Chinese Nuclear Containerships | Decarbonization | US Ferry Grants | Ammonia Fueled Bulk Carriers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- Nuclear Power in Commercial Shipping
🚨This was story #6 in the December 8, 2023, What the Ship (Ep 95).🚨
What's Going on With Shipping?
Dec 14, 2023
In this episode, Sal Mercogliano - maritime historian @campbelledu - discusses the issues of decarbonization of commercial shipping; the announcement of grants to build US ferries; the first Ammonia-fueled bulk carriers, and the Chinese announcement to build nuclear-powered commercial ships.
#supplychain #nuclear #containerships
Support What's Going on With Shipping via:
Patreon: www.patreon.com/wgowshipping
Twitter: @mercoglianos
Facebook: @wgowshipping
Email: mercoglianosal@gmail.com
MSC, Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Wallenius Wilhelmsen call for an end date of fossil-only powered newbuilds
splash247.com/msc-maersk-cma-...
Biden Administration Announces $220 Million in Grants to Modernize Ferry Systems
gcaptain.com/biden-administra...
HMM matches Seaspan in massive car carriers order for Hyundai Glovis charter
splash247.com/hmm-matches-sea...
World’s First Ammonia-Fueled Bulk Carrier Project Moves Forward
gcaptain.com/worlds-first-amm...
Plans for Nuclear-Powered 24,000 TEU Containership Unveiled in China
gcaptain.com/nuclear-powered-...
The reactor for the Chinese ship is based on the TMSR-LF1 reactor. This is designed to run a continuous refueling cycle, with more liquid fuel being added while waste products are filtered out. It's designed to be extremely safe and highly automated, targeting air-cooled plants in the Chinese desert regions rather than standard water-cooled nuclear power plants.
What's interesting is that it does not run in a uranium fuel cycle, but as a breeder/fission reactor, using both fast and thermal neutrons. That's where the 'T' stands for in the reactor name: 'thorium'. Fertile Th-232 when exposed to fast neutrons will capture a neutron and turn into U-233, which is fissile. Similarly, transuranics (plutonium) and minor actinides (iodine, strontium, etc.) can also be bred into a fissile material this way, leading to extremely little waste, though I'm not sure they'll configure the reactor for this, as it does reduce overall efficiency (breeding vs fission events).
What this means is that the 'warship' angle is at first glance incorrect, as it is intended to bring nuclear power to arid regions of China where a water-based cooling loop is impractical. It also means that there should be very little nuclear 'waste' from these ship-based reactors, which is both good for operators (saves $$$) and massively eases the nuclear safety angle compared to dealing with spent fuel rods as with US naval reactors.
Thanks for bringing up this excellent point. I have pinned it to the comments.
Going with a brand new reactor design and an entirely new fuel cycle is not a good call. For a first line of ships they should go with what we know works well on a ship. New designs, particularly as different as this, tend to have unpredictable technical problems that you need years of running experience to iron out. If you put it directly in a ship, it will be sitting in service a lot of the time for this, which is not good neither for the ship's economics and usage, nor for its popularity in public. They will just insist it's "proof that nuclear is unreliable and unsafe".
Are you prepared to give the Houthis nuclear-powered vessels?
Don't put off the warship angle so lightly. Watching another YT channel going in depth into China's Aircraft Carriers, they'd very much like them to have the latest nuclear technology. Their recently launch "state of the art" carrier is not nuclear, but has an electromagnetic catapult system (copied from us) to launch aircraft. The problem they're supposed to be having is ramping up enough electricity to properly launch. A nuclear reactor would be very beneficial in that case.
@@zolikoff a Th-232 fuel cycle is not 'new' by any stretch of the imagination. It has been featured in 1950s-era reactors and beyond and India in particular has set up its own nuclear power industry to use the thorium fuel cycle, which is why they just commissioned a breeder reactor to produce the U-233 for their LWRs.
MSRs themselves have been experimented and trialed since at least the 1950s around the world (especially in the US), and calling them 'brand new' is therefore also highly inaccurate.
What China has done with the TSMR-LF1 (and the accompanying TSMR-SF design) is rather to take the existence knowledge and experiences and create a functioning prototype to create commercial versions of. It's far beyond merely experimental, in other words.
NS Savannah was the first nuclear-powered merchant ship. Built as part of Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace.
Glad some one mentioned it.
Savannah, Otto Hahn, Mutsu, and Sevmorput appear to be all of them.
Yes, and it was also an Abject Failure!!
@@towgod7985why, what happened?
@@PhilipX2030 The Savannah had to be subsidized from day one. It is my understanding that the ship never made a cent.
Thank you for speaking out about the Washington State Ferry system! As an infrequent rider, but a friend to many Islanders and ferry commuters, it's bananas that there are so many interruptions to service simply because we can't prioritize infrastructure spending.
why would the feds pay for a state ferry?
As a firefighter you already know how dangerous an ammonia leak can be, what are they doing to make sure that the crews stays safe? Especially during refueling operations.
This terrifies me.
Wanna know something MORE terrifying? The "new" refrigerant used in refrigerators is isobutane. I now have 250 pound bomb in my kitchen!
@@jilbertb Also propane, and not a mix of gasses either.
Given that we already transport ammonia by tanker, this is danger for which there are known procedures. But, given that there is no industrial-scale green production of ammonia, it's use is as a technology demonstrator or as green-washing, rather than actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
@@jilbertbwe’ve had methane delivered to our homes for many decades. Not sure why a little bit of gas in a fridge is a big concern? If it leaked wouldn’t it just dilute pretty quickly?
220 million in grants for ferry operations is equivalent to new office chairs and computers
It'll go further when they finish depopping down to 500 mil on the planet
It really shouldn't be but corruption is the name of the game.
If you're swapping out power supplies, not building ship hulls, the money can go far
@@PhilipX2030 I really don't think you get just how massive the energy density disparity is. Batteries are considered good to have hundreds of Wh per kilo. Bunker fuel which is pretty much the lowest grade of hydrocarbon is nearly 80 times top of the line lithium batteries in energy density. And generally for ships the fuel section is larger then the engines even in steam let alone modern diesel. So you likely would need to build new hulls or make titanic sacrifices in old ones that would pretty much render them useless. While other fuels are a option once again we run into the energy density issue. Best bet would be something like ammonia or a artificial hydrocarbon.
Washington State desperately needs new ferries. Ordinary things like running aground and just plain old age, 30-40 years is not considered all that old. They build the ferries very well here. Some of the ferry routes are either tricky to maneuver or have rough surf. Look at a map of Puget Sound to get an idea of how crazy the water system here is. Also note that the entire inflow and outflow of tides has to pass through the tiny area near Port Townsend and the extremely tiny passages at Deception Pass. There isn't an outlet at the South side. Also, even Eastern Washington has a ferry system! I think they must have meant $220 Billion, right?
this is a national grant program, 220 million for the nation, not just washington. washington would be lucky to get half.
I think if they can pull it off, we could see future container freight and even cruise ships powered by very small Generation IV nuclear reactors which would generate not only power for everything on the ship, but even do things like waste water reprocessing into potable water on board the ship, too. This means no more air pollution and possibly a major reduction in wter pollution, too.
Given all the hoops US nuclear warships and submarines have to jump through during for both US and foreign port visits, I don’t see a port operator allowing a visit by a nuclear powered MV.
Just the logistics of upgrading and surveying the berths and ongoing certification was a significant process
It only takes one port in Europe to allow it, and if the cost advantage is sufficient, that makes it worthwhile for the Chinese. Given that US nuclear powered aircraft carriers have transited the Suez Canal, I think somebody will let them unload.
@@richdobbs6595 Yah, imagine crossing the New New Polar Bear with a nuclear reactor - China’s construction and maintenance have a reputation for a reason.
@@richdobbs6595 In general these "we ban nuclear ships from our waters/ports" are easy pickings, they are just political virtue signaling, very easy to do as long as there are no actual nuclear ships (military vessels will always get an exception on other political grounds like Suez gave anyway).
Once there's a fleet of Chinese, for example, cargo ships, most ports in most developing nations will have absolutely zero issues allowing them in to trade with China.
And if the port is already designed to take Panamax cargo ships, there are zero changes needed to port infrastructure. I have no idea why one thinks major upgrades are needed. The ship will dock exactly the same way and be loaded and unloaded the same way. In fact it's easier because you do not need any fueling infrastructure for it.
@@zolikoff according to the article the size of the ships will be much larger than current vessels and be well in excess of panamax. this may require ports to be upgraded, but not because of the nuclear issue. if we were to transition to a fleet of nuclear powered ships, the cost of the plant and ongoing maintenance would necessitate much larger ships to justify the upfront costs. Im not a nuclear engineer, but you will need some on every vessel, which would drive up costs world wide as its a job with an extremally narrow labor pool, that is not able to expand quickly in any way.
also, the ships might be safe in principle, but the us navy has been pulling back in the last decade and the trend doesn't seem to be reversing. the lack of current destroyers and new ones being produced makes it more likely that we are headed into an era where global shipping is less safe, not more. havening nuclear powered super-cargo ships sailing past Yemen or Somalia seems like a very bad idea, expecialy with the global shipping climate.
Growing up in Brunswick and currently living in Seattle I have firsthand experience with two of your points.
Totally agree as one who lives in Washington state the amount put forward by administration is a pathetic drop in the bucket. That won't make even a dent in the cost to replace our total ferry fleet which is already a big need. And with the huge number of environmental nut cases in this state will never go for any kind of nuclear power plant. Last I heard was debating over how to power new ferries and Sadly most ideas put forward have been unrealistic ideas which are at best decades away from reality.
The budget has to go to money laundering in Ukraine and fighting Israel's wars in the ME, sorry. We evidently had a spare $800bil to $1tril for the war in Iraq but somehow can't fund our own infrastructure. Pretty pathetic.
I used to live in Auburn Washington, and my office was in Seattle. I understand how important the ferry system is to folks that live there.
Please explain how the Washington state ferry system benefits me now, living in another state, and why MY federal tax dollars should subsidize non interstate transportation.
One of the biggest problems with combustion engines is they use air as oxidizer. It winds up producing NOx from the nitrogen. Oxygen Concentrators can remove the nitrogen before combustion.
But NOx can also form in exhaust..,
The molten salt reactor can use thorium vs uranium as the fuel. The salt is liquid in a wide band of temperatures @ 1 atmosphere of pressure. This reduces the size and weight of the reactor. It also allows a higher temperature heat transfer allowing the use of supercritical co2 to spin a turbine. Again reducing to volume and weight of the turbine. I hope that this would be used to create electricity. The electricity would then be used for the drive units. For large vessels multiple reactors could be used.
Yes that ship is going to use thorium and co2 generators with full electric drive.
Most likely a molten salt reactor ship will be allowed in almost all ports because it is a zero pressure system with none of the usual hazards of presurized nuclear power systems. The other advantage is the big problem in most ports of the pollution emitted by fossil fueled ships. This ship will not be emitting any pollutants. Not only that this ship can also supply low cost polution free power to the port while it's there. There are just to many advantages to the ports to this type of power system for ports not to allow this type of nuclear powered ships.
I think the big issue would be regarding how to keep a small reactor safe from criminal entities. Just imagining a large cargo ship (with a modular reactor) going towards the redsea, being either hijack by somaly pirates or hit by missiles from Iemen because it would make a stop at an Israeli port.
@@RenBR a molten salt reactor is really safe from any sort of fuel theft. First the fuel is a very hot liquid both tempature and radiation wise. Like over a thousand degrees F and a intense gamma emitter. Most likely not a lifter with U²³³ separation so there will not be any bomb grade material in the fuel. So why would somebody want to steal something not worth much and would kill anyone who tried.
@@stanleytolle416 yeah, but, tho molten salt reactors are much safer, they do have issues as the fuel is highly corrosive. My biggest concern regards its security. I'm not saying that criminals might want to steal the reactor itself, the cargo would probably the focus, but depending on the situation, the reactor may be left without proper care or even damage. There is also the issue regarding terrorist groups. One could imagined a terrorist group purposely hijacking such a ship and blowing it up in the panama canal or in the suez canal. This would be a disaster to deal with.
@@RenBR a molten salt reactor can be blown up and not spread radiation all over the place. In water radiation will disperse and dilute in water. Like much larger releases have happened in the past without wide spread problems. One has to remember that a reactor that is powering a ship is a very small reactor with a corresponding risk of contamination from such a thing as exploding the reactor. Even so, placing such explosives in contact with the reactor and in the quantity needed would be beyond the ability of almost all terrorist groups. Did I mention that molten salt reactors operate at very high tempatures and are high gamma emitters. Not likely there will be very many volunteers willing to place the explosives where they need to be placed to blow up a molten salt reactor .
It's not the technology that we need to worry about, it's the people who will be operating it. Just a scan through the last few year's worth of MAIB and NTSC accident reports will tell you all you need to know about seagoing standards which are in a race to the bottom driven by profits. As well as the reactor plant there will be a large steam plant to run, the knowledge and experience of which has largely been lost with the move to more efficient motor ships since the late 70s. Tbh, idea of the world's Merchant fleet being run on nuclear terrifies the living daylights out of me...
So sorry our nuk just suffered a 'Accidental' melt down in Long Beach. Not to worry, it will be safe to live in Socal in 1000 years, BUT, we saved the Planet!
Molten salt means liquid fuel and solid moderator, which means operating at just above atmospheric pressure. It also means heat transfer with CO2, rather than high pressure water. If they are burning Thorium (with U233 feed stock), the potential for (unwanted) actinide waste is greatly reduced- and the daughter products are not weaponizable. Hopefully they've figured out how to burn Natural Thorium.
it's a thorium reactor and it doesnt need water cooling. this is why china is building these nuclear reactors in the desert and remote regions where a water source is not available.
Check out the pinned comment to this story. An excellent breakdown.
Yes I lived in WA the ferry was to have been built in Martinez, CA my town for commuting to SF or Oakland but nothing happened promised by 2015.
Thank you for these stories. You can tell I am still a novice in the shipping world…I had to look up what 24,000 TEU meant. I am used to ships measured in tons (that whole Navy thing-a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, by the way). And now I know. Thanks for the video.
The Seawolf class uses a conventional PWR reactor. You're thinking of the Alfa class the Soviets built.
at first glance, I thought that was the back of the ship with the view forward completely blocked by cargo, lol. so, do the engine crews have life rafts on the back as well, or only the bridge crew at the font?
Remote control
Unfortunately, the service on the US Federal debt is set to surpass the US defence spending in the near future. Either Federal spending goes down, or taxes go up, or a combo of both.
you could also generate a decade of inflation of 5-9% this would draw down in relative terms the overall debt, if you can do this while still growing gdp you can reduce the debt in absolute terms.
this is not a great solution, but increasing taxes is unlikely to cover enough, and is likely to cause more harm to the economy then the gain in reducing debt, reducing spending likewise causes similar economic slowdown and damage to the ability to grow out of debt.
the best option for the us, would be to generate uncertainty and chaos globally (currently doing a great job). this would massively reduce the attractiveness of emerging markets and force Europe/GB to increase their spending on miliary. the us could then offload some of their obligations to allies while causing their economies to take more debt. this will globally make them less attractive to investment and drive up demand for safer investments to hold money, such as US treasuries. a flood of money into the us system drives down the overall cost of debt, while simultaneously increasing it worldwide.
This is *technically* 2nd Gen molten salt.....it's just that the original designs were abandoned since the design isn't ideal for making weapons-grade material, but as power generation, Gen IV (and even arguably Gen V) are here, and since MSRs never "made it" previously, they're being marketed as Gen IV.....
Nuclear-powered container ships? Those will be denied port access in MANY nations, whom by law deny such access.
Sal is a newbie to global nuclear operations. And he does NOT understand operational security when it comes to nuclear-powered ships.
Right up until Walmart wants a port for fast-transit nuclear ships and then we'll see what opens up.
Sounds like a problem for those countries to solve, if they suddenly can't get any container ships in anymore.
@@williambarry8015 The WEF is essentially a capitalist organization.
They may be able to guide us through the immediate crisis: but longer-term we need to find an economic system that does not rely on economic growth. Otherwise we will literally boil the oceans form waste process heat in about 300 years (NOT COUNTING the "greenhouse" effect).
All they have to do is put a rainbow flag on it and the Greens will let them dock anywhere.
This is such a great channel !
I know the Russians also have a nuclear ice breaker! It looks pretty good to me. While I don't mind diesel and oil. As long as there are no spills
Great video just found this channel. Already subscribed
Hi Sal, I kind of like the idea of this. As long as none are named R.F.S. Chernobyl. Poor oceans got enough problems.
Local ferry systems relying on fed dollars for maintenance is what's criminal(ly incompetent)
We need foiling container ships NOW!
What we’re talking about is making buying new ship so expensive these guys are the only one who can afford them!
Very interesting. Many thanks
US carriers have about 400 crew that manage the reactors and associated facilities. If the Chinese can manage a more commercially reasonable crew that would be interesting. Also interesting as to who the reactor crew works for. Are the reactor crew PLAN or civilian crew?
Quick googling and I found that S. Korea is also actively working on nuclear powered cargo ships.
I found article titled "South Korean partnership to develop SMR-powered ships" dated 10 February 2023.
Also found below in the article:
I found an article in 2021 about the South Korea plan.
No western port will allow this ship... The savings on fuel are peanuts in comparison with cost of expensive nuclear engineers and initial construction costs. How you insure such ship if nuclear accidents are always excluded ?
Your Channel is really outstanding, almost at the same level as your shirts 😂. Please keep on ❤
Goes along with the car subscriptions through the manufacturer only
We absolutely need more ambitious goals and bigger investments to move beyond fossil fuels and stop emissions
Just stop oil! It's that simple, simpleton.
Wow! Thank you
Strange. My understanding is that a large ship, with a single low speed propeller, powered by a large low speed diesel is probably the single most economical way to transport goods. Next to steel rails. Why reinvent the wheel.
If the shipbuilding unions actually did work, you could replace a large number of ferries. Between the the Jones Act and marine unions American shipbuilding will never recover.
Isn't it normally the other way round?
You develop and test for the military, and if a technology proves to be working reliably it later trickles down to civil use.
As you say, with nuclear ships, the challenge will be to accept them in International ports. Particularly for civilian ships. Think that was the problem with the SS Savannah which operated from 1962 to 72. Naval ships are another business. Also. Imagine the target they would represent as the pass the hot spots of the world, red sea etc.
This MSR will have dissolved fuel? This is a legit FLUID-FUEL reactor? That's the most amazing part!!
What's that fuel chain? U235? Thorium?
this is awesome, i have been wondering for ages why we cant go nuclear! lets go innovation! :D
If they were really concerned about pollution they would go back to sails. With modern materials, massive sails could be deployed almost automatically. Add geared spars, even trimming could be done mostly automatic.. it would also create thousands of clean jobs.
I'd imagine it would be quite difficult placing the masts and sails on a large container ship. Having them above all the containers would make the ship very top heavy. Very large traction kites might make it easier but I'm not aware of anyone who's produced anything even close to large enough.
@@mikebikekite1 they would definitely lose some cargo space, I don't know if it would be feasible to extend sails over the sides
@@proteus371 You could do it with a trimaran hull design I imagine
Clean jobs like forging large gears to move spars, lubed in grease and oil, the spares made of steel too, mined in a pitmine, with diesel powered tractors, the cloth sails, made of an oil based synthetic fabric, perhaps a nylon or even kevlor, both made from petroleum. Yeah, clean jobs, haha
spars carbon fiber, sails of kevlar. oil and grease from gods earth and plants, yeah hellov a lot better than massive uranium mining and super concentrating an energy source that will stay a human danger for 2500years @@davidgenie-ci5zl
Molten Salt reactors are safer but lower power density. So great for commercial but not ideal for the military. The other factor is using Thorium in the MSR not uranium. Again, safer fuel and waste that toxicity decays in a short time frame.
On the one hand, as a fan of the NS Savannah, I'm all for the return of nuclear shipping in force. On the other hand, I can't shake the distrust of China's ability to operate nuclear ships safely, and can all but guarantee that any progress made on the civilian sector will be applied directly to their military goals antagonizing their neighbors and forcing their own interpretation of borders.
I worry they bring their nuclear reactor into our ports, right next to major city. All in the pretext to deliver cargo, but then something goes wrong with the reactor. Like the COVID-19 virus leak. Whether it is accidental or purposeful the result is really bad.
@@pablopenasco4254 1) last I was aware of, there was no conclusive evidence that COVID-19 originated from a lab, and in fact there are many genetic markers and lack thereof that suggested it hadn't been cultured or engineered in a lab much, if at all, prior to the outbreak. Most of the supporting evidence I'm aware of is more circumstantial coincidences that they likely *did* experience a breach around the right time, but nothing strong enough to say it was likely related to COVID-19.
2) I don't expect China to *intentionally* screw up with a reactor, but I am absolutely worried about incompetence, and tbf there's a fine lined between incompetence, willful negligence, and malice when they are fully aware of the consequences of failure and do not make extensive efforts to prevent such.
Fortunately, if it's the reactor type I think it is, it's very difficult to melt down and cause serious problems in the surrounding area compared to most reactors. But it's still a very radioactive thing that you don't want anything going wrong with because very bad things will still happen.
Liquid Sodium Thorium Reactors sieze and turn into solid inert metal upon contact with saltwater, thus rendering them incapable of emitting toxic levels of radiation.
The Chinese would have to lift the reactor off the ship intact, then purposely crack it open to cause any damage due to radiation.
About time shipping went nuclear, would like to see them use Thorium molten salt reactors. Copenhagen Atomics already sells them inside a 20' conex box.
A big benefit of going to nuclear will be shifting to electric propulsion. Azipod container ships will be far more maneuverable. Though I wonder how that will work within canal draft limits.
Nuclear powered ships in general just use the steam turbine directly to turn the main shaft. All nuclear ships do this except the icebreakers (for understandable reason). Electric propulsion slightly reduces efficiency.
However, a nuclear ship can still use the steam + turbogenerator to make hotel power, which can be used for low speed, high maneuverability uses with azipods. They will still likely keep the simpler big shafts for full speed cruising.
Just imagine the U.S. Navy cruising around @ 30 knots 24/7 for thirty million miles without refueling @ sea. Game changer.
the ship would save money on not requiring anti-foul
Thanks good video 👍👍👍
China has already started work on their first nuclear Type 004 carrier
Starting tests now on a commercial ship, would be too late to include in the carrier
So it might be the other way around: using the carrier reactor to power the container ship and get some money out of the design
it could also be used for training and additional testing, China has not been spending much time on a singular design for their carriers, every new carrier tends to have radical design changes from the generation before. this is expected as they are learning as they build instead of building then learning and then incorporating that into something new. its the only way they can reasonably construct the carriers at the pace they are attempting.
they are many generations behind when it comes to nuclear powered vessels, so working on multiple designs or havening multiple vessels to test and learn from simultaneously could only help speed up the program.
@@edwxx20001 The Type 003 has EMALS (under testing - the USN took years to get it to work properly), and Type 004 will have EMALS and nuclear propulsion.
I wouldn't call that "many generations behind", rather catching up fast.
The Type 003 repeats some of the Forrestal errors though, despite being as big as a Nimitz/Ford class
@@Wannes_ i dont know how far behind they are behind in aircraft carrier technology, the electromagnetic systems on the current type 3 has not been show to be working, yet. I mean to say they are generations behind in naval nuclear power plants. not generations in terms of 20 year segments, but generations in terms of iterative design steps. the us navy has been fielding nuclear vessels since 1955 and a nuclear carrier since 1961. china could absolutely use more hands on experience, and a nuclear powered shipping vessle is a much cheeper way then haveing to learn first hand on a carrier.
that being said, do the chinese have nuclear powered subs? this taught the us navy alot about sea based nuclear power plants, could help the PLAN learn too.
@@edwxx20001 Chinese EMALS started testing last month
A commercial vessel might be faster to build, and rack up more running hours faster than their carrier ever will ...
I looked at the slogan on the side and read that as "Embracing Net. Zero Future." Maybe because I use hyphens to separate topics. Anyways, I found it kinda funny.
What's the benefit of ammonia fuel? Is it a gas, a solid? What does it break down into?
People didn't want the Concorde flying over the continental US because of noise pollution, I highly doubt the public is going to allow a potential enemy to sail a nuke into their port. If so, they better figure out their regulations and procedures unless they want another Beruit port disaster.
That being said, kudos to China for trying to work out new, safer methods of nuclear power. I like the idea of plants that will shut themselves down in case of loss of power. Of course one would have to make sure their failsafe can't be monkeyed around with to cause catastrophe, intentional or not.
Sal, 4th generation reactor is not supposed to produce any waste. Closed cycle. The Chinese container ship will only ever allowed to go to Russia over the NSR.
"China wants to make commercial nuclear cargo ship...": - Great! Amazing! Bring it!
"... using thorium MSR instead of a PWR." : - Oh for fuck's sake!
SMART!
Why does it start with story number 6?
⚓️ Thanks Sal 🌈 CRANES!!! Are the cranes big enough for that 24K unit ship??? Once again the weak link is exposed… never mind the additional drafts 🥸
There is at least one 24k ship already in operation, so at least some ports can accommodate them.
@@willythemailboy2 Thanks Will… what ship is that? ⚓️
@@pierheadjump MSC Irina has a rated capacity of 24,346, but there are several ships of the class building or already launched and dozens of ships rated over 23,000
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_ships
Will countries freak out like they did with the Savannah?
It is 60 years later.
@@wgowshipping They freaked out more with the Mutsu than they ever did with the Savannah. And history tends to repeat itself as long as lessons aren't learned. We'll have to see if people have become less superstitious since then.
Its awesome to hear industry talk about the MSR. The Nixon administration should have never fired Alvin Weinberg from his job as Oak Ridge Director and we should have completed the Atoms for Peace instead of Going to the Moon.
As opposed to the absolutely zero, the previous president have given to building ships. Obviously, it’s better to give nothing. Which is the lesson learned by your podcast.
nuclear will be very expensive. All the special trained crew, and plus all the other safeguards needed to prevent highjacking of the nuclear fuel. security measures will be hugely expensive.
Will the Panama Canal allow nuclear powered vessels ?
Molten salt....have they seen the failure at Tonopah Arizona? Corrosion and nuclear power, not the best plan.
They are researching ammonia and gas/ammonia mixed engines for cars too.
قبل 4 ساعات اخبار مؤكدة إن القوات البحرية اليمنية اجبرت سفينة حاويات كانت متوجهة إلى إسرائيل وتحويل - مسارها الى ميناء الحديدة - اليمن
This container ship is definitely the key to the 'One Belt, One Road' policy. More important than this ship is how Chinese companies use it. From then on, I'll leave it to your imagination.😊
The Pentagon gave 225 million for DEI initializes. 220 million for Ferries is so low it's shameful.
US Oilers: (wood hi-speed nuclear powered Oilers be a good idea)
China's obviously running the same kind of war-games that the US and other countries do. (Plan for the worst hope for the best)
1. Navy & Maritime shipbuilding to support logistic transport
2.Chokepoint military basing(China's aggressive China sea building program)
3. Silk Road projects, ultimately owning facilities around the world
4. Nuclear to offset diminishing oil reserves during a blockade (they learned a lot from World War II)
If ww2 taught us anything, if the chinesse navy cant break out of the first island chain, every base they have world wide will be taken with relative ease, the belt and road ports will be meaningless in a direct conflict with the us, without first beating the us navy to the point it can no longer project power. nuclear can offset some need for oil, but china gets most of its electricity from coal and not oil, the oil consumption is for internal logistics and heavy industry. nearly all of china's oil comes by sea, over 90% of which comes through the strait of Malacca, block the strait, or block tankers anywhere along the route and the rationing of oil will grind internal logistics to a halt. the military would keep on functioning, but major austerity would be needed. yes, there is a pipeline between Russia and china, but its in a know location so would be vulnerable, and the "new" pipeline between the 2 that would carry much more oil is in construction limbo because china is trying to get russia to foot 100% of the bill.
@@edwxx20001Renewable energy is rapidly increasing in China's electricity mix, and is predicted to account for over 60% of all electricity by the mid-2030s. At the same time, the transition to renewable energy and hydrogen energy in logistics and heavy industry is also underway.
Additionally, if Chinese companies operate nuclear-powered container ships, they can build nuclear-powered ship maintenance and supply ports (with anti-terrorism security) in the eastern and western coasts of southern Africa, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, the islands of the South Pacific, and the Arctic Circle. .
These ports can be smoothly converted into nuclear combat ship (aircraft carrier, submarine) bases.
The true purpose of the Belt and Road Policy is to eliminate The presence of Western countries around the world without war.
@@lu_rrgg 60% by the mid 2030s is wildly unrealistic. china claims to have an installed capacity above 51% right now, but they claim utilization rates are well below 50% of this.
this results in the duel claims that they have 51% renewables and coal consists of 60% of used energy.
What's going to happen when one of those nuclear cargo ships gets attacked with cruise missiles like the ships in the Red sea right now
Nothing. If anything they sink 🤷♂️
Could it be that the Chinse are developing Thorium reactors in order to develop nuclear grade weapons as well? The refined uranium 233 extruded from the plutonium will allow them to kill two birds with one stones. Develop power plans, and produce weapons grade nuclear bombs. Just a thought.
China has "enough" nuclear weapons that its not in desperate need of more, but any nuclear powered ship capable of producing weapons grade material would have a hard time stoping at any port in the western world, and would have to have high security to not get hijacked by someone wanting to make a dirty bomb.
Not adverse to nuclear power, but I have worries of nuclear commercial ships being hijacked, or taking fire from dissident groups and the likes of. What do you even do if one is successfully hijacked, and not for the cargo but the ship itself, it's not something anyone would want to freely let go for commercial and security reasons. Anyway, I by far lack sufficient knowledge on the intricacies of these power plants, just my curious ramblings. 🙂
这确实是一个值得思考的问题😊
事实上中国不怕任何人劫持商船，除了美国人以外，联想到1993年的银河号事件，美国才是中国商船的最大威胁。
um not a good idea i can't imagine the reactors will have very thick shielding beacsue thick shielding would take up space and on a container ship space is at a premium. which means that they will probably be leaking radiation from whatever core they have onboard. futher i can't imagine them having a large enough group of dedicated engineers on board to specifically look after the reactor and prevent a meltdown given that most merchants usally hire third party crews so as to avoid having to abide by local labour laws.
They should call it the Savannah Ii
Nuclear DAH should have been done decades ago if submarines could do so could shipping but I haven't found how the waste would be handled.
Molten salt reactors product less nuclear waste because more of the active material can be used. This has the side-effect of only requiring careful waste monitoring for only about a century instead of millennia. If your waste is dangerous for millennia: you are leaving energy on the table.
The main thing blocking them is non-proliferation concerns. Traditional plants, witch encapsulate the fuel into auditable pellets, only "burn" about 1% of the fuel.
The press release implies they solved the material diversion concerns: but I am not sure how.
First, there is no IVth generation reactor to buy the next ten years. And this is a study based on a reactor that doesn't exist. The attached closed cycle gas turbine is even more experimental. This will be available earliest mid 30s if ever needed later. Till then China builds nuclear powered carrier with conventional design. It is just the ongoing nuclear hypetrain that never delivers.
Also:
We had a lot of "fun" with molten salt reactors in the past, that is why they never used widely. If the cooling metal ever gets solid the reactor is done. Buy a new one.
You mix the cooling and fuel, you saved the problem, but one big problem of former molten salt reactors is radiation leaks. Can't help but think with this one it will be even more problematic and experimental.
At @1:50 the Inflation Reduction Act is $400 Billion, not trillions.. gosh! Infrastructure in general? The Federal Government transferred $96.5 billion to the states in 2022
Is it Missile proof? the Yemen is well dodgy at the moment.
why did the video end like that?
Not really suitable for warships… 😕 Sounds more like trying to utilize a reactor with fewer security issues.
The Volkswagon Beetle of nuclear reactors
Did I miss stories 1-5 on another video?
chins is brilliant, we need to stay ahead :D
Gawd - Chinese "tofu-dreg" nuclear container ships!
What could *possibly* go wrong?
Like' what could possibly go wrong...!?
Molten salt fast fission reactor on a floating ship at sea? Bad idea! Imagine a breach and those the molten Lithium, sodium, or other materials hit sea water and explode, burn, etc. System shutdown and the salts solidify into a slab with the nuclear fuel Inside and the ship is effectively dead.
Big keyword there is "salt". The alkali/alkali earth metals used for the salts have already reacted with the halogens. The worst thing would be an uncontained reactor leak that falls into the water, maybe making steam explosions.
Aircraft carriers are legacy weapons that are too easy targets with today's missile technology. I don't see China wasting resources on building a humongous carrier.
putting the bridge on the bow as if we had learned nothing about freak waves in the last few decades, oh well...
Nuclear MVs could go a lot faster than 24kts at only a tiny cost increase.
Money spent on infrastructure is an investment, not deficit spending.
We built the nuclear cargo ship Savannah in the 1950s. We can perpetually recycle nuclear reactor waste products. All cargo ships should be nuclear because 1 of our ships at sea now put out the equivalent pollution of 50 million diesel burning cars. There's 50,000 ships at sea right now!
SeaSpan is a familiar name to us in the Pacific Northwest. We see their ships going up and down the coast, and my understanding is their own by the Washington GROUP OF COMPANIES. It would be interesting to hear more about this group and their endeavours in the car carrier business.
Question one which port is going to let a Chinese ship with a nuclear reactor onboard in. Number two I ken Australia will not let it in. THREE Will it fit in the Panama or Suez if so will they let it. The next thing is if a lot of them lots of boom around the world. Sorry not of tiny rant.
The Chinese CP making a nuclear reactor is an awful idea. Due to corruption and corner cutting, this is a highly possible disaster in waiting.
A "FERRY" STORY !
What's your take on the wisdom of nuclear power on containerships (or any commercial vessel) in the face of the Houthi disruptions?
"China" and "nuclear power" should not be used in the same sentence.
Video seemed to end unexpectedly... did the upload fail?
No. It was just a segment from the What The Ship episode earlier this week.
That was WAY to short. How about chapter 2?
Shouldn't WSF, bulk of it's funds from Washington State ?