Dekan Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Ships seem highly suited to be powered by nuclear reactors. Granted, reactors produce nuclear radiation, which is deadly to humans unless shielded against. But effective shielding can be provided by large masses of material such as steel and concrete. This material may weigh a lot, but even a weight of a thousand tons or more, is not a problem in a big ship. Military submarines are nuclear powered, as are aircraft-carriers. These vessels have large crews, and no-one seems to suffer any ill-effects from the on-board nuclear reactor. So I wonder, why aren't reactors fitted to commercial ships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 there are a few nuclear civillian ships. mostly icebreakers. its mainly because nuclear reactors are complicated and difficult to maintain. not such an issue for a military who can afford to maintain it and have easy access to highly enriched uranium, etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted June 2, 2011 Author Share Posted June 2, 2011 there are a few nuclear civillian ships. mostly icebreakers. its mainly because nuclear reactors are complicated and difficult to maintain. not such an issue for a military who can afford to maintain it and have easy access to highly enriched uranium, etc. etc. Nuclear reactors can't be all that difficult to maintain once they're started. Nuclear subs cruise for months underseas without any trouble. I suppose the real reason is what you mentioned, the access to highly-enriched uranium. Terrorists could hi-jack a nuclear-powered oil-tanker, get hold of the uranium in the reactor, and use it to make an atom-bomb. If only these terrorists weren't vexing us! Then we could have fleets of scientifically advanced nuke-powered commercial ships, peacefully plying the oceans. If only science could be left to improve the world, without interference from politics and religion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainteaserfan Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Nuclear reactors can't be all that difficult to maintain once they're started. Nuclear subs cruise for months underseas without any trouble. I suppose the real reason is what you mentioned, the access to highly-enriched uranium. Terrorists could hi-jack a nuclear-powered oil-tanker, get hold of the uranium in the reactor, and use it to make an atom-bomb. If only these terrorists weren't vexing us! Then we could have fleets of scientifically advanced nuke-powered commercial ships, peacefully plying the oceans. If only science could be left to improve the world, without interference from politics and religion. I agree. Also, you probably need all sorts of licenses and the like similar to a normal nuclear power plant. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/licensing-process-bg.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think that Dekan (post #3) gave an excellent answer. I'd like to add that although commercial ships run on fossil fuels, they are extremely efficient at using their fuel. The fuel consumption per ton per kilometer is a LOT lower than that of trucks and trains... and it drops as ships get larger (this is one of the reasons why ships are so enormous). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) If only science could be left to improve the world, without interference from politics and religion. It would be free from such interference if it could figure out the causes of social-political strife and provide potential solutions. Personally, I think that science has already done this by providing the means to calculate what level of energy-use is feasible at the broadest global level. Since it doesn't seem feasible to extend western levels of energy/resource consumption to everyone in developing economies, it is logical that stratification can only decrease by bringing developed world energy-consumption closer to that of the developing world. I think that this would also remove much of the impetus for terrorism, since there would no longer be cause for jealousy and migration-conflict. Large nuclear-powered ships might actually be the best use of nuclear fuel in a world where people live very light and everyone wishes to travel/migrate around the world freely. If everyone was allowed to go wherever they wanted and practice their religion and other culture freely, why would there be terrorism? Edited June 7, 2011 by lemur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Let me bring up 3 more issues before we all jump to the conclusion that nuclear powered ships are the future: Logistics of nuclear fuel, and used fuel What would the logistics for the nuclear fuel look like? Today, by coincidence, there is a transport of nuclear material from a nuclear power plant in the Netherlands to a factory in France. It causes quite a few problems, and many people are concerned about safety (and that has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything with other kinds of accidents). Shipyards would need to be upgraded with an infrastructure to handle nuclear material. The paperwork And another little issue: many ships are registered in different countries as the operators. Search for "Flags of convenience". As of 2009, Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands are the world’s three largest registries in terms of deadweight tonnage (DWT).[28] These three organizations registered 11,636 ships of 1,000 DWT and above, for a total of 468,405,000 DWT: more than 39% of the world's shipbourne carrying capacity.[28] Panama dominates the scene with over 8,065 ships accounting for almost 23% of the world's DWT. (source) Let me repeat that: More than 39% of the world's naval carrying capacity is registered in Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands. So, given this fact, who shall we make responsible for the nuclear material, and the nuclear waste? Especially when we know that in international waters, nobody is watching and there are much less rules and regulations. Also, the land-based nuclear power plants, as well as nuclear powered navy vessels are not sold to other countries. But commercial ships are sold all the time. With thousands and thousands of vessels circling the globe all the time, and being sold all the time, someone needs to keep an eye on the nuclear material all the time. And someone has to decide who is responsible for the nuclear waste if the ship gets sold. I assure you all that there is a huge financial incentive to dump the nuclear waste overboard, rather than pay for millenia of storage. Ship breaking In the perfect world in which nuclear powered ships would be a good idea, ships are taken apart in clean factories. In reality however, they are taken apart by people who earn 1 dollar per day, who walk bare foot and who wear no protective equipment at all (source). Now... ask yourself: Why do large shipping companies register their vessels in some small underdeveloped countries, and why do they dump their ships in India and Bangladesh to be taken apart? And would it be a good idea to trust such companies, with such ethics, with nuclear material? Edited June 7, 2011 by CaptainPanic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Bee Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Terrorists could hi-jack a nuclear-powered oil-tanker, get hold of the uranium in the reactor, and use it to make an atom-bomb. I don't know a whole lot about how nuclear fuel works but i'm certainly sure there's a difference between weapon and fuel grade nuclear material. Sorry to hi jack the thread, but media scare mongering leads to statements like this and the fuel in a reactor would really be only any use for a "salted bomb" dirty bombs designed to spread nuclear material NOT cause kilo/megaton sized city destroying explosions. Saying that and considering the above, would the general populace be happy to travel on something the media would have you believe is a giant green glowing, x-men power bestowing nuclear death machine? Hell... media coverage on nuclear power really gets my goat. :: angryface:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I don't know a whole lot about how nuclear fuel works but i'm certainly sure there's a difference between weapon and fuel grade nuclear material. This is true for commercial land based power stations as they use low grade uranium. The reult of using low grade uranium is that you get BIG HEAVY reactors. Not a problem fro soemthing static and with no cargo capacity such as a building but on naval vessels you want something relatively compact. The only way to get this compactness is to go with some more potent uranium. you also don't want to have to be refueling a ship-borne reactor too often either which is another reason to go highly enriched. It might not be full weapons grade but it is a LOT closer than the stuff you find in your average reactor. I'm actually fully pro-nuclear. I think we should be building more nuclear plants. It is just impossible to deny that have large quantities of highly enriched uranium floating(literally) about poses an elevated proliferation risk than having some nice big obvious (and the ultimate theivery deterrent) weighty lumps of low enriched. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rktpro Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And if it sinks. then? If any danger occors? If it gets stuck in a cyclone? If it's wreck causes distress? Death of million of fish. Many toads would loose their family. Jellyfish would cry. Makes me senti-mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And if it sinks. then? If any danger occors? If it gets stuck in a cyclone? If it's wreck causes distress? Death of million of fish. Many toads would loose their family. Jellyfish would cry. Makes me senti-mental. hasn't happened when nuclear submarines have sunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rktpro Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 hasn't happened when nuclear submarines have sunk. Wasn't aware of it. What happens to them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 typically the submarine sits at the bottom of the ocean. thats about it. unless there are a million fish that like to sit next to the reactor for a considerable period of time and the reactor has been damaged to the point of there being a breach in the shielding then there isn't much chance of killing millions of fish. really, water makes quite an effective radiation shield so really they need to eat a bit of the radioactive stuff to die. probably more die from stuff like oil and various soluble toxins found on submarines than the radioactive bis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Bee Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 So tidal forces dont wash the radioactive bits miles down the coast or anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainteaserfan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 So tidal forces dont wash the radioactive bits miles down the coast or anything? The bits would be so highly diluted that they would be insignificant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 yes, there would be some radioactive particles released into the water but if you're say 1 mile away from it then the concentration caused by the downed sub will likely be lost in the natural radioactive substances found in the sea water. basically, the components aren't that soluble and the fuel is typically solid pellets of uranium oxide(so even if water contacts it, it won't corrode as it is in essence already corroded to the maximum possible.) Lets remove the radioactive component from this just for a little thought experiment. lets say you have a conventionally powered vessel that goes down somewhere (lets say the titanic) now, its made of lots of quite insoluble materials (both by necessity and for strength reasons) but heres the thing, iron is more soluble than the nuclear fuel everybody worries about. now, if you went downstream of the wreck and tested the water, would you find much higher amounts of iron in the water? probably not. and we can even consider this from a practical point. there are quite a number of uranium ore deposits as well as other radioactive materials such as thorium and so on which are relatively similar to what you find in nuclear reactors (albeit more diluted, but the deposits are also much much bigger) now its by no stretch hard to believe that there must be some exposed veins of these ores somewhere on the sea bed with all these lovely radioactive molecules ready to seep out into the oceans. they've even been there billions of years. life has struggled on. radioactive molecules would leach from the reactor slowly enough to be extremely heavily diluted by the time they got anywhere. and we're talking homeopathic levels of dilution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 No measured release from the Thresher. Other sub losses were in water too deep/too far away to monitor properly/regularly, but they're also far below the level of most marine life. http://www.pollutionissues.com/Co-Ea/Disasters-Nuclear-Accidents.html But Scorpion has been tested at least once. Bob Ballard got navy funding he used to find Titanic but the money was officially for him to survey the Thresher and Scorpion sites, which he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)#Sinking http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080602-titanic-secret.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now