Crude oil futures for January 2017 are running under $52/barrel. And you can’t just cherry pick the absolute low end of the cost estimate (for the operation of a combat vessel, to boot) and declare that nuclear must therefore be cost competitive, especially when the cost of adding nuclear propulsion alone exceeds the build cost of a the largest container ships by half an order of magnitude.
You appear to have started this o.p. with a question, but you are not actually interested in genuine answers; you are just using it as a springboard to argue your position, which begs the question of why you didn’t just start the thread by stating a premise instead.
The advantages of nuclear power for certain types of naval vessels are obvious, despite the higher costs. The advantages for commercial vessels are much less obvious, and for commercial vessels the costs are decidedly relevant.
If we really wanted to run ships on nuclear power it would probably be better to use the nuclear plant to fix carbon into some arbitrary liquid hydrocarbon that will work with our existing infrastructure. Or if the point is carbon neutrality rather than nuclear boosterism, what’s wrong with wind power? We used to run global trade all on wind power, and if fossil fuels were wished away by alien space bats we could do so again.
Shipping would seem to be a potentially good candidate for hydrogen as a fuel source, since space and weight aren’t at such a premium as in other forms of transport. Use your land based nuclear reactor to generate hydrogen. Then use that to power fuel cells. It’s being worked on:
The fastest wind-powered cargo ships were only as fast as the slowest oil-powered cargo ships. The kind of cargo which could profitably be shipped at 30 kph during the Age of Sail were drugs, spices, mail and passengers, whereas today it is cost-effective to ship oil which is only worth 35 cents a litre.
The logic of your statement is backwards. The reason why we could run global trade on wind power is because global trade at that time was constrained by the limitations of wind power.
Perhaps it is better to say they are indeeda dedicated anti-nuclear organization, as to say ‘pro environmental’ and be reflexively anti-nuclear is not sensible in the age of the global warming.
Yes indeed as a citation as a source on the nuclear energy, this is not one which is to be relied on as they are dedicated anti-partisans.
The potential for the large containter cargo ships to use such and like the hydrogen perhaps is good if there cost can be reduced.
If he refers to the modern hybrid wind power and not the archaic classic sail ships, then it is not a contradiction, there seems certainly practical solutions in the range of the economic viability.
That’s because they’re crewed by the U.S. navy, and not guys like this
Do you seriously want to put cruise ship crews in charge of nuclear reactors? Just think what would have happened if the Costa Concordia had been carrying uranium. Ciao Toscana.
Indeed it is almost self evidently a bad idea in the commercial shipping sector, it is not needed to be anti-nuclear at all, just to understand the commercial shipping has the pressures and the risks that make this not very plausible when the other choices are taken into account.
REally? The air strike makes the radioactives disappear?
An air strike that raptures the containment only makes the accessibility of the maerials for the potential use by the factions like the Shabab for the dirty terrorist bomb.
At least the non bombed cargo ship is of interest to be the floating electrification solution…
it of course highlights that the rational carrier like the MAERSK will not find it interesting to have their Suezmax vessals become strike targets. We can forget the liability risk to them for the contamination from such an event.
So instead of a whole and contained nuclear plant, you kill the low level pirates and create the non controlled access to a pile of radiolactive materials usable in the dirty bombs and without doubt both greater risk and greater anger.
and the uncontrolled access to the fisionables.
it is hard to see how this can be considerd in any way attractive as a potential scenario and for the private ship operator a reason not to use the direct nuclear power plant.
The real challenge here is that under international law the Somali pirates are legally considered a police problem, not a wartime problem.
Under the laws applicable to war, you can attack the enemy on sight. Including attacking people and things that you’re not real sure whether they’re friend, non-combatant, or foe.
Under the laws applicable to police stuff, you can give chase only *after *the bad guys commit a bad act.
There is some room for proactive policing of the form of “You look like a bad guy so we’ll board you and inspect you and intimidate you.” Then the policing force has to leave them to go about their business, be that fair or foul.
What they can’t do is pre-emptively arrest or attack them on the theory that “You look bad enough that we’re not going to take any chances about what you might do tomorrow.”
No, if you want a hit piece, read anything put out from the nuclear industry. That’s why we have so many pro-nuke types running around thinking nuclear power is the magic solution to all the world’s problems and thinking it must be some diabolical hippy conspiracy we aren’t all driving nuclear cars or flying around with nuclear jet packs by now. They never pay attention to the realities that explain why you can’t build a nuke plant these days and every single “next gen” idea they annually insert into the media never goes anywhere.
Forget piracy, it’s just simple economics. 99% of large commercial vessels do not spend months at sea* They go straight from port to port with anywhere from 3 to 14 days between ports. So placing the nuclear reactor on land and using the electricity from that to create transportable fuel (liquid hydrogen or something else) makes much more sense than putting the nuclear reactor on the ship. See the article I linked above on marine fuel cells being developed.
Aircraft carriers and submarines spend months at sea potentially not visiting a friendly port in all that time, they need the capability. The US Navy stopped using nuclear powered Destroyers and Cruisers because they were too expensive to maintain, so only the vessels that really need it use them now.
I think that tells you everything you need to know about the commercial viability of civilian nuclear ships.
*ok sure there are some exemptions, but they are mostly research vessels. And for things like Ice Breakers it does make sense, and yep we got those and they’re civilian:
