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.
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
199 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
72865 readers
2560 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
I wasn't aware reactors using thorium were practical yet.