- cross-posted to:
- chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
China’s Nuclear-Powered Containership: A Fluke Or The Future Of Shipping?::Since China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) unveiled its KUN-24AP containership at the Marintec China Expo in Shanghai in early December of 2023, the internet has been abuzz about it. Not jus…
You must log in or register to comment.
Nuclear powered ships are not a new thing. They’ve been around for decades. They would benefit our emission a lot. Let’s hope that they will be allowed in the ports around the world, this has been the greatest limitation so far. Convincing general population that nuclear can be safe is no easy feat.
If you’re somewhere near Connecticut, the first-ever nuclear powered ship got turned into a museum in Groton
Problem.
There’s a huge difference between an American carrier and a Panamanian flagged cargo hauler. Are we really ready to trust one of the shadiest industries, (there’s still ships manned by slaves out there), with nuclear reactors?
Could you imagine India letting a nuclear hauler dock after it made a port call in Pakistan? New York letting any of them dock?
And this is why I said changing the missconception that nuclear can’t be safe is hard. There are types of reactors safe by design.
Sure, no tech is foolproof, but have a look at how the molten salt reactor works. That kind of reactor doesn’t have a meltdown issue. That doesn’t mean things can’t still go wrong, but we have to do something about the emissions from these container ships burning the most crap of the fossil fuels… If we look at how many people die of deseases caused by air polution, the tiny risk of a nuclear accident looks a lot more acceptable. And that’s before we even consider how bad the climate changed in recent years.
We have to start educating ourselves and others on nuclear, because although renewables are cheaper, the energy storage for when there is no wind/sun is still very expensive and pretty crap tech(you have a phone, you know how the battery dies in 2-3 years). Also lithium won’t last forever so until we figure out something to replace it, nuclear can cover the gaps with considerably less emissions than dino juices and ancient biomass.
Most nuclear accidents aren’t melt downs. They’re steam explosions and releases of irradiated material. It’s great that they built such a failsafe for meltdowns but steam explosions have a bad habit of blowing holes in the containment system. Much less the idea of a steam explosion happening dockside or on something like a natural gas ship.
The only way it would be even close to trusted is if this Chinese ship only visits ports they can strongarm into accepting it and/or they use their military naval technology and have military personnel manning the engineering spaces.
deleted by creator
Which is ironic considering that fossil fuels have resulted in orders of magnitude more preventable deaths than nuclear. Bunker fuel is nasty stuff
Largely, this is likely a good thing. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better (than the status quo).
I read that article and I still don’t understand what it being a fluke would matter to anything? Strange title to me.
I’m disappointed that it wasn’t this clip https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxQ2mat7Oyk25hj1CbpTnCEB4KXh7c1hHU?si=nGBbLpr5frhBnUqh
Removed by mod
Another possible innovation would be people onboard to row
Advertise it as a new fitness program that includes seeing the world for free.
Just drain the seas and drive them around on big tank tracks
Yeah but where to put all that water? On the moon?
If we can make the world hot enough it’ll just become clouds
Removed by mod
You… you know that clouds… rain, right?
I thought that was bebe Jesus crying when I touch myself
Just flush it down a big toilet
Nuclear powered trains with railroads across the ocean.
Hey I’ve seen that movie, it was fictional. Let’s not make it real.
A tethered ring would be cheaper, and also possible
Have them down below on exercise bikes like little hamsters.
An interesting alternative to sails are Flettner rotors. They’re pretty much just rotating pillars, and are being tested on some cargo ships to reduce fuel consumption.
There are sailed powered logistics ships! Here’s a grain ship that just launched. There are also companies that produce inflatable or deployable sails to reduce fuel consumption in favorable winds.
Ultimately there will be a need for chemical energy or similarly dense energy to move a ship. The wind doesn’t always blow, and when it does it won’t always be in the direction you want. Nuclear is certainly an interesting option.
This comment is just classic Lemmy. Do you think customers would accept their cargo just turning up whenever, depending on what the wind is doing? Why do you think we went away from sail in the first place?
Not to mention the air draft of such a vessel, or the fact that sails interfere with loading cargo.
They can just add sails to augment the current engines. I read somewhere years ago that it was tested and found to reduce fuel consumption by a lot.
In that case, why isn’t it more common?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/technology-66543643.amp
I guess they’ve been working on it.
I wasn’t aware reactors using thorium were practical yet.
Yay, a tofu dreg nuclear ship.
Yeah no fucking shot this works out.
Removed by mod
