Submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
China’s Nuclear-Powered Containership: A Fluke Or The Future Of Shipping?::Since China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) unveiled its KUN-24AP containership at the Marintec China Expo in Shanghai in early December of 2023, the internet has been abuzz about it. Not jus…
Largely, this is likely a good thing. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better (than the status quo).
I read that article and I still don’t understand what it being a fluke would matter to anything? Strange title to me.
Why do so many Chinese products have these weird alphanumeric names? They’ll build the world’s first cold fusion reactor and call it the RNG-42_Mk2.1(final).
They code pertinent information into the name so people who understand their convention can easily understand what a product is.
I’m no ship expert but it looks like the KUN-24AP has a standard capacity of 24,000 cargo containers. So I’d assume that the 24 is referring to the capacity.
If they announced a KUN-12AP I’d assume it was a boat about half the size.
I like nuclear power, but I wonder if it might be better to replace the internal combustion engines of cargo ships with gigantic sails instead of nuclear reactors. It might increase the duration of a route, but then it might be possible to compensate by running more, smaller ships.
Another possible innovation would be people onboard to row
Advertise it as a new fitness program that includes seeing the world for free.
Just drain the seas and drive them around on big tank tracks
With the labor shortage these days, we’ll definitely have people coming forward!
Have them down below on exercise bikes like little hamsters.
This is also being tried. The first such ship set sail recently.
I’ve only heard of big kites being used to help reduce fuel consumption on cargo ships. If you have a link to an example of a cargo ship that uses the wind as its primary power source, please share it.
The first sailing transport ship set sail recently…? Can we define “recent” lol
This comment is just classic Lemmy. Do you think customers would accept their cargo just turning up whenever, depending on what the wind is doing? Why do you think we went away from sail in the first place?
Not to mention the air draft of such a vessel, or the fact that sails interfere with loading cargo.
There are sailed powered logistics ships! Here’s a grain ship that just launched. There are also companies that produce inflatable or deployable sails to reduce fuel consumption in favorable winds.
Ultimately there will be a need for chemical energy or similarly dense energy to move a ship. The wind doesn’t always blow, and when it does it won’t always be in the direction you want. Nuclear is certainly an interesting option.
They can just add sails to augment the current engines. I read somewhere years ago that it was tested and found to reduce fuel consumption by a lot.
In that case, why isn’t it more common?
I wasn’t aware reactors using thorium were practical yet.
Yay, a tofu dreg nuclear ship.
Supposedly, a meltdown at sea is pretty low risk because you have the perfect heatsink literally everywhere around you, and its a molten salt design, which I think(?) (source: my ass) means that the fuel would at worst leak into the sea and immediately solidify back into some inert state.
and its a molten salt design, which I think(?) (source: my ass) means that the fuel would at worst leak into the sea and immediately solidify back into some inert state.
tmsr design has a freeze plug, a part of fuel that has to constantly be actively below freezing temperature and if something goes wrong the fuel is just dumped into a separate container where the reactivity drops to zero. It never leaves the system.
Well yeah but most accidents at sea actually happen fairly close to where there are people. At ports/canals as opposed to just in the middle of nowhere.
source: my ass
Be careful you can get stuck in the swamp!!! Lol
Yeah no fucking shot this works out.
Never heard of a nuclear powered u-boot?
fatalError@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
Nuclear powered ships are not a new thing. They’ve been around for decades. They would benefit our emission a lot. Let’s hope that they will be allowed in the ports around the world, this has been the greatest limitation so far. Convincing general population that nuclear can be safe is no easy feat.
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
They’re not a new idea, but the problem is that actually taking one into a port is a regulatory nightmare. Most jurisdictions have very, very strict rules around the handling of nuclear materials and would rather just say “Fuck off” than even contemplate the nightmare of getting something like into their waters with all of the proper tests and inspections completed.
Hypx@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is what killed nuclear cargo ships in the past. Ports just don’t want such things coming in all the time.
SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If you’re somewhere near Connecticut, the first-ever nuclear powered ship got turned into a museum in Groton
Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Problem.
There’s a huge difference between an American carrier and a Panamanian flagged cargo hauler. Are we really ready to trust one of the shadiest industries, (there’s still ships manned by slaves out there), with nuclear reactors?
Could you imagine India letting a nuclear hauler dock after it made a port call in Pakistan? New York letting any of them dock?
fatalError@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
And this is why I said changing the missconception that nuclear can’t be safe is hard. There are types of reactors safe by design.
Sure, no tech is foolproof, but have a look at how the molten salt reactor works. That kind of reactor doesn’t have a meltdown issue. That doesn’t mean things can’t still go wrong, but we have to do something about the emissions from these container ships burning the most crap of the fossil fuels… If we look at how many people die of deseases caused by air polution, the tiny risk of a nuclear accident looks a lot more acceptable. And that’s before we even consider how bad the climate changed in recent years.
We have to start educating ourselves and others on nuclear, because although renewables are cheaper, the energy storage for when there is no wind/sun is still very expensive and pretty crap tech(you have a phone, you know how the battery dies in 2-3 years). Also lithium won’t last forever so until we figure out something to replace it, nuclear can cover the gaps with considerably less emissions than dino juices and ancient biomass.
dantheclamman@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Which is ironic considering that fossil fuels have resulted in orders of magnitude more preventable deaths (including from radioactive releases) than nuclear. Bunker fuel is nasty stuff