Nuclear option?

[Bramcruiser]

I simply would not be happy unless there were extremely stringent safeguards in place, but that would fall foul of the Bean Counters because I suspect it would not fit the economic model.

 

Hey.........I must warn you as you just joined my cruise that I am a bean counter!:eek:

 

But saying that I do agree with you 100% in that the bean counters in this world just are terrible decision makers........not my choice for who should be in a leadership position at all. While some decisions might be economically sound they fail in regards to everything else and some of those "others" are what matters. Accountants are just that!

 

As for a nuclear powered cruise ship? I just don't see it happening in the near future.

 

David

[travel-to-go]

If you wish to give up foie gras for health reasons, fine. But you need to learn the actual facts about the gavage, rather than basing your beliefs on half-truths and PETA brochures and anthropomorphising the duck or the goose.

Okay, Angela,

I am open to a learning experience! I haven't read any brochures or PETA stuff. It just seems a bit inhumane. If you'd rather not risk a brouhaha, email me (Though truthfully,right now I am having trouble bringing the email on line new computer and all) but you know the drill parrothead-av8rAT mindspringDOTcom.

Again, keep in mind it may be a few days before I can get the email working again. I will try my best to get it tomorrow.

Again! I am open. I liked it before. Just had trouble choking it down last time!

 

Karie,

who tries to listen objectively to both sides!

[stowaway2k]

From the original topic of nuclear powered passenger vessels to geese...

in just two dozen posts! :rolleyes:

[mufi]

. I don't have the answers, but I'm sure that if our top minds were set to work, they would come up with an alternative energy strategy.

 

David

 

They have and what have they come up with so far? - sugar cane.

 

David.

[pnhmrk]

As for a nuclear powered cruise ship? I just don't see it happening in the near future.

 

I'm with David - I just don't see it happening. Although if it did and it offered what I wanted, I wouldn't turn it down just because it was nuclear.

[dak]

I wouldn't turn it down just because it was nuclear.

 

At least you may come back glowing:)

 

David

[dforeigner]

Karie, I know its off-topic but I was shocked when I went to the USA last year and saw so many products containing the corn syrup. Also, everything seems to be excessively sweet. We do not have many corn syrup products in Australia as suger is produced here rather than corn. I read that corn syrup is suspected to be one of the factors behind the explosion of diabetes in the USA. I also read recently that the corn syrup is even in the US version of Coca Cola, whereas we still have it made with sugar. (Not that I drink Coca Cola, although there is nothing wrong with it - I am starting to sound like Seinfeld.)

 

Regards, Louise

 

I will have to agree with you hear. Americans are getting fatter due to (among other things) high concentration of sweeteners such as corn syrup. The reason for the use of corn syrup is simply money. It is cheaper than cane or beet sugar. I try to avoid products with any type of syrup but are not always available. It is said that the next epidemic here in the US is already obesity as people just sit at home and eat junk food. And yes, coke products use corn syrup rather than cane or beet sugar.

[greatam]

I am really amazed at the resistance to nuclear powered anything and especially from the Europeans. Heck, France has more nuclear power plants than any other country. A nuclear disaster on land would have three/four times as much effect on the world as a nuclear disaster at sea. Look at the US navy-about 1/2 nuclear powered and NO incidents.

 

As the daughter and wife of engineers heavily involved in the nuclear industry, it would please me no end to have more nuclear. Triple redundancies for safety are built into every USA nuclear power plant. There are only a couple of companies in the world that build nuclear plants safely-Bechtel and Fluor. There has NEVER been a nuclear incident endangering life other than Chernobyl. And what can you say about Russian (and other second tier countries) safety standards??? I do worry about other countries trying to build nuclear plants that do no contract with Fluor or Bechtel.

 

The only problem in the USA is the environmental lobby-don't want the nuclear fuel moved to Yucca mountain, don't want it stored onsite, and don't want anymore nuclear plants. So we pollute the USA with foreign oil. One thing a lot of you probably don't know-quite a few of the nuclear plants in the USA cool the reactors with "gray water". So the industry is not using any more precious fresh water and we are getting "double duty" out of fresh water. Almost all coal fired/combined cycle power plants use fresh water to cool their plants.

 

I have traveled a short distance on a nuclear power ice breaker (the Yamal). Other than the noise (which was really loud breaking ice), I would not have known that I was not on a diesel fuel powered ship. And I certainly didn't worry about my safety. I have more chance going to the moon than being involved in a nuclear disaster and I live 18 miles from the USA's largest nuclear plant.

[dak]

I am really amazed at the resistance to nuclear powered anything and especially from the Europeans. Heck, France has more nuclear power plants than any other country. A nuclear disaster on land would have three/four times as much effect on the world as a nuclear disaster at sea. Look at the US navy-about 1/2 nuclear powered and NO incidents.

 

As the daughter and wife of engineers heavily involved in the nuclear industry, it would please me no end to have more nuclear. Triple redundancies for safety are built into every USA nuclear power plant. There are only a couple of companies in the world that build nuclear plants safely-Bechtel and Fluor. There has NEVER been a nuclear incident endangering life other than Chernobyl. And what can you say about Russian (and other second tier countries) safety standards??? I do worry about other countries trying to build nuclear plants that do no contract with Fluor or Bechtel.

 

The only problem in the USA is the environmental lobby-don't want the nuclear fuel moved to Yucca mountain, don't want it stored onsite, and don't want anymore nuclear plants. So we pollute the USA with foreign oil. One thing a lot of you probably don't know-quite a few of the nuclear plants in the USA cool the reactors with "gray water". So the industry is not using any more precious fresh water and we are getting "double duty" out of fresh water. Almost all coal fired/combined cycle power plants use fresh water to cool their plants.

 

I have traveled a short distance on a nuclear power ice breaker (the Yamal). Other than the noise (which was really loud breaking ice), I would not have known that I was not on a diesel fuel powered ship. And I certainly didn't worry about my safety. I have more chance going to the moon than being involved in a nuclear disaster and I live 18 miles from the USA's largest nuclear plant.

 

Three Mile Island

[goodbutused]

My thorts. It will not happen any time in the near future, probably the costs will be the main reason. Nuclear power will have large end of life costs which can not be calculated. Also on a large ship hydrogen may be feasable if you use Nuclear Power Ashore to split water. It Burns with Oxygen to make water so is not poluting at use and a ship is large enough to have safe storage of the this fuel I would think but I can't guarantee that :) .

[ClipperMiami]

TMI is a perfect example of people interfering in a well known, well controlled process. Had the human plant operators not interfered the computer control systems would have safely shut down the reactor and the only people who would have heard of "Three Mile Island" are the people living nearby.

 

There was more danger created by the enviros and the hysterical press coverage than the plant failure.

[greatam]

Three Mile Island

 

ABSOLUTELY NO!!!! Came close, but no nuclear release that endangered humans/animals/plant life. They would not be operating any of the nuclear plants today IF there had been a TRUE nuclear release (it was a "false release"-the malfunctioning equipment stated there had been a nuclear release)-there MAY have been a small release of gasses POSSIBLY containing nuclear residue. NRC was never able to monitor it-the release was too small.. As a result of three mile, the triple redundancy has been built into ALL safety systems at ALL USA nuclear plants.

 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

[greatam]

TMI is a perfect example of people interfering in a well known, well controlled process. Had the human plant operators not interfered the computer control systems would have safely shut down the reactor and the only people who would have heard of "Three Mile Island" are the people living nearby.

 

There was more danger created by the enviros and the hysterical press coverage than the plant failure.

 

Thank you!!!

[stowaway2k]

Three Mile Island

 

Great timing though for Columbia Pictures Studios!

They released "The China Syndrome" just two weeks before! :rolleyes:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078966/

[dak]

As the daughter and wife of engineers heavily involved in the nuclear industry, it would please me no end to have more nuclear.

 

You are , of course writing from an entirely objective and unbiased viewpoint.;)

 

Whilst I appreciate that "evidence" can be produced to support your stance, there is an equal amount of "evidence" to the contrary.

 

All I am saying is that I would rather be sure that the safeguards were in place and that we were not leaving a terrible legacy foe subsequent generations. I simply do not believe that will prove to be economical.

 

David

[greatam]

You are , of course writing from an entirely objective and unbiased viewpoint.;)

 

Whilst I appreciate that "evidence" can be produced to support your stance, there is an equal amount of "evidence" to the contrary.

 

All I am saying is that I would rather be sure that the safeguards were in place and that we were not leaving a terrible legacy foe subsequent generations. I simply do not believe that will prove to be economical.

 

David

 

The "evidence" was an NRC report (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), the controlling body for ALL nuclear reactors in the USA. I have yet to see evidence of a nuclear leak, other than Chernobyl and WWII, that has resulted in loss of life or land contamination. What other "evidence" to the contrary do you refer??

 

Other than the waste from the fuel rods, what could we possibly be leaving to future generations-a cleaner world??? The fuel rods are currently encased in lead lined, 4 foot thick concrete tubes. The chances of one disintegrating is VERY slim. About as much possibility as being struck by a meteorite.

 

The safeguards ARE in place, have been in place. The only thing that is in dispute is what to do with the nuclear waste. The USA has spent BILLIONS building Yucca Mtn in Nevada (120 miles NW of Las Vegas, in the middle of nowhere). All nuclear plants contribute to the building fund and have for years. Yucca Mtn. CANNOT be utilized as yet-too many "green" lobbyists fighting Yucca Mtn.

 

What you really ought to be worried about is third world countries exporting nuclear technology, nuclear fuel rods, and building nuclear plants WITHOUT all the oversight in the USA and Europe.

[pnhmrk]

I am really amazed at the resistance to nuclear powered anything and especially from the Europeans.

 

This is a generalisation. In the previous posts 8 have said no to the idea of travelling on a nuclear powered ship. Three of those are Europeans, two North Americans and three from the rest of the world. That puts the European No vote in the minority of the Global No vote! As we've only had about 20 replies it can't be taken as a very representative sample though:D

[travel-to-go]

David,

With due respect to your position, and of course we all want to be cautious, I do maintain that what we are using today is not safe. I suffer from respiratory disease. Thre are more and more cases of respiratory illness. While it is true that there are things which must be addressed with the use of nuclear fuel, are we any better off with coal, diesel, gasoline, etc? These thing put pollution to one degree or another into the air, they all cause environmental damage in the process of obtaining/refining them, and of course, there are the sociological costs (from war to the destruction of communities to obtain coal or oil). I'm not passing a judgment one way or the other here. I honestly don't know which would be safer/cleaner/better. (I think wind has been tried on ships before- not very efficient <G>) I don't think it will happen, though, because of people's fears and misunderstanding. Just as we will never be likely to accept recycling liquid body wastes, although it has been proven effective and safe by the space industry. It just has too much of a eewww! factor!

Karie,

who also lives in close proximity to a Nuclear Submarine base and a nuclear submarine builder! And I just got my electric bill yesterday, so if I am glowing in the dark, it's not enough to turn down the lights yet! <G>

[Kindlychap]

The "evidence" was an NRC report (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), the controlling body for ALL nuclear reactors in the USA. .........What you really ought to be worried about is third world countries exporting nuclear technology, nuclear fuel rods, and building nuclear plants WITHOUT all the oversight in the USA and Europe.

 

Gina,

 

Do you trust your Government to tell you the truth? I don't trust mine to tell me what day of the week it is without independent evidence. They are corrupt through and through.

 

That's the danger of relying on Governments. They tell you what they want to hear, and if they investigate themselves then they ensure it is done by "one of their own". Look up Lords Hutton and Bulter in relation to the Iraq war, for example.

 

Matthew

[dak]

Gina,

 

Do you trust your Government to tell you the truth? I don't trust mine to tell me what day of the week it is without independent evidence. They are corrupt through and through.

 

That's the danger of relying on Governments. They tell you what they want to hear, and if they investigate themselves then they ensure it is done by "one of their own". Look up Lords Hutton and Bulter in relation to the Iraq war, for example.

 

Matthew

 

Matthew,

I find myself in complete agreement with you. I am firmly in the camp who believe that you can tell when a polititian is lying because his lips move.

As I noted earlier in this thread, we had our own nuclear incident at Windscale, where the main response seemed to be to change the name to Seascale! I know that I am cynical, but safety cannot be compromised. Does anyone stop to wonder why, in the UK, Dounreay was chosen for atomic energy research? I've been there when the safety valve has operated. It's quite frightening.

In our economically driven world where companies are prepared to hide behind contracts, which clearly cannot be serviced within the price parameters, in order to satisfy SOX or Turnbull, what price safety?

 

In any case, the OP's question related to travel on nuclear powered cruise ships, and I reiterate my point of maritime accidents. There are too many and I cannot contemplate something of the size of the new Genesis class under nuclear power being involved in an accident with a VLCC. You need only refer to the British Vigilence / Stena King accident to allow your imagination to run riot.

 

I wonder what view would be taken by the MCA?

 

David

[greatam]

Gina,

 

Do you trust your Government to tell you the truth? I don't trust mine to tell me what day of the week it is without independent evidence. They are corrupt through and through.

 

That's the danger of relying on Governments. They tell you what they want to hear, and if they investigate themselves then they ensure it is done by "one of their own". Look up Lords Hutton and Bulter in relation to the Iraq war, for example.

 

Matthew

 

Not often.

 

But I do trust the NRC and I especially trust DH and my deceased Dad. I used to handle logistics for the same nuclear plant DH works for. I have been in and out of that plant many times and seen the safety systems. I have been in both the control room and the simulator room, where the operators PRACTICE at least 20 hours per month various disaster scenarios (required by the nuclear license).

 

I feel completely safe-much safer than with the combined cycle plants which are also very close to my house. There is SOOOOO much scrutiny and oversight on anything nuclear that any little oops (forget a big oops) gets reported and FIXED within 24 hours.

 

The plant DH works at generates a lot of money every day from each of three reactors. The LAST thing the utilities that own the plants want is a shutdown. Takes about 72 hours to bring the plants back to full generating capacity after a shutdown. Not to mention the public relations nightmares.

 

The nuclear oversight dept onsite is mandated BY LAW to report even a malfunctioning valve to NRC (even though there are two other redundant valves on the same system). Believe me, nuclear power plants are maintained to VERY high standards. Palo Verde's reactors are completely shut down on a rotating schedule every 18 months for a complete overhaul-new piping, complete inspections, and refuel. Most nuclear reactors in the USA follow the same shutdown/repair/maintenance schedule.