Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluGill | Hacker News Reader

Small modular reactors is what we need most. Wind and solar covers most land based electric needs, but a small modular reactor is still the only feasible answer for ocean shipping I've seen. (sail boats do exist, but they have many disadvantages vs an engine)

View on HN

No way are we giving nuclear reactors to container ships. It makes more sense to build big, safe nuclear plants near airports and ports to manufacture fuel from air using the nearly limitless power from the nukes.

The US Navy fields dozens of nuclear vessels. Has since 1954. No meltdowns. Only two ships ever lost, and not due to reactor issues. Subs can go for decades without refueling.

The US navy doesn't usually run that many ships that haven't been seaworthy for decades. Guess if any private shipping companies do.

They’re the US Navy. You wanna have a civilian ship powered by a nuclear reactor sailing past Somalia? Or pull an Exxon Valdez?

Nuclear materials already move intercontinentally on commercial ships. Somalian pirates can already pull an Exxon Valdez using commercial oil tankers.

Also note that the potential for catastrophic meltdown / contamination is proportional to how much fuel you have on board. If you only have ~3 months fuel for a 20MW reactor, then it's not like a 3-mile-island or Chernobyl situation. There are plenty of modern reactor designs that don't turn into a giant cloud of radioactive smoke under duress, but shut down relatively calmly and safely.

If you can resurrect a prime Hyman Rickover and put him in charge of the world's shipping fleet, I would consider retracting my statement. Though even if you did, I think he'd agree with my assessment.

The fact that the US Navy can safely run a large number of reactors not only at sea but with tiny crews under water is mindblowing.

It's not like they can source spare parts from down the road, or call in experts as needed.

You'll note the Navy does not run nuclear for ordinary surface vessels, just carriers and subs. You should think about that more before suggesting we nuclearize freakin' container ships.

That's mostly because smaller ships don't need as much power as a sub or carrier. The wattage required for a large container ship is about on par with the reactor for a nuclear sub.

No, it's not just that, it's because having nuclear on a ship has massive downsides in terms of cost and risks. There's a reason the only other ships that use them are icebreakers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com