OT: Nuclear ships part II

[The Natural Philosopher]

"The UK has launched a consultation on proposed regulations for nuclear-powered ships that would enable UK-flagged vessels to use the power source and international vessels to visit its ports. "The UK is committed to enabling the adoption of new technologies that manufacturers and ship owners may choose to meet legal requirements relating to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore will establish a regulatory framework that will support nuclear-powered ships as an alternative fuel option," said the UK Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA)."

Its real...

Another benefit of Brexit.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

I would have thought though that the weight of such a reactor to be universally safe might eat into the cargo capacity of a vessel? Brian

[newshound]

Can't see the link TBH

[newshound]

No.

A complete Astute class sub is 7300 tons. The reactors are pretty small.

The 107,000 HP Wartzila marine diesel weighs 2300 tonnes

At a guess that might be double the output of a sub reactor, but I bet the power to weight ratio is fairly competitive.

[charles]

It can be managed with submarines and still leave room for the crew - and weapons systems

[John Rumm]

A panamax class container ship will get through 200 tonnes of diesel per day if running at full design speed. That is on top of 2000 tonnes of marine diesel engine. How much does a small ships reactor weigh?

[The Natural Philosopher]

EU has no policy for allowing nuclear ships at all.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Weight on a ship is not a big deal. Most of the weight in a reactor is the shielding anyway, otherwise they are power dense enough to fly aircraft!

[Chris Bacon]

Excellent. Small nuclear reactors are alredy in fairly widespread use; it will be good to see their use develop.

[newshound]

I thought your complaint was that the EU interfered too much in national matters: not that it was failing to.

[newshound]

No not *that* link :-)

[newshound]

Indeed. And it should be good for UK business, if it gets off the ground. I'd still predict some pretty tough competition, though. Not to mention all the opposition from the environmentalists, FFS.

[Steve Walker]

I suppose that it is likely that unless a country has regulations covering marine nuclear reactors, when the first one turns up, the immediate response (amidst public concern) will be to temporarily ban all such vessels and start looking at such regulation.

It's good to get ahead of the game.

[Paul]

"Recent history shows that conventional ports are reluctant to harbour nuclear ships even when they provide all requested permissions and security certificates. New ports for nuclear vessels must be built. They would be remote from human settlements and with the infrastructure required to meet the needs of the ships, crew and companies."

I take it the ports then, will be built on Mars.

(There aren't as many protesters on Mars.)

Paul

[The Natural Philosopher]

Oh dear. spin spin spin Shall I rephrase what I said? the EU specifically does not allow nuclear ships

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Won't it make them more attractive targets for piracy and hijacking?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Why would it?

[Pamela]

That's not what you said. Spot the difference:

(1) "EU has no policy for allowing nuclear ships at all." (2) "EU specifically does not allow nuclear ships"

[The Natural Philosopher]

You don't understand the legal system in te EU. But that isn't surprising. You dont understand anything really. In the EU Roman Law applies: if there isn't a law saying you can do it, its against the law. You are guilty until you are proved innocent

[Tim Streater]

I've pointed this out to the likes of Pammy before; it obviously has a short attention span. But then, being a Septic, this is hardly surprising. It's probably never heard of Romans, never mind Roman Law.