Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
Nuke? Not sure if it's worth the risks involved...
|
Living in a location where I am no more than a couple miles from several nuclear powered ships at any time (USN attack subs and fleet carriers), I am obviously biased. But, it does bear some discussion.
The United States Navy has had a stellar record to date concerning nuclear power plants but that record comes with the hidden costs of tight security and trained technical teams for operation and maintenance. A private carrier such as TOTE could not absorbed those costs and expect to make a profit. Every ship would need a high security team on board and around every port. Emergency protocol teams would also need to be ready to respond at a moments notice to deal with a nuclear containment breach and "spill". The USN with it's vast resources provides these services and more, world wide. Not even the biggest of shipping corporations has this ability.
However, this is speaking with the current situation as far as nuclear powered ships go. I have spoken of thorium reactors on other threads in the past. I urge you to look up the subject on YouTube and other sources. It is a proven reactor that leverages a fuel source that is bountiful in comparison to uranium by orders of magnitude. A prototype reactor was run for years with only a few operators and in the middle of populated region. Built during the Cold War, it was discarded due to it's inability to support the weapons program ( no useful material such as plutonium is produced ). It is not entirely free of radioactive pollution since traditional isotopes are needed to "fire it up" and get it running, but the level of these materials is minimal in comparison to current reactor designs and the ability to weaponize this material is impossible to exceedingly difficult at best. The danger to the environment and the populace is far less than a coal powered generation plant. The lack of weaponability means security needs are non existent. I have thorium in my possession for industrial and experimental use with no need for a special permit of any kind. And yes, I have a Geiger Counter/Detector that shows clearly that the sun and the concrete my shop is built on have much higher levels of radiation than the several grams of thorium that reside in a standard steel safe.
With all that said, ships are a natural testing platform for nuclear powered motivation due to their size and productivity. However, as Hersbird hinted at, public opinion is heavily polarized against any nuclear power. Politics add another layer of cost and baggage. It would take a special commercial carrier to tackle the problem. I don't see how anyone with profit in mind would even think to try. It is far more profitable to run natural gas ships for the time being until someone else breaks the ground for safe nuclear transports. And Oilpan4 is correct - natural gas is going to be a stable fuel source for the foreseeable future. Our current supplies and extended predictions will see to that. Add in the new studies of abiotic production of methane hydrates in the deep tectonic ocean zones and the trillions of tons of methane waiting to be mined, and natural gas seems like a safe bet for years to come.
Green Car Congress: Researchers find that abiotic methane can charge deepsea Arctic gas hydrates
The future seems bleak to many who view the energy landscape. I beg to differ.