Nuclear Engines

[CRJ700]

Uhm, ever heard of the Russian nuclear Sub the Kursk?......it lies at the bottom of the Artic Ocean with all officers and crew aboard still, very dead, I might add..

 

No, an nuclear engine problem on a ship would expose everyone on the ship to potential radiation and that would be a bad thing for Carnival Corporation, and not just Carnival Cruise Line........

 

As stated before, the Kursk was not lost or involved in a nuclear accident. A better comparison would be the Soviet submarine K-19. Known as the Widowmaker.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-19:_The_Widowmaker

Edited December 8, 2013 by CRJ700

[pbfp2008]

I understand everyone's concern about safety, but if you hired US Navy officers, who are used to working with nuclear engines, it could possibly work. They would have to get rid of the Italian officers since they are not used to working with it.

 

And as far as the waste, it could be put in containers and sunk deep in the ocean to remain safe after it's used up.

Edited December 8, 2013 by pbfp2008

[CRJ700]

 

And as far as the waste, it could be put in containers and sunk deep in the ocean to remain safe after it's used up.

 

"Sigh", you can't argue with ignorance.

Edited December 8, 2013 by CRJ700

[Eng23]

I understand everyone's concern about safety, but if you hired US Navy officers, who are used to working with nuclear engines, it could possibly work. They would have to get rid of the Italian officers since they are not used to working with it.

 

And as far as the waste, it could be put in containers and sunk deep in the ocean to remain safe after it's used up.

Carnival would never want to pay the salary needed to get those people and the US Navy doesn't allow those folks to work part time in that field.

 

As far as your disposal suggestion that would violate a myriad number of international laws on improper disposal of nuclear waste.

[Haoie]

A couple of mounted autocannons sure wouldn't look amiss next to those hot tubs either!

[DirtyDawg]

Whether we like the idea or not, I wonder what name Carnival would choose for the world's first nuclear powered cruise ship?

 

Carnival Chain Reaction

Carnival Chernobyl

Carnival Glow

Carnival Meltdown

 

And the marketing guys thought selling the Ford Edsel was hard?:rolleyes:

[Eng23]

Whether we like the idea or not, I wonder what name Carnival would choose for the world's first nuclear powered cruise ship?

 

Carnival Chain Reaction

Carnival Chernobyl

Carnival Glow

Carnival Meltdown

 

And the marketing guys thought selling the Ford Edsel was hard?:rolleyes:

I'd vote for Carnival Glow.....:D

[SadieN]

Not to change the subject too much but....

 

If I played Gordon Lighfoot's Edmund Fitzgerald song on my phone as I was boarding my next cruise, would I cause undue consternation with my fellow passengers?

 

It ain't just Nukes that go down.

 

No worse than the showing of the movie "Titanic"

[fireofficer5]

Lets not give CCL any ideas.

Nuclear power, no need for fuel tanks.

Exotic cabin space, below the water line.

The ad: "feel free in our new submarine class cabins, hear the rush of the water as it passes by the hull",

" listen to the whale song",

" be the first on and last off".

[Antonintassie]

The available crew for nuclear vessels is limited hence the reason most vavies stick with convential powered ships.

I is a highly specialised area and finding personnel would be nigh impossible

[chengkp75]

Okay;

 

Yes, the cost of the trained nuclear engineers would significantly raise Carnival's ticket prices. Also, the cost of the engineering plant would more than double the cost of a cruise ship, which are already incredibly costly.

 

You then have to look at whether or not the "flag of convenience" countries have legislation that allows nuclear vessels, and if not, then you would need to flag US, which we all know would never fly, from a crew cost standpoint.

 

You then need to look at IMO regulations for nuclear powered vessels, and the required safety regulations. As someone has pointed out, many countries do not allow nuclear powered vessels into their waters or ports.

 

Finally, there is the liability problem. US Navy crews volunteer to serve on nuclear powered vessels, while cruise ship passengers do not. The classification societies and insurance clubs would require so much more shielding and safety items that the cost would be prohibitive. Think of any passenger who sailed on a nuclear powered cruise ship that developed cancer of any kind, at any time in their subsequent lives, who could sue the cruise line for damages. Sound extreme? Just look at what consumer damage suits are routinely filed every year. Did someone say "Caution, this coffee may be HOT"?

 

If they couldn't make the N/S Savannah work, even with huge government subsidies, decades ago when the litigation atmosphere was far different, and it was only a cargo ship, a nuclear powered cruise ship would never fly.

Edited December 8, 2013 by chengkp75

[luddite]

I understand everyone's concern about safety, but if you hired US Navy officers, who are used to working with nuclear engines, it could possibly work. They would have to get rid of the Italian officers since they are not used to working with it.

 

And as far as the waste, it could be put in containers and sunk deep in the ocean to remain safe after it's used up.

 

At the risk of belaboring a point------

Navy ships aren't nuclear powered ( note that I didn't say 'have nuclear engines' because they aren't nuclear engines, they are steam engines)

because it is less expensive fuel-wise. They don't use a lot of space storing fuel. Nukes are way more expensive than bunker-oil shops.

 

I have met torpedoes on cruise ships.......

Just sayin'.........

[chengkp75]

At the risk of belaboring a point------

Navy ships aren't nuclear powered ( note that I didn't say 'have nuclear engines' because they aren't nuclear engines, they are steam engines)

because it is less expensive fuel-wise. They don't use a lot of space storing fuel. Nukes are way more expensive than bunker-oil shops.

 

I have met torpedoes on cruise ships.......

Just sayin'.........

 

Yep, the main reason for nuclear power plants on Navy ships (I agree with your distinction as to the main propulsion method) was to limit fuel storage, and to maximize the amount of time the ship is at sea without refueling.

 

Remember, the Navy does not need to make a profit.

[luddite]

 

Remember, the Navy does not need to make a profit.

 

:) And they are spending house money.

[Eng23]

At the risk of belaboring a point------

Navy ships aren't nuclear powered ( note that I didn't say 'have nuclear engines' because they aren't nuclear engines, they are steam engines)

because it is less expensive fuel-wise. They don't use a lot of space storing fuel. Nukes are way more expensive than bunker-oil shops.

 

I have met torpedoes on cruise ships.......

Just sayin'.........

Ok, now you are just splitting hairs or should I say atom's......;):D

 

Tomato-tamato.......:D

Edited December 8, 2013 by Eng23

[luddite]

Tomato-tamato.......:D

 

:) Well, one is a fruit and the other is......

oh? Right..... not a word.

 

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.

Wisdom is knowing to not put it into a fruit salad.

[golfadj]

:) And they are spending house money.

 

true

[oldrailfan]

They're called aircraft carriers.

 

 

And speaking of aircraft carriers...

how come OASIS and ALLURE didn't get nuclear engines?? :confused:

 

.

 

Private operators can't afford it... Aircraft Carriers are funded by us, the taxpayers!

[tallyho8]

Why doesn't Carnival switch their engines to nuclear power? In the long run it would mean a big cost savings from having to buy fuel all the time, plus they would meet a lot of EPA regulations.

 

Are you kidding? I want to return from my cruise with a suntan, not glowing in the dark. :)

[golfadj]

Are you kidding? I want to return from my cruise with a suntan, not glowing in the dark. :)

 

You would save on your electric bill though.