Viability of nuclear-powered cruise ships?

[iheartbda]

The Russians would be your best bet, but can you image the jokes you would hear about a cruise ship built there!

 

 

New ship christened.....Yugo of the Sea. :D

[startraveler]

New ship christened.....Yugo of the Sea. :D

 

Except that a Yugo isn't Russian. :D

[dkjretired]

Not all Green folks would like it.

 

And there would be no cruises involving New Zealand ports, since NZ has been nuclear-free since the 1970s.

 

It caused quite a furore when NZ denied US navy ships access to its ports, because the US would not "confirm or deny" that the ships in question were nuclear-powered.

 

Actually, they would not confirm or deny that the ships in question were carrying nuclear weapons. Which of our ships is nuclear powered is public knowledge...

[iheartbda]

Except that a Yugo isn't Russian. :D

Yugoslavian.:D

Just reminded me of all the bad jokes about the Yugo even though it wasn't Russian.;) Thinking about it now, I sort of like Yugo ON the Sea .:p

[celle]

Actually, they would not confirm or deny that the ships in question were carrying nuclear weapons. Which of our ships is nuclear powered is public knowledge...

 

NZ was, and remains, nuclear-free. No nuclear powered ships allowed, whether or not they carry nuclear weapons.

 

The requirement for advance notification as to method of propulsion was reasonable. Pubic knowledge it may be to Americans. Not so to other countries.

[startraveler]

NZ was, and remains, nuclear-free. No nuclear powered ships allowed, whether or not they carry nuclear weapons.

 

The requirement for advance notification as to method of propulsion was reasonable. Pubic knowledge it may be to Americans. Not so to other countries.

 

Well, all anyone needs to se whether or not a military ship is nuclear powered is to consult a copy of Jane's. Or in the case of American ships, if an 'N' is part of the classification - as in if someone is wearing a baseball cap with 'CVN-73' or 'SSBN-623' - then it's a nuclear-powered vessel.

[jeph]

If what I have been able to gather from recent readings on the internet is accurate, there is a new-- or at least little-used thus far-- form of fission which could change the game in the field of nuclear energy in various ways. It uses thorium as fuel, which has many huge advantages over uranium:

 

1) There's hundreds of times more of it readily available-- meaning that the supply of nuclear fuel would not be tapped out in a few decades, but could power global industrial civilization for many centuries, giving us plenty of time to finally master fusion, or cheap solar, or whatever.

 

2) The radioactive byproducts have a half-life which is hundreds of times shorter-- meaning that unlike those from uranium, which remain "too hot to handle" for a couple of hundred thousand years, those from thorium would need only a few decades in storage before nearly all radiation had subsided.

 

3) It DOES NOT GO BOOM-- meaning it is useless for making nuclear weapons, and thus of little or no interest to terrorist groups.

 

"So," the skeptical among you are already probably asking, "if this stuff is so much better than uranium, why didn't we start using it for reactors right from the start in the 1950's?"

 

Two reasons-- first, the reactor technology was a bit trickier to master. The thorium fuel is not in pellets packed into rods as in a conventional reactor, but is instead in solution in a continuously circulating hot fluid (sodium, I think.) And the second reason was mentioned above as one of the advantages-- it does NOT go boom. "In the beginning was the Bomb"-- the early development of nuclear energy was joined at the hip to the development of nuclear weapons-- not just in the U.S., but in all the major powers with nuclear military ambitions. After a couple of decades of that, the "technological inertia" to just continue down the same path was and remains considerable.

 

One final national security implication of a future switch to thorium: if we do it, and France, and Russia, and China, etc, etc, then what about "rogue nations" with whacko leadership, like Iran and North Korea? The use-- or NON-use-- of thorium for electrical generation becomes a foolproof litmus test of a such a nation's true motives. They may CLAIM that they are interested only in power production, not weapons production-- but if they are refining uranium (scarce and dangerous) rather than using thorium, (vastly safer, in plentiful supply, and of no use for weapons) then their real intentions become perfectly clear. Another reason to make thorium the standard technology for the world's nuclear power plants.

[celle]

Well, all anyone needs to se whether or not a military ship is nuclear powered is to consult a copy of Jane's. Or in the case of American ships, if an 'N' is part of the classification - as in if someone is wearing a baseball cap with 'CVN-73' or 'SSBN-623' - then it's a nuclear-powered vessel.

 

If wanting clearance for access to a country's ports, the vehicle requesting access is required to answer certain questions asked by the potential host country. The US declined to answer these questions and access was therefore denied.

 

It is no good telling the host country that it should consult a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships. That makes as much sense as my refusing to be fingerprinted, but telling US Immigration services that they should consult my own country's police records to see if I am a potential terrorist. That wouldn't work, because it is the host country that sets the rules for entry into its borders.

 

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of cruise ships being cleared at ports of call. The same principles apply to visiting military vessels.

 

The principle is that you either comply with a country's rules for access, or you will be denied access.

[smeyer418]

 

 

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of cruise ships being cleared at ports of call. The same principles apply to visiting military vessels.

 

....

 

most of the time its different. The ship is cleared as a diplomatic mission. they don't clear the crew-its waived...and by tradition US Military vessels don't fly the foreign nations flag either....as all cruise ships do when in Foreign ports...

 

The problem is the US will neither confirm or deny that Nuclear weapons are aboard a ship....aircraft carriers and most larger ships that carry cruise missiles or torpedoes are nuclear weapons capable.

[celle]

most of the time its different. The ship is cleared as a diplomatic mission. they don't clear the crew-its waived...and by tradition US Military vessels don't fly the foreign nations flag either....as all cruise ships do when in Foreign ports...

 

The problem is the US will neither confirm or deny that Nuclear weapons are aboard a ship....aircraft carriers and most larger ships that carry cruise missiles or torpedoes are nuclear weapons capable.

 

Ok. Your point taken.

 

The principle remains the same - if the required questions are not answered, access will be denied.

[VABeach]

If what I have been able to gather from recent readings on the internet is accurate, there is a new-- or at least little-used thus far-- form of fission which could change the game in the field of nuclear energy in various ways. It uses thorium as fuel, which has many huge advantages over uranium:

 

1) There's hundreds of times more of it readily available-- meaning that the supply of nuclear fuel would not be tapped out in a few decades, but could power global industrial civilization for many centuries, giving us plenty of time to finally master fusion, or cheap solar, or whatever.

 

2) The radioactive byproducts have a half-life which is hundreds of times shorter-- meaning that unlike those from uranium, which remain "too hot to handle" for a couple of hundred thousand years, those from thorium would need only a few decades in storage before nearly all radiation had subsided.

 

3) It DOES NOT GO BOOM-- meaning it is useless for making nuclear weapons, and thus of little or no interest to terrorist groups.

 

"So," the skeptical among you are already probably asking, "if this stuff is so much better than uranium, why didn't we start using it for reactors right from the start in the 1950's?"

 

Two reasons-- first, the reactor technology was a bit trickier to master. The thorium fuel is not in pellets packed into rods as in a conventional reactor, but is instead in solution in a continuously circulating hot fluid (sodium, I think.) And the second reason was mentioned above as one of the advantages-- it does NOT go boom. "In the beginning was the Bomb"-- the early development of nuclear energy was joined at the hip to the development of nuclear weapons-- not just in the U.S., but in all the major powers with nuclear military ambitions. After a couple of decades of that, the "technological inertia" to just continue down the same path was and remains considerable.

 

One final national security implication of a future switch to thorium: if we do it, and France, and Russia, and China, etc, etc, then what about "rogue nations" with whacko leadership, like Iran and North Korea? The use-- or NON-use-- of thorium for electrical generation becomes a foolproof litmus test of a such a nation's true motives. They may CLAIM that they are interested only in power production, not weapons production-- but if they are refining uranium (scarce and dangerous) rather than using thorium, (vastly safer, in plentiful supply, and of no use for weapons) then their real intentions become perfectly clear. Another reason to make thorium the standard technology for the world's nuclear power plants.

 

There is much more to take into consideration than just it "going boom". I'd explain, but I can't. :cool:

[jeph]

Hey, please try-- I'm sure I could benefit from your years of professional experience!

 

I'm guessing you refer to the potential to make "dirty bombs", which can create quite enough havoc and panic in themselves, even with a purely chemical explosion...

 

Admittedly, my grasp of the physics involved doesn't go much beyond the excellent instruction I received in high school; I guess the only difference between me and the randomly chosen guy on the street is that for whatever reason, A) I actually understood what I was taught 30-plus years ago, and B) I actually remember much of it!:D

[VABeach]

Hey, please try-- I'm sure I could benefit from your years of professional experience!

 

I'm guessing you refer to the potential to make "dirty bombs", which can create quite enough havoc and panic in themselves, even with a purely chemical explosion...

 

Admittedly, my grasp of the physics involved doesn't go much beyond the excellent instruction I received in high school; I guess the only difference between me and the randomly chosen guy on the street is that for whatever reason, A) I actually understood what I was taught 30-plus years ago, and B) I actually remember much of it!:D

 

Wow. Ok, it's one of these:

 

A) You're a little crazy

B) My Security Clearance

C) All of the above :eek:

[greatam]

If what I have been able to gather from recent readings on the internet is accurate, there is a new-- or at least little-used thus far-- form of fission which could change the game in the field of nuclear energy in various ways. It uses thorium as fuel, which has many huge advantages over uranium:

 

1) There's hundreds of times more of it readily available-- meaning that the supply of nuclear fuel would not be tapped out in a few decades, but could power global industrial civilization for many centuries, giving us plenty of time to finally master fusion, or cheap solar, or whatever.

 

2) The radioactive byproducts have a half-life which is hundreds of times shorter-- meaning that unlike those from uranium, which remain "too hot to handle" for a couple of hundred thousand years, those from thorium would need only a few decades in storage before nearly all radiation had subsided.

 

3) It DOES NOT GO BOOM-- meaning it is useless for making nuclear weapons, and thus of little or no interest to terrorist groups.

 

"So," the skeptical among you are already probably asking, "if this stuff is so much better than uranium, why didn't we start using it for reactors right from the start in the 1950's?"

 

Two reasons-- first, the reactor technology was a bit trickier to master. The thorium fuel is not in pellets packed into rods as in a conventional reactor, but is instead in solution in a continuously circulating hot fluid (sodium, I think.) And the second reason was mentioned above as one of the advantages-- it does NOT go boom. "In the beginning was the Bomb"-- the early development of nuclear energy was joined at the hip to the development of nuclear weapons-- not just in the U.S., but in all the major powers with nuclear military ambitions. After a couple of decades of that, the "technological inertia" to just continue down the same path was and remains considerable.

 

One final national security implication of a future switch to thorium: if we do it, and France, and Russia, and China, etc, etc, then what about "rogue nations" with whacko leadership, like Iran and North Korea? The use-- or NON-use-- of thorium for electrical generation becomes a foolproof litmus test of a such a nation's true motives. They may CLAIM that they are interested only in power production, not weapons production-- but if they are refining uranium (scarce and dangerous) rather than using thorium, (vastly safer, in plentiful supply, and of no use for weapons) then their real intentions become perfectly clear. Another reason to make thorium the standard technology for the world's nuclear power plants.

 

Thorium is a "breeder" fuel. It by itself cannot start the nuclear reaction. DH is an electrical engineer at the USA's largest nuke plant. My Dad was also an Electrical Engineer who worked extensively with nuclear. I have listened to this argument since I was a kid.

 

There have been many experiments trying to use thorium as a sole reactor fuel. There was an experimental breeder reactor in the USA in the 50's. Still needed uranium (you can see it in Idaho-one of the "fun" family vacations to every nuke/hydro plant in the USA).

 

Russia currently has a breeder reactor running on thorium. Japan just put its thorium breeder back online. France just shut down its breeder this spring and will decommission it soon (it was an old plant).

 

India is currently trying to build a thorium breeder. But again, help from the USA is needed, as India has no or very little U-235. Until the initial reaction can be worked out, a thorium reactor is not a viable option. Thorium also throws off a lot of radon, which while naturally occurring, is much more dangerous as a by product of thorium breeder production.

 

Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (designed and built in South Africa, although the project has slowed down considerably due to the global economy) may be a viable option for a cruise ship. While still using uranium, it is a much smaller, more efficient plant on the surface. It is also less costly than a commercial, light water reactor. Westinghouse, Mitsubishi, Toyota and Eskom are all actively involved in the development, with the hopes that these smaller reactors can be "plunked down" most anyplace in the world there is a need for power. There are more premier nuclear scientists working on this project than any other in the world. The future looks bright for nuclear.

[smeyer418]

Its my understanding that there was a nuclear excursion at such a breeder reactor in the 1950's. The EBR(experimental breeder reactor) was a sodium and there is also a listing for a sodium coolant accident later on...Yes its a long time ago but Admiral Rickover eschewed sodium reactors for this precise reason.

 

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

 

BTW I am not anti nuclear. Its just inherently dangerous....

[greatam]

Its my understanding that there was a nuclear excursion at such a breeder reactor in the 1950's. The EBR(experimental breeder reactor) was a sodium and there is also a listing for a sodium coolant accident later on...Yes its a long time ago but Admiral Rickover eschewed sodium reactors for this precise reason.

 

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

 

BTW I am not anti nuclear. Its just inherently dangerous....

 

As posted previously, the original breeder reactor is in Idaho and open to the public for a tour.

 

I think when I was a kid, I saw every nuke/hydro plant in the USA. Those were our "fun" family vacations so my Dad could keep up on new technology and spend time with colleagues.

 

I am really curious why you think nuclear is inherently dangerous.

[jeph]

Greatam, thanks for the clarification.

 

And as for your comments, VABeach-- well, the fact that "you could tell me, but then you'd have to kill me" only makes you hotter!:D

 

Regards, "jeph" (not actually crazy, just interested in any technology that can prevent us from turning our planet into a toaster oven:eek:)

[VABeach]

Greatam, thanks for the clarification.

 

And as for your comments, VABeach-- well, the fact that "you could tell me, but then you'd have to kill me" only makes you hotter!:D

 

Regards, "jeph" (not actually crazy, just interested in any technology that can prevent us from turning our planet into a toaster oven:eek:)

 

I know, it is totally cool and I get so geeked out over it myself! However, despite however much information, or misinformation, there may be readily available on the internet, any knowledge I may have (either real or perceived) is inteligent property of the United States Government and subject to ITAR controls.

 

So, I wouldn't really have to kill you, you would just have to supply proper security clearance and genuine need to know. ;)

 

Enjoy your research!

[smeyer418]

As posted previously, the original breeder reactor is in Idaho and open to the public for a tour.

 

I think when I was a kid, I saw every nuke/hydro plant in the USA. Those were our "fun" family vacations so my Dad could keep up on new technology and spend time with colleagues.

 

I am really curious why you think nuclear is inherently dangerous.

because you are using an energy to heat water that if uncontrolled can burn through the floor and release toxic gases and radiation that can poison an area for generations and it has happened. In the US three mile island was the worst disaster only contained by sheer luck. As long as you have the human element in this, no one can promise that it can't happen, only that the risk is extremely small but nevertheless still a risk. No matter how much is known about this, there is always an unknown unforeseen risk that no one can predict. The US Army Corp of Engineers took me to about a dozen nuclear plants. One of them was TMI before the accident and we were absolutely assured it can't happen here.

[startraveler]

If wanting clearance for access to a country's ports, the vehicle requesting access is required to answer certain questions asked by the potential host country. The US declined to answer these questions and access was therefore denied.

 

It is no good telling the host country that it should consult a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships. That makes as much sense as my refusing to be fingerprinted, but telling US Immigration services that they should consult my own country's police records to see if I am a potential terrorist. That wouldn't work, because it is the host country that sets the rules for entry into its borders.

 

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of cruise ships being cleared at ports of call. The same principles apply to visiting military vessels.

 

The principle is that you either comply with a country's rules for access, or you will be denied access.

 

Whoa. The question was, as I undestood it, how do you tell if a vessel is nuclear-powered. Hence my answer of consulting Jane's if it's not an American carrier or sub, most of which are nuclear-powered.

[celle]

Whoa. The question was, as I undestood it, how do you tell if a vessel is nuclear-powered. Hence my answer of consulting Jane's if it's not an American carrier or sub, most of which are nuclear-powered.

 

Actually, no. That was not the question.

 

But it's moot now. The ANZUS agreement remains in place, New Zealand remains nuclear-free and - to return to the original topic of this thread - no nuclear-powered ship (whether military or cruise ship) will be allowed entry to any New Zealand port.

[startraveler]

And I've heard that nuclear-powered vessels are not allowed in New York City waters - which is why no U.S. aircraft carriers have been part of Fleet Week recently. So count out Manhattan and Brooklyn cruise ports if a nuclear-powered cruise ship is ever built.

[bbwex]

Well, it is likely a matter of cost primarily. Perhaps less important is that the men to run a nuclear plant would be higher-paid than normal seamen. The big difference would be in building costs. Not only is a nuclear power plant more expensive, it is enormously more expensive. That is why governments pay for them but not commercial ventures.

 

Then there is the question of need. Naval vessels have vastly different requirements than cruise ships. For instance, U.S. Navy ships are never supposed to be below 75% fuel capacity since they never know what operational requirements will pop up suddenly. Cruise ships essentially know how much fuel they need to the next port (with a margin for safety) but that's it. While the Navy has perfected underway replenishment, not needing to fuel a carrier's boilers means a whole lot less fuel (my carrier got 10 yards to the gallon at its most efficient speed), and therefore more room for jet fuel. Carriers are often at sea for a month at a time, and submarines are out for six months at a time.

 

Are nuclear-powered ships much faster? No, they are simply steam-powered ships. Newer carriers are faster than the old ones for lots of reasons, and the reduced need to stay near the replenishment fleet makes a difference. As a note, new carriers' flight decks are about 60 feet above the waterline. And though they may be faster than WWII vintage cousins, they can only wish they could outrun the submarines that inevitably will be after them.

[grod19]

We don't trust most countries with nuclear reactors, why would we trust a cruise line company?

[greatam]

We don't trust most countries with nuclear reactors, why would we trust a cruise line company?

 

What are you speaking about? Just because we don't want a nuclear weaponized Iran or North Korea, does not mean there are not MANY, MANY countries that have quite a few nuclear reactors.

 

France is about 85% nuclear, Japan is about 35-40% nuclear, even South Africa is 5% nuclear and that percentage is growing rapidly. Nuclear energy and reactors are viable sources of CLEAN energy. Nothing goes into the air except steam. I live 38 miles from the USA's largest nuclear power plant and DH is an engineer there. As others have posted, the US Navy has had nuclear ships for years. Why WOULDN'T we trust a cruise company???