Look, they’re going to make that ol’ faulty rig-saver problem obsolete.
Going to have to come up with some kind of nuclear ticket for the engineers, reckon?
[QUOTE=Emrobu;194630]Look, they’re going to make that ol’ faulty rig-saver problem obsolete.[/QUOTE]
I am actually all in favor of the unitized fully modular nuclear plant. Of course, the question is how to build a small reactor with a containment vessel that doesn’t end up being overly large and heavy. There is the matter of cost as well…maybe we can build small but that ain’t gonna be cheap. How small are attack sub reactors?
[QUOTE=c.captain;194631]I am actually all in favor of the unitized fully modular nuclear plant. Of course, the question is how to build a small reactor with a containment vessel that doesn’t end up being overly large and heavy. There is the matter of cost as well…maybe we can build small but that ain’t gonna be cheap. How small are attack sub reactors?[/QUOTE]
Probably better to use a reactor like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor instead of the Pressurized Water Reactor’s. LFTR’s are inherently safer from all reports, and don’t give off weaponizable byproducts.
[QUOTE=c.captain;194631]I am actually all in favor of the unitized fully modular nuclear plant. Of course, the question is how to build a small reactor with a containment vessel that doesn’t end up being overly large and heavy. There is the matter of cost as well…maybe we can build small but that ain’t gonna be cheap. How small are attack sub reactors?[/QUOTE]
Very doable. The Enterprise (CVN-65) started out with 8 I do believe then went to two. They used the sub reactors to start with. Don’t cut my right nut off if I’m wrong though. I’m going off memory from 25 yrs ago.
Here’s a short and sweet gloss of the history of nuclear powered marine installations and vessels.
[QUOTE=Emrobu;194647]Here’s a short and sweet gloss of the history of nuclear powered marine installations and vessels.
http://thebulletin.org/floating-nuclear-power-plants-china-far-first9522[/QUOTE]
How does one write an article about early nuclear power at sea and not mention the NS Savannah? The mockup up reactor controls sat for many years at your favorite maritime school KP. It’s part of where the licensed marine engineers became reactor operators for that ship. By the time I went through there it was behind closed doors and started looking like some SF steam punk contraption. The Savannah was operated by US Lines I think but the story goes no body wanted a nuclear reactor pulling in to their port. It was supposed to demonstrate the peaceful uses of nuclear energy but proved the world was / is not ready for it.
[QUOTE=c.captain;194631]Of course, the question is how to build a small reactor with a containment vessel that doesn’t end up being overly large and heavy. There is the matter of cost as well…maybe we can build small but that ain’t gonna be cheap.[/QUOTE]
That is the conclusion they came to after spending a few billion $ working on a nuke powered aircraft powerplant.
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/APEX910.xhtml
[QUOTE=KPChief;194649]How does one write an article about early nuclear power at sea and not mention the NS Savannah? The mockup up reactor controls sat for many years at your favorite maritime school KP. It’s part of where the licensed marine engineers became reactor operators for that ship. By the time I went through there it was behind closed doors and started looking like some SF steam punk contraption. The Savannah was operated by US Lines I think but the story goes no body wanted a nuclear reactor pulling in to their port. It was supposed to demonstrate the peaceful uses of nuclear energy but proved the world was / is not ready for it.[/QUOTE]
I had no inkling about that story. I’ll look into it more, it sounds like an interesting chapter.
For the record, I haven’t got anything against KP. The only criticism I have is against that unstylish golf bag.