Something weird just happend...

[Curious Hound]

If you think cruise ships are bad, look at "bunker fuel" used by the container industry... most of em are not allowed to run within so many miles of us soil on bunker fuel, so they are dual fuel setups they run "expensive" fuel close to shore where the pollution is regulated.

The entire USA fleet of all cars, trucks, semi's, farm tractors, "everything with wheels" is equivalent to like 17 or 18 container ships as far as emissions last time I looked and one single company (Maersk) has like 25 of those ships running non-stop... don't even know how many companies there are much less total ships on the water.

So, how do you propose we move cargo around the world?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

So, how do you propose we move cargo around the world?

Wind-powered cargo ship sets sail in a move to make shipping greener | CNN

NS Savannah - Wikipedia

Or maybe just cripple them with emission standards like they do with everything else. Oops, you are derated to 5kts until you get your DEF system serviced...

 

[Curious Hound]

Nuclear power works very nicely on ships

 

[Brain75]

Oh I already spouted my one political solution, that is as close to politics as I think I can get here... Not gonna touch this one with a pole (though that pole would be an 'environmental tax' on bunker fuel vehicles that would make 5000% to china seem like a gentle nudge).....

 

[Brain75]

Nuclear power works very nicely on ships

Actually I have nothing against this.... We trust the private sector to run our nuclear power plants and those are gigawatt giants, a small multi megawatt portable plant (same size on military) could be ran by private companies and just as regulated/monitored/inspected as stationary power plants, and I would be OK with it... no worse danger, in fact safer... if a plant melts down outside of Dallas it would poison the whole DFW area killing hundreds of thousands, if one of these melted down well the crew sacrifices their lives to scuttle it in the middle of the pacific garbage patch.... Not exactly ideal disposal but it would kill less people than DFW neighborhood.

 

[JoshT]

Actually I have nothing against this.... We trust the private sector to run our nuclear power plants and those are gigawatt giants, a small multi megawatt portable plant (same size on military) could be ran by private companies and just as regulated/monitored/inspected as stationary power plants, and I would be OK with it... no worse danger, in fact safer... if a plant melts down outside of Dallas it would poison the whole DFW area killing hundreds of thousands, if one of these melted down well the crew sacrifices their lives to scuttle it in the middle of the pacific garbage patch.... Not exactly ideal disposal but it would kill less people than DFW neighborhood.

If it were designed right, wouldn't even need to scuttle the ship. If I'm not mistaken the reactors on ships function solely as power generation units, so the only thing that they need to be conencted to is power cables. Build the reactor as a packaged unit and make it ejectable. Something happens to the reactor hit the emergency release button and drop it out the bottom.

Aren't some ships are already built with underwater docks hangars on the bottom of the hull for submersibles. Shouldn't take much of a design effort to adapt the idea to drop a reactor package out the bottom. Or have I just read too much Clive Cussler fiction?

Ship might need to be towed into port, but crew, ship, and maybe the cargo are saved. Lets be honest, if they didn't have time to do that, they wouldn't have time to consider getting it to a "safe location" either.

 

[Brain75]

your thinkin star trek not clive cussler... Scotty eject the core!


But yeah you are absolutely right, lots of lots of capital costs in a ship besides the core and an ejectable design would be fantastic safety - you should patent that.

It didn't work so well for stationary plants though, they built the Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant straddling the Plattville river here in Colorado, the whole design was such that if it ever melted it would fall into the river and be quenched with well "millions of gallons of water". Problem is it spent more time down than up, and eventually was converted to natural gas.

 

[Curious Hound]

function solely as power generation units, so the only thing that they need to be conencted to is power cables

That's a bit oversimplified. In the most common, most reliable designs, the reactor produces heat to create steam to operate turbines to produce electricity or turn a propeller shaft. So, in addition to hundreds of control and sensing cables, there is a good bit of piping systems (steam, returning feedwater, sample lines, emergency systems piping, etc. But, your idea may be possible in some way.

 

[JoshT]

your thinkin star trek not clive cussler... Scotty eject the core!

I'd say a bit of both.

Of course there's the ejectable warp cores in Star Trek, and I can't deny thinking about that. They are already building small "portable" nuclears (SMRs or microreactors), though small is relative. From my understanding these small reactors are self contained with all of the systems that Eric mentioned.

I was also thinking about the Oregon from some of Cussler's books. It has a small submarine hanger in the hull that opened to the bottom. I thought I also remembered reading about it being a thing in the real world as well. Have no idea what they are doing with that series now that Cussler is dead, last one of that book I read the ship had sank. In fact I don't know that I've read any of his series since his passing. His son and others took over, but I was already losing interest in the formula.

 

[scotts90ranger]

So, how do you propose we move cargo around the world?

Cows obviously, have you even been paying attention?

 

[JoshT]

Cows obviously, have you even been paying attention?

Works in Fallout.

 

[MaicoDoug]

Today's modern generating plants, the "paddle wheel" is still the main component. Steam is shot at a paddle wheel turning a generator. The source of the heat, gas fired turbine is the best natural gas "bunsen burner" emitting hardly any NO (5ppm) & mainly the exhaust is CO2 & water. Point this clean heat source at a steam pot & you have a Co-generating plant. Plus a lot of wire & instruments. Oh yes & permitting & compliance.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Just stick a 300 I6 on them and call it a day

 

[JoshT]

Just stick a 300 I6 on them and call it a day

I think they do that already. You're just missing a few zeros, a main bearing big enough to stand in, and a piston dish that could double as a swimming pool (or at least a kiddie pool).

 

[Curious Hound]

paddle wheel

They got fancy and started calling it a steam turbine many years ago.