Non fossil fuel propulsion

Interesting idea, Phil, would they panmax ships be towed inline?

or maybe side by side when swapping containers?

Have ships of that size ever been towed at 15 knots, and/or more than one at a time?

 

Pebble Bed Reactors (PBR)
These use fuel molded into ceramic balls, and then circulate gas through the balls. The result is an efficient, low-maintenance, very safe reactor with inexpensive, standardized fuel. The prototype was the AVR.
=================
The Pebble Bed Reactor, a High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGCR), is designed so high temperatures reduce power output by doppler broadening of the fuel's neutron cross-section. It uses ceramic fuels so its safe operating temperatures exceed the power-reduction temperature range. Most designs are cooled by inert helium. Helium is not subject to steam explosions, resists neutron absorption leading to radioactivity, and does not dissolve contaminants that can become radioactive. Typical designs have more layers (up to 7) of passive containment than light water reactors (usually 3). A unique feature that may aid safety is that the fuel-balls actually form the core's mechanism, and are replaced one-by-one as they age. The design of the fuel makes fuel reprocessing expensive.
The Small Sealed Transportable Autonomous Reactor (SSTAR) is being primarily researched and developed in the US, intended as a fast breeder reactor that is passively safe and could be remotely shut down in case the suspicion arises that it is being tampered with.
---------------------------------------
They can be built safely and fuel can be clean. But nothing prevents a terrorist from reprocessing fuel and making a dirty bomb.
Something like a cruise ship would be ideal for a nuclear plant. Unfortunately the only designs that can produce all those megawatts right now are the traditional water cooled at this point. But given some research and engineering, I am sure it can be done. Cruise ship don't need 250,000 hp like a carrier does. Every time a cruise fills up it is a million
dollars, and they do it very week. Even at an additional 100million dollars it would pay for itself in 2 years, years ahead of the ROI on ship.

 

I have spent my entire career (30+ years) as an engineer in the commercial nuclear power industry.

Political stupidity and bureaucratic mess have prevented the industry from making right choices to deal with real threats (extended duration loss of power for example) while at the same time they have driven cost up by at least 2x more than needed for safe reliable power production. For a stupid 2" drain on a steam line, we have to pay $10K for an ASME Section 3 valve when a $1k valve would work just fine.

I am not real optimistic that we will get it right even after Japan. It is a shame since good regulatory leadership could fix the biggest flaws in a very short time at a low cost. However, they would have to quit with the same old attitudes and approaches used in the past. Primarily there is an unwillingness to admit that occasional prompt venting of steam with low level radiation IS THE RIGHT choice when everything stacks up wrong and a plant needs to get as safe as possible as quick as possible (currently this is not considered acceptable regardless of technical arguments).

The back end of the fuel cycle is also a real problem. Again this is mostly due to political junk that has prevented any real attempts at smarter fuel cycles, more efficient fuel cycles, or smarter processing of the waste.

For boats, nuclear is probably not a good choice in the non-military sector. For the big navies, nuclear actually has a pretty good record.

It is kind of weird that government use of nuclear (military) allowed smart guys to make good choices that have worked well, while government regulation of non-military uses has done nothing but frustrate the smart guys we ought to listen to in order to fix the current mess.

All of the lunatic anti technology - anti nuke scare mongers are also part of the problem. They tend to twist facts and refuse to deal the realities of modern industrial society. Note that I have no problems with real "smart guys" that have honest arguments that need to be addressed. It is just that the anti - nuke side is 99% hype and 1% real. However, they do have a political voice that influences the regulators. It just keeps the regulators focused on looking like they are "acting tough" even if it mostly just for show.

For non-military ships and boats, wind and diesel really todays smart choices. Gas works OK when things are too small for diesel to be practical.

Wind is traditionally the realm of sailboats.

Wind could be used for more. Kite assist for large vessels really should get some government funding.

For personal live aboard vessels, wind turbines to compress air could be used where short trips are spaced between significant periods at anchor. This was discussed quite a bit in the "Sailing'?? Directly to Windward" thread starting at post 167.

As is currently being discussed in the "Liquid Air Engine" thread, wind, waves, tide etc., could be used to make cryo air (a mix of liquid nitrogen and oxygen). This is just a form of stored energy. It can be used for propulsion. Storage is a little tricky, but I would say that with proper training it is no more dangerous than fossil fuels.

For a case where someone with more money than smarts wants a truly green luxury yacht, an on-board wind turbine powered cryo liquid generator is possible.

I will even say that with a really big push from either a philanthropist or government, it would be possible to create the technology to mass produce small scale fully automated wind powered liquid air generators. This would be a dream solution for using personally owned wind turbines to produce a practical form of green stored energy.

 

There are several micro plants on the drawing board or tested.

One is Toshiba 4s..

 

australia has the facilitys to construct an underground waste storage center for the worlds nuclear waste but the last proposal for one at coolgardie in wa was shot down in flames by the greens and anti nuc activists, i get really pissed off that these professional protesters are deciding what can and can't be done in this country. we have 75% of the planets uranium and the biggest uranium mine . these people are saying we can sell uranium to the rest of the world but we are to take no responsibility for disposing of spent material.

 

a waste facility would also generate another income stream for australia as well but the protesters will say it is not about the money ,

 

No one has mentioned making ammonia as a by-product of wind farms used to generate and deliver electricity onshore, in shallows of off-shore high wind areas - - - got a fair bit of favourable publicity a while ago, in USA (to be implemented offshore of Maine?), - - Liquid ammonia will supposedly run nicely in diesel engines...

Geothermal electric power generation could also be used to manufacture other (algae derived) liquid fuels when there is a surplus of electricity generated by that plant...

The world may be forced into using smaller ships and sails in the future...
- - My boat will run on Coconut oil which I could grow and process from otherwise rejected production - but only in small amounts for internal farm use... My 40 ft boat on quiet seas could carry an additional tonne of the high grade cold pressed food standard oil... - - (1200 litres at today's wholesale premium or US$10+ per litre?...)

Vegetable derived fuel (ethanol) is a stupid waste of food growing land, as is implemented at present - really NUCKINFUTS...

Too many greens and others are scared of Nuc - seems logical for navies and very large bulk (supertankers?) carriers...
- - - - - - - - - - ooo - - - - - - - - - -

Westie, what with the OBESE avatar? that does not do you credit man...

 

M

Ammonia is great in that emissions are nitrogen and water. Afaik it needs to run on the gas which is bad.

Burns out eyes,lungs, and other things.

As for my new curves...

 

"ALGAE" based biodiesel

go look up the yields compared to terrestrial based feed stocks as well as the amount of money thats going into the start ups, ( bill gates, 500 million on just one ) and then get back to me on that.

Not terrestrial based so no food crops need be displaced, not limited to two dimensions so a far more efficient use of space. Eats CO2 and sewage. End up we could easily replace "all" of our domestic oil consumption with readily available technology today. Its just a mater of getting set up. Which they are doing asap.

No major alterations in the dino based fuel distribution system, no major alterations needed to existing diesel engines

Done correctly it uses CO2 absorbing polymers to "feed" the algae. Which is best grown on the municipal level making use of existing sewage treatment facilities as the final nutrient source. Also cuts down in distribution costs since high tech refinement is unnecessary

might want to check out whats coming down the pipes before you discount this one so quickly

cheers
B

 

Because of recent improvements in the accuracy of theoretical predictions based on large scale ab initio quantum mechanical calculations, meaningful comparisons between theoretical and experimental findings have become possible. Hmm

 

Umm - so all the worlds R waste will suddenly appear in the storage centre in arid Australia by mental telepathy ?

With the record of oil transport around the world, will you underwrite 50 years or accident free transportation of radioactive material from one side of the world to the other ?

You may like to go and read up on the continuing effects of Chernobal. Then, go over some old documentaries prepared by anti-nuc activists years ago on the stupidity of building reactors in earthquake ravaged Japan.

Myself, I get really pissed off by people who don't think the problem through fully.

 

whatever happened to back ups 4 backups 4 backups... do they not do projections on worst case scenarios and ways to combat this... you would not need 20 people in the room to come up with earth Q

 

What people don't often realize - is that "they don't know what they don't know."

All the scenarios in the world, with all the backups in the world are no good if you don't have all the information.

The list of huge mistakes caused by unintentional ignorance over the last twenty years is enormous - especially ecological disasters.

 

I would have to agree with that.. Hmm

 

I don't know if its true or not but I seem to recollect that the bbc reported that more people have died falling of their roofs cleaning solar panels than in nuclear accidents. Seems highly improbable and no doubt I have it wrong but I am positive they reported that there have been more casualties mining for coal building dams or from refinery explosions.