The BIG STINKERS?

[redpoint5]

The US is a net exporter of food, but you do bring up some good points, and I certainly agree with you about subsidies.

I would find it difficult to believe that man could be responsible for a significant sized earth quake. Those are a natural phenomena that release enormous amounts of energy that we are not capable of generating. Even if they were triggered by human activity, it was bound to happen anyhow, similar to an avalanche.

[Big Dave]

I thought we were supposed to stick to cars.

[spacer]

I wonder what the regulatory hurdles would be for a private firm to start using nukes instead of fuel oil. I'm guessing anything non-military and not blessed by the Powers That Be wouldn't stand a chance.
The price of entry would be daunting even without the regulatory burden, but if it weren't worth doing... I don't think the Navy would be. Of course, their extra manpower and tech costs are directly subsidized.

[gone-ot]

...if I am remembering correctly, the USA has only had *one* nuclear-powered commercial merchant vessel, the NS Savannah, which was quickly abandoned and is now tied-up somewhere rusting away.

[redpoint5]

There are nuke-powered icebreaker vessels, that clear the shipping lanes for cargo ships. Are these military owned? I'd think we could run nuclear cargo ships if icebreakers are allowed.

Originally Posted by Big Dave

I thought we were supposed to stick to cars.

Aren't you interested in ecomodding your cargo ship? I know I am.

Might start with mirror deletes and see how my fuel economy improves.

[spacer]

Savannah was leased out for about 6 years before being retired, due to the way she was laid out. The ship was a showpiece and not really built for profitable commercial service. I could go on and on about design-by-committee, but in the end, more capacious hulls with more standardized rigging won out over the Savannah because they could still move freight cheaper.
Now, if a large hull cargo ship was equipped with a clean nuke powerplant, I think the economics would, at least so far as the actual power is concerned, favor her. The biggest hurdles, I think, would be public and governmental restrictions on which ports they could use, as well as safety considerations.
Savannah, as well as the US naval fleet have enjoyed a very good safety record, however.

[GRU]

There is always the good and the bad way to look at something.

yes these ships are bad, i agree, but people arn't going to give up luxuries we have nowadays to save the world so these ships have to stay. These ships are the economy, take them away and we will need to make our own clothes and use candles for lighting. Also, say by by to our cars because even though some cars are made in Us/Canada, the parts on those cars are moslty imported

[Ladogaboy]

What would happen to all of these waste fuel/petroleum products if they weren't being burned in these cargo ships? Are there cleaner burning options? Could the cargo ships be equipped to burn this fuel in a cleaner way? And is there anything WE can do about it.

[spacer]

The only way *I* can change anything is to buy a ship and run it accordingly. Can't afford that, so I'll keep tweaking my car technique.

[Ladogaboy]

I say we hire pods of dolphins to pull cargo barges around. From what I've read, they are one of the most efficient loco motivators in the world.