Slashdot Mirror
The World's Largest Cruise Ship and Its Supersized Pollution Problem (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader cites a report on the Guardian: When the gargantuan Harmony of the Seas slips out of Southampton docks on Sunday afternoon on its first commercial voyage, the 16-deck-high floating city will switch off its auxiliary engines, fire up its three giant diesels and head to the open sea. But while the 6,780 passengers and 2,100 crew on the largest cruise ship in the world wave goodbye to England, many people left behind in Southampton say they will be glad to see it go. They complain that air pollution from such nautical behemoths is getting worse every year as cruising becomes the fastest growing sector of the mass tourism industry and as ships get bigger and bigger. According to its owners, Royal Caribbean, each of the Harmony's three four-storey high 16-cylinder Wartsila engines will, at full power, burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour, or about 96,000 gallons a day of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world.
You think being a few hundred ppm over the limit is serious for a sedan's engine?
Every day there are ships, industrial equipment and vehicles burning diesel without emissions controls. And they vastly outnumber diesel cars and trucks.
I hate bad journalism like this...
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
Elok
That's not mentioning the fact that the entire staff is likely undocumented/imported, paid low wages (absurdly so), often addicted to drugs etc. Plus the whole sexual assault thing. And changing the flag to, say, Liberia. The cruise industry disgusts me.
When people from the first world pollute the world to death while everyone else scratches to make a living, you know you have a problem.
just waiting
A 747 burns through 3,600 Gallons of fuel per hour for just over 416 Passengers. This ship burns 1/3 of that for nearly 9000 people.
What's a gallon?
I'm near retirement age, white, American, subtly rich, and have a desire to travel, but... I wouldn't go on that bloated, crowded turd even if they paid me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis-class_cruise_ship
First off, those engines will only run at full power at the very start of the journey, if even then to get to, well, _cruising_ speed, which is around 22 knots, which is around 25 miles per hour. It IS a lot of fuel to use in any case - but per-person, it's not so bad as these blind numbers in headlines.
http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-comparisons/
Bulk shipping by large ship is actually pretty efficient a method of transporting our stuff. Yeah - they often use the nasty fuel when they can get away with it - but in terms of per-unit cost, it really isn't that bad by scale. The entire transportation industry DOES need to get off carbon fuels - but compared to the fuel used to give everyone groceries and trade, the impact of vacation resources isn't that large a cost. People always eat, the extra fuel to eat on this boat isn't a very large extra percent.
I don't think it's terribly productive to label folks taking vacations as wasteful, when really, it's our entire current system that needs to get its resource usage into a sustainable state.
I think if you'd compare it to environmentally 'friendly' activities like touring Alaska's wildlife, it uses far less fuel per person.
Ryan Fenton
1,377 US gallons x 24 Hours = 33,048 US gallons per day. Where did they get 96,000 gallons from?
If they had named it Boaty McBoatface, they could have made enough on souvenirs to clean it up.
Table-ized A.I.
There is no point to cruising. That is why it is bad. Everything you do on a cruise ship you could have done on land. While there are things to see- after you get off- or from the ship in some cases it's not like you couldn't have done those things without a cruise ship being involved. The cruise part is pointless. It be better for people to check out resorts with lots of activities. If you want to 'cruise' Alaska for the view you can do that without the 'cruise' part and still go to a resort, but without the environmental impact, or at least less of it.
If you break it down to per person at full or near full capacity, that is actually comparable to car fuel use per person per hour.
At least compared to cars with 4 people inside, that's 6500/4 = 1625 cars. Assuming average 30 mpg to travel 20miles, that's .67 gallons per car to travel the same distance which equals 1088.75 gallons use for cars to travel the same distance. Honestly, i would think the amount of pollution produced from those people driving around town all week would be similar relatively speaking compared to those people going on a week long cruise.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, but i assume it's like living near a coal plant. You don't notice the general pollution unless it's localized.
This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution. There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power. There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel. There are no safety precautions that aren't acceptable for the loss of a reactor that are acceptable for the loss of 8000 souls, so safety shouldn't be an issue.
We can run reactors in the confines of a submarine, in aircraft carriers, and on large combat ships, and it's arguable that a military ship is more at risk than a commercial ship, since it will be actively engaged in combat! When anti-nuclear pundits win, the environment loses. And so does the company, since it would be cheaper in the long run, certainly in a period time for which this ship will operate.
Agree here. I have no idea why larger ships dont look into say thorium reactors, etc.
http://yottawattsthorium.blogs...
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
Most ships burn diesel when in port. When they get about 15 nautical miles out to sea, they switch to bunker oil. *THAT* smells foul. Its a lot cheaper than diesel, and gives about the same performance, but smells a lot worse and there is black smoke coming out all the time. The bunker oil burns like diesel (its not a steam turbine, its a diesel engine). Like I said though, they don't use bunker oil in port, and they don't use their main engines in port (just auxiliary engines to make electricity). I don't see the need for a real big engine either. An 800 hp engine can be tied to a 596 kW generator. Even on a large ship, that's equivalent to powering about 300 homes or about 12 city blocks. So are they saying that what is equivalent to 2 400 hp car engines is polluting a lot? I see cars moving around a lot, and I don't think its that bad. Maybe I'm off by a factor of 10, and it *is* diesel (not bunker oil but diesel in port), but I still don't see what the deal is. If its seen as a problem, they can do what the boat/yacht set do and use shore power.
Regardless of modern efficiency this is a floating nightmare waiting to happen. Eventually this or an equivalent , or bigger, ship will fail and the damage go reefs, ecosystems, etc. will be impacted. Count on it.
Nuclear reactors for these. On a side note, I don't know why anyone would want to spend a vacation, with around 10,000 other people on a ship this big. I guess because of its size, you'd never see the whole thing, but when I think of vacation, I think of GETTING AWAY from people.
These modern cruise ships are visual abominations. Another poster said it best: "McCruises."
Contrast their great height and cargo-ship-like profiles to the long, low, graceful yacht-like lines of ocean liners of the early 20th century.
In a word, these modern ships are -- garish.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Those ships burn the bottom products of the oil stack after refining. The fuel is closer to tar or asphalt that diesel. On a cold day you can actually walk on that fuel as if it is a road. And yes, using such fuels needs to be made very illegal. Anyone can do the math. Those ships could never exist if they had to use real diesel fuel as the price of passenger tickets would not equal the fuel burned on a cruise.
Typical engineers over-simplifying the problem.
A diesel van might be four times more polluting, but it's likely involved in productive activity. Meanwhile, this whole ship could be sunk tomorrow and it would make zero difference to the world's progress. Hell, calculate the monies paid by current and future passengers and expropriate it for more useful activity. If someone can afford a cruise, they can afford to give away an equivalent amount of money and not go on a cruise.
Money travelling around in a circle doesn't generate wealth. A ship transporting passengers in a circle doesn't generate wealth. Wealth creation - in the classical sense, not the leeching banker sense - means human progress.
Okay, so cruise ships are the "fastest growing sector of the mass tourism industry". Aren't they the only sector of the mass tourism industry? What else is there?
I've never really understood the appeal of a cruise ship; but obviously some others do.
#DeleteChrome
Keep adding mega cruise liners to the ocean, and the water levels will continue to rise. Only entitled millennials with some free sweepstakes would ride those things and endure being trapped in some floating unwashed urban toilet just like the cities they live in.
There's an easy solution for that! Clean Atomic Energy! But then everyone'd be like "Waaaah! Waaaah! There's a floating nuclear reactor down on the dock!" Honestly, there's just no pleasing some people.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I wonder how many fuel cells and how big hydrogen storage it would take to power these things with all the moving, entertainment and cooking going on. "Sorry Chef, only induction stoves available!"
It's been done
Have gnu, will travel.
Yup, that's also what I was thinking:
Nearly every modern carrier (which is technically a "small airport/military base on a ship") uses nuclear power.
Why the hell is this monster (which is compared to a "small city on a ship") does need to burn diesel ?!?
But then probably there are some weird non-proliferation treaties that limit the application of this kind of technology to non-government/non-military ships.
And/or treaty about nuclear use in international waters (where this ship operates most of the time).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The drawback I see with thorium is that it is currently only *researched* by the military navies.
I.E.: if gargantuan civilian "floating cities" ships decide to adopt it, it will be completely new technology. It won't have been tested and proven since long time, with all the drawbacks and caveat very well known, and the whole design perfected over several revision like current maritime nuclear generator used by navies.
I'm not sure that these kind of companies will be able to spend as much as government/military to perfect the technology. They'll probably spare on the R&D side of things. To avoid nuclear catastrophes, it might be better to re-use older/proven/known reactors for the cruise ships, and let those with deeper pocket manage to bring thorium reactors to reality.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Agree with everything except the cost benefit. Nuclear is not economically feasible for commercial shipping. It's not justifiable for military ships either, but they don't have to make economic sense.
This has to be one of the smartest comments I've read in a forum in a while. This is a wonderful idea! So what's stopping it?
I imagine one significant reason why nuclear reactors can be found in huge military vessels...is because they are military vessels, with rather formidable defenses that cruise ships tend not to have. Sailing a nuclear-powered cruise ship without a high firepower escort may embolden pirates, or even unscrupulous, nuclear-bereft nations.
Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship.
Well, if you compare to other ship this is a *really inefficient* ship. And it's really weird, when you take just a couple of minute to think about it.
Don't forget that the world doesn't stop at cruise ships.
When you look at other ships with similar order of magnitude of tonnage ("similar" as in "roughly the same number of zeroes in the 'tonnage' item"),
you find aircraft carriers, which are almost exclusively nuclear-powered and thus burn not a single drop of diesel and ridiculously small quantities of nuclear fuel - that's the whole point of nuclear energy, it consume amounts of fuel which are order of magnitudes smaller.
(Though, okay, the aircrafts themselves on the carrier do burn conventionnal fuels).
And we're speaking here about vessels whose tonnage is at most, approximately half of this monster (I might be wrong, I'm not very fluent in the various maritime units).
Even *civilian* nuclear powered vessels do exist (though most seem to come out of Russia - back when it was URSS) - and we're speaking here of smaller ship, around an order smaller than this behemot.
All these ship consume not a single drop of diesel.
So, why the hell those this monster to burn that much fuel ?!?
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
And aircraft carriers and russian icebreakers tend to be nuclear powered and don't burn a single drop of diesel (the biggest thing that can be compared - makes sense to take "airport on a ship" when comparing to "small city on a ship").
This monster has (if a read correctly) twice the tonnage of the biggest of them (so roughly the same number of zeros), but use instead an archaic power method designed for much smaller ship, that requires to carry around (heavy !) and burn insane amounts of polluting fuels.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The Costa Concordia is a good example of a reason why not. I also suspect nuclear is notably more expensive to operate - more specialized crew training, evacuation/rescue considerations, nuclear engineers on board to operate the system, etc. Might be a more tempting target for terrorists. Can a ship with nuclear access the same ports as those that don't (i.e., do some ports/countries that cruise ships dock prohibit nuclear)? Then there's the general stigma attached to nuclear; will anyone actually want to be on a boat with a nuclear reactor? I think there are plenty of reasons a private, for-profit company isn't using nuclear.
I don't know the exact numbers nor can I site any sources, but my gut feeling is that you are incorrect sir. I believe properly enacted nuclear propulsion for >500ft ships could prove economical when the ships are high-use ships (oil tankers, cargo, cruise). The amount of fuel burned must end up being a huge cost. There are few reasons I believe this:
1. The reactor industry would become more competitive with companies that have to find cost-savings, because today's customers don't care about profit, as you pointed out, so the prices are inflated because the existing market will bear a high price.
2. The additional demand will drive economies of scale in the reactor production, fueling, and maintenance driving down cost and creating a vibrant market.
3. There is a hidden cost in the environmental impact that running these pollutant engines and their dirty fuel has to the civilization beyond those born by the consumers of the fuel and its direct price.
4. The fluctuating market price for that fuel is going to dictate its cost to you, the shipping company, because its not feasible to retool the asset to consume something else like hydrogen without basically ripping half the ship apart. The market in 20 years time may have vastly different cost for this fuel, especially if emissions regulations force the companies to stiff fines. Nuclear fuel on the other hand is good for that 20 year time frame, and although there is a problem with the spent fuel today, its a known cost, and in 20 years there may be practical applications for that depleted fuel rod.
The stigma of reactors. It's a risk the lay-person does not quite comprehend.
I never understood why people would want to go on a cruise on one of these mega-ships. They have nothing to do with nautical travel - you're no closer to the actual sea than in a beachfront hotel room. You're stuck for many days inside cramped quarters with nothing interesting to do.
Oh, and loading/unloading process is so horrible (doubly so for international travels) that it would make TSA officials go green from envy. Waiting for half a day in line to get off that freaking ship? You betcha!
I had misfortune to lose a raffle and get a ticket for a four-day roundtrip cruise. I left by plane from the midpoint of the trip.
The nuclear power of a ship is vastly different to weapons-grade nuclear fuel. It's also not something you can saws-all into and steal. For one, you would quickly get sick. If Captain Philips had nuclear fuel, he could have told told the pirates "in there", and they wouldn't have even reached the shores riding a dingy with fuel rods by their ankles. I read a story not to long ago about Cobalt 60 thieves that authorities said they would just wait by radiation treatment centers for the sick bandits to arrive.
No, I think if there is going to be a theft from a cruise ship of reactor fuel, it would have to be a very highly skilled robbery, of the sort only a nation-state could execute. OR... we could give Steven Segal free voyages for life and not worry about it at al!
First off, the Costa Concordia accident wouldn't have had a radiation leakage, because those reactors are designed to withstand ship-to-ship missile impacts, and are so heavily encased, that running aground at full speed would not -- and should not -- penetrate the reactor. That is something that the design should absolutely account for.
I believe that reactors would run with less manpower than an engine, and be a fairly autonomous machine, with maybe two crew onboard to maintain it. You don't have to change the lubrication, there are less moving parts, you can store the energy produced, and you only have to refuel every other decade.
Commercial operations don't use nuclear power due to regulation and public perception.
I live 10 miles from a nuclear power station, and I get more radiation from eating the potassium in a banana than I would if i stayed here my whole life. I agree with you, educating the public to what the real risks are and how likely they are to happen would be something thats needed before commercial adoption could take place. It seems like ordinary people get their nuclear physics 101 information from Godzilla! If only they were as educated in how many cases of asthma or lung cancer coal/diesel cause. Maybe they (and you) would see Nuclear as a blessing.
If my napkin math is correct that is a little over 10 Gallons of fuel per person per day. For electricity, transportation & sanitation that doesn't seem all that bad. The "problem" I would bet is that this pollution source isn't "correctly" tucked away in some remote area or over in the poor side of town. I'd be more interested in how these things compare to coal fired power plants, cars, waste (trash, sewage, etc) combined.
This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution. There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power. There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel. There are no safety precautions that aren't acceptable for the loss of a reactor that are acceptable for the loss of 8000 souls, so safety shouldn't be an issue.
Very simple reason why.
It's a cruise ship. People go there for their holidays, to have a good time, and to not worry about things.
People worry about nuclear power. You know and I know they shouldn't. But they do. On the other hand, diesel engines are entirely unremarkable and nobody gives a damn about diesel pollution.
TL:DR nobody would book onto a nuclear cruise ship. It would be commercially nonviable.
3MI, Fujiyama, Chernobyl? Need I to mention any more?
Also, the math is fucked. 137 x 24 = 33048, not 96000. And no cruise ship runs 24hr/day.
This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution. There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power.
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel.
I think we only have to look the Costa Concordia and the way for profit land based reactors are run to realize why it isn't a good idea have a for profit nuclear powered cruise ships running around the ocean.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Wouldn't a nuclear power plant also be smaller than the diesels for the equivalent power? Not to mention last longer between servicing and have a longer overall life, and be modular?
If they can't even get my margarita right topside why should I trust the guys below deck to run a friggin nuclear reactor?
There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel.
Liability.
The insurance cost(if they could get it) would be prohibitive.
Many of the ports that cruise ships visit would ban them.
Your gut feeling requires a lot of changes to happen while the above poster is describing the current situation of a low volume military application which requires higher standards than a high volume civilian application. Hand crafted versus mass produced. Things may some day get to where your gut is feeling but it's a very long way off and would require a lot of capital to get there. It may happen but it's a pretty big "IF", so going around telling people they are incorrect based on a long chain of events that have not happened is somewhat rude.
If only they were as educated ... because those reactors are designed to withstand ship-to-ship missile impacts, and are so heavily encased
The NS Savannah, the U.S' only nulcear powered merchant ship was designed specifically *without* the military shock protections that you assume would be in a civilian ship. If they were the cost to install and run the vessel would be significantly high due to them requiring even more specialized crews required to run the reactor, let alone the rest of the vessel.
Having said that the NS Savannah is a beautiful looking ship.
I believe, and should not, I think, I don't know the exact numbers nor can I site any sources, but my gut feeling is
The NS Savannah required a special vessel just to handle its waste cooling water, that is it required a second vessel, a second crew that was oil powered to service it. Were you to make those vessels nuclear powered as well you would have the beginnings of a nuclear waste water issue that makes complaining about smoke from oil powered ships look benign in comparison.
The Savannah also required a special ground and maintenance crew to service her as well, so given that this was a prototype extrapolating those servicing costs onto the shipping industry makes it rapidly spiral out of control.
Just one of these vessels would make a juicy target for any trorist organization seeking to use it to crash into any major port in any city. It may not cause a nuclear accident, however it would cripple any port anywhere for decades while the mess was cleaned up.
Military nuclear makes sense because of an Admiral named Rickover who established nuclear safety systems in the military and had a clear disdain for stupid people and ideas and would not allow them around nuclear facilities. In a civilian program there would be no such protections.
With the average age of a land based reactor being anywhere between 40-60 years how would you propose disposing of a nuclear powered ship at the end of its 25 year service life? Apart from its historical significance, the Savannah is still in one piece 50 years after it's service life whilst waiting for the reactor to cool.
I get it why it looks like a good idea on the surface however the NS Savannah paved the way for the world to understand why a civilian nuclear ship program isn't such a good idea when used in operation.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
That's bullshit. This ship burns up to 1377 gallons for a top speed of 26 mph; that's about the same as 1500 regular passenger cars. But those cars are transporting 8500 people and enormous amounts of freight while also supplying all electricity and heating. So gas mileage is actually excellent.
The engine no doubt emits lots of particulates, NOx, and sulfur. But that isn't a problem on the open sea. Those emissions are not particularly harmful per se, they only happen to be tightly regulated for cars because they cause problems in cities. That's also why they are not regulated for a lot of other vehicle types.
Lots of product we use day to day have to be "disposed of as hazardous waste". That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with those products.
Very true. That's why the cruise industry is moving to LNG (liquefied natural gas) on new ships going forward. Unfortunately, for the next decade or two, we'll still have plenty of old ones burning whatever fuel is cheap (typically bunker fuel).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Lots of rules to follow when your plant is a nuclear one. The military is very strict about how that plant is operated and maintained.
The engineering spaces on a nuclear powered ship were literally clean enough to eat off the floor. It was insane how well maintained those spaces were.
And drills. Jesus the poor nuke folks did nothing but drill 24/7.
Last time I checked, the documentation about the nuke plants aboard ships were hidden away within a red binder marked " Secret ".
I think of the Costa Concordia incident and the Captain jumping ship instantly and then think how much more interesting that would have been were that a nuclear powered vessel. Eh, no thank you.
Besides, cruise lines do everything they can to keep costs down so training their engineering staff to handle a nuclear power plant is going to cost a fortune not only in training, but retaining those folks once they have the training and can go work elsewhere for far more than the peanuts the cruise ships pay.
So the cost of the plants, training, recoring every 20 years and finding a shipyard that ISN'T military that will build your nuclear powered ship for you might actually cost more than just burning regular old fossil fuels.
Finally, there is the matter of some ports will absolutely not allow nuclear powered vessels to make berth in their ports. So that limits where you can go.
While I generally agree with you, I don't think you appreciate the level of training, drilling, and oversight that nuclear sailors experience. Basic training is two years of intense stuff including calculus, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and just plain operating the plant. And THEN you go on to a really ship and go through a whole bunch more training. On top of that, the nuclear Navy is generally made up of the top 2% of all sailors.
I can't imagine a civilian ship company being able to stand up a crew that is capable of running a reactor safely. It is the training, intelligence, dedication and oversight that makes those reactors same.
This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution.
Tactical nukes? Torpedoes? Mining the harbor? Scuttling the ship and escaping on a life raft at night?
There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power.
Oh, yes! That's the answer. I look forward to hearing about all the nuclear accidents on the high seas! :)
Where did that political shit come from? All I did was point out what we currently do with the very heavy fractions of oil.
I would happily be on a boat with a nuclear reactor. When you are consuming 50-100 thousand gallons of fuel a day. That is upwards of 1.5 million gallons a month. their is an awful lot of money that is spent purely on fuel. The biggest negative with nuclear is the stigma attached to it, Cost wise if used extensively in shipping it would be a massive saving both environmentally and cost wise.
There actually is a hidden cost of the fuel, both I disposal of the waste as well as consumption of fissionable elements. Uranium is just as non-renewable as fossil fuels, and the price can fluctuate just as wildly. For instance, the area I hunt antelope is completely abandoned, the nearest town died in the 80s with the collapse of the uranium market. Just because you don't see the price everyday on gas station signs doesn't mean that nuclear fuels are immune to market forces. While I am pro nuclear, overly optimistic propaganda does almost as much harm as environmentalist fear mongering.
Why one should fly to Florida, board a gigantic over-crowded floating hotel, spend a week trapped in the steel box with 6K other people risking norovirus and then upon returning to port, fly back home............ when one COULD just as easily fly to Las Vegas or another such place and stay in a hotel or hotels with bigger shows, bigger casinos, bigger pools and more and bigger more diverse eateries, then fly home. The land-based hotel stay is far less likely to involve you being trapped in tight quarters with norovirus or other such hazards, AND will not expend massive quantities of fossil fuels simply moving the hotel around while you stay in it.
NOBODY can claim to be concerned about global warming, carbon footprints, etc and then choose the floating hotel over the land-based hotel.
These floating hotels are not even achieving what their ancestor tech did: moving a person from point A to point B. These things frequently go from point A, out to sea, and then back to point A. The old Queen Mary, SS United States, Titanic, etc were transports across the Atlantic.
You really think so?
Risk=chance * impact.
Since the impact of mayor nuclear disaster is huge, the risk is also large.
Although it is not the same for every reactor. It depends on location.
The Belgiums have reactors near Antwerp. If there is a mayor incident there , than millions of people need to be evacuated. This is a impact Belgium and there neighbors can't afford. So the Risk is unacceptable even if the chance is low.
If the reactor is in a remote location in a huge country it might be different.
I second this! This will be more work for nuclear engineers after their time in the military. Have them run the nukes...
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
Just under 9,000 people on board one vessel. Just imagine if it 'does a Titanic'. It would be a disaster the size of the 'Wilhelm Gustloff' back in 1945. That would probably kill off the Ocean Cruise industry for a long time.
[A very apt Capcha: 'lifeboat' ! ]
who's not in the military on a nuclear vessel. Honestly, with the really shitty maintenance these ships are famous coupled with the difficulty of enforcing safety regulations when they're in international waters I wouldn't want them running a nuke plant.
Until it's cheaper to run a safe nuke plant than a dangerous one nuke plants won't be safe unless they're run by the gov't.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There are better technologies available to cruise ships and some lines already have ships that use them. However there is currently little incentive for Cruise Lines to use them in new builds..
Gas turbines, for instance are much cleaner. In ships, gas turbines are good for high power application, but not so good for lower speed cruising. So some ships use a combination of gas turbines and disel engines, and other ships use a Combined Gas and Steam System (COGAS). One such cruise ship is the GTS Millenium.
The problem with gas turbines is that they are more expensive to run, since they effectively run on jet fuel. Marine diesel engines use the Diesel cycle, but don't run on typical automotive-type diesel, instead they run on a much lower grade of bunker oil. Typical bunker oil is like tar, high in sulphur and other imputities, and requires preheating just to keep the viscosity low enough to use. The price difference between Bunker Oil and Jet A1 is massive, so there is a huge economic incentive for Cruise Lines to keep with existing diesel engines instead of moving to systems like COGAS.
Some places, like Alaska, require a cruise ships to have cleaner emissions. It is legislation like this that will force Cruise Lines to move to cleaner technologies. Unfortunately not much else at the moment will.
the article mentions:
> According to its owners, Royal Caribbean, each of the Harmony’s three four-storey high 16-cylinder Wärtsilä engines will, at full power, burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour, or about 96,000 gallons a day of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world.
and
> But marine pollution analysts in Germany and Brussels said that such a large ship would probably burn at least 150 tonnes of fuel a day, and emit more sulphur than several million cars, more NO2 gas than all the traffic passing through a medium-sized town and more particulate emissions than thousands of London buses.
Assuming that a cruise ship should normally not runs at full power, discussing about the impact of the ship running at full power the whole day seems kind of lame.
(the thing is still doing lots of pollution no argue there, but it might be a wise idea to look at the average normal usage when talking about the impact on nature due to the fuel consumption,..)
The operative word in that post was COULD. Things could be that way if we made those changes. I believe a viable low-maintenance reactor for commercial use would yield those benefits.
Don't they not use uranium for propulsion anymore? I'm not sure what the state of the art is now-a-days, but you are assuming 30 year old HWR reactors, when there have been many innovations in the technology, like positive co-efficient designs, pebble-bed reactors who's fuel is in spherical pebbles, etc. I know you can enrich the fuel as well as create more in breeder reactors. That ensures a supply if your using anything other than natturally occruing U235
Again, this is either Mia-information or out-dated technology. Positive coefficient reactors are miles safer than the concrete-block rod-fueled HWR we have been installing in the past, and are running for years beyond spec. Newer designs are safer specifically because they can't melt down. Let me explain
In old-style reactors you had to do something to more, to slow down the reaction. Specifically (in Chernobyl's case), you had to insert graphene rods into the core at varying depths to control the rate of reaction. Let the reaction run to high, and the water used to conduct the heat away turns to steam and throws the graphene rods out like a potato gun. That's called a negative coefficient. You have to do something positive (push rods in) to achieve something negative (slow down or stop the reaction).
In new reactions, there is a positive coefficient, so you have to do something to get something. In a pebble-bed reactor, you have to flood the bed with gas (preferably helium). Helium does not have the embrittlement risk to pipes and structures. And there are in fact not really pipes in the core, the space between the baseball sized pebbles forms the conduit. Also helium is not as potent a neutron absorber as water, so there is less comtaminated waste.
The new generation IV reactors are much safer, and simpler than their older brethren and that's where most of the complexity and cost comes from, the safety systems inherent in the cooling systems. That's where Fukushima failed. It had a negative coefficient, because we couldn't cool it down, it's reaction speed increased. In a PBR, the hotter it gets, the slower it reacts, cooling itself naturally and stopping the reaction without the introduction of additional neutrons. It's a positive feedback loop. It's what these ships should have, and the mis-education or mindset from the 60's is what keeps the stigma around, and the pollution from coal and diesel in the air.
There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel. There are no safety precautions that aren't acceptable for the loss of a reactor that are acceptable for the loss of 8000 souls, so safety shouldn't be an issue.
The reason military vessels have nuclear power is that they are secured by military force.
It's very possible for some incident to occur involving a privately owned reactor that doesn't involve the loss of 8000 people, thus the risk profile is much, much greater.
why don't they plug into the local electricity supply ? Yes: this would need connection standards & infrastructure at the ports, but there is already lot of port side building needed to be able to accommodate these monsters. The ship can still use it's own generators when it is at ports that do not supply electricity. So: ports that don't like the smoke just provide a big electric plug.
Your gut feeling requires a lot of changes to happen while the above poster is describing the current situation of a low volume military application which requires higher standards than a high volume civilian application.
That's the thing, going from 'hand crafted' to 'mass produced' often increases safety because you get a much larger body of knowledge, and automated manufacturing has a lower defect rate than hand crafted.
Start putting nuclear reactors in 'all' ships greater than 500 feet and you're talking thousands of reactors to produce. They, like the 16 cylinder engines being produced today, will be very standardized.
I don't read AC A human right
Not just thorium reactors are in the research phase of development, they're also probably not going to be able to put out as much power as a more conventional nuclear reactor.
Plus, once people are convinced that thorium reactors can't generate a Chernobyl level nuclear catastrophe, capitalism may get to brush over potential longer-term and less spectacular problems of disposable waste, and "minor" nuclear leaks.
Interesting information. This reactor type seem very promising from a technical standpoint. But I think there are also regulatory issues concerning proliferation of fuel that needs to be solved. Fissile material in the wrong hands is really a bad thing!
I guess the logic is this: "Hmm, I think people know modern diesel engines as well as nuclear power, so lets spin a story claiming that there is a huge pollution problem with the cruise ships". And so they did.
Meanwhile the Google-able people can google "Wärtsila 46F" and see this statement from the Finnish manufacturer (we Finns take environmental matters seriously too even though we also have a Green party advancing coal power):
"The technologically advanced Wärtsilä 46F can be run on either heavy fuel oil (HFO), marine diesel oil (MDO), or on light diesel when being operated within strict coastal or port emissions areas. This fuel switching can take place smoothly and without power interruption across all engine loads.
This flexibility enables the operator to select the fuel according to price, availability, and the need to meet local emissions regulations."
More fun facts: Port of Helsinki is going to receive record number of these large cruise ships this year, over 300. Since our summer is short the density is higher than in Southampton which has ~450 cruise ship visits per year. Is air pollution a problem here? No, like previously stated, cruise ships, ferries, all big ships, are able to switch to low polluting diesel when they are in port. And they do so. We have shore electricity support and waste water treatment. Actually we just completed legislation with other countries which forbids any waste water discharge in to Baltic Sea, that being sea-wide legislation of the entire area.
So, things are actually good in real life. It just seems that the Southamptonians(?) either have outdated port rules and equipment or they are victims of another "green" FUD scare.
We can run reactors in the confines of a submarine, in aircraft carriers, and on large combat ships, and it's arguable that a military ship is more at risk than a commercial ship, since it will be actively engaged in combat! When anti-nuclear pundits win, the environment loses. And so does the company, since it would be cheaper in the long run, certainly in a period time for which this ship will operate.
Cost, long and short run. Navy's build them because construction and operating costs are not a concern.
Building a nuclear vessel is much more expensive than a conventional one. Parts have to have pedigrees to ensure they actually meet specs and many of the skilled trades need experience constructing to nuclear standards. That's not cheap compared to a commercial vessel where "close enough" will do during construction
Operating costs would be higher since you can't simply crew it with cheap labor in the engineering spaces. The Navy takes a year to train a nuclear qualified sailor and cruise lines are unlikely to want to absorb the cost of training an maintaining that qualification; or paying the salaries needed to get crews. In port, you'd probably need to keep the reactor operating, if it of a conventional PWR design, since you might run into startup issues due to Xenon.
Maintenance would be higher because you can't simply defer it until the next slow period. Preventative maintenance is needed on a regular basis, and you can't just go into a yard on an open, inspect, repair if needed basis. In addition, you need a yard than can work on nuclear vessels, which means doing the yard work in high cost countries versus cheaper ones.
Politically, there are issues as well. Finally, some countries might not allow a nuclear cruise ship to dock; and while you aren't dumping pollutants into the air you'd potentially be dumping radioactive water overboard overtime you blow down a steam generator.
From a PR standpoint, how do you convince customers the ship is "safe" and they won't get large doses of radioactivity? While the shielding would prevent that it's still an issue that could prevent people from cruising on it.
Finally, cruise ships get passed from line to line as they age, with lower tier lines buying the old ones, renaming them and running them. You couldn't do that with a nuclear cruise ship as the cheaper lines simply wouldn't have the resources to run it properly; which means there is no cost recovery at EOL.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Actually you are starting to see a few ships begin to switch from bunker fuel to using LNG.
Commercial nuclear shipping I just don't see happening, unless the entity (company) in question is State/Government owned.
I believe that reactors would run with less manpower than an engine, and be a fairly autonomous machine, with maybe two crew onboard to maintain it. You don't have to change the lubrication, there are less moving parts, you can store the energy produced, and you only have to refuel every other decade.
Not really. First off, the staff would probably be significantly more expensive due to the specialized training and skills than the average engine room sailor. You'd need at lease a reactor operator and electric plant operator in the control room, along with a steam turbine operator to coordinate with the reactor operator to maintain power levels. Watches would be needed in the engineering spaces because now you have to check equipment for proper operation to ensure reactor safety and check for leaks, etc.
Refueling costs would probably kill the vessel's commercial viability. Either you design it for ease of access to the reactor which means a large flat area you can cut straight through to get access for refueling, wasting a lot of space, or your cutting through multiple decks of staterooms, dining areas, etc that all need to be redone afterward. Military vessels don't have to worry about looking nice after refueling and are designed with that in mind.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I don't think terrusts would try to steal an aircraft carrier or a submarine. A cruise ship, though...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
One would hope the person making the margarita isn't also the nuclear technician. But then, I guess it would be excuse as to why the drink didn't turn out.
To the tree-huggers,
Hear me out, please
The fuel that big ocean vessels use are sticky gooey stuffs, a blend of heavy fuel oil and 'leftover residual' from hydrocarbon cracking process
The fuel has to be pre-heated to 220 degree F - 260 degree F (or 104 degree C - 127 degree C) before it can be used
I used to work in the engine room of ocean vessels and the 'ambient temperature' in the engine room, even during the coldest winter months, remains at 60 degree C to 80 degree C, which is much hotter than the hottest temperature on earth (which was 56.7 degree C recorded back in 1913 - see http://www.guinnessworldrecord... )
This heavy fuel oil is only one grade above tar, yes, the black gooey tar that is mixed with crushed rocks to make roads and highways
I think you need to review positive vs negative void coefficients, since you have things backwards it seems.
Generally, ships use a generator to provide power and heating while the ship is docked. For a large cruise ship this generator needs to be substantial. It also runs on the same fuel as the main engines, and there are no emissions regulations for these ships.
So everyone downwind of the docks (i.e. most of Southampton, in this case) gets to sit in a column of smoke for the entire time the ship's docked.
The obvious solution would be to connect the ship to the shore electric grid. This is being worked on (example) but conversion takes time.
The proper name is 'bunker oil'
Depending on the 'grade', with the lower grade less fuel-oil and more of the leftover residual in it, higher viscosity
The lowest grade of bunker oil is only one grade above Bitumen --- yes, that black tar that is mixed with crushed rocks to make road tarmac for highways and parking lots
Anyway, it's really gooey sticky stuff and it needs to be preheated before use
I used to work in ship's engine room and also in the hydrocarbon industry. Almost nothing goes to waste in the hydrocarbon cracking process
I quickly looked up on Wikipedia, apparently there ARE nuclear powered civilian vessels (though most were built Russia, mostly back when it was still called Soviet Union - None built by France which is were Oasis-class cruise ships seems to be built).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You had something sensible and then you spoiled it with that bit. Taking care and good design results in less defects, not some sort of magic due to mass production but I suppose it's a common mistake to make since mass production often comes twinned with more attention to quality control.
How many cities do you think would permit the enty of a nuclear powered vessel? {...} It's way to easy to get rid of nuclear waste by just dumping it somewhere
We need to compare apples to apples.
Yup, a nuclear powered vessels is going to have nuclear waste to manage.
The thing is, the current NON-nuclear version of these behemoths cruise ships do currently produce order of magnitude more pollution: they currently burn insane amount of diesel, and not exactly the refined diesel that you pump into your truck, but whatever crude shit they can get the cheapest.
And they manage this pollution by the worst imaginable way: by just dumping it into the atmosphere.
(I'm ready to bet that once you compute the crazy amount of waste dumped into the atomosphere, the trace amounts of radio-active isotopes present in the fuel and released into the atmosphere are probably causing more radio-active pollution than any nuclear reactor, even if they are proportionally less concentrated per volume of fuel).
We're not speaking of plain introducing nuclear waste, we're speaking about exchange potential nuclear waster against current mega-tons of pollution.
not to mention other cost-cutting arangements that would decrease safety. Nuclear power on carriers and subs work because of high standards in personel enforced by military discipline. Good luck getting that on a random cruise ship.
Yup, that is something to be more afraid of.
(The current shit pumped into these vessels and passed as "diesel" is a nice example).
On the other hand, given the massive amount of energy required, I'm not sure if switching to nunclear isn't already a massive cutting of operational costs.
(But on the other hand, the MBAs might start to think, "while we are cutting our costs 99x by switching to nuclear, why not cut a lot on safety just to raise it to 100x-cost-cutting ?")
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I don't think terrusts would try to steal an aircraft carrier or a submarine. A cruise ship, though...
I feel like your thinking about the wrong creator.
These cruise ship are insanely huge, about twice the size of the biggest aircraft carrier.
They are the equivalent of a small city on a ship.
To take a city, it requires a bit more organisation and man power than what a loose band of terrorist.
It will be closer to a small well organised military operation.
So more a "Michael Bay" or "Roland Emmerich" than a "Tom Clancy" kind of plot.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yup, they even built this one you're mentionning - offering arctic cruise (apparently at 25'000$ a pop) - as recently as 2007.
And on this kind of cruises, nuclear propulsion is mandatory.
It's not like this ship is stopping in a port every couple of days to re-stock several hundreds tons of fuel.
This ship is cruising in the middle of nowhere.
By definition it's going to need a form of propulsion that can be autonomous for a couple of months between refuelling
(which only nuclear is going to fulfil. Unless the cruise ship is a part of a flotilla, with at least 3-4 tanker ships constantly following around)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Nuclear proliferation, and the legal sanctions associated with the handling of large quantities of nuclear material, intended to prevent it?
.
The downside of this is that the center of gravity of the ship may not be low enough to provide needed stability in some of the more intense storms (or rogue waves) one may find in the open sea.
It is something that I would want to check out further before you get me on one of those huge ships.
Diesels are cheaper. Navy ships don't have to make a profit.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
How much per person? How does it compare to 10 smaller ships? Doubtless climate change deniers are imbeciles but articles like make the tree hugger crowd seem equally ridiculous.
Has anyone counted the lifeboats and done the math?
When I first saw the images, I couldn't help but count the lifeboats. 9 on each side. "6,780 passengers and 2,100 crew" = 8800 souls on board (not counting pets). 8800 / 18 = 488.9 bodies per lifeboat. Damn! And of course if she is going down with a severe list, cut that in half.
Can we spell "Titanic", hmmm?
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This review has a much smaller passenger size (5479); donno which is correct.
http://www.cruisecritic.com/re...
Probably using this lifeboat design, or something similar:
http://www.royalcaribbeanblog....
http://www.rina.org.uk/mega-li...
http://www.rclcorporate.com/oa...
Which is totally inadequate, holding only 370 persons best case, a total of 6600 for the 18 on Harmony of the Seas.
.
Nope, I think I'll pass.
Penalize/fine the manufactuter of the boat as well as the owner of the boat. Yay, that was easy.
Isn't the technology for nuclear ships kind of mega secret? Would a commercial entity be able to get access to all the know-how? And the fuel?
Also, would passengers actually use a nuclear-fueled vessel? Isn't this negative publicity? I'm not questioning the facts, but if people see it this way, it could be detrimental do business.
They had the boat built by the wrong company.
Volkswagen assures me that if they built the boat, it would only produce 1/4 the emissions.
I wonder if the icebergs will fight back like they did with the Titanic?
If you visit Charleston, South Carolina you can tour the NS Savannah which was the first nuclear powered cargo ship. The problem with commercial cargo ship operation was the shipping company was not willing to pay the rates needed to get experienced nuclear plant operators and most of the major shipping ports refused to let the Savannah dock due to paranoia about being nuclear powered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
http://www.nssavannah.net/
NRRPT/RCT
Thorium blue sky bullshit. Thorium offers no more safety that uranium in the same cycle. And the rather difficult and expensive liquid salt design (And NO a 10MW toy that did ZERO breading and ZERO reprocessing and had many corrosion problems and not even industrial scale steam generators, does not show it is developed) where proposed to over come Thorium shortfalls as a fertile breading fuel.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
One would hope the person making the margarita isn't also the nuclear technician. But then, I guess it would be excuse as to why the drink didn't turn out.
Just because the drink is glowing, doesn't mean it's a cocktail.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Yes it could given a long chain of events that have not happened, so the above poster is currently correct and your "that you are incorrect sir" is misplaced.
A 747 burns Jet-A, which is highly filtered refined kerosene. It's run with a huge volume of air through a jet and burns with a small amount of white smoke.
The ship burns bunker fuel, which is all the burnable trash fractions left over after all the less polluting, less toxic fractions have been extracted from raw petroleum. It's run through a burner about as sophisticated as a 1890 fuel oil furnace and produces vast billowing clouds of toxic filth that combine with water to form dirty sulfuric acid.
Bunker fuel is literally the waste stream from making jet fuel (and other things like gasoline).
You're an idiot if you think these are equivalent fuels.
Very simple reason why.
It's a cruise ship. People go there for their holidays, to have a good time, and to not worry about things.
You don't have to make a big deal of it. Not hide it, just not shout about it. Say they do it, there would probably be a bunch of news stories at the time which no one reads anyway. When people book on these ships I doubt what type of engine it has has any significance. As long as you don't call it nuclear nelly or something most folk would be none the wiser. Then the longer it goes without exploding in a huge green fireball the less people would be bothered.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
3MI, Fujiyama, Chernobyl? Need I to mention any more?
Because no regular power stations have blown up ever, or chemical plants. Yeah I know what you're going to say, radiation, contamination blah blah blah but I'd counter with global warming. You can figure out which you'd prefer.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The reason military vessels have nuclear power is that they are secured by military force.
I've seen this comment a few times. It's almost a wonder that nuclear power stations aren't being attacked everyday. I guess they all have military staff and highly trained armies on guard rather whatever for profit security firm they use.....oh wait.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
Just another day in Paradise
Other than NZ, what ports/countries have previously banned nuclear ships?
Just another day in Paradise
From a PR standpoint, how do you convince customers the ship is "safe" and they won't get large doses of radioactivity?
By explaining to them that nuclear powered ships have been around and safely operating for 60+ years. And that the engineers on your ship are experienced former Navy engineers who are now better compensated than they were previously.
Just another day in Paradise
I've seen this comment a few times. It's almost a wonder that nuclear power stations aren't being attacked everyday. I guess they all have military staff and highly trained armies on guard rather whatever for profit security firm they use.....oh wait.
I know you are trying to funny, but the security on territorial US soil, is lot higher than in the middle of international waters.
But feel feel to dismiss this fact if it makes you feel better.
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
Absolutely, however they would be working in a profit centric system as opposed to a military system with systemic certifications for safety.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
Absolutely, however they would be working in a profit centric system as opposed to a military system with systemic certifications for safety.
Having worked in and around the military for nearly 40 yrs., I don't see that as an advantage over private sector.
Just another day in Paradise
I think the solution would be better population control:
reproducing like horny rabbits at > geometric rates
while consuming ever more does have its limits, to our surprise!
Important to note that with nuclear it's not IF but WHEN.
Did you hear about the leak in Florida -- undetected for HOW LONG??
Fukushima's aged inferior plant design is featured in HOW MANY plants in the US and the rest of the world??
Why does it need to run its auxiliaries? Can't they take power from Southampton?
Yeah ok fine. We'll take these known massive polluters over...what is it you're scared of? Terrorists attacking a nuclear powered ship, some how deconstructing the core and building a dirty bomb or something? Grow up.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
Absolutely, however they would be working in a profit centric system as opposed to a military system with systemic certifications for safety.
Having worked in and around the military for nearly 40 yrs., I don't see that as an advantage over private sector.
Specifically, I was referring to the management philosophies of this man who oversaw building navy nuclear reactors and propulsion systems.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Some day in the future Russia may sell a nuclear cruise ship so it's possibly SF and not fantasy.
Well for one special case, that day was in 2007, it's more modern-day history than SF, and you can still as of today book a cruise around the north pole.
(and actually, that is one of the applications of cruise ship where nuclear energy is mandatory. It's not as if *that* ship could dock in a city every couple of day to re-fuel several tons of fuel. this kind of polar cruise is in the middle of nowhere away from civilisation, so the ship needs a form of propulsion that can be self sufficient for months).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Thanks for the link on Rickover. It was good reading that should be shared with all managers.
Just another day in Paradise
Thanks for the link on Rickover. It was good reading that should be shared with all managers.
No problem - glad you enjoyed it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Yeah ok fine. We'll take these known massive polluters over...what is it you're scared of? Terrorists attacking a nuclear powered ship, some how deconstructing the core and building a dirty bomb or something? Grow up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Retard.
Ok, goal post moved, no longer about security? Ships sink. And what's worse in those situations? A self contained reactor that is highly pressure resistant or a massive fuel tanks full of thick bunker fuel that can leak into the ocean? Granted you don't want either but a huge oil spill is by no means better. You do know these things don't just explode and modern designs are practically impossible to meltdown? Come on, what actual legitimate concerns do you have over scary nuclear zomg!
Basically we can have something that if maintained properly is practically pollution free and if not can be bad or we have something that if maintained properly has massive amounts of pollution and if not can be just as bad. You want the second because fuck the planet, right? Or is it just feverish terror at them nukes and no good can ever come of it?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Ok, goal post moved, no longer about security? Ships sink.
Ships sinking is a security issue on many levels. Just give up.
So you worried about people sinking a nuclear powered ship on purpose? To what? Irradiate the ocean or something? How is it a security issue? Why is a diesel powered ship not just as vulnerable with just as big a potential impact with the release of god knows how many gallons of bunker fuel. Why is that ok but a nuclear powered vessel is not? That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here with you, and you don't seem to have an actual answer.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So you worried about people sinking a nuclear powered ship on purpose? To what? Irradiate the ocean or something? How is it a security issue?
Really? You can't work it out? A Chernobyl at sea would be a issue for most people, whether you choose to believe that or not.
Why is a diesel powered ship not just as vulnerable with just as big a potential impact with the release of god knows how many gallons of bunker fuel. Why is that ok but a nuclear powered vessel is not?
Really? You really just said that?
If that is your opinion I can't help you.
That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here with you, and you don't seem to have an actual answer.
The answer is obvious, so maybe it's you.
Seems to me you don't think nuclear power has progressed at all. Do your self a favour and look up modern reactor designs. Chernobyl at sea just isn't going to happen. The type of reactors used here can't melt down or blow up. I'm not going to bother explain why but you can look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Attitudes like yours is why we're still burning all this shit, which pollution aside is going to run out sooner or later instead of living the good life with practically unlimited supply of cheap, clean power. Nice one.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Chernobyl at sea just isn't going to happen. The type of reactors used here can't melt down or blow up. I'm not going to bother explain why
Riiight.... there's no risk at all, even if Iran or North Korea buy one...
Not really, seeing as nk has access to actual nuclear weapons and materials and Iran has the knowledge. If one was so inclined to try and access one to try and initiate some kind of nuclear leak or contamination somewhere the there's a lot better ways they could spend their money to get more bang for their buck so to speak.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Not really, seeing as nk has access to actual nuclear weapons and materials and Iran has the knowledge. If one was so inclined to try and access one to try and initiate some kind of nuclear leak or contamination somewhere the there's a lot better ways they could spend their money to get more bang for their buck so to speak.
Says you. Good thing the people in charge of national security aren't so lax with their attitudes.