely unsupervised and without oversight?

This is the part that concerns me most. "At sea" it's about as unsupervised as it gets.

Solve that and you have a solid idea.

Hmm, I think it can be read without an account. An account is required to be able to comment. The explanation is that nuclear fuel rods are less dangerous than the thread is trying to propagate. The uranium content percentage in them is an insignificant amount compared to the rest of the material. In the link I posted, there is a view of a spent nuclear fuel rod that the man is holding with his bare hand. There is not even damage from the emission of neutrons and other particles in the image quality.

Is there a source for that besides quora? They are kind of... a bad source, at least.

And even his post notes it's Uranium-238 from a research reactor, not the more commonly employed (I think?) U235 that will mess you up.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

spent

Ah yes, depleted uranium.

Yeah, it has even less fissible material than natural uranium. However, this is intended to be a Thorium reactor - using a breeder cycle. Not too hard to repurpose into a production tool for proliferation, if captured intact.

Is there a source for that besides quora? They are kind of... a bad source, at least.

And even his post notes it's Uranium-238 from a research reactor, not the more commonly employed (I think?) U235 that will mess you up.

It is spent nuclear fuel. Reactor nuclear fuel is generally up to 5% (IIRC) U-235 (enriched up from under 1%), which is consumed by the fission reaction. This as well as the by-products of enriching are so safe they are used as aircraft weights and armor-peircing ammunition.

Small amounts of U-238 are also consumed, as they are transmuted into Plutonium-239. The "breeder" type reactors produce Pu-239 in relatively large quantities, and it can be extracted for other purposes.

A Thorium reactor has slightly different useful intermediate isotopes (Np-237, U-233, Pu-238), but there are definite proliferation concerns.

 

[Totally]

lets say the nuclear powered ship runs perfectly with no engine issue...

No, only if the reactor vessel or primary coolant loop is compromised.

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...

Yes and no.

I'll start with the no. You watch too many movies. The dangerous radioactive stuff is heavy, and it is going to sink to the ocean floor and sit there till the end days.

Now for the yes, some that comes into close proximity, e.g. wildlife, suspended solids, can become irradiated and create enough secondary radiation that can be carried away and be detected many miles away. Disclaimer: detectable != adverse/dangerous

My final 2c, under a literal ocean of water is the best case scenario to have an incident of uncontained radioactive material. Water has like 99.9% attenuation per ft³. So the radiation level 3ft away from the source would be a thousandth of that at the source. Don't let that mislead though that sliver of a slice of fraction probably still could kill a person.

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...