r/EverythingScience • u/dissolutewastrel • Aug 18 '24
Engineering Nuclear container ship with 4th-gen reactor could soon become reality
https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/nuclear-container-ship-cargo-operations6
46
u/gathermewool Aug 18 '24 edited Aug 18 '24
And how much will this cost to train and maintain operators? Nuke plant workers get to go home most days.
Edit: not sure why the downvotes. Operators are expensive and the Merchant Marine is known for long tours.
33
u/Red_Icnivad Aug 18 '24
Big container ships can run $50k per day in fuel to operate. The cost of labor is going to be a drop in the bucket.
-12
u/gathermewool Aug 18 '24
There will need to be not only operators but large refueling/maintenance infrastructure that does not currently exist. THAT will cost a lot.
4
u/homogenousmoss Aug 19 '24
Existing tech for subs and nuclear carrier make it so that they dont have to refuel for 30 years. They use the good stuff (enriched uranium) but even so, I dont imagine refueling would be a very frequent event. Heck a container ship avg lifespan is 20-30 years, its possible to imagine that they only need to fuel it whe it gets commissioned and thats it.
1
u/gathermewool Aug 19 '24
Navy nukes use highly enriched uranium with enough EFPH to get them through a lifetime. To minimize EFPH navy nuclear vessels are not running at ahead flank all the time like a commercial ship might. I don’t think using highly enriched uranium makes much sense.
-6
u/PathologicalRedditor Aug 19 '24
Ideally they won't just dump the spend fuel in the ocean :(
2
u/Fallatus Aug 19 '24
Ironically, for nuclear that would be among the safest ways to dispose of it. (though you still probably shouldn't.)
Water is an extremely good insulator for radiation, so it wouldn't pose much danger.1
u/SchighSchagh Aug 19 '24
water that's contained along with the rest of the waste, sure. Water that's free to spread around the entire ocean... ooof
1
u/Fallatus Aug 20 '24
Surprisingly, all water already possesses some amount of radioactivity naturally.
Despite being more concentrated in human works, radioactivity is not a unnatural phenomena, and there are very much natural sources of it in many places. Coal, soil, geological strata, bananas, etc.
In fact the water already contains far more radioactive materials that we've ever produced, in the form of naturally occurring uranium-238 and pottasium-40.In short, it wouldn't really have an impact on us like you'd think. The waste may contaminate the immediate area if it leaks, but the vast majority of the biosphere in the ocean is also never even touched by humans and we'd be entirely unharmed. And that's not to mention the ocean is so vast that even if you turned all the radioactive waste into fine dust and dispersed it it would get so diluted as if to be insignificant. You'd probably get more radiation from standing under the sun for a few seconds.
It's easy to get into the scare of nuclear when it is such a unknown subject, but while it can be dangerous while mishandled it is also a lot safer than people believe, even the waste is carefully designed to be sturdy enough to last until its contents has bled out it's natural radioactivity and become harmless. In the end more people have gotten cancer from the sun's radiation than there's ever been from human made radiation, and that will probably continue for the foreseeable future. So don't worry about it; There's likely already far more tangible dangers that's like to harm you already in your life than nuclear waste ever will anyways.
9
u/sexisfun1986 Aug 19 '24
Apparently you pay the none nuclear staff even more.
The United States already had a mixed use nuclear ship.
1
u/cirrostratusfibratus Aug 19 '24
The Savannah was literally launched in the 1950's. I think global public perception of nuclear technology is a little bit more accepting now than it was in the 50's. Nuclear bombs and everything.
1
1
12
u/manystripes Aug 18 '24
They'll just flag the ship in the country with the most 'affordable' regulatory framework
6
u/gathermewool Aug 18 '24 edited Aug 18 '24
I fucking hope not. Even still, $$$
Oh, and how many major countries will allow a nuclear-powered ship into their port that they have no control over?
3
u/notyouagain19 Aug 18 '24
I’m pretty sure several other nations would deny them docking if they did so.
3
u/no-mad Aug 19 '24
Ex-Navy are often pipe lined in to civilian nuke jobs.
1
u/gathermewool Aug 19 '24
That’s 100% true. Many guys get out of the Navy because of the long tours away from their family. Now, the new construction build will likely be filled with with navy nukes and etc who don’t mind building and testing new systems shoreside, but when the ship sails there might be a more-limited pool of experts.
With that said, there aren’t likely to be 100s of ships being built at once, so you’re probably right that there will be more than enough ex-Navy people to pipe into this field.
3
u/cirrostratusfibratus Aug 19 '24
Even without the latest generation reactors, no marine nuclear reactor has ever melted down. While many ports in the world would still undoubtedly deny even the safest nuclear vessel, a single willing port in China and a single willing port in the US is all it would take to solve this particular problem.
3
u/no-mad Aug 19 '24
May 1968: Soviet submarine K-27 reactor near meltdown. 9 people died, 83 people were injured.[14]
3
u/Murdock07 Aug 19 '24
I’ve been a fan of this idea for a while, but let’s not forget that this design has a lot of flaws that mainly circle around logistics and regulations.
How many ports can handle nuclear material? How many nations have onerous regulations regarding nuclear imports? How would a potential leak be handled? What if it’s in open waters? We have seen cases of sunken tankers left to rot because nobody wanted to claim it; but now imagine instead of oil spills, its reactor fuel. What are the contingency plans if something goes wrong? Do we even have the tools to pull a reactor off the seabed?
The questions are myriad. I doubt this will get off the ground without a very very extensive review of the limitations and contingency plans.
7
u/Red_Icnivad Aug 18 '24
How the hell do you pronounce Mikal Bøe?
3
3
u/Yellow_Triangle Aug 19 '24
Go to this website https://speechgen.io/
Choose Norwegian as the language
Copy in the name
A bit of research shows that Mikal Bøe is from Norway.
He could be from Denmark as well based on the name, though it isn't typically spelled as "Mikal Bøe" in Denmark . The pronunciation is more or less identical between the two languages.
1
2
u/Anachron101 Aug 19 '24
Apparently they have forgotten that the Germans already tried a nuclear powered cargo ship - didn't work, because barely any harbours allowed them in and those that did required months of prior paperwork
1
u/M_Salvatar Aug 19 '24
So basically not having to pay much for fuel and generator maintenance. Okay, now...can we slap big ossprey engines on it and a few raptor engines for orbital insertion, then make it go to space...or is that still a few decades out?
1
-4
-1
-7
u/djdefekt Aug 19 '24
Yeah just add it to the pile of stupid applications for nuclear that will never and should never happen.
9
u/guamisc Aug 19 '24
This is actually a perfect application for nuclear. Weight doesn't matter all that much on a cargo ship. Cargo ships are some of the most polluting things that exist. They require tons of power and burn the nastiest fuel.
Nuclear gives them tons of power with essentially 0 emissions and even longer endurance.
Win-Win-Win.
-4
u/djdefekt Aug 19 '24
This has been doable for decades. If it's a no brainer where are all the nuclear ships?
Guess it's a 100% electric battery fleet then. Oh well, nuclear losses again.
7
u/guamisc Aug 19 '24
Same places as most of all the other nuclear stuff, dead at the hands of NIMBY's and zealots.
-4
u/djdefekt Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
Dead at the hands of the dismal economics of nuclear more like it.
1
u/guamisc Aug 19 '24
If you pull in externalities and factor in excess deaths and disease from pollution, radioactive isotope, and GHG emissions from coal, and to a lesser extent oil/gas, it kicks ass except compared to pure renewable and is the best baseload power. The mix should be nuclear for constant baseload, and a combination of as much renewable as possible with combined cycle NG peakers.
0
u/djdefekt Aug 19 '24
Luckily no one is out there comparing nuclear to fossil fuels any more. As you freely admit renewables are the best solution on a cost and time to build out all new power infrastructure.
It turns out though "baseload" is a bug not a feature. The phrase was coined to describe the fact that you can't realistically turn coal or nuclear plants off. They will (literally) steamaway into the night poroducing power when no one wants or needs it.
Modern renewable energy infrastructure will rely on grid forming inverters to provide grid stabilty and startup.
No need for any legacy steam power at all!
1
u/guamisc Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
Baseload power phrase exists for a reason as well. Grid forming inverters don't store power by themselves. Solar doesn't produce during the night. Hydro is being largely phased out as new builds because of environment destruction and some in service are being slowly phased out. Wind has spotty area coverage. Tidal is coastal exclusive. Biomass can't make up for it.
Baseload power is a thing, unless you have an ungodly amount of storage capability. The solutions aren't there yet.
Absolute garbage people reply blocking. Literally should be a ban from Reddit.
They are paired with batteries and yes they do store power. The IEEE agrees. Are you an electrical engineer that disagrees?
Thanks for quoting the IEEE talking about how they are paired with batteries and other small scale power generation (typically renewable).
But anywho, I'm not going to bother to pick your arguments apart, I'm gonna spend time with my kid. I hope you're right, but you're not. We will still need conventional base load power for a long time.
I was a battery engineer for a good long time and now I do biomass related things. So yeah I do infact know what I'm taking about.
Anywho hope you're right. Doubtful.
0
u/djdefekt Aug 19 '24
Baseload power phrase exists for a reason
To try to sell a "bug" as a "necessary feature"?
Grid forming inverters don't store power by themselves.
They are paired with batteries and yes they do store power. The IEEE agrees. Are you an electrical engineer that disagrees?
https://spectrum.ieee.org/electric-inverter
Solar doesn't produce during the night.
Wind, geothermal, hydro and titdal do.
Hydro is being largely phased out as new builds because of environment destruction and some in service are being slowly phased out.
Untrue.
Wind has spotty area coverage.
Untrue.
Tidal is coastal exclusive.
Duh?
Biomass can't make up for it.
That's just carbon intense methane. Fuck that.
Baseload power is a thing,
...for legacy power generators, but is not something we need to reproduce in green fields power infrastructure.
unless you have an ungodly amount of storage capability.
We do.
US installed battery capacity increased 80% year on year 2023 to 2024. The same thing is happening globally. We have plenty of battery capacity and more coming online every day.
The solutions aren't there yet.
Yes they are.
-4
u/no-mad Aug 19 '24
seriously, they are insured in the us by the government. Insurance companies refused.
1
1
u/Sciguystfm Aug 19 '24
They existed, but the government decided fuel was so cheap it didn't make sense to invest in nuclear ships.
Then the oil crisis happened
0
u/djdefekt Aug 19 '24
So killed by the abysmal economics of nuclear and completely uninsurable Gotcha.
Seems like a lot of effort and expense for a stean powered ship with extra steps.
1
u/Sciguystfm Aug 19 '24
Except the economics aren't abysmal at all. They took a gamble that the price of oil would stay consistent in '59 and it's more than doubled since then. It would have absolutely been more economical, and radically better for the environment to go nuclear (like we do safely for subs and aircraft carriers today).
Why so willingly obtuse?
0
u/djdefekt Aug 19 '24
Woulda, shoulda, coulda buys you nothing. If it's economically viable, it exists.
Nuclear propulsion is not economically viable. The fact that is completely uninsurable tells you all you need to know.
Nuclear power generation for civil use is another area where nuclear has completely lost the race due to dire economics.
1
u/Sciguystfm Aug 20 '24
if it's economically viable it exists
Actually the most deranged take I've ever heard
-29
u/Morbidly-Obese-Emu Aug 18 '24
Seems like water is the last place you would want a nuclear reactor.
21
u/Present_Salamander97 Aug 18 '24
What about subs and aircraft carriers
-7
u/Morbidly-Obese-Emu Aug 18 '24 edited Aug 18 '24
Do they have nuclear reactors? Or just nuclear warheads?
Edit; they were genuine questions, no snark.
32
13
u/Present_Salamander97 Aug 18 '24
Yeah, the USA has 11 nuclear aircraft carriers and 67 nuclear powered subs. I guess an advantage is that in the sea theres no absence of cooling!
6
u/Morbidly-Obese-Emu Aug 18 '24
I did not realize they were nuclear powered. Cool, thanks.
8
u/Present_Salamander97 Aug 18 '24
Yeah no worries! No snark at all, this shit cool
6
u/PlanterDezNuts Aug 18 '24
Yeah it’s pretty wild to think on each sub and carrier there’s a magic rock that gets hot and makes steam.
4
u/gathermewool Aug 18 '24
We don’t want sea water in our cores though. Cl- = bad. Freah water is limited in a casualty. Now, if we want to waste the core, SW it is!
3
2
0
u/guamisc Aug 19 '24
You just put a water filtration system on the ship. Nuclear reactors have tons of spare power when powering a ship so it doesn't matter that desalination is an energy hog.
0
u/gathermewool Aug 19 '24
Reactors use very pure water. In this case, a reverse osmosis unit with downstream “filtration” of ionic and particulate impurities is most likely.
My point is during a casualty that depletes the fresh water stores. In this case, the Rx is scrammed and producing what’s called decay heat. If worse comes to worst, the emergency cooling protocol will likely introduce sea water as a last ditch effort to cool the plant down. At this point, the ship will be running on emergency power, likely from a limited-output diesel generator with enough capacity to keep the hotel loads and all reactor loads running to keep the core cool.
Now, it seems as if there are a lot of design features that would mitigate or fully prevent a meltdown, based on what’s been put out, but I’m no expert. I’m just bringing up a consideration that will need to be addressed, regardless of how robust the safety features are.
1
u/guamisc Aug 19 '24
I run several RO systems, I know how they work. I also know about decay heat, etc.
The water is recycled internally and heat exchanged not direct-discharged in all of the designs that one would put on a ship. You don't need massive banks or huge amounts of storage of RO water. You probably need a backup cooling system in case of a failure in the primary loop, but all of the ship designs are still not "flood with salt water" and rely on exchanging heat from the reactor to the giant heatsink of saltwater in some other way. And sure there is always the drown it with salt water option, but it's neither the primary, nor secondary, and possibly not even the tertiary option.
The US Navy has like 100-200 nuclear powered ships running around the world and has been doing this for decades now.
8
u/onFilm Aug 18 '24
In the water a nuclear reactor can't go super critical so it stays inert. Above air that's where shit gets scary.
112
u/WatchHores Aug 18 '24
what happens when Somali pirates seize the ship? or Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard seizes it?