Size matter

In this day an age the cargo ship are larger and larger. Will be not a good time to explore the nuclear propulsion like on the aircraft carrier?
It will be extremely economical, and refueling only every 15 years.
It will be also extremely expensive, but perhaps if done on some kind of production system the cost can be lowered.
As for the fuel itself, extremely dangerous in the wrong hand or in case of coastal wreak, that I can't answer what to do. If I was able to answer that I will be the most wealthy person in the world
But some 30 years ago the US had a cargo ship propelled with this nuclear power.
What happens to this idea, and yes I know why it was abandoned, but perhaps more study on the safety of this fuel can be done.
Since the nuclear plant is just to make steam in a heat exchanger, perhaps it can be quite small.
I don't know, just trying to solve the oil crisis, no more no less

Daniel

 

it is possible, but with all the safety regulations and security requirements it is just not economical. A nuclear powered aircraft was even studied (large bomber that would not need to be refueled), but it was just not practical as compared with conventional jet fuel. Same is true for cargo ship I suspect (military ships have other mission requirements, so worth the cost trade-offs).

There is not really an oil crisis, only a political crisis, and mismanagement of resources by governments. That I suspect will only get worse if you introduce nuke fuels to commercial cargo ships. Most reliable source of fuel would any fuel that is not subject to government regulations.

How about the shipping company invest in hydrogen generating plant at port side? Large stationary solar panels used to create hydrogen fuel from sea water, the H2 is transferred to hydride storage system in hull to power modified turbine engines. IF the system is owned by the shipping company than no tax on the fuel, and source of energy is sun and sea water. No need to buy fuel from vendor, or from overseas. Same engine can run on propane if hydrogen is not available, about the same cost as diesel fuel.

This cuts out "middle man" and government, and assures a reliable source of fuel at ship owner's facilities. Perhaps not practical for long range shipping unless hydrogen fuel facilities available as both ends of route. You could even have small solar hydrogen generating plant on board the ship to extend range (can not generate fuel fast enough for continuous propulsion but it can extend the range).

This kind of fuel is relatively safe and not subject to taxation if the company generates its own fuel.

 

For those who don't know about the nuclear ship Savannah. http://www.nssavannah.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

The project failed, not because she was nuclear, and not because of regular operating costs, which were about the same as any ship her size. It failed because she just couldn't get big enough cargoes to make her pay. There was too much room for passengers and not enough for cargo. Her crew was far larger than a comparable ship which added to her operating costs. She just couldn't pay her own way.

 

Additionally I doubt if the crew for a nuke boat can be found for $60 a month.

FF

 

Savannah (the second civil ship with nuclear peopulsion)was not designed to be profitable, she was a test object. Therefore she did not fail.

The German "Otto Hahn" (the third with NP) was not different, she had accommodation for 36 scientists.
Too many restrictions made it impossible to build up a regular schedule. The Suez and Panama Canal passages, for example, have been prohibited. But, again, she was a test vessel too.

The only one succesful in civil service (in these early days) has been the first civil ship with NP, the Soviet Icebreaker Lenin.
She had many successors which are in service til today.

Regards
Richard

Fred,

there is no seaman in international shipping worldwide, working for 60$ a month. IMO , you know.

 

all we need is nuclear powered ships hijacked