Nuclear-powered maritime transport been a solved problem for decades. (It's a fairly easy solution, too. Conventional steamships have boilers which generate steam from seawater, which through a significant amount of gearing turns the ship's propeller, and through a turbine-generator system generates the ship's electricity. Nuclear powered ships replace the boiler with a nuclear reactor, but are otherwise identical.)
The only reason not all US Navy ships are nuclear is because you can get better performance for frequently-resupplied, less-than-supercarrier-size vessels with gas turbine engines (literally off-the-shelf jet engines exhausting underwater). The fuel is even the exact same as aviation fuel, so you only need your resupply ships to carry one type of fuel.
The unsolved issue in nuclear maritime is making it cost effective, including all life-cycle costs. The US actually had a couple commercial transports which were nuclear powered (NS Savannah being the main one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah) , and the USSR built a few icebreakers and supply vessels, a few of which are still in operation.
True; and according to NS Savannah's reports, it actually would have been viable during the 1970s.
I wonder if there would be a business in either operating nuclear civilian ships, or outsourced reactor build and management. The irony being that some of the best prospects would be nuclear Very Large Crude Carriers.
The other reason the Navy doesn't want 100% nuclear (and kept ships like the Kitty Hawk around) was some countries are weird about nuclear warships specifically transiting their waters; some are anti civilian nuclear too, but are generally more anti-nuclear warship.
Comments
Nuclear-powered maritime transport been a solved problem for decades. (It's a fairly easy solution, too. Conventional steamships have boilers which generate steam from seawater, which through a significant amount of gearing turns the ship's propeller, and through a turbine-generator system generates the ship's electricity. Nuclear powered ships replace the boiler with a nuclear reactor, but are otherwise identical.)
The only reason not all US Navy ships are nuclear is because you can get better performance for frequently-resupplied, less-than-supercarrier-size vessels with gas turbine engines (literally off-the-shelf jet engines exhausting underwater). The fuel is even the exact same as aviation fuel, so you only need your resupply ships to carry one type of fuel.
The unsolved issue in nuclear maritime is making it cost effective, including all life-cycle costs. The US actually had a couple commercial transports which were nuclear powered (NS Savannah being the main one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah) , and the USSR built a few icebreakers and supply vessels, a few of which are still in operation.
Cost-effective is comparative. If there was a severe shortage of other maritime fuel, we'd be stuck between nuke and sail.
True; and according to NS Savannah's reports, it actually would have been viable during the 1970s.
I wonder if there would be a business in either operating nuclear civilian ships, or outsourced reactor build and management. The irony being that some of the best prospects would be nuclear Very Large Crude Carriers.
The other reason the Navy doesn't want 100% nuclear (and kept ships like the Kitty Hawk around) was some countries are weird about nuclear warships specifically transiting their waters; some are anti civilian nuclear too, but are generally more anti-nuclear warship.