Nuclear Engines

Why doesn't Carnival switch their engines to nuclear power? In the long run it would mean a big cost savings from having to buy fuel all the time, plus they would meet a lot of EPA regulations.

Why doesn't Carnival switch their engines to nuclear power? In the long run it would mean a big cost savings from having to buy fuel all the time, plus they would meet a lot of EPA regulations.

Oy.

Why doesn't Carnival switch their engines to nuclear power? In the long run it would mean a big cost savings from having to buy fuel all the time, plus they would meet a lot of EPA regulations.

because in the long run, it would cost much more than the ship in the first place

If this was feasible you would see lots of ships powered this way.

I don't think any cruise line wants to embark on a course that would deduct, in time, millions and millions of dollars of overhead expense from payments to store nuclear waste for the next several thousand years. If there was even a place to store it permanently, which there isn't at the present time.

Stockholders would have a fit if it was proposed.

If this was feasible you would see lots of ships powered this way.

And speaking of aircraft carriers...

how come OASIS and ALLURE didn't get nuclear engines?? :confused:

.

Seriously?

You do understand that the real advantage of nuclear power for a Navy ship is that they don't need to make room for a lot of oil or coal and thus they have more room for munitions.

It wouldn't cost less to make them nuclear powered and they already have huge ships with too many passengers.........

Plus...If the price of Nuclear Power goes above 90 dollars a barrel, they will reserve the right to charge an additional 20.00 per day per guest, to supplement the nuclear fuel charges...

Why doesn't Carnival switch their engines to nuclear power? In the long run it would mean a big cost savings from having to buy fuel all the time, plus they would meet a lot of EPA regulations.

I worked on nuclear submarines as a civilian for the navy. I worked in the reactor compartment and inside the steam generators. I was exposed to radiation as part of the job. The regulations to operate would be costly. Plus the fuel rods have to be replaced periodically. This is cost prohibitive. Any one who thinks it is less expensive to operate does not understand the regulatory requirements and inspections that are part of the operations. You then need nuclear engineers qualified to oversee the operations and the crew would have to be nuclear and radiologically qualified. What do you do with the spent fuel. How do keep the primary side from contaminating the secondary side of the reactor. This would not be possible for the cruise lines. It would cost way more to operate.

Why doesn't Carnival switch their engines to nuclear power? In the long run it would mean a big cost savings from having to buy fuel all the time, plus they would meet a lot of EPA regulations.

Carnival has trouble keeping the toilets working! Nuclear Powered Engines? :eek::eek:

But thanks for the morning chuckle.:D

A simpler quicker answer is the cost of security for these ships. The crew would have to be trained, certified and cleared by an extensive background check to work on these. But every passenger will also have to be cleared to be on those ships. And if you think the military does not do their background checks on their crews you would be wrong. How do I know - 20 years as a military wife has taught me plenty.

Besides the costs of building these ships, there would be the cost of the higher salaries for the crews that work on them (much higher than regular engines) then the cost of screening for all the passengers. Great idea, but to many costs involved in both the building and the long run operations of these ships.

On final note- not every country will allow a nuclear power ship in their waters. Not even the military type. And if you ask how can they refuse it - simple - they aren't at war with them and will respect their country wishes. And those who hate tendering - you would have much more tendering as even if the country would let them in their waters they aren't letting them in their ports.

Carnival has trouble keeping the toilets working! Nuclear Powered Engines? :eek::eek:

 

But thanks for the morning chuckle.:D

Now that is funny!!!!!!

Now that is funny!!!!!!

Funny and true!

In addition to a lot of the above many ports don't let nuclear powered vessels in, so the ship might end up doing a lot of CTN's;).

Why doesn't Carnival switch their engines to nuclear power? In the long run it would mean a big cost savings from having to buy fuel all the time, plus they would meet a lot of EPA regulations.

Cost prohibitive!! Do you have any idea what it costs to refuel a nuclear vessel? Although that would only need to be done once every 20 years or so it would still cost more than 20 years worth of fossil fuels.

If poop on the walls and cold cheese sandwiches were a PR nightmare for Carnival, I wonder what 3,000 passengers exposed to radiation would do to the bottom line if a nuclear incident ever happened on a Carnival ship. I believe that the cruise line would completely stop to exist. Nobody would ever set foot on another Carnival ship ever again.

Uhm, ever heard of the Russian nuclear Sub the Kursk?......it lies at the bottom of the Artic Ocean with all officers and crew aboard still, very dead, I might add..

No, an nuclear engine problem on a ship would expose everyone on the ship to potential radiation and that would be a bad thing for Carnival Corporation, and not just Carnival Cruise Line........

Carnival has trouble keeping the toilets working! Nuclear Powered Engines? :eek::eek:

This was my train of thought on the topic as well! :D

Uhm, ever heard of the Russian nuclear Sub the Kursk?......it lies at the bottom of the Artic Ocean with all officers and crew aboard still, very dead, I might add..

 

No, an nuclear engine problem on a ship would expose everyone on the ship to potential radiation and that would be a bad thing for Carnival Corporation, and not just Carnival Cruise Line........

Not a good comparison. The Kursk was sunk due to a torpedo exploding inside the submarine. It did not sink due to a reactor accident and it is not on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. The Kursk was recovered and returned to Russia, although all hands were lost in the accident the bodies were recovered once the sub was raised from the ocean floor. As far as I know Carnival does not carry any torpedoes on any of their ships.

Not a good comparison. The Kursk was sunk due to a torpedo exploding inside the submarine. It did not sink due to a reactor accident and it is not on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. The Kursk was recovered and returned to Russia, although all hands were lost in the accident the bodies were recovered once the sub was raised from the ocean floor. As far as I know Carnival does not carry any torpedoes on any of their ships.

yet

yet

Nice. You have so much optimism! :D

Not a good comparison. The Kursk was sunk due to a torpedo exploding inside the submarine. It did not sink due to a reactor accident and it is not on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. The Kursk was recovered and returned to Russia, although all hands were lost in the accident the bodies were recovered once the sub was raised from the ocean floor. As far as I know Carnival does not carry any torpedoes on any of their ships.

Thanks for the info.

Thanks for the info.

You're welcome. What was more useful to you? The cause of the Kursk sinking and recovery of the Kursk or that Carnival does not carry any torpedoes? :D

If poop on the walls and cold cheese sandwiches were a PR nightmare for Carnival, I wonder what 3,000 passengers exposed to radiation would do to the bottom line if a nuclear incident ever happened on a Carnival ship. I believe that the cruise line would completely stop to exist. Nobody would ever set foot on another Carnival ship ever again.

But the poop would glow in the dark and be so festive at the holidays!

Uhm, ever heard of the Russian nuclear Sub the Kursk?......it lies at the bottom of the Artic Ocean with all officers and crew aboard still, very dead, I might add..

Not to change the subject too much but....

If I played Gordon Lighfoot's Edmund Fitzgerald song on my phone as I was boarding my next cruise, would I cause undue consternation with my fellow passengers?

It ain't just Nukes that go down.