To read more about this, take a look at our article on Interesting Engineering: interestingengineering.com/military/elite-cruise-missiles-precision-power interestingengineering.com/energy/commercial-nuclear-adoption-ship
The biggest obstacle to nuclear powered merchant vessels is ignorance. It is so deeply rooted and widespread that I doubt it could be overcome so long as another options exist.
global harm vs. bennefit? Nuclear wastes (if in an extremely small scales by rich nations already triggers management concerns imagine at great scales being managed by profit-led companies competing for lower costs). Intensification of disparity, since rich companies or countries may have access first and small countries will try to exerce protecionism (and be crushed as they are today when try to do so). Besides, look that West feed the ignorant speach of fear when a chinese company proposed to rush this tech one year ago, there would be thousands of sanctions and propaganda.
“The biggest obstacle…is ignorance” It sure can be. Go watch some videos about how these cargo ships are broken down. Which also explain the economics behind that situation. Then we’ll actually see how “deeply rooted” ignorance really is.
There is an option, the vessel will be used, maintained and guarded and only the corporation that built it will be responsible. There are already such examples, Rosatom has a fleet of icebreakers, floating nuclear power plants and lighters. Just look around, the revolution has already happened.
About time people figured it out! The development of small modular reactors could mean cargo ships with no more petroleum burning emissions and possibly allow for more powerful propulsion systems for cargo ships to travel _faster_ . Imagine a very large cargo vessel carrying over 13,000 TEU's of containers traveling not at 10-11 knots at sea, but more like 30 knots at sea.
“Imagine a very large cargo vessel…” …In about 20 years, with its nuclear innards spread all over a beach in Africa. Or sold on the black market. Great idea.🙄🤦♂️
@@catsupchutneyNuclear technology is advancing. If we wanted we could have sealed reactors with on-off switches. Instead the world wanted atomic bombs.
@@uberfalcon1965 “Good point.” You’re missing it. There is no added “value” to a ship and its spent nuclear reactor. It’s just an even bigger financial nuisance and ecological hazard to deal with. No developed nation wants to break down these ships as it is. So it’s back to regulation free Africa.
These are ships that will not be going to the beaches of Bangladesh, or India to be broken up….there will need to be plan for the disposal of their cores… and you cannot put these ships in reserve for 50 years while leading their radio activity in the reactor cores to decay away…. there will need to be a proper and agreed process for the disposal of the reactor cores. I am for nuclear energy but this is an important policy and procedure that needs to be worked out. This cannot be based on processes used by the US Navy or the Russsian navy because those processes will not scale to the number of reactors that need to be disposed at end of life, if scale to power the large number of oil tankers, or large bulk carriers built each year.
@@jenslrkedal9219 Yes I'm aware how the Russians and the Americans dispose of the directors from the nuclear submarines... But that process will not work at the scale that would occur if a large number of commercial ships such as oil tankers, or bulk carriers start using nuclear power to drive their ships.....
There's a company in Denmark working on modular thorium reactors. That's the thing to watch. I'd hesitate to put uranium/plutonium reactors on commercial vessels anyway, because it'd make them an even more attractive terror target. But thorium can't be used to make a bomb - - so that's what I looking at.
Please consider a nuclear tug it could latch onto the back of the ship provide propulsion and never enter a harbor. Gets around a lot of the restrictions
Perhaps the solution is to use the "shipping container" format that land-based SMR's are talking about using meaning you swap the whole system-in-a-container rather that refueling or maintaining the reactor directly, this way it wouldn't require anything specialist just the tools and equipment a port already had anf is familiar with
There is an option, the vessel will be used, maintained and guarded and only the corporation that built it will be responsible. There are already such examples, Rosatom has a fleet of icebreakers, floating nuclear power plants and lighters. Just look around, the revolution has already happened.
I have been wondering, why we have not been seeing a lot of nuclear powered big container ships. The savings on bunkering costs alone must be a huge incentive. I suspect that the nuclear price pr kWh is simply much too high? The CO2 reduction developments in shipping is currently based on expensive, fabricated fuels. If nuclear energy had a reasonable price tag, nobody would look into alternative fuels.
Currently, container shipping through insurance and security threats to logistics are monopolized by Britain and the United States. For China, this is a problem, for example, the threat to close the Panama Canal and the East China Sea. , but there is the northern Sea Route
This is actually an excellent idea. The only real barrier now is that it would make such vessels an even more attractive terrorist target. The solution for that is to wait just a bit longer for thorium reactors to become more commerically viable (the thorium chain cannot be used to make a runaway chain reaction - hence, no explosion). Then it'll be a no-brainer - especially for the super-size ships that can't come into conventional ports anyway.
This might escalate the problem that the faster the ships go, the larger the risk that they hit whales. It's a big problem but it is somewhat alleviated by the ships nowadays going a bit slower to save on "oil" (they actually burn something closer to asphalt).
Thank you IMO for putting effort in order to progress and make a balance around the world in the shipping industry . Thanks for the chanel for the video.✌️🤞
This is never going to happen.just look at how difficult normal land based nuclear plants are to approve. As mentioned, no port will allow them to dock. Just make current engines more efficient with better fuel and systems
@ yes, but they are all owned by country’s government military, so they have massive specialised nuclear facilities. The costs are astronomical running these ships. It’s just not viable for commercial shipping to use nuclear ships.
@Greguk444 ok so why can't there be portions of the merchant marine of various nation states that are government owned but leased to companies? Particularly as a proof of concept
@ well, that’s a good idea that might work, but it sounds complicated. Let’s see what happens. If a solution can be found it would make shipping cheaper
I'm not sure direct nuclear would be accepted. Using nuclear onshore to power a combination of battery, or ammonia seems more likely. With a bit of LNG for a transition fuel.
Uranium (Radioactivity) -> Nuclear (Heat + Electricity) -> Synthetic Fuels (Chemical) Only possible if the Base Price of Nuclear Energy is at least 1/10 the cost of Fossil Fuels due to Transformation Losses
The problem is that molten salt reactors haven't even left the project stage, let alone been tested. This is not a proven technology, so far it is only a project. How to scale something that doesn't exist yet? This is pure populism. P.S. By the way, for some reason everyone "forgot" that the Sevmorput nuclear lighter locomotive has been in operation for 35 years. Yes, he's the only one in his class. But it works)
It’s really dumbfounding they haven’t been taking advantage of wind energy either as sails or wind turbines to generate energy for ship’s service/ refer containers. Even if a single sail mast saves just 500 gallons of fuel a day that adds up to massive savings across the fleet. It’s free energy just waiting to be reintroduced to ships.
The future of commercial shipping is mass produced modular nuclear reactors. Ones you take advantage of large economies of scale to churn out 10’s of thousands of small reactors shipping becomes so much cheaper, faster and more efficient.
Cost to build, operate and to reclaim the reactor at the end of life. And when you figure in the average ship life of 25 to 30 years, not cost efficient.
Unlikely, why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety. In engineering terms hydrocarbon fuelled ships do the job adequately and are simpler, financially hydrocarbon fuelled ships are, considering only internal costs, cheaper and socio-politically hydrocarbon fuelled ships are a known entity they thus have incumbent advantage. With regard to safety hydrocarbon fuelled ships may have serious problems but these are generally considered manageable and have known limits of impact, most importantly they can be shut down at short notice and are then walk away safe, while nuclear energy has fewer incidents those rarer occurrences are seen to be catastrophic and having unlimited effects.
What are we supposed to do with the millions of barrels of ship oil produced daily as refineries remove the lighter distillates? Dump it on the ground? Maybe we should burn it to make electricity for electric cars? Net Zero nuttery.
It is what it is, they are what they are what they are 😂. My main gripe is those enviromenticals who use terms like 'thick nasty black stuff'. Live long & prosper!
Also the excess reativity necessary to ensure restoration of power after a reactor scram or shutdown requires naval type core designs which are classified no foriegn for a very good reason, not to mention highly enriched.
Good idea, but when we think of boats in the ocean, we think of anarchy. They simply ignore the preemptive maintenance because it's cheaper to wait till something break off. And the best part, who is gonna inspect them while they are in open sea? They are free to do whatsoever they want
after watching container ship crews change pistons etc. on regular engines, nuclear power would make their life a dream. no bunkering, would think lower noise levels. fusion will be nice when it happens but we have fission technology now.
After 30 years, the company should be responsible for the safe long term storage of the radioactive waste they produced! Until they can safety recycle Nuclear waste, Don't Use It!!!
There are reasons that countries, except US, are non nuclear. Getting licensed nuclear chief engineers, engineers, etc. for nuclear power is a multi year pre transition. Additionally, as the commercial nuclear industry is learning, they do not have the knowledge base to expand as desired. Again way to many hurdles of which knowledge and experience is a near insurmountable problem.
These are ships that will not be going to the beaches of Bangladesh, or India to be broken up….there will need to be plan for the disposal of their cores… and you cannot put these ships in reserve for 50 years while leading their radio activity in the reactor cores to decay away…. there will need to be a proper and agreed process for the disposal of the reactor cores. I am for nuclear energy but this is an important policy and procedure that needs to be worked out.
как защищать гражданские суда с ядерным реактором от морских пиратов? типа Сомалийских. Придется вооружать корабли либо вооружать экипаж. В любом случае конечно было бы хорошо поставить реактор на гражданские суда, но опять же, как потом утилизировать реактор? Может все таки гражданские суда на водороде будут более востребованными?
Cool... soooo, what happens when the ship sinks (happens all the time)? And at the end of a ship's life it's taken to a ship graveyard in some developing country somewhere to be dismantled, by hand under very inhuman conditions at great impact to the surrounding environment (look it up). This is not done in a developed country with the knowledge & expertise of skilled labourers. A nuclear reactor may be a nice must-have gadget for a couple of techno geeks, but they're a menace to everyone else awa the environment. And you think countries like the usa, china, russia, india, iran, israel oz and other nuclear states give two f***s about the impact on workers, the environment or wildlife in countries other than their own? And it's not as if these countries respect international law on anything...this hasn't been thought through properly!
How ironic that someone with that username has such an ignorant opinion of nuclear reactors When the shit sinks nothing happens, same with nuclear subs and carries because the ocean works as an infinite cooling facility preventing any type of meltdown Modern nuclear reactors are only a threat to people disdain for reading
"A nice must-have gadget for techno geeks to have?" What the f*ck are you talking about? You know what you are? A fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect (and you can look THAT up) 😂
@wrefk Great, so it floats around the ocean leaking nuclear material for miles... so how do we clean that up then... and who cleans it up... when... and who pays?
That's what I thought too. Submarines could also use this technology as well. And both could also spit out the water they sucked in, preventing it from taking water away from the oceans.
This ahould have happened decades ago. The Russians already developed nuclear ice breakers and are working on making the Arctic routes commercially viable. It takes a while until commercial viability is possible. The first few dozen won't be profitable, but given time and scale, they will be.
These ships barely see 30 years of use. And the way they are broken down is already an ecological disaster. This is a horrible idea. About as bad as nuking a hurricane.🤦♂️
@@jornalnumero1 The Diesel in the name refers to the guy who devised the process not the fuel. Gottlieb Diesel was a German engineer who created the compression ignition engine the fuel he first intended the process for as not fossil hydrocarbon but that became the defacto standard material used as fuel as it was the most readily available. The low speed compression ignition engines, found on ships from about 1 000 tonnes displacement upward, usually use cSt 380 FO which is the thick black stuff commonly described as 'the bottom of the barrel'. The fuel does receive a degree of processing both before delivery and when on board. It is heated and purified, usually in a centrifuge, before being injected into the engine cylinders. The internal nature of the exothermic oxidation allows more of the energy to be captured and converted from chemical energy into mechanical energy but at a greater cost in plant and handling. Until the 1960's ships would often have boilers where steam was created by burning a range of fuels from the same cSt 380 FO to natural gas. It is common to consider the middle distillate blend known as DERV (Diesel engine road vehicle) as 'diesel' but it is only one material that can be burnt as fuel in a 'Diesel' engine.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
To read more about this, take a look at our article on Interesting Engineering:
interestingengineering.com/military/elite-cruise-missiles-precision-power
interestingengineering.com/energy/commercial-nuclear-adoption-ship
¡Gracias!
The biggest obstacle to nuclear powered merchant vessels is ignorance. It is so deeply rooted and widespread that I doubt it could be overcome so long as another options exist.
global harm vs. bennefit?
Nuclear wastes (if in an extremely small scales by rich nations already triggers management concerns imagine at great scales being managed by profit-led companies competing for lower costs).
Intensification of disparity, since rich companies or countries may have access first and small countries will try to exerce protecionism (and be crushed as they are today when try to do so). Besides, look that West feed the ignorant speach of fear when a chinese company proposed to rush this tech one year ago, there would be thousands of sanctions and propaganda.
“The biggest obstacle…is ignorance”
It sure can be.
Go watch some videos about how these cargo ships are broken down.
Which also explain the economics behind that situation.
Then we’ll actually see how “deeply rooted” ignorance really is.
There is an option, the vessel will be used, maintained and guarded and only the corporation that built it will be responsible.
There are already such examples, Rosatom has a fleet of icebreakers, floating nuclear power plants and lighters.
Just look around, the revolution has already happened.
About time people figured it out! The development of small modular reactors could mean cargo ships with no more petroleum burning emissions and possibly allow for more powerful propulsion systems for cargo ships to travel _faster_ . Imagine a very large cargo vessel carrying over 13,000 TEU's of containers traveling not at 10-11 knots at sea, but more like 30 knots at sea.
I wonder about fissile material proliferation and the possibility of a dirty bomb, but it may be a risk that we need to accept.
“Imagine a very large cargo vessel…”
…In about 20 years, with its nuclear innards spread all over a beach in Africa.
Or sold on the black market.
Great idea.🙄🤦♂️
@@catsupchutneyNuclear technology is advancing. If we wanted we could have sealed reactors with on-off switches. Instead the world wanted atomic bombs.
@@Acer_MaximinusGood point. The value of a ship with a sealed 30-year reactor and regulation could end African scrapping. That would be a good thing.
@@uberfalcon1965
“Good point.”
You’re missing it.
There is no added “value” to a ship and its spent nuclear reactor.
It’s just an even bigger financial nuisance and ecological hazard to deal with.
No developed nation wants to break down these ships as it is.
So it’s back to regulation free Africa.
These are ships that will not be going to the beaches of Bangladesh, or India to be broken up….there will need to be plan for the disposal of their cores… and you cannot put these ships in reserve for 50 years while leading their radio activity in the reactor cores to decay away…. there will need to be a proper and agreed process for the disposal of the reactor cores. I am for nuclear energy but this is an important policy and procedure that needs to be worked out.
This cannot be based on processes used by the US Navy or the Russsian navy because those processes will not scale to the number of reactors that need to be disposed at end of life, if scale to power the large number of oil tankers, or large bulk carriers built each year.
@@hypercomms2001 Right, but these methods are well known from military nuclear vessels, so that should not be a stopper.
@@jenslrkedal9219 Yes I'm aware how the Russians and the Americans dispose of the directors from the nuclear submarines... But that process will not work at the scale that would occur if a large number of commercial ships such as oil tankers, or bulk carriers start using nuclear power to drive their ships.....
I totally agree with you
There's a company in Denmark working on modular thorium reactors. That's the thing to watch.
I'd hesitate to put uranium/plutonium reactors on commercial vessels anyway, because it'd make them an even more attractive terror target.
But thorium can't be used to make a bomb - - so that's what I looking at.
They should make a nuclear powered tv so I can still watch my show when the power goes out.
Please consider a nuclear tug it could latch onto the back of the ship provide propulsion and never enter a harbor. Gets around a lot of the restrictions
dumb idea
“Please consider…”
Doing just about anything.
Except putting nuclear devices on cargo ships.
Perhaps the solution is to use the "shipping container" format that land-based SMR's are talking about using meaning you swap the whole system-in-a-container rather that refueling or maintaining the reactor directly, this way it wouldn't require anything specialist just the tools and equipment a port already had anf is familiar with
Such a great collection of powerful machines!
Security level of those ships will be the number one problem.
Give me a break. If we wanna save the planet we can’t worry about that.
Agreed. A dirty bomb or nuclear detonation is not good for people or the planet.
agree .. imagine it got in the hands of a terrorist ..
There is an option, the vessel will be used, maintained and guarded and only the corporation that built it will be responsible.
There are already such examples, Rosatom has a fleet of icebreakers, floating nuclear power plants and lighters.
Just look around, the revolution has already happened.
I have been wondering, why we have not been seeing a lot of nuclear powered big container ships. The savings on bunkering costs alone must be a huge incentive. I suspect that the nuclear price pr kWh is simply much too high? The CO2 reduction developments in shipping is currently based on expensive, fabricated fuels. If nuclear energy had a reasonable price tag, nobody would look into alternative fuels.
Not every harbour accepts nuclear vessels ;)
Some Somali or Houthi in the future: "Look at me. I'm the reactor engineer now."
Currently, container shipping through insurance and security threats to logistics are monopolized by Britain and the United States. For China, this is a problem, for example, the threat to close the Panama Canal and the East China Sea.
, but there is the northern Sea Route
I like engineering very much
This is actually an excellent idea. The only real barrier now is that it would make such vessels an even more attractive terrorist target.
The solution for that is to wait just a bit longer for thorium reactors to become more commerically viable (the thorium chain cannot be used to make a runaway chain reaction - hence, no explosion). Then it'll be a no-brainer - especially for the super-size ships that can't come into conventional ports anyway.
Great content.
This might escalate the problem that the faster the ships go, the larger the risk that they hit whales. It's a big problem but it is somewhat alleviated by the ships nowadays going a bit slower to save on "oil" (they actually burn something closer to asphalt).
40% of all shipping is transportation of fossil fuels.
Wind power is not being utilized enough. Wind foils and wind turbines can be used on ships to save a lot of fuel.
Thank you IMO for putting effort in order to progress and make a balance around the world in the shipping industry .
Thanks for the chanel for the video.✌️🤞
Nuclear merchant ships: Somali pirates will highly approve the upgrade.
Well, since the average merchant ship is built to last, maybe 20-25 years, the cost of nuclear ships may not last as long as the reactor!
🎯
Then all of that nuclear material ends up being scattered over beaches in Africa.
Or sold on the black market.
This is never going to happen.just look at how difficult normal land based nuclear plants are to approve. As mentioned, no port will allow them to dock. Just make current engines more efficient with better fuel and systems
They are very large thats why they are hard smaller nuclear submarine and aircraft carriers are completely safe which uses SMR
@ yes, but they are all owned by country’s government military, so they have massive specialised nuclear facilities. The costs are astronomical running these ships. It’s just not viable for commercial shipping to use nuclear ships.
@Greguk444 ok so why can't there be portions of the merchant marine of various nation states that are government owned but leased to companies? Particularly as a proof of concept
@ well, that’s a good idea that might work, but it sounds complicated. Let’s see what happens. If a solution can be found it would make shipping cheaper
Who pays for the decommissioning & waste storage when the owner goes bankrupt?
Atomkraft? Ja Bitte
3:36 Its not the climate its technology
I'm not sure direct nuclear would be accepted. Using nuclear onshore to power a combination of battery, or ammonia seems more likely. With a bit of LNG for a transition fuel.
Uranium (Radioactivity) -> Nuclear (Heat + Electricity) -> Synthetic Fuels (Chemical)
Only possible if the Base Price of Nuclear Energy is at least 1/10 the cost of Fossil Fuels due to Transformation Losses
The problem is that molten salt reactors haven't even left the project stage, let alone been tested. This is not a proven technology, so far it is only a project.
How to scale something that doesn't exist yet? This is pure populism.
P.S. By the way, for some reason everyone "forgot" that the Sevmorput nuclear lighter locomotive has been in operation for 35 years. Yes, he's the only one in his class. But it works)
The future for commercial shipping is wind hybrid.
It’s really dumbfounding they haven’t been taking advantage of wind energy either as sails or wind turbines to generate energy for ship’s service/ refer containers. Even if a single sail mast saves just 500 gallons of fuel a day that adds up to massive savings across the fleet. It’s free energy just waiting to be reintroduced to ships.
The future of commercial shipping is mass produced modular nuclear reactors. Ones you take advantage of large economies of scale to churn out 10’s of thousands of small reactors shipping becomes so much cheaper, faster and more efficient.
Faultless nuclear is not a term used with the Russian navy !
Even if you can build a ship… most ports don’t allow nuclear craft.
America can definitely force them too!
Cost to build, operate and to reclaim the reactor at the end of life.
And when you figure in the average ship life of 25 to 30 years, not cost efficient.
HALEU could make this work
Unlikely, why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety. In engineering terms hydrocarbon fuelled ships do the job adequately and are simpler, financially hydrocarbon fuelled ships are, considering only internal costs, cheaper and socio-politically hydrocarbon fuelled ships are a known entity they thus have incumbent advantage. With regard to safety hydrocarbon fuelled ships may have serious problems but these are generally considered manageable and have known limits of impact, most importantly they can be shut down at short notice and are then walk away safe, while nuclear energy has fewer incidents those rarer occurrences are seen to be catastrophic and having unlimited effects.
Bio LNG or Biomass Pyrolysis oil are much cheaper.
Might be cheaper than nuclear energy but still more expensive than conventional fossil fuel.
@@BernardLS Those two fuels will become cheaper in the future once the a workforce and supply chain are fully developed.
Yes! This would be a game changer!
What are we supposed to do with the millions of barrels of ship oil produced daily as refineries remove the lighter distillates? Dump it on the ground? Maybe we should burn it to make electricity for electric cars?
Net Zero nuttery.
We have been here before. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
Nope - Too vulnerable to pirates and terrorists.
Totally agree! Wind hybrid tech is a game-changer for sustainable shipping!
It is what it is, they are what they are what they are 😂. My main gripe is those enviromenticals who use terms like 'thick nasty black stuff'. Live long & prosper!
What about possibility of terrorist attack?
What about it?
And? Would be no where near as harmful as a terrorist attack that blows open an oil super tanker.
@@TheGrindcorps
“…no where near as harmful…”
Terrorists can’t make a dirty bomb out of oil.
Cheap fuel for 30 years, expensive waste for the next thousand!!!!!
Also the excess reativity necessary to ensure restoration of power after a reactor scram or shutdown requires naval type core designs which are classified no foriegn for a very good reason, not to mention highly enriched.
Which is why we shouldn’t be so worried about non proliferation.
What the hell kinda bullshit is that 10:19
how come the "journalist" doesn't question that statement!
I'm all for digging down the used reactors in this guys childrens garden...
Good idea, but when we think of boats in the ocean, we think of anarchy. They simply ignore the preemptive maintenance because it's cheaper to wait till something break off. And the best part, who is gonna inspect them while they are in open sea? They are free to do whatsoever they want
after watching container ship crews change pistons etc. on regular engines, nuclear power would make their life a dream. no bunkering, would think lower noise levels. fusion will be nice when it happens but we have fission technology now.
After 30 years, the company should be responsible for the safe long term storage of the radioactive waste they produced!
Until they can safety recycle Nuclear waste, Don't Use It!!!
Is most of this video and graphics from Stephen Fry?
Yeah good luck with that just make your own crap at home you aint gotta worry about all that🤬🤬🤬
actually nuclear ships and submarines can run forever until there's still uranium supply
There are reasons that countries, except US, are non nuclear. Getting licensed nuclear chief engineers, engineers, etc. for nuclear power is a multi year pre transition. Additionally, as the commercial nuclear industry is learning, they do not have the knowledge base to expand as desired. Again way to many hurdles of which knowledge and experience is a near insurmountable problem.
These are ships that will not be going to the beaches of Bangladesh, or India to be broken up….there will need to be plan for the disposal of their cores… and you cannot put these ships in reserve for 50 years while leading their radio activity in the reactor cores to decay away…. there will need to be a proper and agreed process for the disposal of the reactor cores. I am for nuclear energy but this is an important policy and procedure that needs to be worked out.
In 2022, 38 commercial ships sunk on the ocean. Yeah, not a big problem is it, that 3 cargo ships every month sink with nuclear reactors on board.
как защищать гражданские суда с ядерным реактором от морских пиратов? типа Сомалийских. Придется вооружать корабли либо вооружать экипаж. В любом случае конечно было бы хорошо поставить реактор на гражданские суда, но опять же, как потом утилизировать реактор? Может все таки гражданские суда на водороде будут более востребованными?
Cool... soooo, what happens when the ship sinks (happens all the time)? And at the end of a ship's life it's taken to a ship graveyard in some developing country somewhere to be dismantled, by hand under very inhuman conditions at great impact to the surrounding environment (look it up). This is not done in a developed country with the knowledge & expertise of skilled labourers. A nuclear reactor may be a nice must-have gadget for a couple of techno geeks, but they're a menace to everyone else awa the environment. And you think countries like the usa, china, russia, india, iran, israel oz and other nuclear states give two f***s about the impact on workers, the environment or wildlife in countries other than their own? And it's not as if these countries respect international law on anything...this hasn't been thought through properly!
How ironic that someone with that username has such an ignorant opinion of nuclear reactors
When the shit sinks nothing happens, same with nuclear subs and carries because the ocean works as an infinite cooling facility preventing any type of meltdown
Modern nuclear reactors are only a threat to people disdain for reading
"A nice must-have gadget for techno geeks to have?" What the f*ck are you talking about?
You know what you are? A fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect (and you can look THAT up) 😂
The same happens to nuclear submarines. If there's a sinking, the reactor goes down sealed and stays there.
make the reactive part bouyant and not vertically secured to the ship. easy
@wrefk Great, so it floats around the ocean leaking nuclear material for miles... so how do we clean that up then... and who cleans it up... when... and who pays?
Absolute bullshit
Can't those boats EAT enormous amount of water into a chamber as hydro energy - charging batteries
That's what I thought too. Submarines could also use this technology as well. And both could also spit out the water they sucked in, preventing it from taking water away from the oceans.
It's obvious both of you didn't take your studies serious @@ChristIsKing4ever-l9w
Only problem with nuclear power is it uses sea water to cool the reactors and will warm up the seas.
How do you think a marine diesel engine or steam turbine is cooled down?
'practically' every cargo vessel / & not / 'virtually' every cargo vessel. // what's wrong with you? are you trying to sound like an American?
This ahould have happened decades ago. The Russians already developed nuclear ice breakers and are working on making the Arctic routes commercially viable. It takes a while until commercial viability is possible. The first few dozen won't be profitable, but given time and scale, they will be.
These ships barely see 30 years of use.
And the way they are broken down is already an ecological disaster.
This is a horrible idea.
About as bad as nuking a hurricane.🤦♂️
Diesel seems to be working just fine.
Most of them dont even use diesel. Diesel is expensive, they use very polluting inferior oils, cheap oils, anything that can catch fire.
@jornalnumero1 yeah i seen the thick oil that is used in the cam shaft or what ever it is. Nasty lookin stuff
They definitely don’t use diesel! Ever heard of bunker oil?
@TheGrindcorps As in 380 cSt LSFO to most people mate.
@@jornalnumero1 The Diesel in the name refers to the guy who devised the process not the fuel. Gottlieb Diesel was a German engineer who created the compression ignition engine the fuel he first intended the process for as not fossil hydrocarbon but that became the defacto standard material used as fuel as it was the most readily available. The low speed compression ignition engines, found on ships from about 1 000 tonnes displacement upward, usually use cSt 380 FO which is the thick black stuff commonly described as 'the bottom of the barrel'. The fuel does receive a degree of processing both before delivery and when on board. It is heated and purified, usually in a centrifuge, before being injected into the engine cylinders. The internal nature of the exothermic oxidation allows more of the energy to be captured and converted from chemical energy into mechanical energy but at a greater cost in plant and handling. Until the 1960's ships would often have boilers where steam was created by burning a range of fuels from the same cSt 380 FO to natural gas. It is common to consider the middle distillate blend known as DERV (Diesel engine road vehicle) as 'diesel' but it is only one material that can be burnt as fuel in a 'Diesel' engine.