Back to nuclear powered ships:
It’s a start I suppose but $800,000 is hardly enough to design a better mousetrap.
Others are getting in on the act:
No it is not only local news;
Thorium again:
https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/environmental-health/nuclear-energy-expert-sees-thorium-perhaps-most-viable-maritime-future-fuel
Thorium molten salt reactors makes the most sense going forward for a wide variety of reasons. I sincerely hope to see them widely accepted across the maritime industry, both domestically and internationally. I would have no problem serving on a vessel powered by a thorium MSR. I would sleep absolutely fine off watch knowing that it was down below humming away.
1 Like
Shipping is a business. Profit is king. On top of the expense of a nuclear engine, and the expense of nuclear waste costs, is the labor cost going to be so large that a profit is impossible?
What are marine engineers who are nuclear engine-certified going to charge for their services? And if the operator pays them a bundle, will the deck officers demand the same level of compensation? How about the ABs? How many nuclear-certified engineers would there be? Enough for regular reliefs and emergency changes? If the nuclear certified engineers go on strike, that ship won’t be moving. No nuclear-certified scabs. So why would a ship owner pay to build a nuclear-powered ship?
When ships moved to steam from sail they did so because the ship owner saved money up and down the expense sheet. Is that the case with nuclear power?
Always has been, but is that really the case moving forward? Is it profitable to burn MGO rather than HFO? Is it profitable to buy urea/handle EGR sludge residue to meet Tier III requirements? No, these things are done for non business reasons.
The only reason this is even being talked about is that the emissions requirements are getting so strict that it puts the increased cost of a nuclear powered vessel in play vs. the other available options.
Profit is always possible just at a higher price point. As that price point rises, it makes other options viable that wouldn’t otherwise be viable. (similar to the nuclear ship question).
1 Like
MSR Reactors is NOT the same as the rectors in use in submarines etc. today:
1 Like
More interest around the subject of nuclear powered ships:
It has become painfully obvious to me that not enough of the general population have even begun to remotely tickle the idea of understanding this concept. You are absolutely 110% correct. Molten Salt Reactors are a WILDLY different and AMAZINGLY better type of reactor, the likes of which the world has little seen before.
I once watched a documentary from the late 70’s or the early 80’s about the history of the early American nuclear industry and at the stage where they discussed the experimental molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge (which, by the way, ran for SIX THOUSAND HOURS before they finally shut it down) once gentleman who they interviewed commented that the MSR ran quite well for the duration of its life but that it was ultimately killed for “political” reasons in Washington.
Well let there be NO mistake: Those political reasons were that thorium-powered molten salt reactors DO NOT PRODUCE materials that would be useful for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. While that is one of today’s great upsides for thorium MSR’s, during the cold war that was considered by politicians to be a tremendous downside. That technology had a bright future here in the United States, but since it contributed nothing towards the goal of killing millions of Ruskies it was AXED.
DO NOT LISTEN to the green weenies about solar and wind
DO NOT LISTEN to the oil industry about petroleum
DO NOT LISTEN to the mainstream nuclear industry & congress about conventional nuclear power
THE FUTURE IS IN THORIUM-POWERED MOLTEN SALT REACTORS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST NOISE. EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST A LIE.
2 Likes
Some might be interested in learning a bit more about the “thorium” proposed for use in MSRs. The fuel is actually U233 which is derived from thorium, has a half life of 160,000 years, and has been used in nuclear weapons. It is not currently used (as far as the public knows) in nuclear weapons because the killing power is in third place behind plutonium and U235.
While I am personally in favor of nuclear power, I am not comfortable with the ability of commercial ship operators to protect the reactor from terrorists. They don’t need to make a bomb out of a reactor, they only need to use conventional explosives to pulverize and disperse the fissile contents. My personal preference in that circumstance would be to vaporize in a plutonium nanosecond rather than linger for a week or two from radiation sickness caused by inhaling U233.
IAEA summary on MSR reactors (main about large stationary ones for electric power plans):
(Links to more detailed publications at bottom of page)
The Russians are moving ahead with their planned floating nuclear power stations:
PS> Not MSR type, I belive (??)
The Russians are also manufacturing new reactors for the next generation of nuclear powered icebreakers:
I don’t always equate Russian (Soviet) reactors and quality. . . .
1 Like
The possibility of Nuclear powered ships in the not too far future is all over the Maritime news lately:
Full research paper:
https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Afb44c464-6936-4ec6-96b1-52333ff799e3?collection=education
Consider the costs of dealing with worn out and hand-me-down nuclear powered commercial vessels. Would it cost more than the ship cost to build?
The USS Enterprise is an old ship with old reactors of a VERY different type and with VERY different risk factors than the sealed MSRs proposed for use on ships in the future.
Nothing is risk free in shipping today, nor will it be in the future.
Whatever replaces fossile fuel will come with it’s own sets of risks and it’s own ways of mitigating those risks.
One of the mitigating factors MAY be to eliminate, or at least reduce, the necessity for human intervention in the operation and thus the risk of human mistakes.
That will also solve this dilemma:
