Sign in / up

back to article Nuclear merchant ships could open up Arctic routes for real

British business interests are suggesting that it may be time to revive the idea of nuclear-powered commercial shipping. Media reports to the contrary, the Arctic is not yet open to normal merchant ships - but it might be opened up by nuclear ones, which would also offer zero emissions and freedom from high oil prices. Concept …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. LesC
    FAIL

    Nuke Ships

    A brilliant idea making nuke container ships in the UK with just a few flaws:

    1. Britain doesn't have a merchant fleet to speak of.

    2. Britain doesn't have the means of building merchant vessels anymore all the shipyards have been turned into banks and shoreside housing complexes.

    3. RR may have still have the tech to make domestic reactors but they'll then have to be sent to China, Korea or India (anywhere but here - see 2) to be installed into ships. I can see the Yanks allowing compact nuke tech to go there. Not.

    4. The last nuclear fuelled lighter, the Sevmorput, was going to be turned into a drill ship as using nuke freighters is unprofitable. Vessel is currently mothballed.

    5. Russian nuclear icebreakers can't work in warmer water with Canadian conventional icebreaking ships struggling - there's going to be similar troubles with nuke freighters.

    6. Nuclear Powered LNG ships. What could possibly go wrong with several hundred thousand gallons of explosive at all concentrations methane or whatever gas and a nuclear reactor? The explosive power of all that gas would easily crack containment.

    7. Green Of The Earth would love this one. There's enough here to keep the treehuggers in chainings to railings for life.

    8. Wouldn't these things have to be armed to the teeth to repel whichever Pirate / Terrorist Group is this months flavour?

    0 0
  2. Glen Turner 666

    Commercial shipping can't even manage fossil fuels responsibly

    You have seen a commercial ship, right? The one's we get here in Australia are at the limit of seaworthiness, with a crew that is often as good as press ganged from some poor Asian country. If the government steps in and condemns the vessel as unseaworthy the owners are as likely as not to abandon the ship and crew. The last government report was titled "Ships of Shame".

    You really think leaving these owners and crew in charge of a nuclear reactor is a good idea.

    And what about end-of-life issues. One third of ships sink. The others are broken in poor countries with no attention to safety.

    The blunt truth is that commercial shipping is too irresponsible to be let anywhere near nuclear power.

    1 0
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Ian K: 00:07 re enrichment

    Hi Ian, thanks for that. Same AC here as in both posts. Now, in reverse order:

    1) Enrichment

    You're quite right, I said reprocessing when I should have said enrichment. Apologies. Subject to that correction the same question applies; if Iran's enrichment is cause for concern because it has dual use civil/military potential, what's different between the UK's *enrichment* plants (URENCO allegedly can't do military?) and Iran's (which allegedly can)?

    2) Criticality

    The reference to criticality was merely meant to illustrate that criticality isn't necessary for a dirty bomb or similarly effective terrorist threat; all you need is to be as effective as (say) envelopes with white powder in them, I'm not sure that was clear. Obviously the military need criticality, and it looks good in the movies.

    Thanks again.

    0 0
    1. Fireice
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Back to school....

      Please, to post something intelligent in this topic you need at least a basic understanding of nuclear physics. Enriched uranuim (or any uranium isotope at all) would be the wost material to make a drity bomb apart from lead.

      You are still confused about criticality as well. Criticality simply means that enough neutrons cause fission events to sustain the reaction. Any working reactor stack is critical. A bomb is super-critical because it doesn't need thermal neutrons (more complicated stuff).

      0 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Back to school: you're confusing technology and terrorism

    I did do nuclear physics thank you. I have to wonder whether your definition of "dirty bomb" matches the industry standard one - standard explosives mixed with nasty radioactive stuff for maximum political (not physical) effect. Just the kind of thing someone could make from the fuel for the reactors in this picture, if (big IF) someone had access (before it goes into the reactor itself. for example... or does it miraculously just appear there). I don't remember where lead comes into this picture, can you remind readers please??

    I'm quite happy with my understanding of criticality, thank you, and in this case I am happy to agree with your interpretation too.

    I also know that science and the general public are, for whatever reason, usually a bad combination. As are industry insiders and the general public.

    0 0
  5. AgeingBabyBoomer

    Great idea

    And twenty to thirty years later when said ship is beached in a third world country to be broken by hand by illiterates working for less than a dollar a day, there will be no problem at all tracking and controlling the spent nuclear fuels - none at all.

    2 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like