Nuclear cruise ships.

[vaccardi]

Forgot to post my preference before. I would cruise on a nuclear powered ship.

 

And as far as safety goes, its all a mater of magnitudes. My sister-in-law will not cruise because she feels it is not safe. My question to her is do more people die on their week +/- cruise or just getting to and from the ship via car/bus/airplane. Statistics say it is safer on the ship.

 

The same question would have to be asked on a nuclear ship. There is risk with any propulsion system, but with systems that need to be constantly refueled, there are many other issues. They include extraction, transport, refining. not to mention giving money to regimes that are not necessarily friendly to cruisers.

[xpcdoojk]

Great discussion, thanks Wraithe as always!

 

I would not only cruise on a nuke cruise ship I would go out of my way to cruise on it. I believe that the fear that is forced upon the citizens of this planet by all of the fear groups out there is paralyzing us all. We are afraid of everything, and I feel that groups like the Sierra Club, Peta, Earth First, Greenpeace, etc. are terrorizing us all against any form of technology. When the only way we can maintain humans on this planet with the population growth the world is experiencing is by utilizing technology. The other choice the ones that these fear monger groups want to force upon mankind would mean a reduction of lifestyle and or a reduction in life. IE the elimination of billions of people were we to return to a preindustrialized world. This idiocy is parrotted by school children who are forced to watch "documentaries" like the one narrated by our stupid former VP who flunked out of divinity school before he invented the internet and discovered global warming.

 

Wraithe, I share your justifiable concerns about Mahmoud...:(

 

Again, great discussion, and sign me up for the nuke of the seas!:D

 

jc

[madforcruising]

I think we agree completely, there is no "human proof" technology, hopefully one day we'll have safe fusion power and room temp superconductors, and energy concerns will be a thing of the past, you could power a city with the equivalent of a ten horsepower engine. Couple solar panels on each house would power everthing in the house. Until then, we have to keep striving toward that future and use all of our resources, not discount any source. Nice chatting with you.

 

Just as an aside, what really frightens me is the Iranians are buying nuclear technology from the Russians.

 

 

:) :) I enjoyed the chat with you too and thanks for all the detailed information. Very interesting.

[AllenF]

I have worked in the In the Commercial Nuclear Fuel Industry for 24 yrs (Westinghouse) so Yes I would sail on Nuclear ship. Wraithe has brought up many valid points here is some info even he may not be aware of.

One 7 gram fuel pellet has the same amount of energy as a ton of coal or 156 gallons of fuel. Fuel rods are 14 to 17 ft long and 1 pellet is about 1/2 inch long and as stated above Nuclear fuel enrichment is from 3 to 5 %. Europe is close to getting 80% of it power from Nuclear while the US is around 20 to 25 %. There are 2 types of Nuclear fuel plants PWR and BWR. My company is the worlds leader in PWR Fuel and the Industry is in a Revival with many new commercial nuclear power plants in the stages of being built . Our new reator design is the AP1000 and I am currently running test on the new fuel assembly that will be used in that reactor I work in a Product Eng. test lab that test all new mechanical designs against NRC standards and existing products in the field.

[madforcruising]

Which is hilarious since the English operate nuclear powered ships and power plants, the French operate nuclear powered ships and get 80-ish% of their electricity from nuke power, the Germans operate nuke power plants, and quite a few other European nations operate nuke electric power plants.

 

 

Regarding the german nuclear power plants....

German government made a decision in 2001 to not allow any new nuclear power plants and those operating already have a time limit until they have to be switched of. Currently plans are to have all german nuclear power plants switched off in 2021.

 

Of course this could change again with a change in government:rolleyes:

[vaccardi]

Hobie,

 

Congrats on the racing, I believe the upgrade to diesel is on Radiance class ships for now, and not for propulsion. They are putting in a generator for plant use (read hotel / ship use.)

 

It is not more fuel efficient, but the fuel is significantly less expensive on a volumetric basis.

[rolloman]

Of course you will shipmate, holiday routine, holiday forward, routine aft:D! ROTFL. Nukes were always first on, last off the ship.

 

Ha, well they had to earn that rent a crow out of boot camp some how!

[rolloman]

Whether you like it or not, one day sooner rather than later there will be a nuclear powered cruise ship. The only thing to stop it will be another type fuel no one is thinking of. As for the comment the ships have 70 mile radar and defense systems, LOL, you better be more worried about the new Chinese anti ship missle they are selling to anyone , which even the US has no defense for, 70 miles means nothing. And yeah it will bring down anything out there, one and done. Phalanx is no match.

[bilyclub]

Alex, your thread is a little bit friendlier than my. I would sail on one if it had all the toys. The power plant might scare off the frustrated RCI'rs.

Overall, a very informative thread. *****

[hobie33]

Alex, your thread is a little bit friendlier than my. I would sail on one if it had all the toys. The power plant might scare off the frustrated RCI'rs.

Overall, a very informative thread. *****

Folks with higher IQ (like this board) don't spend time insulting others. They form an opinion and post it, that's all. No FIGHTING here this is a nuclear board.

Alex.

[Lightsluvr]

wow its nice to have a great intelligent conversation,its been a long long time lol,but im sure they will come up with something in the near future,and will be interesting to see what they do come up with,thanks for the breath of intelligent fresh air lol:));)

 

 

Rumor is that RCI is conducting research in a secret east coast location on new power plants. Sources close to the project reveal the new fuel will be a mixture of baking soda and vinegar.

 

:eek:

 

LL

[rolloman]

Here is some more fuel info from Cunards QE2.

 

What is the total power output of QE2's engines?

95 MW: enough to light the city of Southampton or equivalent to the power output of 3000 medium sized family cars.

 

What is the fuel consumption?

At the service speed of 28.5 knots, consumption is 380 tons per day: this equates to 50 ft/gall.

 

What is the diameter of the propeller and shafting?

The propellers are of controllable pitch, have five blades each, and are a little over 6m in diameter. The two propeller shafts are 80m long, are of solid forged steel, and are 590mm in diameter.

 

How big is each engine?

Each engine, including the sump-pan, is about the size of a double-decker bus. Each has nine cylinders of 580mm bore and 640mm stroke, operating on the 4-stroke cycle.

 

At what speed do the engines run?

The diesels at 400 rev / min, the propulsion motors at 144 rev / min.

 

What is the range when all fuel tanks are full?

At service speed, QE2 carries enough fuel for 12 days continuous sailing, but at the slower, more economical speed of 20 knots, she could sail for 30 days or two-thirds of a circumnavigation of the world.

 

How many personnel are there in the Technical Department?

Engineers, Electrical & Electronics Officers number 24. There are a further 48 technicians, ranging from mechanics, plumbers, carpenters, electricians and air-conditioning mechanics.

 

How many Engineers actually run the propulsion plant?

The new installation was designed to be unmanned, however one senior Engineer Officer is always on duty in the Control Room, assisted by three technical staff on a rotational basis of 4 hours on and 8 hours off.

[hobie33]

QM2 is four time the size of QE2, perfect platform for nuclear power. to deep draft for many ports, it damage the starboard propeller coming out of Ft Laud port.

Alex.

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

Well I guess solar might be difficult because of lack of space to put those solar panels up.

But wind is possible already, there have been studies already using skyrails (big Kites) to "sail" a ship.

 

 

Here´s a website on this

http://skysails.info/index.php?L=1

 

Those sails are unique. I vaguely recall seeing a rendering of a cruise ship--might have been a cargo ship--with a very advanced design that did have solar panels. It was futuristic , not meant for the near future. Anyway, I believe I saw it in Scientific American, Popular Mechanics or New Scientist. It's been awhile.

[ksheehan16]

Being of scientific mind, 4 tons * 2000 lbs per ton / 7.1 lbs per gal diesel = 1127 gallons per passenger for 7? day cruise. RC probably does not pay the pump price which is over $3.00/gal in Colorado, but even at $2.00 a gallon that's $2253.00 per passenger for a seven day cruise. The other poster that suggested .8 tons per passenger per 7 day cruise makes sense. That's $451.00 for a seven day cruise. For me, even that seems high considering at times a 7 day cruise can be had for not much more than that.

[hobie33]

Some ports on he west coat now ask cruise ships to hook up to shore power and not run their generators, reason ? pollution, Fla is considering the same.

Wind : we deliver a classic sail boat 126ft from Antigua to Antibe in France two years ago, out of 25 day's at sea we run the engine 13 day's, no wind.

 

Alex.

[hobie33]

Being of scientific mind, 4 tons * 2000 lbs per ton / 7.1 lbs per gal diesel = 1127 gallons per passenger for 7? day cruise. RC probably does not pay the pump price which is over $3.00/gal in Colorado, but even at $2.00 a gallon that's $2253.00 per passenger for a seven day cruise. The other poster that suggested .8 tons per passenger per 7 day cruise makes sense. That's $451.00 for a seven day cruise. For me, even that seems high considering at times a 7 day cruise can be had for not much more than that.[/quote

This figure was for our 13 day T/A cruise going at full speed, price for foreign flag commercial vessel ( no tax) at Fort lauderdale port was 0.97 per gallon as off April 07.

Sorry for my mistake.

Alex,

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

Some ports on he west coat now ask cruise ships to hook up to shore power and not run their generators, reason ? pollution, Fla is considering the same.

Alex.

 

I'm totally ignorant in these matters, but I do know how much smoke comes out of FP&L smokestacks every day at the Port of Palm Beach power plant. Wouldn't just as much pollution be generated by "plugging in" to FP&L plants as the ships themselves are producing?

 

I am such a cynic about some government mandates. I wonder if it isn't just a device to get the ships to pay for their power in port and enrich the FP&L . I am not convinced there would be a substantial reduction in ship pollution by "plugging in."

 

But as I say, I am completely ignorant in these matters.

[BearySweet2Cruise]

I think you are the one who got set straight. It has been quoted the Queen Mary only goes 12 inches on a gallon of fuel.

 

Thank you :)

[madforcruising]

I'm totally ignorant in these matters, but I do know how much smoke comes out of FP&L smokestacks every day at the Port of Palm Beach power plant. Wouldn't just as much pollution be generated by "plugging in" to FP&L plants as the ships themselves are producing?

 

I am such a cynic about some government mandates. I wonder if it isn't just a device to get the ships to pay for their power in port and enrich the FP&L . I am not convinced there would be a substantial reduction in ship pollution by "plugging in."

 

But as I say, I am completely ignorant in these matters.

 

I don´t know about the power plant you are talking about and it can vary from power plant to power plant of course, but the modern ones do have filters and such to reduce the pollution. Of course they still pollute the environment but a modern power plant should have much better filters than a cruise ship and therefore it would make sense.

[Hypo]

Quote: "Rumor is that RCI is conducting research in a secret east coast location on new power plants. Sources close to the project reveal the new fuel will be a mixture of baking soda and vinegar. "

Or Tic-Tacs and diet coke.:)

 

Hypo

[veryhotred]

Not sure I would because if it broke down they would send hubby to fix it!..lol..He was in the Navy and was a Nuke and did this for a long time...still does just not in the Navy.

[veryhotred]

I'm totally ignorant in these matters, but I do know how much smoke comes out of FP&L smokestacks every day at the Port of Palm Beach power plant. Wouldn't just as much pollution be generated by "plugging in" to FP&L plants as the ships themselves are producing?

 

I am such a cynic about some government mandates. I wonder if it isn't just a device to get the ships to pay for their power in port and enrich the FP&L . I am not convinced there would be a substantial reduction in ship pollution by "plugging in."

 

But as I say, I am completely ignorant in these matters.

 

A lot of it is steam, along with pollutants though....

 

anyhoot don't get me started about FP&L...in a two words..they SUCK!

[veryhotred]

I didn't read all the comments but hubby said a HUGE con...

 

Everyone would need a TLD...(in my words)they read the amount of radiactive "stuff" you are taking in...

[Joedog]

Veryhotred,

 

I sailed as ship's company on two nuclear powered air craft carriers and the only crew members that needed to have tld's were those that actually worked in the propulsion plants.

 

General crew members, deck apes and the like, were not monitored for radiation exposure at all.

 

The ship was monitored and areas that had readings of radiation above normal were marked and had access limited. None of the crew sleeping, eating or office areas were in an area that had radiation readings.