Nuclear option?

[mufi]

While airlines have no option to the use of oil to fuel their aircraft, cruise lines could in theory switch to nuclear power. This would put them at the forefront in the "carbon footprint" argument.

 

Whether we agree or not with the floods of hot air from the greens, on the face of it this would be a powerful selling point for cruise companies - if people accepted it.

 

I think that the majority of people would happily sail on a nuclear cruise ship. I would.

 

Would you?

 

David.

[Druke I]

I don't think most people care about the type of propulsion, as long as it is reliable.

[guernseyguy]

I think that the majority of people would happily sail on a nuclear cruise ship. I would.

 

I am not sure the Cruise Lines would be happy to run them - afaik, US "Nucular" powered aircraft carriers take 18 months to re-fuel.......:eek:

 

Peter

[Kindlychap]

While airlines have no option to the use of oil to fuel their aircraft, cruise lines could in theory switch to nuclear power. This would put them at the forefront in the "carbon footprint" argument.

 

I don't think people care that much, at least in the main.

 

Whether we agree or not with the floods of hot air from the greens, on the face of it this would be a powerful selling point for cruise companies - if people accepted it.

 

Which they won't

 

I think that the majority of people would happily sail on a nuclear cruise ship. I would.

 

You'll be in a small select group I wager.

 

Would you?

 

No.

 

Matthew

[Cruachan]

I am not sure the Cruise Lines would be happy to run them - afaik, US "Nucular" powered aircraft carriers take 18 months to re-fuel.......:eek:

 

Peter

 

Agreed but, on the other hand, a single fuel load would last for a very long time, and no doubt any refuelling necessary could be timed to coincide with a major refit. There was a US nuclear powered merchant ship, NS Savannah which, incidentally, could also carry about 60 passengers. She was built by New York Shipbuilding of Camden, NJ and was launched in 1962 and her range was quoted as 300,000 miles at 20 knots on a single fuel load. As far as I know she still exists somewhere in the States. Maybe some of our US members could confirm that.

 

Jimmy

[nitwit]

is nuclear power on a ship a greener option over a longer period of time?

glenn.

[Druke I]

I read somewhere recently that the nuclear ship Savannah is to be turned into a floating museum, I think at either Savannah GA or Norfolk VA.

[Cruachan]

is nuclear power on a ship a greener option over a longer period of time?

glenn.

 

I'm no expert but I believe that, to use the modern buzz-word, the "carbon footprint" is extremely low in general service. But, like all things nuclear the big problem comes when the ship reaches the end of its useful life and you have to get rid of the reactor and the spent fuel. Not counting Soviet submarines, the general safety record of nuclear powered naval ships, and Savannah of course, seems to have been excellent.

 

Jimmy

[Cruachan]

I read somewhere recently that the nuclear ship Savannah is to be turned into a floating museum, I think at either Savannah GA or Norfolk VA.

 

Thanks for that. I spotted something along those lines as well but couldn't get any up-to-date confirmation of what was happening.

 

Jimmy

[nitwit]

I'm no expert but I believe that, to use the modern buzz-word, the "carbon footprint" is extremely low in general service. But, like all things nuclear the big problem comes when the ship reaches the end of its useful life and you have to get rid of the reactor and the spent fuel. Not counting Soviet submarines, the general safety record of nuclear powered naval ships, and Savannah of course, seems to have been excellent.

 

Jimmy

 

it was the soviet subs i was thinking about.

didn't one sink around norway somewhere? now they can't salvage it and it's rusting and is threatening to polute the sea for hundreds of miles, for the next thousand odd years:eek:.

see you in three weeks:)

glenn.

[transat_jon]

While airlines have no option to the use of oil to fuel their aircraft, cruise lines could in theory switch to nuclear power. This would put them at the forefront in the "carbon footprint" argument.

 

Whether we agree or not with the floods of hot air from the greens, on the face of it this would be a powerful selling point for cruise companies - if people accepted it.

 

I think that the majority of people would happily sail on a nuclear cruise ship. I would.

 

Would you?

 

David.

There are already nuclear cruise ships - some of the Russian ice breakers do cruises to the north pole. Many "greens" have an aversion to the waste products produced when decommissioning the ships though.

 

What about sailing, either pretend sailing like Windstar or real sailing on Star Clipper cruises?

 

 

Airlines have the option of using ethanol as fuel, although this is not a perfect fuel choice for them (or us as paying passengers). Hydrogen has also been suggested but it has issues in storage and associated weight of the tanks used.

[mikedw]

The NS Savannah was taken last year from the James River Ghost Fleet where it's been in storage for about 10 year, to a shipyard to begin the work of turning her into a museum ship. Not sure where she'll be on display at. She was at Patriot's Point Maritime Museum in Charleston, SC for several years, not sure why she was removed from there.

 

Take care,

 

Michael

Hagerstown, MD

[pb82]

...

I think that the majority of people would happily sail on a nuclear cruise ship. I would.

 

Would you?

 

David.

Yes, I would. But I think that it would take years of educational PR to put us in the majority. Another complication is that some countries forbid nuclear powered ships to enter their harbors.

 

And don't you think that such a passenger ship would be a tempting terrorist target? I do, and I'll bet that the advertising of competing lines would find ways to plant that worry in many minds.

 

Paul

[TJL]

Seems that was considered as an option for Q3 back in the early sixties. Just been reading "Cunard: Glory Days"

[pepperrn]

Seems that was considered as an option for Q3 back in the early sixties. Just been reading "Cunard: Glory Days"

 

And of course the Raffaello and the Michelangelo were designed to be able to be converted to nuclear power. That, of course, was in the days before nuclear became a dirty word. In a similar way, who, today, would travel in a hydrogen filled Hindenburg?

[pb82]

And of course the Raffaello and the Michelangelo were designed to be able to be converted to nuclear power. That, of course, was in the days before nuclear became a dirty word. In a similar way, who, today, would travel in a hydrogen filled Hindenburg?

Play fair. Not one nuclear powered vessel, not even a Soviet, has ever exploded.

Paul

[mikedw]

I served onboard two different nuclear powered submarines in the US navy. The only thing I fear about nuclear power are the lies from the wacko enviromentalist. As the previous poster said, they need to do good PR to teach the people all about it so they don't fear the unknown.

 

Take care,

 

Michael

Hagerstown, MD

[Louise D]

I would not go on a nuclear powered cruise ship and it would not be acceptable to passengers from Australia and New Zealand where the public mood is not presently in favour of nuclear power.

 

Regards, Louise

[Bramcruiser]

I'd pass on the idea too!

 

David

[dak]

I don't think I'd be comfortable on such a vessel. In today's bean counter driven world there are simply too many shortcuts taken. I am not convinced that the safety standards for matters unseen would attract the appropriate investment.

 

QM2 was built to a price and I don't think that too many would argue that the quality of the materials used in the finishing is up to expectations.

 

I fear that if the nuclear option were to be built to a price in a similar fashion then it may be more than the finishing materials that would suffer.

 

David

[travel-to-go]

It's my understanding that the world's first Nuclear powered cruise ship (The Savannah) did not gain widespread passenger acceptance. But I have since read that there might have been other issues leading to that.

 

Many "greens" have an aversion to the waste products produced when decommissioning the ships though.

 

What about sailing, either pretend sailing like Windstar or real sailing on Star Clipper cruises?

 

Airlines have the option of using ethanol as fuel, although this is not a perfect fuel choice for them (or us as paying passengers). Hydrogen has also been suggested but it has issues in storage and associated weight of the tanks used.

1) Sure puts the issue of the Norway's asbestos at Alang in a different light!

2) These do not have widespread acceptance as they have extremely limited routes. they just can't go very far in a time frame. OTOH, they can get into a lot of places standard cruise ships can't because of their low draft and smaller size.

3) It has been said that ethanol (As we know it in the US- corn based) is horrendous to the environment for various reasons. It is also far from economical, and not as good on mileage, defeating the purpose, it would seem! Next time you are in the grocery store, pick up random foodstuffs and see how many of them contain corn syrup (shockingly many) or cornstarch. Look at your favorite fake creamer (FAT FREE!!!) and see what it's main ingredient is! (So much for being a diet food!) While you're at it, notice of those items containing corn-based ingredients have increased in price lately. If we planted every arable field with corn in the US we could not harvest enough to meet the requirements of the existing law for ethanol content in the US. And we are about to embark on a second round where this increased requirement will be thrown in as a sop to certain highly influential midwest mega-farm interests. (Don't be fooled by the myth of the family farmer. In today's economy it is largely just that. a myth. and rarely profitable. It is more the "romance" and history handed down that keeps them going. It's hard work, and the rewards are anything but economical. It seems Brazil has got it more right with their sugar based ethanol. OTOH, Our US laws forbid buyers of sugar in the US from buying more than a token percentage of sugar from other than the "sugar barons" who raped the Everglades (and hire desperate Haitians and other islanders to machete-harvest the canes with little to no medical coverage or safety precautions.) It's easy and cheap to send 'em back home or abandon them, since with harsh machete injuries they are of no further use, and then "buy" a couple more truckloads of desperate Haitians. This is a primary reason why candy companies have moved some of their operations off-shore. They are forbidden from buying plentiful and cheaper cane and beet sugar from off-shore (google it!)

 

I remember reading that hybrid technology uses more carbon and greenhouse gas-causing technology in the manufacture and shipping of necessary parts than it saves! That may change as the technology gets refined and increases to more profitable levels (changing the logistics of manufacturing locating and hence, the resultant shipping) I saw an excellent show by accident on TV - Maybe the one about marvels of science? I had read about a specific show in the paper I wanted to see, but not being very savvy about today's TV, got the wrong show- I guess some of these shows such as Discovery Channel and History Channel vary as to time and days depending on where you live. It was about the ethanol industry in Brazil, seemed quite balanced on the whole, and was most interesting. I'm sorry I can't tell you the name of it or the cable channel. I'm just not a knowledgeable TV person.

Yes, I would. But I think that it would take years of educational PR to put us in the majority. Another complication is that some countries forbid nuclear powered ships to enter their harbors.

 

And don't you think that such a passenger ship would be a tempting terrorist target? I do, and I'll bet that the advertising of competing lines would find ways to plant that worry in many minds.

 

Paul

 

That might be the case, but it would largely be propaganda and false fears. In college ((University of Tennessee- Knoxville) in 1972, I, and my dorm-mates once watched a plane circle overhead. Seems someone had hijacked it and threatened to crash it into the Oak Ridge nuclear reactor (The first ever built) Those of us on the ground felt sorry for the people in the plane. They would probably be killed. Not one of us worried about a nuclear releases. I have been through that reactor, and had meetings at one of the Y-12 guard towers weekly. My father worked for a while in the Nuclear industry for GE and was on-site when a 100 year earthquake hit (I think) epi-centered 14 miles from the reactor in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the fuel rods were on site awaiting loading. I live surrounded by at least four reactors (or is it five?) Including one or two in the state of being decommissioned and storing the used rods on site until a disposal facility is ready. (I think the Yuccas sands? I forget) I laugh when I get the annual evacuation pamphlet. We can't manage summer traffic to the beach. How could we manage a nuclear evac? Still, I am not scared,. Nuke is safer than coal, IMHO, and has caused me a lot less harm. I don't say it is without risk. I'm not naive or stupid. And we must address long range storage and disposal concerns. And I consider myself "green" I recycle and reuse everything imaginable. and try to choose environmentally appropriate appliances, cars and such. I reuse my PAPER grocery bags and abhor the overuse of plastic. But I am not a whacko and believe in science.

 

Karie,

the environmentally conscious, yet selfish person who will not give up her cruises. no matter what! (but has reluctantly given up fois gras. I felt so guilty I almost choked on it, last cruise. It no longer tasted as good, and of course it is horribly unhealthy for you...not to mention the goose!)

[Louise D]

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

[jgsmuzzy]

Karie,

 

The article in question is below. BTW, I would have no qualms in travelling on a nuclear powered ship.

 

 

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage

By Chris Demorro

Staff Writer

 

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

 

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

 

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

 

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

 

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

 

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

 

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

 

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

 

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

 

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

 

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

 

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

 

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

 

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.

[dak]

Not one of us worried about a nuclear releases. I have been through that reactor, and had meetings at one of the Y-12 guard towers weekly. My father worked for a while in the Nuclear industry for GE and was on-site when a 100 year earthquake hit (I think) epi-centered 14 miles from the reactor in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the fuel rods were on site awaiting loading. I live surrounded by at least four reactors (or is it five?) Including one or two in the state of being decommissioned and storing the used rods on site until a disposal facility is ready. (I think the Yuccas sands? I forget) I laugh when I get the annual evacuation pamphlet. We can't manage summer traffic to the beach. How could we manage a nuclear evac? Still, I am not scared,. Nuke is safer than coal, IMHO, and has caused me a lot less harm.

 

 

And all this from the country that gave us Three Mile Island. :confused: We Brits are not squeaky clean either. Remember we had Windscale, but it's ok. We had the real answer. The name was changed to Seascale, and that fixed everything :eek:

 

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. There is already an alarming number of maritime incidents on a daily basis and the main source of concern is oil spillage. Can you imagine if a VLCC hit a nuclear powered cruise ship?

 

Of course, there is also the legacy left to countless future generations. 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

[Wadadli1]

Karie,

the environmentally conscious, yet selfish person who will not give up her cruises. no matter what! (but has reluctantly given up fois gras. I felt so guilty I almost choked on it, last cruise. It no longer tasted as good, and of course it is horribly unhealthy for you...not to mention the goose!)

 

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.