Yeah I was thinking about this, there's so much discussion about small nuclear reactors for grid power.. but there's hundreds of small nuclear reactors floating around the ocean already that nobody ever thinks about.
epistasis•1h ago
Well I think about them a lot, I hear about them a lot whenever SMRs come up, but they are not cheap. And they run on fuel that we typically don't want in civilian hands.
I still have a tab open for a comment reply that I never quite got to on the construction costs:
Basically there's a very large dollar cost for nuclear power versus fossil fuel power for ships and submarines, but for military purposes that cost penalty is well worth it for the operational benefits. Shipping won't have those same operational benefits like keeping a submarine undersea for such extended times and without all the penalties of dealing with fossil fuel exhaust.
The article is pretty weak on arguing the economics of nuclear for shipping, for example here:
> Operating expenses would be much lower for nuclear-powered ships, because there would be no need for refueling for the lifetime of the vessel, which is around 25 years. Currently, fuel makes up nearly half of a ship’s operating expenses.
> ...
> The cost of a nuclear-powered ship could be an issue for many shipowners—it’s four times that of a conventional ship. That would be more than offset by the savings on fuel costs over the life of the ship, but it is a steep initial outlay.
I'm not sure why we should believe these numbers for unbuilt reactors. We have a real example of costs from the US Navy and they disagree with the numbers in the article. Further, the nuclear industry has a well-deserved reputation for low-balling costs before construction starts, and then delivering reactors at multiples of the initial estimates. We should expect the same to happen here unless there's strong evidence against it.
JojoFatsani•2h ago
epistasis•1h ago
I still have a tab open for a comment reply that I never quite got to on the construction costs:
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
Basically there's a very large dollar cost for nuclear power versus fossil fuel power for ships and submarines, but for military purposes that cost penalty is well worth it for the operational benefits. Shipping won't have those same operational benefits like keeping a submarine undersea for such extended times and without all the penalties of dealing with fossil fuel exhaust.
The article is pretty weak on arguing the economics of nuclear for shipping, for example here:
> Operating expenses would be much lower for nuclear-powered ships, because there would be no need for refueling for the lifetime of the vessel, which is around 25 years. Currently, fuel makes up nearly half of a ship’s operating expenses.
> ...
> The cost of a nuclear-powered ship could be an issue for many shipowners—it’s four times that of a conventional ship. That would be more than offset by the savings on fuel costs over the life of the ship, but it is a steep initial outlay.
I'm not sure why we should believe these numbers for unbuilt reactors. We have a real example of costs from the US Navy and they disagree with the numbers in the article. Further, the nuclear industry has a well-deserved reputation for low-balling costs before construction starts, and then delivering reactors at multiples of the initial estimates. We should expect the same to happen here unless there's strong evidence against it.