Nuclear Power?

[NapTown Jim]

With the wild and high costs of oil these days I'm wondering how long it will be before someone builds a nuclear powered cruise ship? Seems to me that if you won't have to re-fuel until every 5 years or so, that the cost to build a nuclear reactor and have a trained crew to operate it would be offset by the millions of gallons of diesel fuel you won't be burning. Plus...there will be no polluting emissions.

 

Would such a thing present a challenge to convince passengers its safe?

[K&RCurt]

Check out where most cruise ships are registered.

 

Do you want the Governments of the Bahamas, Panama and Liberia in charge of the regulation of nuclear reactors floating around the 7 seas? Who would provide for security? The Seabourne ship that escaped the pirates off of Somalia was lucky it got away, and they were unorganized thugs out for money. Can you immagine how easy it would be for Bin Laden or someone similar, to hijack a cruise ship just for the fisionable material?

 

I'll let the Navies (and Coast Guards) of the civilized would keep the monopoly on nuclear powered vessels, thanks.

[NapTown Jim]

There are also a number of cruise ships registered in UK, The Netherlands and USA to name a few. All of which are countries that regulate safe nuclear power plants. As far as security is concerned...why would that be any different than with today's conventional diesel engines? I mean...its not like passengers can roam as they please into the bowels of the engine room of today's ships.

 

About the terrorist angle....

First, you cannot make an atomic bomb from the fuel rods of a nuclear reactor.

 

Second, while an unarmed passenger ship may seem like an easy mark for a terrorist attack, the same could be argued for civilian nuclear powered cargo ships. Russia presently operates the most civilian nuclear powered ships in their ice breaker fleet, but the USA, Germany and Japan have all built nuclear powered ships.

 

see...(scroll to the bottom)

http://www.radiationworks.com/nuclearships.htm

 

Interesting story on the NS Savannah here

http://www.radiationworks.com/NSSavannah.htm

 

from the article..

Condemned to a Short Life

In the words of Robert J. Bosnak, a former officer in charge of the Marine Inspection team that regulated the Savannah, "The Savannah performed well from an operational point of view, but in my opinion her designers condemned her to a short life by her hybrid design as a passenger-cargo vessel. Neither function of the ship proved to be economically viable, and MARAD (Maritime Administration) chose not to spend additional monies to convert her to an all cargo, or an all passenger vessel, but instead removed her from service. I regret that this happened."

 

and a final note on fuel costs between nuclear and diesel...

In 1972, when Savannah was laid up, the cost of a ton of oil was about $20.00. A ship with a 20,000 horsepower engine using 1970s technology would have burned about 120 tons per day for a daily fuel cost of about $2,400. By early 1974, following the Arab Oil Embargo, a ton of bunker fuel cost about $80.00. That same ship's daily fuel bill would have suddenly increased to more than $9,000. Savannah's fuel cost would not have changed as a result of the Oil Embargo. If the oil-burning ship operated for 330 days per year (which is common in the world of merchant shipping), the increase in its annual fuel expenditure would have more than eliminated the difference in Savannah's operating costs, even with all of her inherent disadvantages

[jetskier]

While the fuel rods could not be used for a bomb without being converted, the reactor could be used as a threat. It would be short lived as once the vessel sinks the core would be covered. Also fuel rods (pellets in rods) before being placed in the reactor can be held in your hand. Once they have gone through a fuel cycle they become highly radioactive. (>10Krem) You just dont walk down and pick it up as you will receive an acute deadly dose of radiation.

 

Because most people equate a nuclear reactor to an atomic bomb (though they are totally different), the fear factor would very high.

 

Dave

[Capt_BJ]

I would have to believe that if any cruise line looking to expand/recapitalize their fleet believed that their total operating cost would be reduced by shifting to nuc' power, they would be seeking a builder for such a vessel. Alas, this does not appear to be the case.

 

Therefore one might conclude that the cost of oil is only one factor, not overcome by other factors for certainly we have seen the maritime industry willing to embrace other ideas. The cruise industry is actually leading the way in 'POD' use on large vessels, while the tug undustry embraced Z-drives; these being examples of successful transitions. On the other side, there have been a few ships equipped with gas turbines to produce the volts used in their electric drives but they have not been widely embraced. Large cargo carriers, the newest and largest built, seem to still be finding efficiency in large slow turning des'l able to burn heavy oils.

 

One must admit that the regulation of nuc' and, shall we say reluctance of some countries to even have such a vessel in their waters must be factors to consider.

 

Heck, as a country we have not embraced nuc' power ashore..altho perhaps that means it is OK "as long as it isn't in my backyard."

 

Hypothetical question: What would be the level of angst today if given the recent QM2 incident, she was nuclear powered?

 

? Britist nuclear time bomb returns to Florida after running aground?

? Nuclear ship won't be allowed to enter port after running aground....when will it blow?

[blackbird71]

Well you can do the Arctic on the Russian Nuclear Powered Ice breaker

 

http://www.cruisingholidays.co.uk/arctic/north-pole-cruise.htm

 

 

One problem is this ships requires a lot more crew than a non nuclear ship..