Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-07-2018, 12:45 PM
cjackson cjackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 53
Why don't we have nuclear cruise ships?

Every modern cruise ship I read up on have top speeds of just 22 or 21 knots. I imagine when they cruise the speed is much slower. SS United States could get up to 38 knots. Could a couple of nuclear reactors drastically improve the speed of today's lumbering giant all-inclusive resorts at sea? Would people want to dart around the Caribbean Sea at a faster clip? I just think it would interesting, and even environmentally positive if more bunker oil burning ships went nuclear.
  #2  
Old 08-07-2018, 12:48 PM
am77494 am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,279
LNG is poised to be the new fuel for cruise ships. Not sure about nuclear

https://www.lngworldshipping.com/new...oint_51199.htm
  #3  
Old 08-07-2018, 12:53 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,340
I don't think speed is of interest to the Cruise Lines. They're not really going anywhere in a hurry.



A Nuclear Power Plant probably wouldn't mean an increase in speed in the ungainly floating hotels that are the modern cruise ships. If it were more economical to run a Nuke plant that to burn oil, they would be looking into it.



SS United States was built just after the War and was meant for crossing Oceans and passing through the canals. Speed was more important and air travel was pretty expensive.
  #4  
Old 08-07-2018, 12:54 PM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,990
The answers seem pretty obvious but here are three reasons that kill the idea stone dead:

Many countries would not allow a nuclear-powered ship into their ports.

Speed is not desirable for a ship that is essentially a floating hotel. The one I spent the last couple of weeks on cruised at a leisurely 17 knots, which, I assume, is its most economical speed.

A high proportion of potential customers would not want to sail on a nuclear powered ship.
  #5  
Old 08-07-2018, 12:59 PM
Philliam Philliam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Upper Left Coast
Posts: 551
I understand that he is slated for the Captain's Berth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Schettino
  #6  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,369
It takes a lot more money to build/maintain and a lot more government permissions to run a nuclear power plant on a ship. Looking at the few merchant cargo vessels that use nuclear, I'm not seeing anything that shows they have more speed at similar tonnages to the SS United States.
  #7  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:04 PM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjackson View Post
Every modern cruise ship I read up on have top speeds of just 22 or 21 knots. I imagine when they cruise the speed is much slower. SS United States could get up to 38 knots. Could a couple of nuclear reactors drastically improve the speed of today's lumbering giant all-inclusive resorts at sea? Would people want to dart around the Caribbean Sea at a faster clip? I just think it would interesting, and even environmentally positive if more bunker oil burning ships went nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

Nukes are great for spending long, uninterrupted periods at sea. All the fuel is in the reactor, not in giant fuel bunkers, leaving lots of room to store food, munitions, and sailors, all of which means they can patrol the open ocean for months in between port calls. But it's expensive to own and operate. That cost is justifiable for national defense for the aforementioned reasons, but not so much for a cruise ship that stays close to shore and stops in a port every few days anyway.

Also, imagine hearing on the evening news that heavily armed pirates boarded a cruise ship and stole nuclear material. If you'd like to not imagine hearing that, then your cruise ship operating budget will need to include funds for a heavily armed security detail to ensure something like that never happens. This is not a problem for the US Navy, since a carrier battle group constitutes adequate security against a pirate boarding party.
  #8  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:07 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,340
Now the Queen Mary II is a Ocean Crossing Luxury Cruise Ship. She is rated for 30 knots but her job is a little different that most. She cruises are 26 knots doing London to NYC.
  #9  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:08 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
The answers seem pretty obvious but here are three reasons that kill the idea stone dead:

Many countries would not allow a nuclear-powered ship into their ports.

Speed is not desirable for a ship that is essentially a floating hotel. The one I spent the last couple of weeks on cruised at a leisurely 17 knots, which, I assume, is its most economical speed.

A high proportion of potential customers would not want to sail on a nuclear powered ship.
All true, and from a starting point where nuclear is far more expensive (life cycle not only upfront) at that scale. It's justified in submarines on the basis of air independence, although there are now proven forms of non-nuclear sub air independent propulsion, they do have much less high speed endurance. It's justified in aircraft carriers based mainly on logistics (the carrier's much greater ability to carry conventional fuel for its a/c and escorts if nuclear powered) though it's not an unassailable argument. The USN's 'nuclear union' has mainly given up even trying to justify nuclear propulsion for other surface warships. Every once in a while they put something out about how it would make sense, with their very nuclear-friendly estimates of nuclear costs, if oil was $200/bbl or something. Nuclear arctic icebreakers are another idea which has been pursued, by the Russians not the US.

Where people are investing their own, not taxpayer, money nuclear propulsion in merchant ships, including cruise ships, is a complete non-starter.

Last edited by Corry El; 08-07-2018 at 01:08 PM.
  #10  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:12 PM
ohiomstr2 ohiomstr2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 57
Pretty sure the Master did a column about this. Try a search in the archives.

Nuclear propulsion in warships was primarily done to allow submarines to operate submerged for extended periods, use in aircraft carrier was to extend range and make more room for more aircraft, aviation fuel and such.

There were nuclear powered merchants to thehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Doubt the cruise ship industry is interested in spending time and money trying to develop such a vessel anyway

Last edited by ohiomstr2; 08-07-2018 at 01:15 PM.
  #11  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:23 PM
susan's Avatar
susan susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Coastal USA
Posts: 8,894
Cruise ships have to pay a fee when they're docked. On some cruises, they'll get out of the port and then functionally idle for hours. There's no economic benefit to them for going faster between most ports. The long hauls tend to be repositioning cruises on many routes, so although speed might help there, on either end they're doing slow, short hops.

Also, higher speed would increase pitch and yaw despite stabilizers, which means more sick, unhappy passengers to tend to.
  #12  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:47 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,964
In the late 2000s, the U.S. Navy did a study of how much more it would cost to put a nuclear reactor on a surface combatant with a displacement of about 25,000 tons. Construction costs were estimated at about $600 million more. To break even, fuel would have to be much more expensive (anywhere from $200/barrel on up). It's basically a money-loser.

Now, cruise ships are like six times larger than a surface combatant, so how that would affect the bottom line I could only guess at... but the business case for going down this route seems totally crazy.
  #13  
Old 08-07-2018, 02:04 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 36,530
We did build a Nuke cargo ship, the NS Savannah. With great passenger capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Here's a interesting article:
https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclea...d-cargo-ships/

The problem is simple- all over the world, everyone put out strong anti-Nuke propaganda, to make SURE everyone thought a all out Nuclear war was unthinkable.

This is a GOOD thing.

But that now means we are stuck with everyone hating and fearing nukes. We are dying on a sea of Global Warming, while Nukes could run without a single ton of greenhouse gasses.
  #14  
Old 08-07-2018, 02:24 PM
jz78817 jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Also, imagine hearing on the evening news that heavily armed pirates boarded a cruise ship and stole nuclear material. If you'd like to not imagine hearing that, then your cruise ship operating budget will need to include funds for a heavily armed security detail to ensure something like that never happens. This is not a problem for the US Navy, since a carrier battle group constitutes adequate security against a pirate boarding party.
if all of the fuel is already in the reactor, how would they accomplish that? you can't just pop open the RPV and take the fuel rods out.
  #15  
Old 08-07-2018, 02:42 PM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
if all of the fuel is already in the reactor, how would they accomplish that? you can't just pop open the RPV and take the fuel rods out.
I suppose that'll help prevent the actual theft of nuclear material. But unless you publicize the hell out of that all-important fact, your cruise ship is still going to be a tempting target. Just imagine a gang of heavily armed pirates with little-to-no understanding of nuclear reactors storming a nuclear cruise ship, only to have you tell them (after they've already killed ? people) that it's just not that easy. Maybe they'll believe you, or maybe they'll think you're screwing with them, which would make them even angrier. Good luck for a happy outcome.
  #16  
Old 08-07-2018, 03:13 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
I suppose that'll help prevent the actual theft of nuclear material. But unless you publicize the hell out of that all-important fact, your cruise ship is still going to be a tempting target. Just imagine a gang of heavily armed pirates with little-to-no understanding of nuclear reactors storming a nuclear cruise ship, only to have you tell them (after they've already killed ? people) that it's just not that easy. Maybe they'll believe you, or maybe they'll think you're screwing with them, which would make them even angrier. Good luck for a happy outcome.
I'd say that was ridiculous, nobody could be that stupid, but Somali pirates have threatened US Navy Destroyers before (which they promptly used as target practice).
  #17  
Old 08-07-2018, 03:37 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,053
You don't pop open the reactor hatch and remove the nuclear material. You hijack the entire ship, sail it into a port in Iran or North Korea or wherever, and let drydock crews with whatever equipment they need cut open the reactor.
  #18  
Old 08-07-2018, 03:52 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You don't pop open the reactor hatch and remove the nuclear material. You hijack the entire ship, sail it into a port in Iran or North Korea or wherever, and let drydock crews with whatever equipment they need cut open the reactor.
Or sail it into New York Harbor and threaten to cause a meltdown unless they received 1 million 100 billion dollars.

Anyway, the main benefit of a nuclear powered ship is that they can sail for months (as long as other supplies last) without refueling. Cruise ships don't need to do that.

Last edited by scr4; 08-07-2018 at 03:53 PM.
  #19  
Old 08-07-2018, 03:55 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiomstr2 View Post
Pretty sure the Master did a column about this. Try a search in the archives.
There have certainly been multiple discussions on this topic. Here is the latest one I could find but there are others, both on the topic of using nuclear reactors in commercial seagoing vessels. Setting aside concerns about safety, security, complexity, et cetera regarding nuclear reactors, it is not workable on a cost basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The problem is simple- all over the world, everyone put out strong anti-Nuke propaganda, to make SURE everyone thought a all out Nuclear war was unthinkable.

This is a GOOD thing.

But that now means we are stuck with everyone hating and fearing nukes. We are dying on a sea of Global Warming, while Nukes could run without a single ton of greenhouse gasses.
First of all, pointing out the potential hazards and problems such as proliferation and end use disposal is not “anti-Nuke propaganda“. There are some significant advantages with nuclear power, primarily in the power output per footprint and ability to operate for long durations without fuel logistics which is why the US Navy and other navies use them for submarines and large capital ships, but they are also very expensive, require constant diligence in maintence and oversight, and the availability of suitable fuel is limited, which is why the US Navy does not use them on every ship. The US Navy maintains its almost flawless safety record with nuclear power through its rigorous safety program and the Operational Reactor Safeguard Examination, the potentially-career ending inspection and test that every nuc lives in dread of. Trying to impose this kind of a safety culture on a commercial enterprise would be a hopeless endeavor. The commercial power industry does not have as good of a safety record despite the fact that commercial reactors are designed to operate with lower performance and greater criticality margins (making a prompt criticality event virtually impossible without the failure or sabotage of multiple systems).

Second, while nuclear reactors do not produce greenhouse gas emissions in operation, there is a significant atmospheric carbon footprint associated with uranium mining and enrichment, logistics, and end-of-use disposal that should not be ignored if we’re comparing the use of nuclear energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Producing enriched uranium suitable for use in pressurized and boiling light water reactors takes a substantial amount of energy, most of which comes from coal and gas fired power. The mining of uranium by chemical leaching—by far the most common method—also leaves substantial pollution in the form of caustic acidic mine drainage which is difficult to remediate; in fact, such residue is essentially just stored in giant artificial ponds where they can and often do leak into groundwater. Increasing the extraction and processing of uranium for wider scale commercial use just serves to magnify this problem.

Third, the nuclear fuel cycle is logistically and economically problematic at both ends. The United States currently has no operating facility to refine and enrich uranium fuel for commercial applications; the last one in operation, the National Enrichment Facility (NEF), can provide only about 50% of current commercial nuclear fuel demand at full operating capacity. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky, was shut down in 2013 and is currently undergoing dismantling and decontamination. A replacement was supposed to come on line in Piketon, OH in the early 2010s but has been held up by failure of loan guarantees from the Department of Energy and general lack of interest in investment in commercial nuclear power. Our current nuclear fuels are coming from the NEF, Department of Energy stockpiles, and from foreign supplies such as the Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement with Russia. Increasing the use of nuclear power would mean greater dependence upon foreign supplies of both uranium (the United States has no domestic supplies of high grade ore) and enriched fuel-grade material. We also have nowhere for the permanent storage of high grade wastes produced in the enrichment process and the once-through ‘spent’ fuel elements. Even if the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository were not closed, it would already be beyond capacity just with the waste elements that are being stored on site at current reactors, and there are no other proposed large scale repositories nor anyone willing to host one.

There are potential solutions to most of the problems associated with conventional nuclear fission power production but because they require significant research and development they are rarely addressed or promoted by the commercial power industry or advocates of nuclear fission power, who insist that “nuclear is perfectly safe” (even though it quite obviously isn’t), and that all issues and concerns are the fictions of anti-nuclear interests with little actual knowledge, even though many critics of conventional nuclear power production are intimately familiar with the physics and technology of nuclear fission power. That there have been so few deaths associated with commercial nuclear accidents is often cited to justify the safety of nuclear power, but it should be recognized that we’ve been fortunate that such accidents have occurred in remote locations (Pripyat, Ukraine in the case of Chernobyl) or radiation being blown away from inhabited areas and out to see (in the case of Fukushima Daiichi); had either of those accidents occurred closer to or upwind of inhabited areas, the result would be much less favorable. In any case, the costs of remediation from those accidents is projected to be many times the value of the energy they would have produced throughout a normal operational lifetime, so proceeding without making nuclear plants more inherently failsafe is just awaiting a much greater catastrophe. Even if the number of serious failures and accidents is substantially lower than other means of energy production, the criticality and long term impact of a serious failure dictates a need for greater safety.

Cruise ships are, by definition, a display of ostentatious first world luxury. If we were really concerned about their impact upon the environment, the responsible thing to do would be to stop sailing them. Barring that, making such vessels operate in a way that would be ecologically less harmful, rather than dependent upon a logistical chain of a fuel that requires enormous energy to process and for which there is no plan to store or remediate the waste and ‘spent’ fuel elements. Ships are actually one of the few transportation applications where the use of hydrogen as a fuel actually makes sense; since cruise ships typically sail in near equatorial routes with a lot of sunlight, they could produce and use hydrogen onboard without the storage and logistical problems with most transportation use of hydrogen. This application is actually being looked at for cargo ships, but would require towing a barge or mat behind the vessel for sufficient capture area. Until such an application is already proven out it is unlikely that cruise lines would be interested in investing in developing that technology. But regardless, they are not going to be able to bear the expense and complexity of using enriched uraniaum pressurized water reactors in luxury cruise vessels.

Stranger
  #20  
Old 08-07-2018, 04:27 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 36,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post

First of all, pointing out the potential hazards and problems such as proliferation and end use disposal is not “anti-Nuke propaganda“.

Second, while nuclear reactors do not produce greenhouse gas emissions in operation, there is a significant atmospheric carbon footprint associated with uranium mining and enrichment, logistics, and end-of-use disposal that should not be ignored if we’re comparing the use of nuclear energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Producing enriched uranium suitable for use in pressurized and boiling light water reactors takes a substantial amount of energy, most of which comes from coal and gas fired power.

Third, the nuclear fuel cycle is logistically and economically problematic at both ends. The United States currently has no operating facility to refine and enrich uranium fuel for commercial applications; the last one in operation, the National Enrichment Facility (NEF), can provide only about 50% of current commercial nuclear fuel demand at full operating capacity. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky, was shut down in 2013 and is currently undergoing dismantling and decontamination. A replacement was supposed to come on line in Piketon, OH in the early 2010s but has been held up by failure of loan guarantees from the Department of Energy and general lack of interest in investment in commercial nuclear power. ...
There are potential solutions to most of the problems associated with conventional nuclear fission power production but because they require significant research and development they are rarely addressed or promoted by the commercial power industry or advocates of nuclear fission power, who insist that “nuclear is perfectly safe” (even though it quite obviously isn’t), and that all issues and concerns are the fictions of anti-nuclear interests with little actual knowledge, even though many critics of conventional nuclear power production are intimately familiar with the physics and technology of nuclear fission power. That there have been so few deaths associated with commercial nuclear accidents is often cited to justify the safety of nuclear power, .... In any case, the costs of remediation from those accidents is projected to be many times the value of the energy they would have produced throughout a normal operational lifetime, so proceeding without making nuclear plants more inherently failsafe is just awaiting a much greater catastrophe.
It isn't to be sure. The expense involved is quite high. But the reason why nobody is even thinking about it- is "anti-Nuke propaganda".

Sure, digging up uranium does emit carbon. Like oil drilling and coal mining doesnt?

It does take quite a bit of power- which could all come from Nuke or Solar, etc if we didnt have our heads up our asses.

Yep, all due to nuke-fear.

Yes, some scary incidents. Which killed 52 people. All of which were workers, iirc.

About 4 MILLION people die each year thru fossil fuel pollution. Compare 52 )over more than a decade) to 4 fucking million, no compare it to FORTY Million over a similar span. The Nuclear power people are totally justified in saying it is totally safe.

Yep the cost of remediation is high. How does that compare to the cost of remediation in cleaning up after oil spills (62 Billion just for the Gulf spill), coal mines ...oh and yes, cleaning all that carbon out of the air? What was it? Hundreds of trillions?

Nuclear is clean and safe- compared to the killer and dirty polluter of fossil fuels.

Last edited by DrDeth; 08-07-2018 at 04:28 PM.
  #21  
Old 08-07-2018, 05:01 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 22,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
SS United States was built just after the War and was meant for crossing Oceans and passing through the canals. Speed was more important and air travel was pretty expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
Now the Queen Mary II is a Ocean Crossing Luxury Cruise Ship. She is rated for 30 knots but her job is a little different that most. She cruises are 26 knots doing London to NYC.
The United States and the Queen Mary II are not cruise ships, they are ocean liners. Ocean liners were made to get people from one side of an ocean to the other. They had to be reasonably luxurious, because even the fastest crossing was expensive and took a few days, but first and foremost they were a means of transportation. Shaving a few hours off the trip was worth the effort. There was a challenge for the fastest crossing, records were kept, and there was a trophy.

When transatlantic air travel started becoming comfortable and safe enough in the late-'50s, people who wanted to get someplace had an alternative that ocean liners couldn't hope to match. That market all but dried up, except for Cunard keeping the Queen Elizabeth II in business, and building the Queen Mary II to replace her. The United States held the record until it was broken a few times in the '90s just for shits and giggles.

As others have said, cruise ships aren't fast because cruise ships don't need to be fast. They're marketed to people who want to spend time on the ship.
  #22  
Old 08-07-2018, 11:37 PM
Snnipe 70E Snnipe 70E is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,843
Putting a reactor on a ship will not make it faster. A ship is designed according to the size of the engine and speed the line wants to make. It might take 90,000 Hp to make a cruise ship go 24 knotts. If that is its designed top speed then it will take much more to get it to go 26 knotts, maybe as much as 200,000 Hp.

The NS Savannah was not a success.


The Princess line developed the Grand Princess diesel electric. She has 6 main engines that can be brought on line at once. They seldom run on 6 engines. In fact on the other ships of the same class they only have 5 main engines.
__________________
Old Snipes do not die they just loose their steam
  #23  
Old 08-08-2018, 12:04 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 4,182
Also note that due to costs caused by various regulations like the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act only one US flagged cruise ship has been produced in the past 50 years. The NS Savannah was highly subsidized by the US government to even help it struggle along.


https://www.marketplace.org/2017/09/...ca-jobs-hiring

Quote:
the Pride of America — owned by Norwegian Cruise Line — is the “only passenger vessel in the entire world that has permission to sail between U.S. ports.”
Even if the costs of propulsion wouldn't make it cost prohibitive the US wouldn't fund a vessel under Flag of convenience and the costs of being US registered would be cost prohibitive.

Cows fly from Hawaii due to the costs of shipping cargo and the Jones Act. If you remember the ban had to be lifted to help out Puerto Rico last year.
  #24  
Old 08-08-2018, 01:58 AM
Sloe Moe Sloe Moe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 76
Operating income on a per passenger basis is just 8% and an oil-fired cruise ship costs at least 1.0 billion. To see whether or not going nuclear could improve this small margin and long pay back, look at the cost profile. From the same sources https://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/ho...pical-cruiser/ fuel and operating costs take up only 25% of total costs. Let's assume going nuclear will remove the fuel component and reduce operating costs, just how much will the purchase price of a nuclear cruise ship be compared with an oil-fired one?
  #25  
Old 08-08-2018, 06:21 AM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,990
Cruise operators are certainly under pressure to reduce pollution and gas (LNG/H) is one alternative. I wonder whether the public will be happy to cruise on top of tanks full of such volatile fuel. Fires on these ships are not uncommon but usually restricted to a small area as they have high-quality detection and suppression, but Joe Public is not always rational and the recent crash and explosion in Bologna would certainly not inspire confidence.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8480561.html

That pretty much leaves electric and since the engines these days are really generators, that would not need a huge rethink. Silent and clean running would be a major sales point too.

Last edited by bob++; 08-08-2018 at 06:22 AM.
  #26  
Old 08-08-2018, 09:48 AM
Snnipe 70E Snnipe 70E is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
Also note that due to costs caused by various regulations like the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act only one US flagged cruise ship has been produced in the past 50 years. The NS Savannah was highly subsidized by the US government to even help it struggle along.


https://www.marketplace.org/2017/09/...ca-jobs-hiring



Even if the costs of propulsion wouldn't make it cost prohibitive the US wouldn't fund a vessel under Flag of convenience and the costs of being US registered would be cost prohibitive.

Cows fly from Hawaii due to the costs of shipping cargo and the Jones Act. If you remember the ban had to be lifted to help out Puerto Rico last year.
The Jones act does not keep ships from being built in the US. The purpose of the Jones act is to try and save the US merchant marine (which has been called the 4th arm of defense). Over the years the Jones Act has been weakened and ways around it has meant decreasing the US merchant marine.
__________________
Old Snipes do not die they just loose their steam
  #27  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:48 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 17,117
Note that the cost of scrapping the USS Enterprise is estimated to be at least $1B.

Most of that is due to emptying, dismantling and storing the reactors.

It had 4 reactors and a cruise ship would need only one. So some savings there. But just sending it to one of those Asian scrapyards just isn't going to work. (They are now starting to refuse some of the more problematic non-nuclear ships.)

OTOH, when a conventional cruise ship is no longer wanted, there's always someone willing to take it in exchange for a small amount of money.
  #28  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:57 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 4,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snnipe 70E View Post
The Jones act does not keep ships from being built in the US. The purpose of the Jones act is to try and save the US merchant marine (which has been called the 4th arm of defense). Over the years the Jones Act has been weakened and ways around it has meant decreasing the US merchant marine.
Note the phrase I used:

"caused by various regulations"

The Jones act is cargo, but the only and the Passenger Vessel Services Act the only US flagged, thus semi-US built cruise ship went bankrupt despite heavy federal subsidies and was dragged to Germany as a bare hull to be lengthened and outfitted.

Due to the Passenger Vessel Services Act and other regulations. But that is the only cruise ship in the world that can currently legally go from US port to US port. This is why you have to go to Mexico to catch a ship to Hawaii and why Alaska cruise ships have to start in or at least stop in Canada when going to Alaska.

The entire industry has been dead for well over 50 years in the US due to costs and companies using flags of convenience to reduce those costs.

Last edited by rat avatar; 08-08-2018 at 10:58 AM.
  #29  
Old 08-08-2018, 02:08 PM
jz78817 jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You don't pop open the reactor hatch and remove the nuclear material. You hijack the entire ship, sail it into a port in Iran or North Korea or wherever, and let drydock crews with whatever equipment they need cut open the reactor.
and do this without exposing themselves to dangerous levels of radiation, or having the fuel assemblies melt down in the interim? those fuel rods stay pretty damn hot for a long time after shutting the reactor down. I think they'd realize pretty quick they ain't going to have much luck getting any of the uranium or plutonium out there while the fission products (Cs-137, Sr-90) are bombarding them.

Last edited by jz78817; 08-08-2018 at 02:12 PM.
  #30  
Old 08-08-2018, 11:25 PM
Snnipe 70E Snnipe 70E is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
Note the phrase I used:

"caused by various regulations"

The Jones act is cargo, but the only and the Passenger Vessel Services Act the only US flagged, thus semi-US built cruise ship went bankrupt despite heavy federal subsidies and was dragged to Germany as a bare hull to be lengthened and outfitted.

Due to the Passenger Vessel Services Act and other regulations. But that is the only cruise ship in the world that can currently legally go from US port to US port. This is why you have to go to Mexico to catch a ship to Hawaii and why Alaska cruise ships have to start in or at least stop in Canada when going to Alaska.

The entire industry has been dead for well over 50 years in the US due to costs and companies using flags of convenience to reduce those costs.

I took a cruise ship out of SF made 3 stops in Alaska, one 4 hour stop in Canada then returned to SF. Last year I took the same ship from SF 4 stops in Hawaii one 4 hour stop in Mexico then back to SF.

At one time a foreign flag ship could not go from a US port to a US port. But not any more, just one foreign port on a cruise is necessary.
__________________
Old Snipes do not die they just loose their steam
  #31  
Old 08-09-2018, 05:53 AM
dba Fred dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
<clipped>
It had 4 reactors and a cruise ship would need only one. <clipped>
Per your cited article and my days aboard, the Enterprise had 8 reactors. Subsequent Nimitz-class carriers have 2 reactors.
A never-tested hypothesis I heard in a bar was that the Enterprise would be faster off the line than a 2-reactor carrier because she would be faster building up steam (I’m pretty sure I was the one in the bar who said that
  #32  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:17 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,340
@dba Fred: Just keep in mind that the Nimitz class used more powerful reactors. Thus the reduction to 2. The Big "E" used A2W while the Nimitz used A4W

A4W: rated at 550 MWth each. These generate enough steam to produce approximately 100 MW of electricity, plus 140,000 shaft horsepower (104 MW) for each of the ship's four shafts – two per propulsion plant.

All 8 A2W produced 280,000 horsepower together.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 08-11-2018 at 03:47 PM. Reason: fixed typo
  #33  
Old 08-09-2018, 02:13 PM
Knight Of Few Words Knight Of Few Words is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 23
A couple things that haven't been mentioned above.

Ship speed has as much to do with hull form as installed power. Almost all modern cruise ships are optimised for capacity rather than speed, simply installing a more powerful engine may only result in a modest increase in speed. The giants are recreational cruise ships which aren't generally in a great hurry to get anywhere, stopping at multiple ports. This is different from the historical cruise liners crossing the Atlantic, primarily passenger ships where speed was both of practical value and seen as prestigious. The SS United States mentioned above has a length-to-beam ratio of 10-1, whereas for the largest cruise ships it's more like 7-1. Symphony of the Seas is only a hundred feet longer than United States but can carry three times the number of passengers.

Nor are nuclear power plants necessarily more powerful than other types of engines. A Nimitz class carrier with 2 reactors has 280,000hp on tap while the much smaller steam-powered United States has 240,000hp when fresh out of the showroom. Because of the hull-form issues mentioned above there is simply little point in putting more power in a Nimitz hull, they are actually a little slower than the older USS Enterprise was on the same power.
  #34  
Old 08-11-2018, 05:25 AM
Brayne Ded Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It isn't to be sure. The expense involved is quite high. But the reason why nobody is even thinking about it- is "anti-Nuke propaganda".

Sure, digging up uranium does emit carbon. Like oil drilling and coal mining doesnt?

It does take quite a bit of power- which could all come from Nuke or Solar, etc if we didnt have our heads up our asses.

Yep, all due to nuke-fear.

Yes, some scary incidents. Which killed 52 people. All of which were workers, iirc.

About 4 MILLION people die each year thru fossil fuel pollution. Compare 52 )over more than a decade) to 4 fucking million, no compare it to FORTY Million over a similar span. The Nuclear power people are totally justified in saying it is totally safe.

Yep the cost of remediation is high. How does that compare to the cost of remediation in cleaning up after oil spills (62 Billion just for the Gulf spill), coal mines ...oh and yes, cleaning all that carbon out of the air? What was it? Hundreds of trillions?

Nuclear is clean and safe- compared to the killer and dirty polluter of fossil fuels.
Your SD moniker is very appropriate for an advocate of nuclear power. Nuclear contamination is potentially more deadly than fossil fuel pollution; the incidents so far were not as severe as they could have been, but it was a close call in each case. And the death toll from nuclear pollution, while debatable, is far higher than the figure of 48 that you airily quote.

You just ignore the facts and figures, all of them, from the pricing to the hazards. Nuclear power is expensive, it is not carbon-friendly, due to the costs of production, processing and disposal of the fuel, and also the costs of building and demolishing nuclear power stations. The simple fact is that nuclear power is very expensive, even if there are no accidents. The cost of nuclear remediation is far more than for chemical or oil spills, far more complex, and far more long term.

With any form of energy generation there is a carbon footprint, but at least it can usually be calculated. Solar panels are cheap to run, but expensive and not every environmentally friendly to make. With nuclear power the calculated costs for setting up, operation and decommissioning are bad enough, but remediation after a nuke incident is just something else. Look at the estimated figures for cleaning up after Chernobyl or Fukushima; I am sure that the figures are highly controversial, depending on what is included and how they are calculated. But, at the end of the day, nuclear remediation simply means that the radiation is moved elsewhere to a dump or can't blow around any more. Need I point out that large areas (again, depending on the criteria applied) around Chernobyl and Fukushima are off limits for human habitation and will be so long beyond our lifetimes.
  #35  
Old 08-11-2018, 09:33 AM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 13,179
Half a mo': couple of response (negative reason) on speed not being required.

Since when has speed been a factor in equipping nuclear power in the Navy?

Mission time is the reason, not turning the power up to 11, right?

In fact, barring James Bond into-rocket blasts, the power produced by fossil-fuel turbines can already push the ships to their max design envelope speed. Also right?
  #36  
Old 08-11-2018, 12:39 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 36,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
Your SD moniker is very appropriate for an advocate of nuclear power. Nuclear contamination is potentially more deadly than fossil fuel pollution; the incidents so far were not as severe as they could have been, but it was a close call in each case. And the death toll from nuclear pollution, while debatable, is far higher than the figure of 48 that you airily quote.

You just ignore the facts and figures, all of them, from the pricing to the hazards. Nuclear power is expensive, it is not carbon-friendly, due to the costs of production, processing and disposal of the fuel, and also the costs of building and demolishing nuclear power stations. The simple fact is that nuclear power is very expensive, even if there are no accidents. The cost of nuclear remediation is far more than for chemical or oil spills, far more complex, and far more long term.
Got a cite?

Becuase I do:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...nuclear-power/
IN THE wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan, Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its reactors and China, which is building more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, has suspended approval for all new facilities. But this reaction may be more motivated by politics than by fear of a catastrophic death toll. It may be little consolation to those living around Fukushima, but nuclear power kills far fewer people than other energy sources, according to a review by the International Energy Agency (IAE).

“There is no question,” says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. “Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people.”

A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.


https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/...events-Deaths-
Causes.html
Using nuclear power in place of fossil-fuel energy sources, such as coal, has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths globally and could save millions of more lives in coming decades, concludes a study. The researchers also find that nuclear energy prevents emissions of huge quantities of greenhouse gases.

So sure higher. But not in the millions upon millions caused by fossil fuels.

Nuke is VERY carbon freindly, from my second cite:
Finally the pair compared carbon emissions from nuclear power to fossil fuel sources. They calculated that if coal or natural gas power had replaced nuclear energy from 1971 to 2009, the equivalent of an additional 64 gigatons of carbon would have reached the atmosphere. Looking forward, switching out nuclear for coal or natural gas power would lead to the release of 80 to 240 gigatons of additional carbon by 2050.

By comparison, previous climate studies suggest that the total allowable emissions between now and 2050 are about 500 gigatons of carbon. This level of emissions would keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 350 ppm, which would avoid detrimental warming.


https://sciencing.com/about-6134607-...ssil-fuel.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear...s-avoided.aspx
The World Nuclear Association carried out a review of over twenty studies assessing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by different forms of electricity generation. The results summarised in the chart below show that generating electricity from fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions far higher than when using nuclear or renewable generation.
  #37  
Old 08-11-2018, 04:31 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
1. Nuclear power is expensive,

2. it is not carbon-friendly, due to the costs of production, processing and disposal of the fuel, and also the costs of building and demolishing nuclear power stations.

3. The simple fact is that nuclear power is very expensive, even if there are no accidents. The cost of nuclear remediation is far more than for chemical or oil spills, far more complex, and far more long term.
1. Yes
2. No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-c...energy_sources
3. Yes

In both 2 and 3 carbon footprint and cost seem to be mixed together or confused. Nuclear generation of course isn't really zero carbon because of the diesel fuel and electricity (assuming it's not zero carbon) consumed mining and processing fuel mainly, though also building and taking down the plants. But it's much less than nat gas let alone coal.

That's the dilemma, that it doesn't all line up one way. Or potential dilemma. The reality is there is not going to be a huge push toward nuclear, a subset of the general reality there isn't going to be a huge push to radically reduce carbon emissions in general, not if the impact on living standards is significant (nuclear is less liable than renewables/storage to tech breakthroughs that suddenly lower the economic pain of low carbon). Adaptation and direct climate engineering are highly likely mainstays in the solution to climate change IMO, if there is a solution.

Anyway nuclear is basically dead in the US besides countries whose politics have more explicitly rejected it, mainly in other rich countries. It will be a fairly modest part of new generation in developing countries, with Russia the main supplier of plants, somewhat worryingly on the safety front (see article last week's Economist) with China the main likely rival. The French, Korean and US/Japanese (ie bankrupt but still operating Westinghouse) providers are increasingly undercut by the poor prospects in rich country markets which would accept their higher costs to get their higher safety pedigree, and lack of their govt's willingness to fully underwrite the downside risks.

In land power plants that is. Nuclear powered merchant ships are again an absolute non-starter. There will continue to be a niche for nuclear in warship propulsion for submarines (for pretty good reasons) and carriers (for more debatable reasons but likely to continue in any case).

Last edited by Corry El; 08-11-2018 at 04:33 PM.
  #38  
Old 08-11-2018, 05:06 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 29,817
The real upside to the idea of a nuclear-powered cruise ship is that it provides the makings of a classic disaster movie.

Let's see:

Festival Cruises triumphantly announces its new unsinkable super-cruise ship, the Sybarite Seeker. With 10,000 staterooms, 50 restaurants, 10 casinos and a 25,000 seat IMAX theater, it's the biggest, fastest, most luxurious cruise ship ever built, powered by a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor guaranteed to resist breakdowns, intruders and storms. The maiden voyage between London and Miami begins well, but then troubling signs begin to appear. An ancient Egyptian sarcophagus is being transported aboard ship, and the archaeologists traveling along with it (and later, other passengers) begin to act strangely. Suspicious characters in Arab headdresses are seen playing shuffleboard on the poop deck. An attack of norovirus breaks out in Third Class. An unexpected breakup of the Antarctic ice shelf sends giant icebergs careening northward. As the struggling vessel nears entry into the Bermuda Triangle, a Category 5 hurricane slams into the island of Martinique, reactivating the dormant volcano Mount Pelee, with a massive eruption sending rogue waves straight for the ship. Crewmen responsible for the reactor hide disturbingly high radiation readings, and it's discovered there are no radiation hazard suits for the team trying to prevent a catastrophic meltdown, just plastic raincoats.

Too bad Ernest Borgnine isn't around to star in the film, but I hear Pee-wee Herman and Roseanne Barr are available.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017