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.
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.
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
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.....
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!!!
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.
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.
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
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
Yes! This would be a game changer!
Such a great collection of powerful machines!
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
Not every harbour accepts nuclear vessels ;)
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.
I like engineering very much
They should make a nuclear powered tv so I can still watch my show when the power goes out.
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.
40% of all shipping is transportation of fossil fuels.
¡Gracias!
Great content.
Wind power is not being utilized enough. Wind foils and wind turbines can be used on ships to save a lot of fuel.
Atomkraft? Ja Bitte
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
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!
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.
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.
3:36 Its not the climate its technology
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?
actually nuclear ships and submarines can run forever until there's still uranium supply
Yeah good luck with that just make your own crap at home you aint gotta worry about all that🤬🤬🤬
Nuclear merchant ships: Somali pirates will highly approve the upgrade.
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
Bio LNG or Biomass Pyrolysis oil are much cheaper.
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.
Some Somali or Houthi in the future: "Look at me. I'm the reactor engineer now."
Is most of this video and graphics from Stephen Fry?
Totally agree! Wind hybrid tech is a game-changer for sustainable shipping!
Even if you can build a ship… most ports don’t allow nuclear craft.
America can definitely force them too!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
'practically' every cargo vessel / & not / 'virtually' every cargo vessel. // what's wrong with you? are you trying to sound like an American?
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 called down?
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!!!
Absolute bullshit
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.