A natural gas powered container ship.

[Hersbird]

I worked for years on a bigger, faster, greener, ship then that. Nuclear power is the way to go clean and sustainable on large ships. The cost is only high because of the politics, not the technology.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Nuke? Not sure if it's worth the risks involved...

[RustyLugNut]

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.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

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.

When USS enterprise was in port that alone was 8 nuclear reactors with in 15 miles of me when I lived in Virginia.
The enterprise had a pretty good run.

The savanna looks like a passenger ship built in the late 50s and launched in the early 60s. So the right idea, at the wrong time. I am sure a lot of new passanger ships built about that time had a real short service life.

[Xist]

Perhaps the way to make thorium reactors mainstream is to set up some in a friendly third-world country. They start reaping benefits without mutating and people start reconsidering.

[oil pan 4]

China is building them, and will have to buy thorium reactor technology from them.
Because our government is totally dropping the ball, screwing the pooch, whatever you want to call it with our nuclear program.

Did you know the U.S. is the only major nuclear user (and the largest by production) that does not have a nuclear waste recycling program?

So all the idiots that are afraid of nuclear power have won this round and have gotten their wish of causing raw nuclear waste to pile up by the thousands of tons at temporary storage sties across the country. Instead of properly recycling it. Recycling would reduce the volume at least 90% and cut the dangerous radio activity down from thousands of years to about 40 to 50 years.

I like how these environmental idiots are all about recycling until it comes to recycling spent nuclear fuel.

IMO putting the raw waste in storage and then putting it under ground is the most dangerous, most irresponsible and overall worse plan anyone could have possibly come up with. Whoever came up with plan along with those who allow it to happen should be tarred and feathered.

Then the same people who want nuclear fuel used once and thrown away are the same ones who cry about globull warming wrecking the planet for our grand children. Using nuclear fuel wastefully like this, will cause the U.S. supply to only last about 50 years. If it is recycled it would last 300 to 500 years.

[Hersbird]

I worked for 11 years as a navy nuke, 2 years in school and 6 years on the USS Carl Vinson finally ending the job as Reactor Laboratories division leading petty officer. So not only has the Navy had a stellar record they have done it with primarily 20-30 year olds working insane hours for barely over minimum wage spending every spare free moment intoxicated. The Navy's reactors have to be built at a much greater cost as they are built for warships designed to take hits an keep fighting which means lots of redundancy and hardening. They have to be started in minutes, and if shutdown restarted in minutes. Civilian power plants can be shutdown and the less refined fuel will "poison" the reaction preventing a restart for hours.
The Savannah was built in a bizarre combination of stylish passenger liner and awkward to load cargo ship. No matter how they powered it it was bound to lose money. Add politics of not allowing it in many ports and put the nail in the coffin. Still it almost made it to profitability when oil prices were at an all time low, just a few years later when oil prices went up it would have been profitable.
There is also a traditional cargo ship built by Russia that has been more successful, the Sevmorput. If they can do it...
The US Navy at last count had 5,400 reactor years of perfect saftey over 130 million miles. In 11 years I received about .5 rem of exposure total and that was mostly doing maintenance in the actual reactor compartment and taking reactor water samples. That is about 1/2 the radiation you get from a single CT scan of the chest or pelvis. Or division also handled all the waste. By far the mass of waste wasn't really contaminated it was just potentially contaminated and needed special handling.

I love nuclear power. It amazing we pretty much solved the energy crisis before it ever happened only to basically give up on it because Hollywood hype and politics.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

primarily 20-30 year olds working insane hours for barely over minimum wage spending every spare free moment intoxicated.

I can vouch for that.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Its amazing we pretty much solved the energy crisis before it ever happened only to basically give up on it because Hollywood hype and politics.

Agreed.
People would rather listen to idiots then learn about it for them selves.
They hear that 1 nano currie of radiation gets released from some nuclear power operations low level waste and people go crazy.
You should be more worried about eating a banana, standing next to a granite counter top or flying in an air plane than the immeasurably tiny radiation release.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I love nuclear power. It amazing we pretty much solved the energy crisis before it ever happened only to basically give up on it because Hollywood hype and politics.

People tend to fear what they can't see or touch, it's natural. Or did you never had fear of the dark when you were a kid? Anyway, in my country, due to an incident that happened about 28 years ago, the Cesium-137 incident in Goiania city, many people are still skeptical about the viability of nuke power in such a 3rd-world country like Brazil.

[KFM]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

People tend to fear what they can't see or touch, it's natural. Or did you never had fear of the dark when you were a kid? Anyway, in my country, due to an incident that happened about 28 years ago, the Cesium-137 incident in Goiania city, many people are still skeptical about the viability of nuke power in such a 3rd-world country like Brazil.

Wow, I just read up on that incident, I hadn't heard of that before. What a weird situation..